If > means something like “leads to” or “brings about,” then the statement is true in the case of the designer and builder of the machine, but not true in the case of the reverse engineer who has the identical knowledge that the originating engineer does but whose intention is absent, even though he “knows” what the activity of the machine will be. He bypasses intention > action > machine.knowledge > intention > action > machine > activity ?
How then does what I’m saying deny god the power to choose what to believe and how to live?The power to choose what to believe and how to live. It is shared by the creation of persons and the procreation of their children!
My statements are a response to your statement:How then does what I’m saying deny god the power to choose what to believe and how to live?
This is a false dilemma which overlooks the possibility of power-sharing. God chooses to give us free will but our power is not unlimited like His. We can choose to live for ourselves indefinitely but whatever power we may have over others is terminated by death, thank God!If something isn’t how god intended either he made a mistake OR he is subject to a power that can make things happen that he didn’t intend.
Are you saying our free will supersedes the will of god? It’s stronger than gods will?My statements are a response to your statement:
This is a false dilemma which overlooks the possibility of power-sharing. God chooses to give us free will but our power is not unlimited like His. We can choose to live for ourselves indefinitely but whatever power we may have over others is terminated by death, thank God!
No, I think he’s saying that God’s will is not so weak that it is threatened by the existence of other autonomous beings. You seem to be confusing God with an anal retentive god who must always have things preset and his way in order to be omnipotent. You, or, at least, your conceived god, cannot tolerate any error or fault on the part of other beings as these would reflect on or detract from his “perfection.”Are you saying our free will supersedes the will of god? It’s stronger than gods will?
No, that is not what I think at all. I don’t think god is threatened by us at all, nor the choices we make. That’s why I was confused by Tony’s notion of power sharing. There is nothing that we can do that effects god’s plan. We aren’t sharing in the power. If we have any it’s a very limited scope.No, I think he’s saying that God’s will is not so weak that it is threatened by the existence of other autonomous beings. You seem to be confusing God with an anal retentive god who must always have things preset and his way in order to be omnipotent. You, or, at least, your conceived god, cannot tolerate any error or fault on the part of other beings as these would reflect on or detract from his “perfection.”
Why would free will on the part of created beings threaten or limit God, unless you have a “dictator” view of God who must always have it his way to begin with? Perhaps “his way” allows for and even demands autonomy on the part created beings.
If God is ultimate “freedom” in the sense of omnipotence unconstrained by anything external to him, then our “free wills” might only be possible when underwritten by his omnipotence. In which case, our free wills are not a threat to God but a positive expectation, even, command, of God. “My will is to do the will of the Father” meaning to align our will to the omnipotent and absolutely free will of God.
Taken to its logical conclusion, your view is that we are simply automatons completely dependent upon God as a “determining” cause. The difference is that Tony likely subscribes to the idea that God is not that kind of cause at all, but, rather, that God is “living” and mindful, which is what he wills for us to become, not merely his puppets or marionettes. In order to be capable of doing his will, we, too, must be free from internal and external encumbrances that “tie us up.” God isn’t threatened by our freedom, he is “disturbed” that we are not “free enough” precisely because we don’t take advantage of true freedom available to us through his grace.No, that is not what I think at all. I don’t think god is threatened by us at all, nor the choices we make. That’s why I was confused by Tony’s notion of power sharing. There is nothing that we can do that effects god’s plan. We aren’t sharing in the power. If we have any it’s a very limited scope.
Again, the kiddie ride. The one with a gas powered car straddling a single track. We are traveling along god’s will ( the track ) we can “steer” but as much as the track allows.Taken to its logical conclusion, your view is that we are simply automatons completely dependent upon God as a “determining” cause. The difference is that Tony likely subscribes to the idea that God is not that kind of cause at all, but, rather, that God is “living” and mindful, which is what he wills for us to become, not merely his puppets or marionettes. In order to be capable of doing his will, we, too, must be free from internal and external encumbrances that “tie us up.” God isn’t threatened by our freedom, he is “disturbed” that we are not “free enough” precisely because we don’t take advantage of true freedom available to us through his grace.
For example, I find something quite inconsistent about the argument that same sex attracted individuals should be “free” to marry because they “can’t help” being attracted to persons to the same sex. So they should be free (as a personal liberty) to do what they aren’t free (psychologically speaking) to avoid doing seems quite irrational as it means that they should have the freedom to not have freedom with regard to SSA.
Yes, if God’s will were THAT kind of a ride, then you might be correct. What I am denying is whether it is THAT kind of a ride to begin with. We are completely free to “steer” wherever we want and learn “for ourselves” what a right turn here gets us. The steering does, indeed, work and is in our hands. In fact, I don’t think he allows us to “arrive” at the destination until we are competent drivers, so it isn’t the “getting there” that counts, it is demonstrating competency that is integral to the “getting there.” It is not a track, but a road and more like a “road test” than going along for the ride.Again, the kiddie ride. The one with a gas powered car straddling a single track. We are traveling along god’s will ( the track ) we can “steer” but as much as the track allows.
The argument is that because SSA cannot be overcome, these individuals cannot overcome slavery to the sin. God’s grace is not sufficient, therefore they are compelled to remain in a state of SSA which neither they nor God can do anything about. If all sinners took that position sin would be victorious. I cannot help but kill, lie, thieve, be envious, covet, commit adultery etc. etc. because I am oriented towards all of these, therefore I need to have a legal right to act on these proclivities.In regards to SSA you lost me. How would denying their attraction make them more free?
Why I think it is that sort of ride is because there is nothing that we can do as humans, individually or collectively to derail god’s plan. Any steering is simply for our amusement. It brings excitement to the ride. Look at Peter, Jesus told him what he would do. Peter says no way, not me lord" and thats what he does, it was part of the plan.Yes, if God’s will were THAT kind of a ride, then you might be correct. What I am denying is whether it is THAT kind of a ride to begin with. We are completely free to “steer” wherever we want and learn “for ourselves” what a right turn here gets us. The steering does, indeed, work and is in our hands. In fact, I don’t think he allows us to “arrive” at the destination until we are competent drivers, so it isn’t the “getting there” that counts, it is demonstrating competency that is integral to the “getting there.” It is not a track, but a road and more like a “road test” than going along for the ride.
The argument is that because SSA cannot be overcome, these individuals cannot overcome slavery to the sin. God’s grace is not sufficient, therefore they are compelled to remain in a state of SSA which neither they nor God can do anything about. If all sinners took that position sin would be victorious. I cannot help but kill, lie, thieve, be envious, covet, commit adultery etc. etc. because I am oriented towards all of these, therefore I need to have a legal right to act on these proclivities.
To use the “road analogy” above, the argument that many pose to advocate for SSA and “gay rights” amounts to the following:
The road is too narrow to drive on, and I should not have to demonstrate any kind of control so God ought to accept my off road behaviour because the vehicle is in control and I’ve just given up trying to “drive” so I just let it go where it wants. I cannot seem to control the vehicle because I am not strong enough to steer along a “straight” path (pardon the pun) nor have the leg strength to apply brakes or throttle at appropriate times to control this crazy thing.
God needs to change reality to suit me and pave roads every which way because I have no power nor choice in the matter, even with the benefit of an omnipotent God’s grace.
I think that all of the things that have been accomplished by mankind is in part due to man’s own strength. I believe in a God that intervenes so I say in part it is man’s strength. One of the Catholic teachings that is significant to the debate about faith and works is the teaching that man must cooperate with God’s grace. We believe that man does have the power to resist God to his own detriment. When I say “resist God”, think of it in the terms of the qualities that Catholics profess about him. Love, hope, faith, kindness, charity. All of these things have been thrown out the window by various men. They have the power to do that. Our intellect gives us that power. I know it is not that simple when we are talking about free will vs omnipotence. God can make a man fall down at his feet but the man has to do the worshipping. Why? If God foresees that a man will worship him, mustn’t the man do it even if he doesn’t want? No, it is impossible. A man must want to worship or it isn’t worship.True power to achieve what end? What can man accomplish with his true power?
No. Our free will co-exists with the Will of God because He gives us the power to shape our individual destinies but we are still subject to His Will because He is omniscient, infinitely more powerful than we are and “in Him we live, move and have our being”.Are you saying our free will supersedes the will of god? It’s stronger than gods will?
What if God knows of a general plan that is more like a vision than a specific direction, and this vision would allow for a select range of possible outcomes?Why I think it is that sort of ride is because there is nothing that we can do as humans, individually or collectively to derail god’s plan. Any steering is simply for our amusement. It brings excitement to the ride. Look at Peter, Jesus told him what he would do. Peter says no way, not me lord" and thats what he does, it was part of the plan.
As for SSA, I think it’s more like they were given a car that won’t drive straight or maybe only has a reverse gear. They drive the best they can. Would you say to someone born without the use of their legs, “sorry no wheel chair for you, you can’t walk properly, it’s god’s will.”
What if God knows of a general plan that is more like a vision than a specific direction, and this vision would allow for a select range of possible outcomes?
Wouldn’t that allow for free will and still preserve God’s plan?]
No. Free will would have to include ALL possibilities, The other way, god is setting the rules to his game.
If that were so, God would not have let us know that the behaviour is sinful. It is not sinful to be missing limbs, be blind, deaf or suffer paralysis. Those conditions are not culpable, our sexual behaviour is.Why I think it is that sort of ride is because there is nothing that we can do as humans, individually or collectively to derail god’s plan. Any steering is simply for our amusement. It brings excitement to the ride. Look at Peter, Jesus told him what he would do. Peter says no way, not me lord" and thats what he does, it was part of the plan.
As for SSA, I think it’s more like they were given a car that won’t drive straight or maybe only has a reverse gear. They drive the best they can. Would you say to someone born without the use of their legs, “sorry no wheel chair for you, you can’t walk properly, it’s god’s will.”
I think that is the case. But it’s not really free will, the ultimate outcome is the same. Many paths to the mountain top. You couldn’t muck up god’s plan. You can wander about, but you’re going to do what needs to be done. You will serve your purpose.What if God knows of a general plan that is more like a vision than a specific direction, and this vision would allow for a select range of possible outcomes?
Wouldn’t that allow for free will and still preserve God’s plan?
He doesn’t look kindly on themIf that were so, God would not have let us know that the behaviour is sinful. It is not sinful to be missing limbs, be blind, deaf or suffer paralysis. Those conditions are not culpable, our sexual behaviour is.
But that isn’t the point. If they are created with SSA, it was god who made them that way. So given a broken car, how are they to drive?16 The LORD said to Moses:
17 Say to Aaron: None of your descendants, throughout their generations, who has any blemish shall come forward to offer the food of his God.
18 Anyone who has any of the following blemishes may not come forward: he who is blind, or lame, or who has a split lip, or a limb too long,
19 or a broken leg or arm,
20 or who is a hunchback or dwarf or has a growth in the eye, or who is afflicted with sores, scabs, or crushed testicles.
21 No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any such blemish may draw near to offer the oblations of the LORD; on account of his blemish he may not draw near to offer the food of his God.
22 He may, however, eat the food of his God: of the most sacred as well as sacred offerings.
23 Only, he may not enter through the veil nor draw near to the altar on account of his blemish; he shall not profane my sacred precincts, for it is I, the LORD, who make them holy.
Sorry…no go. If God knows the future he knows the future. He cannot know all at one point if it changes at another.This is because in our limited knowleage we take for granted that in order to know the future, it must be predestined. If not, there is not way of knowing it.
What we dont understand is that God knows everything, and it does not have to be predestined for Him to know. He is God.
Sorry, did not got your first point. You saying all must be predestined, if not God cannot know?Sorry…no go. If God knows the future he knows the future. He cannot know all at one point if it changes at another.
I have been struggling with this for a number of years, nearly 20, and it always boils down to someone saying it is a mystery or we just don’t understand God. Both are unacceptably weak explanations for one of the most important facets of our existence. If we are going to worship someone, or something, we should first ask a lot of questions.
That’s why they start us in Church as early as possible…hoping that our highly impressionable minds will absorb everything and never question.
I can recall in the years when my father and I didn’t get along too well bringing up that very point to him…and he admitted it. He said he was told by the parish Monsignor that it was his responsibility as a parent.