[Epiph]

Well, if you believe in predestination, it's the same difference. Although, I guess there's the APPEARANCE of choice when it comes to predestination. Theology is fascinating.

[Gem Windcaster]

As pertaining to everyone's question about the 'hard wired' thing, I'll answer it below in answer to HD's post.

HoosierDaddy, on Dec 30 2008, 06:52 PM, said:

Gem:
1. Are you saying that people who do good are doing it because of God? Because it sounds like you are saying that people can't do good just because they want to help somebody.
2. It isn't based on what you do or don't do? Free ticket to heaven?3
3. So... hell could simply be a universe without God? Ironic.
4. God wrote the genetic code? Why am I not hard-wired that way? Am I less important?

1. No. That's not what I'm saying.
2. Yes, there's a free ticket for those who wants it.
3. Well, God's everywhere, but his presence is not everywhere.
4. Everyone is hard wired like that. But as I said, there's more to it. I have made a choice, and everybody has the same choice. You know, the free will thing God gave us...

Have you every wondered why God put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in Eden? Why didn't he just program us to worship him without choice? Well, he chose not to. He had and still has this full disclosure thing going on.
We were made into his likeness, which is what I usually imagine to be the reason people like God once they get to know him. We're compatible, simply put. The problem is, we humans don't know God - the fall of man made us strangers to him, since we no longer could be in his presence.
But still, some of that purpose that we were created are still in us, so to speak. But we still have to make a choice. The people that didn't choose Heaven will know completely what they've missed, so to speak, and I can imagine they will be aware that they're in reality tortured. But since they haven't really felt what it means to be saved, I'm not sure how much that will actually mean something to them. Maybe they will just say "well, whatever!" or something.

I could never want a life without God, and I don't see a reason for a life without Him. What I feel when I am in God's presence is a sort of completion, a reaching of my full potential - and I haven't even scratched the surface of the gifts God want to give me.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 30 December 2008 - 06:39 PM

[Gem Windcaster]

Illuyankas, on Dec 30 2008, 07:12 PM, said:

Er, Gem? If you're genetically wired to worship God, then that must mean God genetically wired some people not to worship him, otherwise they would. You've just said that God deliberately condemned some people to hell.

No, that's not what I said. What I'm trying to say is that we were meant to be God's likeness - and that's still true - but we always had a choice. I think free will means that God have to give up a certain control. But also, I don't think it's that simple, since God of course know who of us that are going to worship him and who of us that are not. But at some point God must have given away some sort of control, or the fall of man couldn't have happened at all. I don't have all the answers here, but I do know that God never would condemn people deliberately - on the contrary - with the plan he completed, everyone can be saved, as long as they want to be.

Also, I don't see it as predestination - I see it as a chance to challenge our predestined end, and to change it. It's all about the perspective, yes?

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 30 December 2008 - 06:39 PM

[HoosierDaddy]

Epiph, on Dec 30 2008, 01:22 PM, said:

Well, if you believe in predestination, it's the same difference. Although, I guess there's the APPEARANCE of choice when it comes to predestination. Theology is fascinating.

Well stated. You up to date on your City of God & St. Augustine?

[Illuyankas]

@Gem: Seems incredibly biased towards the God-fearing-wired people. Wait, that sentence shouldn't make sense.

This post has been edited by Illuyankas: 30 December 2008 - 06:42 PM

[Gem Windcaster]

Illuyankas, on Dec 30 2008, 07:41 PM, said:

@Gem: Seems incredibly biased towards the God-fearing-wired people. Wait, that sentence shouldn't make sense.

It doesn't lol. Explain plx.

[HoosierDaddy]

Oh, how quickly we are rushing down the rabbit's hole! Curiouser and curiouser indeed.

Gem, if you don't mind, what denomination are you?

[Gem Windcaster]

HoosierDaddy, on Dec 30 2008, 07:43 PM, said:

Oh, how quickly we are rushing down the rabbit's hole! Curiouser and curiouser indeed.

Gem, if you don't mind, what denomination are you?

Oh, but don't you love following the white rabbit? I know I do.

I guess I am pentecostal - the Swedish kind. But I don't really like labels.

[HoosierDaddy]

Understandable, but when dealing with religion it is important to know the belief system. Evangelicals, of which I would include the pentecostal churches, are vastly different than say the Catholic Church or Presbyterians.

[Epiph]

HoosierDaddy, on Dec 30 2008, 12:41 PM, said:

Well stated. You up to date on your City of God & St. Augustine?

Ha. No. My knowledge of theology is cursory at best. I was raised by India-loving hippies. I always mean to sit down and read up on theology and never actually manage to.

[Illuyankas]

@Gem: Person genetically wired (need a better phrase, temptation to write genitally wired is almost overwhelming) to favour worshipping God is a lot less likely to end up stuck in hell listening to Celine Dion remixes, hence the biased bit.

[Gem Windcaster]

Illuyankas, on Dec 30 2008, 08:02 PM, said:

@Gem: Person genetically wired (need a better phrase, temptation to write genitally wired is almost overwhelming) to favour worshipping God is a lot less likely to end up stuck in hell listening to Celine Dion remixes, hence the biased bit.

My point, which I was trying to get across, was that everyone are wired like that. You misunderstood what I mean when I said wired. I can't answer why people make the choices they make, obviously. All I know is that, somehow, free will means free will, and it's not fake, it's truly free will.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 30 December 2008 - 07:14 PM

[Cold Iron]

Just to throw some science on the free will discussion, it is well documented (google it) that when making new decisions that have no previous conditioning (ie decisions with an uncertain outcome), the amygdala is always activated. This triggers the release of varying amounts of neurochemicals (dopamine, noradrenaline, serotonin) which in turn makes you feel good or bad about a certain decision. In other words, there is no conscious drive towards one decision or another, but an emotional one. This emotional response is likely based on memories of the outcomes of previous decisions with which the current decision shares associative ties, regardless of whether there is any reasonable basis for the association.

In other words, your every decision is made by your emotional response to the sum of your previous decisions, which is in turn based on your interpretation of a good or bad outcome of these previous decisions. A good or bad outcome is judged by your expectation of the outcome, which is based on observing and reacting with others.

So, regardless of the determinism of the universe, decisions are determined by our previous interactions with it (the universe) along with any genetic predisposition (ie our ancestors interactions). The fact that each of us has an independent set of both genes and experiences means that when faced with the same choices, you and I will not make the same decisions, but this alone does not imply that either of us has exercised free will. In fact, free will is something of an enigma. If it refers to rational (able to be influenced by a process of logical reasoning) control over our decisions, then the science would support that it does not exist. However, we do make decisions based on information from and knowledge about our environment, so if the universe is undetermined (which quantum science suggests) then our decisions can be said to be undetermined, which is yet another definition of free will.

Excepting perhaps the most fundamentalist practitioners, religious people are generally familiar and comfortable with the concept of emotional decision making. In fact, the very practice of their religion often involves varying amounts of manipulation of their emotional state, which has decision influencing as a directly observable outcome if not a demonstrable purpose. Thus the free will debated by these people is of the latter kind rather than the former.

However, both atheists and fundamentalists generally see free will more as the former. They wish to view their decisions as entirely or at least partially within their rational control. As I have said, this view is unsupported by science.

[Shinrei]

Back to the original topic btw, I actually don't have a problem with the sign on the bus. I don't care if the athiests get air time any more than if a catholic church buys a sign wishing a merry christmas. Nor is the message antagonistic. I agree with an earlier poster who said, its the individual who finds it antagonistic and choses to be offended. But we protect freedom of speech, not freedom from being offended.

The sign that I think hurts an attempt by athiests to get a message out is the one they put up in Olympia, Washington. "There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

This wording seems more accusatory and is far more antagonistic. I can read the sign on the bus and think, "they have a right to their opinion as well as to express it." When I read the one in Olympia I think, "they have a right to their opinion as well as to express it, but apparently I have a hardened heart and enslaved mind."

[Cold Iron]

That's alright, i didn't put much effort into that post anyway

[Shinrei]

No relation to what you wrote CI, but the last page or so has become about personal views rather than about the OP. I was saying that to reflect that MY post was more towards the original OP rather than what people have been talking about.

CI: It's all about ME ME ME!

[Camel]

Gem Windcaster, on Dec 30 2008, 01:13 PM, said:

My point, which I was trying to get across, was that everyone are wired like that. You misunderstood what I mean when I said wired. I can't answer why people make the choices they make, obviously. All I know is that, somehow, free will means free will, and it's not fake, it's truly free will.

Well, not to disagree with you, but if it's really free will, then ask yourself how many people are the same religion as their parents. How many are the same denomination? How many attend the same church and have never attended any other denomination's services? How come the West is predominantly Christian while the East is predominantly Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist? Is it a matter of education, or is there another factor? Did the East just not get God's memo, or does it come down to something besides free will?

How come you're Christian and not Muslim? Probably because you were raised from birth in a predominantly Christian society. Had you been born in Iran, you'd probably be Muslim.

There are tons of factors that determine facets of peoples' lives besides "choice". I could, theoretically, choose to be okay with multiple wives, but my society has impressed upon me that polygamy is wrong. Is that a choice? There are people who are abused as children and find themselves adults abusing their own children. Do you think they said "Oh, gee, I choose to rape some kids today!"? Do you think they REALLY had a choice? If you do, then you're pretty naive. There are tons of environmental, genetic, psychological and many other factors that go into a person's make-up and personality.

Religion is a choice? Maybe. I'm not convinced. And even if it were a choice, I'm not convinced you're making the right one, or Mohammed Al-Zahiri is making the right one, or Gandhi Jr is making the right one, or Joe Athiest.

[Lost Marine]

Camel, on Dec 31 2008, 10:34 AM, said:

There are people who are abused as children and find themselves adults abusing their own children. Do you think they said "Oh, gee, I choose to rape some kids today!"? Do you think they REALLY had a choice? If you do, then you're pretty naive. There are tons of environmental, genetic, psychological and many other factors that go into a person's make-up and personality.

Religion is a choice? Maybe. I'm not convinced. And even if it were a choice, I'm not convinced you're making the right one, or Mohammed Al-Zahiri is making the right one, or Gandhi Jr is making the right one, or Joe Athiest.

I'm going to pick out this one facet of the argument you made because I have a real issue with this statement. Yes, they did choose to rape some kids that day, that is the long and the short of it and it is a black and white argument. Just cause someone messed around with you doesn't mean you have to pass on that stuff. I don't care what studies have been done on the subject that say that past behavior towards someone makes them more likely to behave that way towards someone else. People who hurt children do choose to do so and should be punished as such.

[Terez]

I don't think he was trying to say that the rapist shouldn't be punished/removed from society. Just that people who are sexually abused are fucked up in the head. I don't agree at all that it's black and white - things rarely are.

[Adjutant Stormy~]

Lost Marine, on Dec 31 2008, 02:44 PM, said:

Camel, on Dec 31 2008, 10:34 AM, said:

There are people who are abused as children and find themselves adults abusing their own children. Do you think they said "Oh, gee, I choose to rape some kids today!"? Do you think they REALLY had a choice? If you do, then you're pretty naive. There are tons of environmental, genetic, psychological and many other factors that go into a person's make-up and personality.

Religion is a choice? Maybe. I'm not convinced. And even if it were a choice, I'm not convinced you're making the right one, or Mohammed Al-Zahiri is making the right one, or Gandhi Jr is making the right one, or Joe Athiest.

I'm going to pick out this one facet of the argument you made because I have a real issue with this statement. Yes, they did choose to rape some kids that day, that is the long and the short of it and it is a black and white argument. Just cause someone messed around with you doesn't mean you have to pass on that stuff. I don't care what studies have been done on the subject that say that past behavior towards someone makes them more likely to behave that way towards someone else. People who hurt children do choose to do so and should be punished as such.

Agreed. Choice always exists, there are pressures towards choices, but choice always exists. There are some mitigating factors, but anything that wasn't a direct contributor (i.e. abuse your kid's or I'll kill them) is increasingly difficult to connect to the action in question.

Also:

Gem Windcaster, on Dec 30 2008, 05:29 AM, said:

I know this won't make it into a theory of yours, since you don't believe in supernatural things, but I'm saying it anyway.

Let's presume a bit less about my beliefs, shall we?
I generally leave the religious specifics out of analyses because they can be generalized into other categories. And that part (spiritual growth) is included in the perceived benefit of a given action, to be opposed by possible penalties.
I strive for concision and rigor.