Robots and Will Worshipers

[Rudometkin]

30 “‘The people of Judah have done evil in my eyes, declares the Lord. They have set up their detestable idols in the house that bears my Name and have defiled it. 31 They have built the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to burn their sons and daughters in the fire—something I did not command, nor did it enter my mind. 32 So beware, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when people will no longer call it Topheth or the Valley of Ben Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter, for they will bury the dead in Topheth until there is no more room.

God doesn't agree with you that he controls everybody. In fact, just the opposite.

I addressed this objection of yours earlier in this thread.

I was one who first provided the verse, and I even explained that your interpretation must mean that you deny God's omniscience!

 

[Renniks]

I addressed this objection of yours earlier in this thread.

I was one who first provided the verse, and I even explained that your interpretation must mean that you deny God's omniscience!

And you still can't see the contradiction in God complaining about his people doing something that you think he caused them to do?

I think you have a schizophrenic god.

 

[Rudometkin]

And you still can't see the contradiction in God complaining about his people doing something that you think he caused them to do?

I think you have a schizophrenic god.

In that same message I linked above, I also asked you, How is it a contradiction? You show that they are two separate things. "Complaining" and "causing" are two separate things.

Is it a logical contradiction? If so, how? If not, then how is there a problem with it being true?

I even made a case for God's perfect mind, making sense of the fall of His creation. Perhaps you'll get to actually damage my theological viewpoint if you first learn it by asking specific questions, then by showing how it is illogical by a process of reasoning.

Nevertheless, I notice that you are not defending your apparent belief in God's omniscience when I point out the apparent absence of belief riddled in your objections.

 

[Renniks]

In that same message I linked above, I also asked you, How is it a contradiction? You show that they are two separate things. "Complaining" and "causing" are two separate things.

Is it a logical contradiction? If so, how? If not, then how is there a problem with it being true?

I even made a case for God's perfect mind, making sense of the fall of His creation. Perhaps you'll get to actually damage my theological viewpoint if you first learn it by asking specific questions, then by showing how it is illogical by a process of reasoning.

Nevertheless, I notice that you are not defending your apparent belief in God's omniscience when I point out the apparent absence of belief riddled in your objections.

God's knowledge doesn't matter here. It's simple logic. If I tell someone to do one thing while making them do the opposite, I'm schizophrenic at best and surely evil.
And then complain about then doing exactly what I caused them to do? You have a god that needs to be institutionalized.

 

[Rudometkin]

God's knowledge doesn't matter here. It's simple logic. If I tell someone to do one thing while making them do the opposite, I'm schizophrenic at best and surely evil.
And then complain about then doing exactly what I caused them to do? You have a god that needs to be institutionalized.

This is the issue I meant you ought to deal with regarding God's omniscience:

It seems that with the way you interpret the verse, you must not believe that God is Omniscient, since, if it didn't enter His mind that it would happen, He would not be all-knowing.

 

[Renniks]

This is the issue I meant you ought to deal with regarding God's omniscience:

It didn't enter his mind. Therefore he did not in any way cause or control it. Knowledge is not the issue.

 

[Rudometkin]

It didn't enter his mind. Therefore he did not in any way cause or control it. Knowledge is not the issue.

Now you're arguing as an atheist would. He is absolutely the ultimate cause of it, since if He did not create mankind, then that action never would have happened. But the action did happen, and you affirm that He is not in any way the cause of it. This would mean that He isn't God of all things, and that His Word wouldn't be true!

If God knew it would happen, then it would be in His mind before it happened. But if it wasn't in His mind that it would happen, then He didn't know it would happen. This issue does indeed concern His knowledge.

You are arguing against both His ultimate causation and His omniscience.

 

[DNB]

I'm not sure we are using the terms "relative" and "metaphysical" in the same way, because if you indeed affirmed God's total supremacy (as you did) in my sense of the phrase, "in the metaphysical sense", then you'd be affirming that you are a Determinist like me. But you're arguing against it, and it certainly is with controversy (the free will vs determinism controversy,) so I don't think we mean the same things by it.

You brought up another important issue that we can also focus on. In your quote above, I tabbed some of your key points with numbers, such as, [1], and [2]. This is so that I can address your points efficiently with my view.

[1] First, in eternity, God determined that He would be glorified. In order to accomplish this, He determined that elected men would be saved by Christ. In order to accomplish this, He determined that sinful men would be divided into elect and reprobates. In order to accomplish this, He determined that men would fall. In order to accomplish this, He determined that mankind would be created.

Then, within creation, the order is reversed. This is what we see played out. God created mankind, so that He would make them fall, so that the elect would be divided from the reprobates, so that Christ would save the elect men, so that God would be glorified.

This view is called Supralapsarianism. It shows meaning in God's plan, that it is not a cruel joke, but all in order to glorify Him. Whereas my view is God-centered, yours is man-centered.

[2] Here you teach that meaning is contingent on man gaining knowledge, but God assigns His own meanings, and if you do not accept His meanings, then you are in rebellion with Him. This is a very man-centered idea that you have here.

Now if you appeal to meaninglessness over the God that controls absolutely everything for His own purpose, you ought to deal with these views. Even if you do not agree with my views, you ought to understand it so that you can address it.

My point is that it's a paradox, I am resolutely affirming both.
I don't agree with your initial premise that God's intent for creation was for us to glorify Him, for this is an invariable aspect of just knowing Him under any circumstances. So that any objective that He may have for creatures created in His image, this will always be a by-product of His purpose - because He is worthy of it.

I believe that He created humans for our pleasure - He is so full of love that He wants us to enjoy what He has to offer. His glory and contentment is never contingent upon the praise or acknowledgement of others. But, in order to offer such a gift to any creature, as in any parent/child relationship, love and gratitude are requisite - nothing worse than a spoiled or ingrate child. But also, man needs to realize that in order to have free-will, it comes at a great price. For, it is no small issue to be able to derive pleasure in love, that one must also be aware of the ability to reject the object of affection, and the consequences of it. A self-determining creature cannot have it both ways - joy in love, without recognizing from where the gift came, and on what grounds that it can be taken away.

And this is where the complexity of the issue arises, i.e. creating something with a certain amount of autonomy, outside of its creator. And don't forget, your stance about God's objective for Him to be glorified, undeniably requires that His creatures have this same ability to desire and love Him, without coercion or God being possessive.

I may have said this before

 

[Rudometkin]

My point is that it's a paradox, I am resolutely affirming both.

Will you please define "paradox"?

 

[Rudometkin]

I don't agree with your initial premise that God's intent for creation was for us to glorify Him, for this is an invariable aspect of just knowing Him under any circumstances.

Therefore, knowing God glorifies God by necessity.

your stance about God's objective for Him to be glorified, undeniably requires that His creatures have this same ability to desire and love Him, without coercion or God being possessive.

Therefore, knowing God does not glorify God by necessity.

So, why? Why is it that in my view, as you claim, there are specific conditions required with knowing God in order for Him to be glorified, while with yours, there aren't?

Am I missing something? are you just asserting this? I'm just curious.

Regardless, you have demonstrated that you have more man-centered thinking.

Isaiah 43:7
Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.

 

[DNB]

Will you please define "paradox"?

Two seemingly contradictory affirmations, yet both are true.

 

[DNB]

Therefore, knowing God glorifies God by necessity.

Yes, ...eventually all knees will bow down to Him. I know that you're thinking about the devil, that he knows God very well but does not worship Him as required. That, I can't explain, but, outside of that, all who know the truth will glorify Him as is due. Those that do not glorify Him (Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Tyson, etc...), clearly do not know Him. ...even the best of us, do not love Him as we ought to - because we really do not know how loving and glorious that He is. But yes, to know Him, is to love Him by necessity.

So, why? Why is it that in my view, as you claim, there are specific conditions required with knowing God in order for Him to be glorified, while with yours, there aren't?

Both our views demand a free-will. If you state that God's primary reason for creating humans is to glorify Him, how can one accept feigned or manipulated honour and praise? My understanding of God's Word demands the same sincerity and uncoerced devotion. I can't see any other model that doesn't necessitate authentic, and self-motivated love and admiration?

Yes, my theology is man-centered, in that I don't believe that there will be no other purpose in heaven but to praise God. This life is a microcosm of that principle. God expects us to love one another also, of which there is great joy in that, as there is in many other aspects of life. Heaven will also be a place where man enjoys life for several purposes, and not all are meant solely to glorify God. God's love extends to seeing other beings enjoy the life and love that He has offered them.

But, again, this privilege of free-will comes at a price - make the right decisions as to whom you are going to honour and obey, because the consequences are severe.

 

[Sabertooth]

Discuss support and implications of the two opposing doctrines regarding 'Free Will' and 'Determinism' below.

Free Will: Man has the power to think on his own apart from God.

Determinism: God controls all things.

Man has limited choice.
God blesses and extends that choice, if it is in sync with His will.

"If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you,
you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you." Jesus, John15:7 NKJV

It is a bit like dancing. The Holy Spirit leads.

 

[Rudometkin]

Two seemingly contradictory affirmations, yet both are true.

Thank you, I appreciate you for providing a clear answer when asked. This helps me to understand your position much more.

 

[Renniks]

Now you're arguing as an atheist would. He is absolutely the ultimate cause of it, since if He did not create mankind, then that action never would have happened. But the action did happen, and you affirm that He is not in any way the cause of it. This would mean that He isn't God of all things, and that His Word wouldn't be true!

If God knew it would happen, then it would be in His mind before it happened. But if it wasn't in His mind that it would happen, then He didn't know it would happen. This issue does indeed concern His knowledge.

You are arguing against both His ultimate causation and His omniscience.

And you are arguing against what scripture says. No, God does not ultimately cause everything. Nowhere does scripture make that claim. Yes, he is the ultimate authority, but as that authority, he can choose to give as much freedom to his creation as he pleases. He did not in any way cause his children to sacrifice their kids to idols (actually to demons) and he said so. But you want to argue with him about it.

 

[Rudometkin]

My point is that it's a paradox, I am resolutely affirming both.

@Hidden In Him points out that subscribing to both views warrants having both titles. Directed towards another member who also affirmed both to be true, he said:

this position makes you both a will worshipper AND a robot. You're a will-worshipping robot.

You are affirming two views that are logically incompatible. Of course you disagree with this, but the contradiction is clear, and available for you to deal with.

If God controls everything, then man does not have free will apart from God's control, since He would also be controlling man's will. If man has a will that is free from God's control to any extent, then God does not control everything, since He wouldn't be controlling man's will to an extent.

In affirming both, you must not believe either. Since, if you believed the first, you wouldn't affirm the second, because the second denies the first, and if you believed the second, you wouldn't affirm the first, because the first denies the second.

 

[Behold]

Discuss support and implications of the two opposing doctrines regarding 'Free Will' and 'Determinism' below.

Free Will: Man has the power to think on his own apart from God.

Determinism: God controls all things.

Man has freewill.

Christ has all power in Heaven and on earth.

 

[Rudometkin]

Man has freewill.

Christ has all power in Heaven and on earth.

Thank you for joining, Behold.

By whose power is man's will driven?

 

[Behold]

Thank you for joining, Behold.

By whose power is man's will driven?

Life is God given, but "to will" is to use Freewill.

So, the distinction is that God generates life......all, but not all life has a mind or a conscience.
For example, it'll be SPRING soon and Nature will be bursting forth with LIFE.
You'll see this as color......and growth...
= all that is LIFE, that God is causing, yet none of that can choose or think.

Animals can choose or think, and have freewill, but they are not like man...
Animals exist on instinct.

Man, who is made in the Image of God, has the ability of God, which is to SEE as "moral" or "immoral".
Right from wrong.
Good from bad.

Plants and animals, have no ability to see this, they only behave according to Non-human nature.

Only a person can "sin", as sin is related to moral choice that is driven by Freewill.

 

[Rudometkin]

Man has limited choice.
God blesses and extends that choice, if it is in sync with His will.

"If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you,
you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you." Jesus, John15:7 NKJV

It is a bit like dancing. The Holy Spirit leads.

That means God does not control everything, right?