The Evangelist Conspiracy against Self Determination

If we do have free will then we have the freedom to choose to do what we believe that God tells us to do or not to do in the Bible.

We also have the freedom or "self-determinism" to not do what God tells us to do in the Bible.

I believe that Christians try to direct or use thier God-given "self-determinism" to do what God tells them to do or not to do.

Christians tend to believe that we will all be judged according to how we have directed our "self-determinism".

We either self-determine to obey and follow God or we otherwise disobey and defy/deny God. If one chooses to disobey God then they will ultimately be separated from God in the afterlife. If you choose to deny God now then God will grant you your desire to be forevermore separated from God later. You choose. You self-determine to be with God or without God. You self-determine your eternity.


[edit on 16-4-2008 by checkers]

It comes naturally


Yes, the irony being that most people who believe in self determination don't require God's companionship. Perhaps that's what it comes down to - people who undermine self determination through their faith and allegiance to God will be granted company with him in the afterlife simply because they need it. Those who chose to live by their own rules and actions will be seperated from God because it isn't necessary to their spiritual well-being.

reply to post by TheColdDragon

---

God didn't design the choices themselves. He designed the ability to make choices.

reply to post by TheColdDragon

---

For the Christian, our lives are in God’s hand. Yet, we still have the choice to do what we perceive as “God’s will,” or what we selfishly want to do. Take, for example, the story of Abraham. God promised him a son. Since his wife was well past child bearing age, Abraham took her hand maiden as his concubine. Together they had a child. But this was not God’s will. God allowed Sarah to conceive and have a child. Had Abraham been willing to wait on God, he wouldn’t have had near the problems he had by trying to do it on his own. He exercised free will, but God still kept his promise even when Abraham could not see how it could be done.



Perhaps the choice should be made before conception. If a child is going to inconvenience a woman so much that she chooses to end its life before it is born, perhaps she should either refrain from sex or use an effective contraceptive. People need to learn that their actions have consequences. If a woman is thinking about having sex with a man, she should be prepared.



The Bible states that the ONLY acceptable sexual relationship is that between a husband and his wife. Too many Christians tend to focus on homosexuality as the big sexual no-no but that is only one aspect. Even divorce is considered adultery. Perhaps they think that if they focus on someone else’s “sin,” they don’t have to focus on their own. I don’t place the word good or bad on people, only on their actions.



No where in the Bible does it say that the earth is only 6,000 years old. The line of humans from Adam is 6,000 years old. However, the Bible doesn’t state that there was or was not a pre-Adamic race. The Bible leaves out a lot of things that are not important to having a relationship with God.



Religion versus relationship is the defining difference between Christians. Religion places constraints on people’s behavior. It punishes the offender. It demands conformity. People who have a relationship with God make choices based on their love for God and desire to please Him.

“Spreading the good news is supposed to be informational. It is supposed to be offered as another choice to those who have never heard it. It should be up to them to decide whether they want or need it.

It is no wonder that there is no room in the lives of Christians for alternate interpretations or other religions. I am married, thus there is no room in my life for an intimate relationship with any other man. It’s not because I’m afraid of my husband, but because I love him. I make a conscious choice each time I am sexually attracted to someone.



Public schools should teach many things, including biology. Sex education is an answer from the public school system addressing the problem of teen pregnancy. This is due to parents lack of sex education at home. Baby boomers parents had the notion that simply discussing sex with their children would cause them to want to experiment sexually.



Before industrialization, many children grew up witnessing mating and birth between various farm animals. Most understood that copulation equals birth. Adequate birth control methods were not even a viable option. Young boys and girls were often married around the same time that they became sexually aware. Men were allowed to beat their wives and children. They were also allowed to have affairs. Women had very little to no rights back then. Marriage became the only viable option for a woman. Virginity became an important commodity for any woman who wished for financial security. Hence morality was a requirement, not a choice.

In an age of STDs and unwanted pregnancies, teenagers need to make choices and their parents should make sure that they are well equipped to make proper choices. Today’s teenager no longer needs to marry at a young age. They should be focusing on education and training to prepare for adulthood. Yesterday’s teenagers were no more prepared for adulthood at 15 than today’s are. The difference, is yesterday’s teenagers had to take on an adult role early due to necessity rather than choice. Today’s teenager has more leisure time and less adult supervised time. This can lead to sexual experimentation at an early age.

Parents should teach their own moral codes to their own children. The public school system should not be involved in teaching anything more than basic biology when it comes to sex. Many parents are just too lazy to be that involved with their own children. Parents need to realize that by not talking to their children about sex, they are making a choice to be young grandparents. It should be up to the parent to actually parent their child rather than the public school system. Unfortunately, too many parents are so sorely lacking in that department, the public school system has had to intervene in that aspect.



By the time a child reaches their teen age years, they should be making many decisions on their own. If the parent has had an active involvement in the child’s life, they should be making few choices that have unwanted consequences.



My 16 year old grandson is more mature than I was at his age, yet his 13 year old sister is much less mature than I was at her age. All teenager are not equal when it comes to their capacity to make sound decisions. Some parents have problems letting go of the decision process denying their children the right to make their own mistakes. As a parent and grandparent, I learned to pick my “fights.” In other words, there are some decisions that I insist on making and others, I’ll let them make their own.

My grown children know that ther are rules in my house and they respect those rules. Just as I respect the rules of their homes. The harsh prison of some religions can cause children to rebel in ways that are more harmful than if they’d had no rules at all.

Self determination, freedom of choice, or whatever you wish to call it exists inside and outside of religion. Society, not religion, makes the laws which state when a person is considered an adult. I marched for voting rights for 18 year olds, yet how many 18 year olds actually vote? I remembered when the drinking age was lowered to 18, then raised back to 21. Obviously 3 years does make a difference. The point is that everyone still has the right to make whatever choices they wish to make. The wise parent, Christian or otherwise will be sure that their child has all of the resources they need when it comes to making those choices.

reply to post by Alcove

---

Exactly.
Jam 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

Jam 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

Jam 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Jam 1:16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.



Is everything that happens decided by God in advance?





[edit on 17-4-2008 by Clearskies]

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

What? Oh, the horror! Next thing you know, there will be cats sleeping with dogs (copyright Bil Murray)!

Seriously, my bad, I assumed brother.



OK, I'll partially concede on this point. Since men are not perfect, and Christianity is a belief among men, it could very well be that these were Christians, simply not following the teachings of Christ very well. On the other hand, they could have been using the label as an excuse, and thusly Christian only in name and not in truth. Either is possible. I will reword my contention that their actions were not Christ-like and therefore not Christian.



he has a perfect right to speak against someone else's actions. You have a perfect right to speak against Christianity. I have a perfect right to speak in favior of Christianity. That's the wonderful thing about free speech.

None of us has a right to torment or harass others based on our personal feelings. That is not freedom of speech. That is lawlessness.



It can be used that way, yes. I can use a screwdriver to drive a nail. I can use my daughter's prom dress for a grease rag. I can use my shotgun for a prybar. Should I try these things, I will likely be rewarded with a result that is less than satisfactory. But if I use them for their intended purpose, I will receive the result I want.

Laziness is not the intended use of Christianity; it is a perversion of Christianity. The Bible mentions rewards for certain things, and punishments for others. Consequences. Just as if I use that shotgun as a prybar, I will be rewarded with a bent and unusable shotgun, as well as a poor job regarding whatever I was trying to pry. Should one use Christianity as an excuse to hate and torment others, they will be rewarded with a lack of good in their lives.

You say these were Christians; I have no way to directly dispute that fact, since I wasn't there. However, even if you do believe they were, that does not make it fact that all Christians do this sort of thing. On my recent trip, I had to take my truck by the shop for some minor work. Due to the arrogance and apathy of a certain mechanic, I lost a days pay, got chewed out by my boss for something I had not done, and was forced to endure some pretty uncomfortable conditions for a long trying ten hours. Was I angry? You bet! Despite my efforts to prevent it, I am human. The idea of just which bones I would like to break first in his body was running through my mind. I even made sure I was visible to him at one point, as one more problem would have probably set me off. I wanted revenge!!!!!

That is not a Christian attitude. I would fully expect any Christian here, there, or elsewhere to rebuke me for this. But I am still a Christian. I overcame the feelings of anger and hate (finally) and forgave the man. I didn't want to, but to do less would have been contrary to what I believe. And yet, while I was able to overcome the negativity in me, I also should not be upset with others who cannot. They have a failing I do not have, and thusly deserve help in overcoming it rather than condemnation.

Another point on this would be that I did not feel that way about all mechanics; it would be wrong of me to despise someone else simply because they share a job title with that one individual. Even an entire shop full of bad mechanics is no reason for me to expect similar behavior from other shops. To do so is to allow the seeds of bigotry and prejudice to grow. That is the human (sinful) response to a situation, not the Christian response.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheColdDragon


The problem with this argument is that it implies a correlation between ability and a choice to use that ability. I am pretty familiar with homemade explosives. As such, I have the ability to use that knowledge to create a goodly amount of chaos and destruction. I do no do this, however, because I do not want to; it is wrong, because it would destroy rather than create, it would hurt others, and it would be illegal.

Just because one can do a thing, it does not necessarily follow that one will do a thing.



And here you are assuming that you know God's will. When I was a teenager, my father had a blood clot break free from a minor wound in his leg. It lodged in his brain. He went to the local hospital where they tried to dissolve it with drugs. It didn't work. That evening he was rushed to the major hospital an hour away for immediate brain surgery to save his life. He was given a 50% chance of survival.

He survived. Then the doctors realized they had to go back in; they did not get all of the clot. There were no odds given this time, but somehow he still survived. He came back home a couple of months later, almost a vegetable. He could barely stand. He could barely talk, and what he did say was difficult for him to say. He had to have a hospital bed in our living room. This went on for ten years, to the day, when he finally died due to a plethora of organ failures.

I watched a proud, strong man who had always lived his life around fairness and goodwill reduced to a frail shadow of the man he once was. I watched him suffer physically with being unable to clearly communicate or do even the simplest task unassisted. I loved that man, and I suffered with him. Finally, in an act of desperation, I couldn't take it any more, I prayed fervently for God to either heal him or take him on, to please, please, PLEASE do not let this man suffer anymore. My prayer went unanswered.

After his funeral, I was talking with my mother when she mentioned his last lucid words to her. He had told her that the only things he wanted to do in life was to see me marry and my sister graduate. That was all he wanted out of life. I immediately realized that my sister had graduated the previous fall, and remembered that twisted pained smile across his face as he watched from his wheelchair. I already knew that I had gotten married two weeks earlier.

God did answer my prayer. He said no. He instead answered answered yes to a greater prayer that I wasn't even aware of, and simultaneously granted what I had really wanted for my father - happiness. I simply did not know, could not see, what God had intended. The evidence you speak of does not always make itself apparent when we are looking for it.



God's will is not necessarily our will. God granted us a free will, and for Him to deny that would be wrong. I believe He granted my father's life wish because my father followed the teachings of Jesus and it did not interfere with God's overall plan. I had the choice of whether to continue to follow Jesus' teachings or turn to worldly things. I chose the latter. God allowed this. No details here, but let's say I earned the moniker you see at left. Finally, after trying all the things not of God, I realized I was on the wrong path and asked for forgiveness and a return to what I had been as a child. This time, God said yes.

It was never God's will for me to drive at high speeds down crooked country roads with a blood alcohol content that would have pickled the average cucumber. It was not God's will for me to spend weekend nights starting bar brawls. It was not God's will for me to do all the other (illegal) things I did. It was God's will that I come to Him of my own free will. That was God's prayer to me. I'm happy to say, this time I said yes.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheColdDragon

---

I believe He can. By creating free will, He created something that existed within His universe, but outside His direct knowledge. How else can free will exist?

This does not mean God is not Omnipotent. He could have easily chose to know man's will. It means He chose to create something that He would not interfere with.



Disparateness can be a good thing.

And you do have a point that God might not believe in sin. Perhaps that would explain why He hates sin so much. Hmmm... much to think on. Thanks for the thought fodder.



Thank you. I felt somehow led to share it.



You are quite correct, and it is the same reason I am following it so closely. As for your different walk, I wish you well on it. We all have different paths to follow through life. None are better or worse than any other.

Perhaps I came across as directly attacking your beliefs, but that was not the intent. I simply saw a difference in viewpoints and responded with mine in order to examine both. That's what I do - my path.

TheRedneck


[edit on 17-4-2008 by TheRedneck]

I don't see the logic there. For example, if I had chosen to not make this post, God would have known in advance that I would do this. But that doesn't mean I didn't choose to post.

[edit on 17-4-2008 by Alcove]

reply to post by TheColdDragon

I have heard of the paradox you speak of. I simply do not subscribe to it.


This sounds more like negligent responsibility, to invoke a legal term. The negligent part implies that God intended, or should have known, that man would sin.

But remember that God already had plenty of servants. Angels, cherubims, etc. are mentioned throughout the Bible as not having free will. That is why Lucifer/Satan cannot be forgiven; he was not granted free will and thusly his rebellion was completely out of order. Man had free will, so his sin was forgivable, although there was a price to be paid for that forgiveness,

(I find it interesting that Lucifer was not merely an angel; he was an arch-angel, a leader of the angels. He was, in fact, the highest of the arch-angels. Were we a step above the arch-angels in that respect? In other words, was Lucifer created so close to the level of free will that he was able to grasp it? More food for thought... but back to the question at hand.)

If man had free will, and if God had therefore agreed to not interfere in that free will, then how could God know whether man would sin or not? The only way He could have known was to break His own word and peek into man's will, thus negating the free will of man. Had He done this, man would have simply been another servant. I believe God did not want man to be a servant, but a companion.


I also believe that God loves His creations regardless of their sin. However, the Bible clearly says that God hates sin itself. Therefore God is great enough to separate the sin from the sinner, giving rise to the line "Hate the sin, love the sinner".

To deny that God even cares whether we sin or not, is to directly deny the book that tells us of God's very existence. No offense, but this sounds like the 'a'la carte' style of religion, wherein one takes what they want to be true and denies anything they do not want to be true. If you are comfortable with that approach, more power to you. I am not. I believe that truth is truth, regardless of whether one believes it or not, and it does not make sense to me to accept part of a whole as the whole with no more reason than 'I think that's how it should be'. It's a little like me saying I believe in Calculus but not Algebra. It doesn't change mathematics, it simply blinds me to the full potential of mathematics.


In the context of this thread, that is an apt statement. Many evangelicals do indeed use a carrot/stick approach. I do not listen to those, and I suggest anyone who does listen to what sounds like such an approach be wary.

If we are talking about the Biblical context we seem to have gotten into, then I see things differently. The Hebrew language is worded differently than the English we are accustomed to. A minor amount of research into the language will show that nowhere did God curse anyone with punishment; He warned them about the consequences of their own actions. A very different thing, IMO.

TheRedneck