"Free will was given to man by god."

[Belinda]

God determines everything that has happened or will ever happen. So that men could choose to obey God, or not as the case may be, ...

If God truly determines everything it would include every supposed choice every human being made. That is the view of the extreme Calvinist called predestintion. The Calvinists, at least are consistent in their view and deny limitless free will. Their inconsistency is in holding individuals responsible for their behavior and beliefs in spite of the fact they have no choice in the matter.

If human beings truly have free will their own behavior is self-determined and cannot also be determined by God. In the past, theologians have performed some amazing mental gymnastics attempting to eliminate this obvious contradiction.

Modern philosophers do much the same thing while teaching that human behavior is determine by evolution, genetics, brain behavior or brain chemicals, culture, or other influences they work very hard to convince people to choose to believe them and hold people responsible for their beliefs and acts as if they actually had a choice in the matter.

The point is that human behavior, including thinking, is either consciously chosen or determined by something else.

Predestination is an outgrowth from determinism. Predestination is not determinism nor is it implied by determinism. Predestination differs from Judeo Christianity because of predestination's
absence of Free Will.


Philosophers don't attribute predictive power to determinism and neither do scientists. Causal determinism is a form of cosmic and epistemic order, and most scientists and theists have faith that this overarching order is the case.

Despite the Christian claim that Free Will allows human behaviour to be "self-determined" it's not true. Free Will is supposed to override reason; this being so, Free Will is random choice.

The most effective interpretation of the Garden of Eden myth is that God who determines everything also chose to install Satan and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil . This makes sense because the good God would want men to quest in search of good despite Satan's tricks. Man's quest for the good is determined by God or Nature is the basis of the religion that is coming to be. The new religion is a Humanistic religion.

[uwot]

Two things...

1 Just call me Henry...ain't no need to call me Henry Quirk.

Happy to call you Henry, Henry. Just thought that for the benefit of third parties, I'd make it clear who I was talking about.

2 "knuckle draggers that Henry Quirk pretends to be": I don't 'pretend': I 'tailor'.

Well yeah, we all cut our own cloth.

[uwot]

Despite the Christian claim that Free Will allows human behaviour to be "self-determined" it's not true. Free Will is supposed to override reason; this being so, Free Will is random choice.

Dunno about this. "Random choice" suggests we have no control. That may be so, but for the purposes of ethics and law, we kinda have to assume it's not true.

The new religion is a Humanistic religion.

Not sure about this either. I think you can make a case for any new religion being some version of pantheism, but bear in mind that 'catholic' means 'for everyone', which it clearly isn't. Still think that individuals will create god(s) in their own image, as Xenophanes recognised many moons ago.

[Belinda]

Despite the Christian claim that Free Will allows human behaviour to be "self-determined" it's not true. Free Will is supposed to override reason; this being so, Free Will is random choice.

Dunno about this. "Random choice" suggests we have no control. That may be so, but for the purposes of ethics and law, we kinda have to assume it's not true.

That's so. If God is as omniscient as he is supposed to be he and only he could understand and forgive all. Safe to say the doctrine of Free Will is for social control.

The new religion is a Humanistic religion.

Not sure about this either. I think you can make a case for any new religion being some version of pantheism, but bear in mind that 'catholic' means 'for everyone', which it clearly isn't. Still think that individuals will create god(s) in their own image, as Xenophanes recognised many moons ago.

There's a lot of wishful thinking in my claim, based on my hope that necessity will kick in and mother invention, before we all go extinct.

[RCSaunders]

God determines everything that has happened or will ever happen. So that men could choose to obey God, or not as the case may be, ...

If God truly determines everything it would include every supposed choice every human being made. That is the view of the extreme Calvinist called predestintion. The Calvinists, at least are consistent in their view and deny limitless free will. Their inconsistency is in holding individuals responsible for their behavior and beliefs in spite of the fact they have no choice in the matter.

If human beings truly have free will their own behavior is self-determined and cannot also be determined by God. In the past, theologians have performed some amazing mental gymnastics attempting to eliminate this obvious contradiction.

Modern philosophers do much the same thing while teaching that human behavior is determine by evolution, genetics, brain behavior or brain chemicals, culture, or other influences they work very hard to convince people to choose to believe them and hold people responsible for their beliefs and acts as if they actually had a choice in the matter.

The point is that human behavior, including thinking, is either consciously chosen or determined by something else.

Predestination is an outgrowth from determinism. Predestination is not determinism nor is it implied by determinism. Predestination differs from Judeo Christianity because of predestination's absence of Free Will.

Which determinism? The logical determinism of the stoics or the modern version of determinism based on the views of modern science beginning in the 17th and 18th centuries. Predestination is a Biblical term used by Paul in both Romans and Ephasians and is closely tied to the Biblical concepts of the "election," and, "foreknowledge," (also Biblical terms) of God. Calvin based much of his arguments of predestination on arguments made by Augustine's views of foreknowedge, though Augustine himself did believe in,"free will." Predestination definitely has it's roots in Christianity and is still part of a large segment of Christine doctrine.

Philosophers don't attribute predictive power to determinism and neither do scientists.

That is certainly not true. Many scientists and philosophers believe that is exactly what physical determinism is. But it actually has nothing to do with whether or not human behavior (or anything else) is determined or not. The concept of determination does not depend on being able to know what is determined.

Despite the Christian claim that Free Will allows human behaviour to be "self-determined" it's not true.

I do not use the phrase, "free will," just because it is a loaded term with a lot of superstitious nonsense associated with it. I use the term volition, by which I mean, all human behavior, including thinking, must be consciously chosen. It's not a matter of whether one can choose or not, one cannot live without choosing. A human being cannot do anything that can be chosen without consciously choosing it. (Reflexes, behavior determined by the autonomic nervous system and strictly biological functions cannot be chosen, but are not, strictly speaking human behavior as distinguished from mere animal behavior.)

If human behavior is not volitional then no one is responsible for anything they do nor does anything they think, do, or say have any meaning because they have no choice about any of those thing. They are just meaningless determined events. I you were correct, your statement, "human behaviour to be "self-determined" it's not true," doesn't mean anything, it is simply what you were "caused" to write.

Free Will is supposed to override reason; this being so, Free Will is random choice.

Where in the world did you ever get such an idea? It is volition that makes reason possible, and no choice is possible without reason (and no reason is possible without knowledge). Every choice one makes is for a "reason" a judgment that is the bases for the choice. The, "reason," may good or bad, (correct or incorrect), but nobody does anything, "randomly," without choosing it.

The most effective interpretation of the Garden of Eden myth is ...

No philosophical question will ever be resolved by appeal to authority, especially not an authority that is admittedly myth.

The new religion is a Humanistic religion.

No doubt, and as bad or worse than any of the old ones.What's Wrong with Humanism

[Belinda]

Which determinism?

(RCSaunders)'

Causal determinism, as in everything that happens necessarily happens .

No philosophical question will ever be resolved by appeal to authority, especially not an authority that is admittedly myth.

Unless we use the same lexicon we can hardly discuss the matter. 'Myth' is used in another and more interesting way than in the above quote.

[RCSaunders]

Which determinism?

(RCSaunders)'

Causal determinism, as in everything that happens necessarily happens.

I think you left out the context. You wrote:

Predestination is an outgrowth from determinism. Predestination is not determinism nor is it implied by determinism. Predestination differs from Judeo Christianity because of predestination's absence of Free Will.

So you are saying predistination is an outgrowth from,"causal determinism?"

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says, "Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature. The idea is ancient, but first became subject to clarification and mathematical analysis in the eighteenth century."

Predestination is a totally different idea, which I explained. It is theological based solely on religious teaching.

No philosophical question will ever be resolved by appeal to authority, especially not an authority that is admittedly myth.

Unless we use the same lexicon we can hardly discuss the matter. 'Myth' is used in another and more interesting way than in the above quote.
[/quote]
My, "lexicon," is any that defines words as normally used in literature, science, history, and philosophy. For example: "myth" is defined by Wikipedia as, "... a folklore genre consisting of narratives or stories that play a fundamental role in a society, such as foundational tales or origin myths. The main characters in myths are usually gods, demigods or supernatural humans. Stories of everyday human beings, although often of leaders of some type, are usually contained in legends, as opposed to myths. " Myth is defined by The American Heritage Dictionary as,
"1.
a. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.
b. Such stories considered as a group: the realm of myth.
2. A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal: a star whose fame turned her into a myth; the pioneer myth of suburbia.
3. A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.
4. A fictitious story, person, or thing: "German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth" (Leon Wolff)."

Any of those definitions of myth fit what I said. If you think myth has some other meaning, you need to specify it for those who cannot read your mind or possibly know what your personal lexicon is.

[Belinda]

RCSaunders, Not all myths are religious as we know. The Garden of Eden myth is an important story because it is very well known, and it is usually accorded respect due to its long duration and centrality to important religions. The modern approach towards myths is to interpret them according to the culture in which the myth is embedded(anthropological), and also to use some myths to interpret the here and now (poetic).

[RCSaunders]

RCSaunders, Not all myths are religious as we know. The Garden of Eden myth is an important story because it is very well known, and it is usually accorded respect due to its long duration and centrality to important religions. The modern approach towards myths is to interpret them according to the culture in which the myth is embedded(anthropological), and also to use some myths to interpret the here and now (poetic).

I'm tempted to use one of my son's stock arguments: "yeah, so?" because it all seems irrelevant to the issue.

What I said was, "No philosophical question will ever be resolved by appeal to authority, especially not an authority that is admittedly myth."

Are you saying philosophical questions can be resolved by appeal to myth?

Just curious, at this point.

[Immanuel Can]

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2019 8:19 pm
Why IYO is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil always considered superficially from a moralistic perspective?

Because "knowledge of good and evil" implicates ethics/morality. It's what the text says.

It is resistance to questions like this which made me leave Sunday school at an early age.

Interesting. Who "resisted"? The teachers?

Maybe they didn't want to answer, or maybe they didn't know the answers. Or maybe they were simple folks who had volunteered for a job that turned out to be more complicated than they could handle. It's not easy to respond with equilibrium to doubts, even when they come from a child.

Maybe they didn't really "resist," so much as they didn't know what to say, and became afraid they'd fail you in some way. Is that possible?

On the other hand, maybe they just didn't care, or didn't want to hear your question. But I don't think most folks are that mean. They were probably a bit disconcerted and unsure themselves.

Genesis 2

8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

There seems to be an objective relationship between these two trees suggesting that the universal concept of good and evil transcends social morality.

Well, you're right: I do think there is a "relationship," but I would also point out that it's made clear in the text precisely what the "relationship" is.

Firstly, notice that there are two trees, not merely one. Presumably, God could have made one tree that gave both life and moral knowledge, but He didn't. Secondly, notice that only one of the two was forbidden. Of the Tree of Life, they could eat when the time was right; of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, they could not eat under any circumstances.

You see this again after the Fall. The angel is put in place to guard the way to the Tree of Life, and explicitly, it's "He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” In other words, evil must not be empowered to become an eternal phenomenon. Evil creatures must not be allowed to persist indefinitely, or what happens to the justice of God?

But the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil isn't even mentioned again. And why? Because it has done its worst already. Man will need no second bite of that tree in order to know evil from then on.

Jesus arrival on earth seems to contradict God's will here. He wants us to become aware of objective good and evil and begin the transformation made possible by the tree of life. Was Jesus in error?

No.

I don't think the fruit of Tree of Life was ever eaten, do you? I don't see anything in the text that suggests it was, and in fact, an angelic guardian appointed to see that it never was. If you know of a passage that says mankind ate of that tree, I'd sure love to see it. But I can't remember it, if such can be cited. So there was no "transformation made possible by the Tree of Life," since it was never brought into play, so far as the text says. I think you'll find that's right.

Again, I suggest that while the two trees do have a relationship, in that they are the two specifically mentioned in connection with the Garden, we must not lose sight of the distinction between their functions. They were not one tree. One gives the knowledge of good and evil (moral knowledge). The second imparts eternal life. The crucial thing is that they could not be allowed to function together, or evil becomes perpetual.

The choice of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil cut mankind off from the second tree, the Tree of Life. And that fits what the passage says, "In the day you eat of it [the first tree] you shall surely die."

...it is clear that objective good and evil for Man refers to more than social morality.

Sure. Absolutely.

The "morality is social" answer is dusty, and dies at the next regressive step: which "social morality" is superior? After all, unless the Social-Morality advocate wants to say that infant sacrifice and infant baptism are exactly the same in value, he/she is going to have to admit that one is morally better than the other. But what super-morality, what meta-moral-system, will he/she draw on in making that judgment? And how will he/she prove that that meta-moral system is "better" than the moralities it is being used to judge? He/she cannot do this without imposing his/her own morality on others, and this he/she has sworn to do, as a Social Morality Relativist.

So Social Relativism dies on its obvious self-contradiction.

However the atheists consider all this a basic contradiction natural for primitive people and believers say one must have faith.

Well, yes they do. But naive Atheists and naive Theists have one main thing in common: naivete. We should perhaps look to more thoughtful Atheists and more thoughtful Theists for our answers, rather than allowing ourselves to be bitter, because naive people exist in all camps of thought. That's just a function of differences in intelligence and experience, a feature of basic human nature, not a thing for us to resent. Besides, I have found that sometimes the naive people are more sincerely kind and merciful than the more intelligent can sometimes be.

And this is what I'm suggesting as well about your Sunday School teachers: they may have been bad, intelligent, malicious or indifferent people (such do occasionally exist, I know)...but I suspect not, because people who choose to work with children are generally not like that. Naive, some of them may be; but usually well-intended and kind, even if occasionally overwhelmed in their roles.

So the seeker of truth annoys everyone during their efforts to experience the depth of an extraordinarily profound meaningful teaching.

Yeah, that's often the case. Particularly when children are unexpectedly insightful. And they can be very wounded by their teachers' self-protective evasions. But unless the teacher is wicked, the hurt comes unintended.

Anyway, assuming the responses I offer above are more honouring of the inquisitiveness you expressed in Sunday School (presumably some considerable years ago), what do you think now? Were your teachers evil, or were they just overwhelmed?

I don't know, of course, so I'm just asking.

[Lacewing]

Seems like free will was given to GOD by MAN. Man being the creator of the gods, and imagining THEM to be the creators of MAN. Talk about shifting responsibility!

[Nick_A]

I C

Thanks for the reply. I did sense resistance to questions. It was as if my place wasn't to question but to learn. This never works with me.

But I'd like to provide a basic difference in our perceptions of Genesis. If you are not open to it at least theoretically, then we cannot communicate.

If I am reading you right the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil concerns morality or what we should do. In contrast this tree for me represents what we ARE rather than what we do. Take the Cross as a symbol of the relationship between what we ARE and what we DO. The horizontal line includes what we do during the time between before and after. The vertical line represents what we ARE along the Great chain of Being: the objective quality of a moment. Where they intersect defines our understanding.

I can appreciate your concern for the happenings along the horizontal line of linear time but are you open to the idea that objective good and evil for man refers to the vertical flow of the relative quality of being. Involution for Man or falling further into creation is considered objectively evil while consciously evolving towards our source is considered objectively good for human being.

Jesus offers the opportunity to open to the vertical realization of what we ARE in relation to our source and pursue the path he opened which includes the tree of life.

Objective Good and Evil. Is it a measure of what we DO or what we ARE? Can you see both sides?

[Immanuel Can]

I C

Thanks for the reply. I did sense resistance to questions. It was as if my place wasn't to question but to learn. This never works with me.

That's probably a good thing.

But did you think the "resistors" were being mean, or do you think they were just thrown off and a little taken aback? Do you believe they were nice people who did the wrong thing, or bad people who did what they intended, and offended you?

But I'd like to provide a basic difference in our perceptions of Genesis. If you are not open to it at least theoretically, then we cannot communicate.

If I am reading you right the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil concerns morality or what we should do. In contrast this tree for me represents what we ARE rather than what we do.

I'm thinking maybe I get the distinction you're aiming for here, but I'm not quite sure I do.

I don't think we'd drilled down into the question of the nature of evil, so I don't think we've indicated any differences yet. So far, I think we've just talked about the different meanings of the two trees. But for the record, I would suggest that evil is both a product of what we do and of who we are.

In the Biblical view, people are called "sinners" not only after they have actually committed a particular "sin," but also for being people with a nature and inclination to desire to do "sin." So, for example, one who steals is a "thief." But one who also wants to steal is a "covetous person," that is, he is someone who is waiting to steal but has not acted on it yet...he has the character of a thief, even before taking any action. And both, Biblically are indicators of "sin."

The legalists of Christ's day said that it was evil to kill someone. But Jesus said that if you hated your brother, you had murder in your heart already. The legalists said that it was wrong to commit adultery. But Jesus said if you desired to take a woman illegitimately, you were already guilty of adultery. The legalists said that only what you DO counts; Jesus said that what you DO comes out of what you ARE.

So we can't simply divide what somebody does from what he is. Both are issues. And humanly speaking, while we may be able to prevent a man from stealing, we are powerless to change his nature to that of somebody who no longer wishes to steal. That is why salvation is necessary: because with power we may be able to curb evil actions, but we cannot control the character -- and like water behind a dam, it's only a matter of time until there's a burst. Character will produce action. And character is the deepest problem.

Objective Good and Evil. Is it a measure of what we DO or what we ARE? Can you see both sides?

Well, as you can see, I'm suggesting that it's both.

Fair enough?

[Nick_A]

I C

But did you think the "resistors" were being mean, or do you think they were just thrown off and a little taken aback? Do you believe they were nice people who did the wrong thing, or bad people who did what they intended, and offended you?

This is hard to say. I knew that I wasn’t understood and church officials developed an attitude to what they didn’t understand. Is this being mean or defensive? It is hard to say.

My Grandfather escaped to America during the Russian revolution so people thought us communists where we lived. How could they know my family in Russia were friendly with the Tsar? My great great grand uncle was an Archbishop in the Armenian Church. How would this make me a communist? I learned at an early age that dogmatic people caught up in beliefs regardless of politics or religion were not to be taken seriously. Their attitudes prevented it.

I don't think we'd drilled down into the question of the nature of evil, so I don't think we've indicated any differences yet. So far, I think we've just talked about the different meanings of the two trees. But for the record, I would suggest that evil is both a product of what we do and of who we are.

You seem to be leading to subjective concepts of evil while I am referring to objective good and evil defined as a quality of relative being and human being for us. For example consider 1 Corinthians 15:

35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another.41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.
42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”[f]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we[g] bear the image of the heavenly man.

Paul is describing the evolution, the change of being from the natural body to the spiritual body. If this is true then what is objectively good supports evolution and objective evil prevents it. Are you open to this idea?

Subjective concepts of good and evil will always fall back into man made interpretations not necessarily for noble purposes yet objective good and evil as they pertain to the relative quality of being described in the Great Chain of being have always been.

The legalists said that only what you DO counts; Jesus said that what you DO comes out of what you ARE.

Yes, this is the problem. We don’t know what we ARE and even avoid confronting the human condition within ourselves which would reveal what we ARE so we could begin to become ourselves.

People should not worry as much about what they do but rather about what they are. If they and their ways are good, then their deeds are radiant. If you are righteous, then what you do will also be righteous. We should not think that holiness is based on what we do but rather on what we are, for it is not our works which sanctify us but we who sanctify our works. Meister Eckhart

If we keep arguing about subjective right and wrong we will never face the reality of what we ARE. Imagine some kid in a secular university making the mistake of asking what I am. He will be bombarded with enough BS to fertilize an entire farm

But the point is that if we are ever to come to grips with objective good and evil within our being, the struggle between our dual natures, it will require a quality of sincerity I find missing in a lot of modern Christendom which is primarily concerned with telling people what to do while remaining ignorant of the reality of what we ARE..

[Belinda]

RCSaunders, Not all myths are religious as we know. The Garden of Eden myth is an important story because it is very well known, and it is usually accorded respect due to its long duration and centrality to important religions. The modern approach towards myths is to interpret them according to the culture in which the myth is embedded(anthropological), and also to use some myths to interpret the here and now (poetic).

I'm tempted to use one of my son's stock arguments: "yeah, so?" because it all seems irrelevant to the issue.

What I said was, "No philosophical question will ever be resolved by appeal to authority, especially not an authority that is admittedly myth."

Are you saying philosophical questions can be resolved by appeal to myth?

Just curious, at this point.

Earlier post, you implied that I appealed to authority, which I did not. I don't use Bible quotations or Bible myths with any intention of citing an authority. I use Bible quotations and myths as poetic illustrations, and sometimes might use them as anthropological illustrations.

In view of the fact that so many people do use The Bible as an authority would it be better to enter a caveat that this is NOT my intention?