"Free will was given to man by god."

[Sculptor]

I'm way ahead of you.

Nice! I love it when arrogance meets ignorance. It's always so funny.

You can either attempt to refute what I said or shut the fuck up.

[Sculptor]

Free will denies destiny.

Yes. It is a denial of God's plan.

[Immanuel Can]

Free will denies destiny.

? Not sure what that means, W. What's "destiny," for one thing?

Destiny is the inevitability of karma. As Steppenwolf reminds us, some folks are born to be wild.

Lose the ego, lose free will. What then determines action? The Supreme Ordering Principle of the Universe.

Transcending the individuality of free will destroys ego, transcends karma, transcends samsara, and voila, wu wei.

Hinduism? You're a Hindu?

[Immanuel Can]

You can either attempt to refute what I said or shut the fuck up.

Don't need to. If you have even a rudimentary understanding of theological controversies, you would already know. So will anybody else who checks. Moreover, if you had any sociological statistics, you would likewise know you're wrong.

The only way you could maintain your position is literally by being ignorant of all the relevant debates, and of the sociology of religion as well. So what's to refute? It's so wildly wrong that it doesn't even rise to the level of being a challenge. Watch how easy it is.

Your view is that Wesleyans, Catholics, Anabaptists, Charismatics, Quakers, and the many other denominational and theological groups that actually form the majority of both nominal and actual Christianity, are all Calvinists...or are rationally obligated to be. You will find that that is simply not true. Even rudimentary research will confirm it.

You don't even have to take my word for it. Look 'em up, and find out.

[Sculptor]

You can either attempt to refute what I said or shut the fuck up.

Don't need to. If you have even a rudimentary understanding of theological controversies, you would already know. So will anybody else who checks. Moreover, if you had any sociological statistics, you would likewise know you're wrong.

The only way you could maintain your position is literally by being ignorant of all the relevant debates, and of the sociology of religion as well. So what's to refute? It's so wildly wrong that it doesn't even rise to the level of being a challenge. Watch how easy it is.

Your view is that Wesleyans, Catholics, Anabaptists, Charismatics, Quakers, and the many other denominational and theological groups that actually form the majority of both nominal and actual Christianity, are all Calvinists...or are rationally obligated to be. You will find that that is simply not true. Even rudimentary research will confirm it.

You don't even have to take my word for it. Look 'em up, and find out.

You can list as many crackpot cults as you like - it does not change the fact that Calvin was correct when he pointed out the fallacy of an omnipotent god peddling free will.
I understand that your "faith" blinds you to the most basic logical and reasonable facts, but this is you are your most childish and ridiculous

[Immanuel Can]

You can either attempt to refute what I said or shut the fuck up.

Don't need to. If you have even a rudimentary understanding of theological controversies, you would already know. So will anybody else who checks. Moreover, if you had any sociological statistics, you would likewise know you're wrong.

The only way you could maintain your position is literally by being ignorant of all the relevant debates, and of the sociology of religion as well. So what's to refute? It's so wildly wrong that it doesn't even rise to the level of being a challenge. Watch how easy it is.

Your view is that Wesleyans, Catholics, Anabaptists, Charismatics, Quakers, and the many other denominational and theological groups that actually form the majority of both nominal and actual Christianity, are all Calvinists...or are rationally obligated to be. You will find that that is simply not true. Even rudimentary research will confirm it.

You don't even have to take my word for it. Look 'em up, and find out.

You can list as many crackpot cults as you like

"Crackpot cults?" Man, you're hilarious! You don't even need a single fact to get you going, do you? Awesome. Keep rolling...I can't wait to see what you come up with next.

[BardoXV]

Don't need to. If you have even a rudimentary understanding of theological controversies, you would already know. So will anybody else who checks. Moreover, if you had any sociological statistics, you would likewise know you're wrong.

The only way you could maintain your position is literally by being ignorant of all the relevant debates, and of the sociology of religion as well. So what's to refute? It's so wildly wrong that it doesn't even rise to the level of being a challenge. Watch how easy it is.

Your view is that Wesleyans, Catholics, Anabaptists, Charismatics, Quakers, and the many other denominational and theological groups that actually form the majority of both nominal and actual Christianity, are all Calvinists...or are rationally obligated to be. You will find that that is simply not true. Even rudimentary research will confirm it.

You don't even have to take my word for it. Look 'em up, and find out.

You can list as many crackpot cults as you like

"Crackpot cults?" Man, you're hilarious! You don't even need a single fact to get you going, do you? Awesome. Keep rolling...I can't wait to see what you come up with next.

Crackpot as well as deplorable, I'm getting better.

[henry quirk]

You can list as many crackpot cults as you like

"Crackpot cults?" Man, you're hilarious! You don't even need a single fact to get you going, do you? Awesome. Keep rolling...I can't wait to see what you come up with next.

Crackpot as well as deplorable, I'm getting better.

Sculptor's thinkin' is muddled from all that necro-incest he indulges in.

[Walker]

? Not sure what that means, W. What's "destiny," for one thing?

Destiny is the inevitability of karma. As Steppenwolf reminds us, some folks are born to be wild.

Lose the ego, lose free will. What then determines action? The Supreme Ordering Principle of the Universe.

Transcending the individuality of free will destroys ego, transcends karma, transcends samsara, and voila, wu wei.

Hinduism? You're a Hindu?

Because all situations are workable, in the spirit of philosophy and under Golden Rule authority I must decline personal inquiries.

[uwot]

If you have even a rudimentary understanding of theological controversies...

Mr Can, what you apparently don't understand from inside your bubble is that to anyone on the outside, "the theological controversies" have all the weight of whether god wears Y-fronts or boxer shorts. To us, the issue is the one you take for granted, but cannot demonstrate: whether there is a god that wears underpants of any sort.

[attofishpi]

If you have even a rudimentary understanding of theological controversies...

Mr Can, what you apparently don't understand from inside your bubble is that to anyone on the outside, "the theological controversies" have all the weight of whether god wears Y-fronts or boxer shorts. To us, the issue is the one you take for granted, but cannot demonstrate: whether there is a god that wears underpants of any sort.

Jesus?

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can , the predestination belief of certain Calvinist cults is worse than your simple faith in the literal truth of The Bible.

The Bible contains good stuff about repentance but predestination cuts devotees off from all hope.

[uwot]

To us, the issue is the one you take for granted, but cannot demonstrate: whether there is a god that wears underpants of any sort.

Jesus?

Frankly, I think the evidence that the stories about Jesus are a politically motivated fiction is far more compelling than the evidence that the gospels are about an historical figure. Still, I suppose there might have been a real Jesus. If so, he musta been a boxer short guy, because Y-fronts weren't invented until 1935. Then again, as the son of god, I would have to concede that he could have worn any support for his holy bollocks you care to imagine.

[Belinda]

Henry Quirk wrote:

America ain't a collective. Warren and Sanders would have it be a collective, but it's not, and it won't be. There are far too many formal and informal divisions, and the country is just plain too big to have the cohesion associated with a collective.

No, America is a nation, a big, fractured, nation.

And: America ain't a democracy. America is a constitutional republic.

Certainly there are fractures in American society similarly to where I live in England. You may be right about devolution, if it is devolution you imply by "just too big".

A constitutional republic can be democratic, depending upon its constitution. A large federation like the USA has disadvantages but there are much worse alternatives.

My reply is tangential to the title of the thread. It is linked however. Free Will is a mechanism for blaming the individual agent instead of the regime.

[henry quirk]

"You may be right about devolution, if it is devolution you imply by "just too big"."

It's not devolution: it's how America is supposed to be. Big, dynamic, in flux, 50 experiments in liberty, each experiment bound loosely by an individual charter, all 50 bound loosely together by a national charter. The impulse/agenda to stabilize and unify (to make collective) by way of, for example, democratic socialism or conservative republicanism is distinctly anti-American.

#

"Free Will is a mechanism for blaming the individual agent instead of the regime."

Regimes are just individuals with bigger sticks, so individual agents ought be held accountable.