Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 5:30 am
In fact, without human freedom and choice, I would argue we could have no human responsibility either -- and unless I miss my guess, you're on that page too.
Yes, exactly!
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 5:30 am
The fact that the Bible states that everyone sins can easily be attributed to God's foreknowledge.
Well, yes: but not exclusively. After all, when one has a free choice, why would one ever do what was sinful, if sin is just a bad idea? There must be some attractiveness to it, and that attractiveness cannot but be located in the one being tempted. Of course, we could refer again here to James 1:14-15 here. But Jesus also develops this doctrine in the famous Sermon on the Mount. There, he extends the understanding of the Law beyond mere action, and gets to intention and inclination, particular in things like hatred and lust. (Matthew 5:21-30) He further says that these things come from inside the man, not from outside (Matthew 15:18, for example).
I could go on, of course, but swapping references can quickly become tedious ...
Of course, IC, unless we have a disagreement that depends on what a particular passage says, I think we both are familiar enough with Scripture to know what we are referring to.
I agree with you, "After all, when one has a free choice, why would one ever do what was sinful, if sin is just a bad idea? There must be some attractiveness to it." I also agree that sin pertains to all choices including one's thinking, as per your references, and especially Mat. 5:28, and 15:19. I do not agree that the, "attractiveness," is itself sinful. I know you agree that sexual desire is a God-given good desire, and the desire itself is not sinful, even when when fulfilling the desire would be wrong, as when seeing another man's attractive wife. It is not a sin to be tempted. It is only a sin to yield to temptation (desire) either in overt action (adultery) or in one's thinking (Mat. 5:28).
I think James is correct that temptation is being drawn to something by one's own natural God-given desires (which are not corrupt or sinful) which if indulged in a particular context (forbidden by the law) would be sin.
The things we think of as perverse desires, are actually consequences of sin. One is not attracted to anything without first being conscious of it and judging that it is desirable. The sexual perversions are not natural desires, they are desires produced by wrong thinking about the fulfillment of natural desires, but that wrong thinking must be chosen. What sometimes appears to be a natural inclination to certain evil acts, is self-developed. "For as he thinketh in his heart, so his he."
I go back to what you said, "In fact, without human freedom and choice, I would argue we could have no human responsibility either." A "bent" or "inclination" toward a particular class of behavior (sin) is not free choice, but a kind of prejudiced choice.
Because everyone is different with different natural strengths, abilities, interests, etc., what kinds of desires can ultimately be a source of temptation will be different for everyone. There are many kinds of sin others fall into that I never could, because I have no interest in them or I am revolted by them. There are things that could easily tempt me, because I find so much pleasure and interest in them, but I do not yield to such desires, or mentally entertain yielding to them, if they are contrary my principles. I could very easily rationalize yielding to such desires, which is what I believe most sin is the result of.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 5:30 am
Consider sociopaths and psychopaths. They have no
sense of guilt. But they ought to. They would be better people if they did. And their lack of a sense of the moral status of what they've done speaks to something wrongly developed in their brains and characters. But that does not mean they have not done evil. It just means they aren't recognizing what they've done. And we don't feel any guilt ourselves when we lock them up; in fact, we're even more relieved than in the cases of those who had
a sense of guilt.
I think you have somewhat left the path of discussion in Biblical terms, which is OK with me. Psychologists' descriptions of sociopaths and psychopaths are very unreliable. The essential problem with the pseudo-science, "psychology," is that it cannot examine the one thing it is suppose to study: human consciousness. It relies entirely on the testimony of those deemed neurotic or psychotic. (There is much more wrong with it, but that is fundamental since Wonk.) The only thing wrong with so-called sociopaths is their chosen thinking. [I'm excluding those who actually have brain defects which are not a psychological problem, but a physiological (neurological) problems.]
I have known individuals who have been described or diagnosed as sociopaths. Their feelings are often quite different from most other people. As discussed earlier, those feelings you would call conscience are different because conscience is determined by what one believes and thinks, and it is the thinking of those call sociopaths that is different. Some of the sociopaths I have known have been very effective in their chosen professions, but most have problems caused by their unusual thinking, and some are dangerous, or even criminal. It is not their feelings or lack of them that explain their behavior, it is how they think, especially about other people and their relationships to them.
I think we'll just have to accept the fact we disagree about the nature of those feelings called conscience, but at some point I would like to discuss the nature of feelings and desires, from a philosophical perspective.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 5:30 am
No, it's true that even a good or natural desire can be twisted into evil. But sometimes the desire is, indeed, evil. Sin's a complex thing, to be sure. But here's the real question: from where does the "twist" come? It doesn't come from God, so where? If mankind's nature is just good, or even merely neutral, how is it that evil has any appeal at all? That "twist," to say nothing of something like burning hatred or delight in others' suffering, has to have a cause, a source, an origination point of some kind. Where's that bad energy coming from, if not from, as Christ said, "within the man"?
I've already explained where desires for that which is evil comes from, perfectly natural desires twisted by one's own wrong thinking. I think your question, "how is it that evil has any appeal at all?" assumes what is not true. The desire to do something evil is not a desire for evil itself or because it is evil. In most cases, the one who desires the evil thing does not even think it is evil.
Micah 2:1 describes one version of the process. "Woe to them that devise iniquity, and work evil upon their beds. When the morning is light, they practice it, because it is in the power of their hand." First comes the desire, the thinking about having what one wants, then when one is convinced they can get away with what they've been thinking, then they do it. The thinking always comes first. (Most verses dealing with this refer to the thoughts of the heart. It makes a difference what you think the heart is. You might want to consider that, because I suspect we will not agree on what the heart refers to in the Bible.)
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 5:30 am
Most Methodists I have known believe in both a sinful nature and eternal security, but also believe in sanctification (as separate form salvation) and that one can, "fall away." I think there is a lot of Scripture evidence for both.
Right. I think the Methodists have a deficient view of sanctification, too. They fail to see that Scripture uses the term three particular ways, and so they use it only one. And this causes them to make some serious errors, like "fall away" doctrine.
But that's a big topic too. I think I'll let you take the conversation in the direction you prefer, rather than fleshing that out at the moment.
It'll keep for now. I think we have bigger fish to fry.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 5:30 am
I do not have direct evidence that Augustine derived his dualistic views from Manichaeism, though he was one.
Yeah, that's the correlation-causality thing I was pointing to. It would be very hard to say that the latter caused the former. But if it did, Augustine is not God. He's just another guy trying to systematize his ideas about God. If he failed in some way, it troubles me not at all; I would expect it. It would simply be on me to correct it, if I came across it.
Fair enough!
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 5:30 am
Verses 17-19 of Romans 2 make it clear this entire passage, from Romans 1 on, was being written to the Jews in Rome,
Well, no. I see why you think that, but what about everything up to 2:17? All of that is earmarked to Gentile believers: see verses 4-7, 13-16, 18...repeatedly, the passage is explicitly directed to them. What he's doing in 2:17-19 is dealing with the objection that all the things he said earlier were ONLY true of Gentiles, and NOT of Jews. That's why he says, "But if you bear the name 'Jew,' and rely upon the Law..." and so on. Note the IF, the hypothetical there: Paul is saying, "If you say to me that you are different, you are sadly mistaken." He then goes on to show, for about a chapter, that Jews are not a special category of holier-than-thou folks, simply because they had the Law, the covenants and the promises. But he ends that section sharply in 3:9
"What then? Are we (the Jews) better than they (the Gentiles)? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; as it is written,“There is none righteous, not even one; There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God; All have turned aside, together they have become useless, There is none who does good, There is not even one.”
Paul's going to return to the special problem of convincing Jewish believers that they aren't above Gentile believers. He'll come back to that in chapters 9-11, and really give it full treatment. But it will remain a theme softly playing in the background in all he says to the Gentiles as well. In chapter 12, he's speaking again to the entire group of Christians in Rome, without Jew-Gentile distinction. And that's how he finishes.
Anyway, that's how I see the breakdown. I refer to the markers Paul uses when referring to his audience(s), and to track his thought-flow. It's clear to me that the addresses to the Gentiles and the combined Jewish-Gentile believer group in Rome bracket the specific remarks he directs to "Israel," or "my brethren according to the flesh," (as distinct, obviously, from "my brethren according to the Spirit").
But now we're getting into specific exegesis. Are we too far into it?
Not at all. It's a controversial passage. I understand why you interpret it as you do and certainly do not insist on my interpretation. There are more certain passages on all these points.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 5:30 am
I get it. I'm very interested in Atheists and agnostics in precisely the same way. I don't agree with them, but I get a kick out of figuring out how they're processing things.
Most of them don't process much, actually. Just for the record, I am not an atheist (or any other kind of "-ist." I think it is silly to identify oneself in terms of what one does not believe. There are endless things taught and believed in this world which I do not believe. If I identified myself in terms of all the things I don't believe in, it's all I'd do. I also have no desire or intention of changing anyone's else's beliefs, first because it is rarely possible, and second, because how others choose to believe and live is just none of my business.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 5:30 am
I'm reading Jung right now, as a matter of fact. And I've always enjoyed Hardy, and Beckett, and Camus, and Rand. I've read a fair bit of Nietzsche, and found that interesting as well. And Freud. And some of Marx. And so on. I've tried to do some diligence in that regard.
I was a big Narnia reader as a kid. I just read his space trilogy recently. It doesn't age well, but it was very inventive for his time. What I really enjoyed were his essays. He's got in common with people like Chesterton and Orwell a real ability to turn a phrase.
If there is such a thing as an external evidence of a first rate intellect it is erudition. It shows up in every aspect of one's life. So long as you enjoy what you read (even if it is work) everything is worth reading, almost. Jung is pretty bad, but if you do not take him seriously, he can be inadvertently entertaining. Nietzsche I personally disliked which made reading him difficult. Freud is pure evil, as was his daughter Anna. Still it's good to know the enemy.
Have you Read Lewis' Miracles? I think it contains one of the best argument there is for volition against determinism.
I have long been bewildered by the fact that so many people claim the Bible as their authority, but have never bothered to read, much less study it, even once, all the way through. Doesn't that amaze you?
No, it saddens me. The greatest work of Western literature, the key document of Western civilization, really, is not read well, even by many of the people who claim most affinity with it -- or so the surveys tell me. However, I attempt to do my best to not add my name to the list of those whose familiarity with it is cursory, shallow or zero. There are enough of those already.
Good talking to you.
[/quote]
Same here!