"Free will" is a BS argument

Originally posted by stellspalfie
so god must accept that there is a possibility that everybody in heaven may eventually not love him.

No one knows the mind of God, because His ways are higher than our ways. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Atheists seem to miss the fact that there is no love without free will. They just don't understand the love of God or that they are so stupid compared to God. 😏

The first sentence is an interesting statement. I'm not sure that it is quite right though. I don't think it is correct to say that we decide to love someone, it seems to happen by itself, so I'm not sure free will is quite the right category. To love someone freely implies an absence of external compulsion. I think freedom of emotion is a better categorization. However, love is a state of mind. A sufficiently powerful entity could induce the mind state and as far as the person doing the loving would be concerned it would be the real thing. Really, from their point of view it would be the same. If the relevant mind and brain states were the same then by the rule of identity it would be love. However, from the point of view of the beloved it would be different, they would know that the emotion was held due to the compulsion rather than freely, which would make it different for them.

Originally posted by vivify
When asked questions like "Why doesn't God stop small children from getting raped?", the response is always "Why God is too good stop a person's free will". This is dumb for many reasons. One reason why is because God is always manipulating a person's free will. He did it to Pharaoh more than once:

[quote][b]

Exodus 9:12

12 And the Lord hardened Ph ...[text shortened]... od didn't care enough about suffering people to stop it, or
b) The Christian God doesn't exist.

So what are you complaining about here that people are not given the
ability to make a choice, or that they made one you didn't like? We can
be tempted to do a lot of things, being tempted does not mean we have
to do them.

Originally posted by RJHinds

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

(2 Timothy 3:16-17 NASB)

for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

(2 Peter 1:21 NASB)

Sure, more words written by humans. REAL proof there. NOT.

Originally posted by KellyJay
So what are you complaining about here that people are not given the
ability to make a choice, or that they made one you didn't like? We can
be tempted to do a lot of things, being tempted does not mean we have
to do them.

I made the OP very clear: that Christians need to stop using "free will" as an argument for anything God does or doesn't do (like saying God didn't stop some horrific event because he doesn't mess with free will). Clearly, Good had been shown to frequently mrs with people's free will.

Originally posted by DeepThought
However, from the point of view of the beloved it would be different, they would know that the emotion was held due to the compulsion rather than freely, which would make it different for them.

Why would it make it different for them? Especially given your earlier statement that love is not a choice anyway?

Originally posted by vivify
A "no true Christian" fallacy? Come on.

Even if it's not "most, it's still way too many.

"A "no true Christian" fallacy?"
that's not what "no true scotsman" fallacy does. if i say "pilot" is someone who flies planes then i am not making a "no true scotsman" fallacy if i say that you can't call a pilot someone who does anything else except flying a plance.


christian is a follower of christ's teachings. someone who believes in jesus. someone who doesn't follow his teachings is not a christian.

Originally posted by vivify
Geez, stop children from being raped and from starving to death? Yeah, why don't we chew their food for them while we're at it, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

Originally posted by vivify
I made the OP very clear: that Christians need to stop using "free will" as an argument for anything God does or doesn't do (like saying God didn't stop some horrific event because he doesn't mess with free will). Clearly, Good had been shown to frequently mrs with people's free will.

Clearly, Good had been shown in the bible to frequently mrs with people's free will.


there, i fixed it for you.

Originally posted by RJHinds
No one knows the mind of God, because His ways are higher than our ways. 😏

thats what he may say, i beg to differ.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
thats what he may say, i beg to differ.

It does say His ways are higher. It does not say we altogether, have no idea of all of the mind of God.

In fact the apostles say "We have the mind of Christ" . So that His ways are higher than ours and His thoughts higher than ours does not mean man has absolutely NO IDEA of His ways and His thoughts.

First Cor. 2:16

English Standard Version
“For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

New American Standard Bible
For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.

Originally posted by RJHinds
No one knows the mind of God, because His ways are higher than our ways. 😏

I thought you knew the mind of god, if not,why are you so certain about your beliefs?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
christian is a follower of christ's teachings.

Ha ha ha ha. I wish that were even remotely true.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why would it make it different for them? Especially given your earlier statement that love is not a choice anyway?

For the one compelled to love it would make no difference. For the one who has done the compelling, who knows that the one who loves them only loves them due to compulsion, it would be different. So I'm saying it would be different for the beloved, for the object of the adoration.

Also, that free will in the libertarian sense does not exist, assuming that that is the case, does not mean that it makes no difference if we are all enslaved. Freedom of emotion (a formulation I invented for the post) would mean that one is not under external compulsion to feel the emotion, but that it arises naturally. It's like formulations of free will involving freedom to act. The extent to which one can control love is that one can be open to it, which does not mean it will happen, and one can be closed to it, which means one is resistant to feeling the emotion. So I suppose that there is a choice, but at one step removed, at that the level of being open to the emotion or not open to it; not at the direct level of switching it on and off.

As a parallel, consider anger management, that one controls one's anger and avoids an unfortunate scene does not mean one doesn't feel angry. It just means one prevents the emotion from escalation and oneself from going bezerk.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"A "no true Christian" fallacy?"
that's not what "no true scotsman" fallacy does. if i say "pilot" is someone who flies planes then i am not making a "no true scotsman" fallacy if i say that you can't call a pilot someone who does anything else except flying a plance.


christian is a follower of christ's teachings. someone who believes in jesus. someone who doesn't follow his teachings is not a christian.

You said on page 2 of this thread:

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
you cannot call yourself a christian and condone the genocides in the old testament, the rapes, the slavery, the injustice.

So *no true Christian* would condone the genocides God ordered in the bible? Or the times God said the Jews may take slaves from nations they've conquered? Or the raping of women God brings in Zechariah 14:2:

2 I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. 

So "no one who calls themselves a Christian" would condone God's acts in the bible, even though many Christians believe all of God's judgments and actions are "perfect"?

Deny it all you want, but you just used a "no true Scottsman" fallacy.