ForzaA said:Hmm.. I definately read it as "the lesser of two evils"(not following Gods direct command, or his more general command regarding killing)
but YMMV I guess.
Killing is not evil by itself . Self-defense , for example , is not evil . Killing , therefore , is not an absolute evil but murder is . Like I said , the author of Life has dominion over it and put the command in the context of a sacrifice . What are you willing to sacrifice in order for something greater . Suicide , for example , is an evil , but jumping on a grenade to save your fellows is not . The point of the Abrahamic sacrifice was to pre-figure Christ . It was to show that the ultimate and perfect love is sacrifice and God did it for us .
Again , it would go back to the distinction between murder and killing . In Abraham's case it wouldn't be . In the case of you going out giving yourself your own command to kill without justification , then bam , murder .Abraham was stopped from doing it without dying in the process, you, in the hypothetical example, were not.. I say you're both equally guilty to murder (that is, not guilty to murder, only to the *intent*)
Again , look at the man who fell on the grenade to save his fellows . God allowed Jesus to make a sacrifice , not a suicide .I suppose I shouldn't have brought up an example from the bible :/
but now that you bring up this, I really can't resist
..Do you think God is a murderer for *intending* to have Jesus die as a sacrifice for man's sin?
It's semantics . We're not talking about a subjective evaluation of the situation because this is not a courtroom example , it is an ethical one . That is to say that we can assign perfect variables : i.e. if someone was intending the murder , he was going to go through with it without some last minute doubt . Since this isn't a court room , we can set the stage for a moral judgment . In this case , he would morally be a murderer whether he had the power to do it or not because the intent and the attempt is enough ...And a distinction I believe doesn't exist.. You're NOT morally a murderer, you ARE despicable for intending a murder though. (if you were to save one person, would it be the murderer, or the one who never actually commited a murder, even if he tried)
For all we know, the intended victim got the chance to grab a weapon because the one intending murder had doubts at the last second, staying his hand for just long enough.
However , it must be understood that assignment of terms is tenuous considering not just the language barrier but that we're basically talking of the same thing . The reason why it's so easy for a lot of people to shy away from the moral category is because we are thinking of the consequences . That is , we know that attempted murder is less punished than actual murder in our court systems . But does that negate the STATE of the person ? Because if the person who stabs a friend in the heart but the knife slips out of his hand at the last minute and all he does is strike his friend in the chest with his fist , if that knife had been there he would have indeed been a murderer in act . Thus , the state of the man is that of a murderer , whereas the physical conditions did not permit it so .
[/quote]
...Remind me who defined "sin of pride"![]()
The Ultimate Reality . i.e. God . Since we know the Fall predates the creation of the institutional Church , pride was defined well before that . You cannot accuse the natural world of being university of cambridge-centric just because it so happens that cambridge comes out with a lot of scientific studies . the natural world and its science/order existed beforehand and thus learning institutions merely attempt to convey what reality is already there .
I don't know, maybe God PREFERS people who actually think for themselves what needs to happen, and then do some magic incantation intended to do exactly that.
Sr. José, admittedly, does not literally label magic as bad, and miracles as good, but the suggestion is certainly there (through the usage of some words qualifying or accompanying one or the other)
Of course God wants people to think for themselves , it's why we have Free Will . Let me put it in this example . If you were on a car trip with your friend . You know the road to the left will lead off a cliff and the road to the right will lead to the town you guys are going to . Your friend asks you for directions . You can exercise your free will and say 'go to the left' . However , it would have consequences that we bring unto ourselves . Thus , it is not that God doesn't want people to think for themselves , it's that He wants them to choose what is best .
(also, "grrr" for making me take up the discussion again)
I'm not forcing you to do anything... But I would say that calling him/her a she in the situation where you know Marcus doesn't appreciate being called she, you are pestering, in that it does her/him harm.
The other way round, calling Marcus a he, causes neither any harm.
(if it DOES do you harm to use 'he', Marcus is ofcourse also pestering you by putting you in the situation where you must chose)
If you were doing drugs and I told you "don't do drugs , ForzaA , it's bad for you" and you get annoyed with me , who would be right ? If you were a rapist and i jailed you and it annoyed and pestered you . Who would be right ?
Pleasing people should not be the basis of morality .
Incognitia said:What price free will, when God has planned from the beginning of time which miracles will be required, when and where? That scale of knowledge covers every one of your thoughts, words and deeds from cradle to grave...and if every decision you will make is known in advance, every choice you are faced with gives you less actual choice than the famous "offer he can't refuse".
This is, I will admit, a broader issue I have with the Christian faith, in fact any system of thought attempting to reconcile omniscience with free will...and of course doesn't detract from my enjoyment of the story, given that he's a Catholic character giving an explanation from that perspective.
Still bothers me though.
This too I had trouble with when I was first learning about Christianity , but it is not that hard to reason one intuitively . Just because a being knows what we will choose does not mean that we are not free agents . Let me give you a bad analogy (b/c as they said in one of the Ecumenical councils , any analogy we make of the Divine is MORE false than it is True considering the nature of what we're trying to describe) .
You must realize that God exists outside of linear time . If you think of space as X and Y (we'll reduce space to 2 dimensions for the sake of argument) and time as Z , our universe (if -- let's also assume in a big bang/big crunch model for expediency) would look like a football . That is , the universe would start as a point , would slowly expand as Z goes from 0 to Omega time . It would slowly contract after its largest point and then collapse again at time Omega .
Human beings experience the universe one point at a time and we make decisions at each point in time . We also experience space in a limited capacity . Our actions help to CREATE the universe . Our free will actions shape the world around us and ourselves .
Now , God is outside of Time so he would be able to see the entirety of existence immediately and for eternity . God is not living life out one moment at a time . He lives in the Eternal Now . There is no past and present for him . It's as if (again , insufficient analogies coming) he can hold the entire universe like a football and be able to see every part of it because for him , all of time is already PRESENT to him .
Thus , God is present at every single point of existence and can see it . However , although he does give us grace to give us the ability to perform actions that we will , God's omniscience is NOT the cause of our actions . RATHER , our actions inform his omniscience . It's not that God "knows our future" as if he was standing in our present time right now . Rather , we have shown him our future by him being with us at every moment and forever . A bit hard to grasp at first so I'll also attach this stuff from wiki that talk about logic stuff:
wiki said:One criticism of the Argument from Free Will is that point 4 of the proof it simply assumes that foreknowledge and free will are incompatible. It uses circular logic to "prove" this, by simply stating that "a being that knows its choices in advance has no potential to avoid its choices". Point 4 is therefore saying, in essence, "A being that knows its choices in advance has no free will, and therefore has no free will". By assuming what it is trying to prove, that point undermines the entire argument.
Specifically, point 4 commits the modal fallacy of assuming that because some choice is known to be true, it must be necessarily true (i.e. there is no way it could possibly be false).[10] This fallacy is most easily demonstrated by an example that has nothing to do with omniscience: While it is true that a person has one brother and one sister, it is not necessarily true. For example, it is possible that that person could have had two brothers, or two sisters, or no siblings at all. Logically, the truth value of some proposition can not be used to infer that the same proposition is necessarily true.
Using logical terminology and applying it to AFFW, there is a marked distinction between the statement “It is impossible (for God to know a future action to be true and for that action to not occur)” and the statement “If God knows that a future action is true, then it is impossible for that action to not occur.” While the two statements may seem to say the same thing, they are not logically equivalent. The second sentence is false because it commits the modal fallacy of saying that a certain action is impossible, instead of saying that the two propositions (God knows a future action to be true, and that action does not occur) are jointly impossible. Simply asserting that God knows a future action does not make it impossible for that action not to occur. The confusion comes in mistaking a semantic relation between two events for a causal relation between two events.
With these assumptions more explicitly stated, the proof becomes:
1. Assume that person X has free will (assumption).
2. By the definition of free will, at any point in time, X can choose to do any action A, where A belongs to A(T), the set of all actions that X is physically capable of at time T (definition of free will).
3. At time T, person X will choose to do action A (i.e. a person can not logically choose to do both A and not A) (Law of the Excluded Middle).
4. Assume that an omniscient God exists (assumption).
5. By the definition of omniscience, God knows everything that will happen at any point in time (definition of omniscience).
6. From 3. and 5., God knows that at time T, person X will choose to do action A (logical conclusion).
7. Therefore, person X must do action A at time T.
This claims to prove that at time T, person X is unable to do any action other than A. However, you could also remove steps 4–6, and arrive at the same conclusion. This is called logical determinism, and it suffers from the same modal fallacy as AFFW. If a certain proposition is true, that does not imply that the proposition is logically necessary. Once you remove the invalid assertion, then the argument for logical determinism is shown to be false. Similarly, when that same invalid assertion is removed from AFFW (“by the definitions of ‘knowledge’ and ‘choice’, if one knows for certain what choice one will make in the future, one will not be able to make the opposite choice”), the proof is shown to be false.[11]
Another common criticism of AFFW argues that the apparent contradiction arises from an attempt to attribute temporal attributes to an atemporal idea or being. In this view, God exists beyond the constraints of linear time, and the temporal terminology used by AFFW is meaningless when applied to him: God doesn't need to know any event "before" it happens but rather is capable of knowing/experiencing it "while" it happens, since God’s knowledge extends beyond linear time. In that case, God would appear (from a temporal perspective) to know an event before it happens, as stated in AFFW.
AFFW proponents respond that the above argument does not change the contradiction. They claim that omniscience by definition means that God has knowledge of all human events of all human times, even if God's own relationship to time is entirely different from ours.
A counter-argument to the above argument is that God’s knowledge is a result of the free-will agent's choice, not the cause of it, and therefore no contradiction exists (whether God is temporal or atemporal).
One could reply that cause and result are two ends of a relation, and we recognize which is which by their time order (or at least logical sequence, i.e. the prerequisites), since cause is what takes place earlier than the result. However, making this claim ignores the central concept behind omniscience, where the effect (knowledge of an action) specifically and deliberately precedes the cause (the action itself). It would be erroneous to ascribe normal, temporal cause-effect relationships to the case of omniscience.
Omniscience and Free Will are specifically things I will be addressing thematically in Timelines . And I think that it will be something both grand and fun to do . It's one of the reasons I don't mind talking about it because it is indeed a structural element that's weaved into the work for the reader to ascertain and so a question would be , what does Timelines tell you so far about the nature of free will and time etc .
VILenin: This is very true . Let's try to keep it less about random opinions on otherwise good topics and focus on those topics that are more pertinent to the text . I am more than willing to talk privately with anyone , though ^^