The concept of free-will is a theological construction of men, and is not grounded in scriptures. Its purpose is to white-wash our deep questions about, and anger towards, God, and on the rebound, to blame poor Adam, and his lovely wife Eve...hello justice???

But how can a builder create something new, and leave no imprint of himself? Absurd! Any attempt, evasion, or tact the builder may take to create an organism with a free-wheeling decision maker is simply another expression of the builder himself. But God doesn't even employ what Christians say He did. He just simply asserts, I made them in my image so there you have it.

Now I'm not saying that man can't make decisions because we all know he can and does. But what I am saying is that every decision that man's decision maker makes flows out of the combination of biases built into his neural connections (who formed this man in the womb?) in conjunction with the environment (which by the way, God also made and has control over). And so God made the world, made the tree, made Adam and Eve, made their predispositions and vulnerabilities, made everything about them, and when they made the "right" choice which everyone person ever born would have made, who are you going to blame? ...the man in the moon? I call it the "right" choice because it was pre-planned from the get-go.

Well, this is a walk down COG memory lane. It seems we have had these discussions before. If I make a robot, then everything that robot does is attributable to me. If I deceive myself and try to make it so smart that it appears to have a will of its own, all I'm doing is merely taking more of myself (as designer) and burying it in the robot.

It is possible to create something which has a decision-making device and can make decisions (ostensibly), but it is impossible to give it "free-will" because everything you try (without exception) will still by your imprint, your thoughts, your ideas, as the designer.

And as if we can delude ourselves and believe that God didn't intend for man to fall, He then informs us that Christ was slain before the foundations of the world to clinch the case against Christians and against the travesty of free will.


A precious, sacred, and unalterable law of the universe is that authority = responsibility. The purpose of free will and blaming man instead of God is to break this formula. If you want to put God back on the throne, then hold Him responsible for His own creation...and by this, I'm not speaking of some piddley piss-ant salvation plan that saves a hand-full of self-righteous religious people and consigns billions to a divine eternal barbecue.

Scott, I sort of think you are missing the meaning of "free will"

of course God's image is planted in man, he (man) being the creature instead of the creator. As such man needs a compass or a 'manual" for properly operating the 'machine'.

Many people corrupt the machine from it's intended purpose.

Not long ago a son of mine had a Kawasaki 500 water cooled dirt bike. He put it up for sale and the buyer made it clear that the intention was to destroy the bike, and just take the engine and add it to his race go-cart.

Well that is a corruption of the intention of the creator, for that engine. And it's corruption was done by the freewill of another.

So man is intended to do a thing by it's creator, and for a happy and blessed, not to mention "long" life, he will do it God's way.


But God allows us to do it another way! For we are free to do as it pleases us! We can live our lives anyway we want!





May God richly Bless your day!

No Fred, I understand all that. The Base commander is responsible for what happens on his base, period. You have a lot of thinking to do.

Fred, you have just given a real good excuse for the fact that God is not sovereign. Either the designer should have made the machine robust enough for its environment, or the designer should take authority over the environment. Fred, do you actually think I have not seen and understood it your way? Your way is common.

Scott, God is not sovereign over the creation, he deeded the right to sovereignty over to man

Ge 1:26* And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

I have pieces of real estate, in the sale I deed the right to the land over to the buyer.

I bought one once but the seller picked on my employees, not liking the improvements i was having the employees do.

His mom lived on the property, so he had a reason to come on there. Also he was carrying the paper on the mortgage. I finally told him he was not to inspect the property without a written 30 day notice, and then he was to give any findings he had concerns he was to put them in writing.


I told him if he ever even spoke to my employees about the maintenance I could file suit for harassment. He relinquished sovereignty upon sale, and only held a security interest in the property.


God is simply not sovereign over man except the man himself allows him to be, because he willed the sovereignty over

May God richly Bless your day!

I'm sorry Fred. Your God is not worthy of respect but of condemnation. Your own instincts tell you this. It is unlawful to hand "sovereignty" over to minors. It is unlawful and unethical to hand control over to individuals who lack proper training and experience. If one hands control to unqualified people and they wreck it, YOU are responsible not them. Please Fred, try to think outside your box. We are speaking of natural law here. If you handed your household over to five-year olds with explicit instructions on how to run it, you would go to prison. Please Fred, think with me for a moment.

You cannot get around this fact. If parents handled their children with the same results that Christians say that God handles us, their children would be removed by the state. The state doesn't politely inquire if the children received proper instruction of right and wrong (don't eat of that tree) but only look at the end result. Death and condemnation coming to all the sons of Adam is a bad result. If there was a bigger God than God, there would be dire consequences for this disaster, i.e., the Christian view that most will burn in hell eternally.

Scott, whether or not I or you like it, that is the way it was, at least according to the scripture.

he told them not to "eat" and they ate anyway. But they did so after sovereignty was granted.


Now if you and your wife kick the bucket, your kids are subject to the whims of whoever their protectors are, until such a time as they are legally old enough. After that they are on their own.

I have a big pile to leave to the kids, and i have little or no say after I am planted in the ground what they do with it. Several generations down the road if any is left, may well be used to fight principles I am for. But that is the nature of the beast.

Your God is not worthy of respect but of condemnation. Your own instincts tell you this.

No Scott, I like the way God has it set up, but whether or not I like it, my contempt wont change it.






May God richly Bless your day!

Scott, you seem to have selective thinking disorder. Do your comments stand the test for all people? This is taken from your opening message.

“But what I am saying is that every decision that man's decision maker makes flows out of the combination of biases built into his neural connections (who formed this man in the womb?) in conjunction with the environment (which by the way, God also made and has control over). And so God made the world, made the tree, made Adam and Eve, made their predispositions and vulnerabilities, made everything about them, and when they made the "right" choice which everyone person ever born would have made, who are you going to blame? ...the man in the moon?”

Who did you blame? Rosalee? Ministers? God?





“I call it the "right" choice because it was pre-planned from the get-go.”

Really? That’s what you now say about your wife choosing to leave you? That’s fascinatingly weird.





“It is possible to create something which has a decision-making device and can make decisions (ostensibly), but it is impossible to give it "free-will" because everything you try (without exception) will still by your imprint, your thoughts, your ideas, as the designer.”

Using your thought pattern, your home was your creation and your responsibility. Your wife is God’s creation and responsibility. So who you going to blame?

<<< he told them not to "eat" and they ate anyway. But they did so after sovereignty was granted. >>>

Ok Fred, how would God view this if you did to your children exactly what He did to His, i.e., you leave untrained, under-age, vulnerable, gullible children in your house with a manual that says "do this, don't do that", and then you come home to the train wreck. Try telling the Sheriff and social worker that you gave them proper instructions and see if that gets you off the hook. You are judged not by your instructions towards your children (the law could care less about that), but you are judged by your JUDGEMENT regarding the capacities of your children to follow instructions. Do you not get this, yes/no?

I guess what I'm saying is that I only agree with the bible if the bible agrees with intrinsic natural law. If the bible violates natural law, then I will reject it as a sacred book in the same way that I would reject the Koran or what ever. No book has diplomatic immunity. It either better have answers for broken humanity, or it goes out the window, pronto! If the bible teaches that authority does not equal responsibility, then the bible is either misunderstood, or is a fraud.

Fred, I've mentioned this before, but perhaps should say it again. I believe in God, but I don't believe in many people's gods who have been created in their own image. Check your old testament. There is a example of a prophet of the living God mocking the prophets of Baal who cannot and will not save.

The general concept and philosophy of this thread starts to get changed or come into question when one abandons religious prayers and starts to pray in their closet. Because closet prayers are like this: Lord bear with me till I can overcome, if you don't help me I will utterly fail, I can't bear this any longer, how can I endure this Lord, Lord I cannot face that, Lord give me grace and vision to see my way out of this terrible mess I'm in, and such prayers. Most other prayers are selfish and religious. But according to Scott we should instead be showing God his errors, and holding his feet to the fire, all to put God back on his throne in the name of tough love. I'm already warning you that I can't say it as clear as I see it, but if we are "gods" and can become like Christ and live like and with God, then we begin to accuse ourselves with the like philosophy of this thread, are dethroned ourselves, and the mice of men are holding our feet to the fire.

Scott I'm not necessarily accusing you here, because I'm just saying what you're saying, or just showing what you're saying in another way. So don't say I'm not seeing everything or anything like it. I was questioning religious doctrine and theology and showing the imprint of God down to a gopher in a hole and the mouse dropping under a stove, and even went as far to say that the shape of a turd was perfect with God, long before you or anyone else on these forums was, and was mocked and ridicule for it, but endured it patiently, and was trying to get around people like Lark that was trying to corner me when I wrote that Hitler's government and like governments and religious governments like the Holdeman's were ordained by God without showing to much spiritualness before people were able to receive it and digest it.

Even this evening I'm not going to show all I've seen on this matter, but will show one point to show I have other things under my belt, and that point is, that if all things are pure, that that's already a leverage for God {not that he needs one} against the reality of his sovereign authority being unsealed and revealed in the world today, which is part of all things hid to be shown in the right time. Just think about how all things pure, frees God. If one don't believe in the purity of things, that's a religious belief, and they question God, which in my books is just another religious belief and error.

It is true the religious do protect and hide the errors of their gods, never holding their god's feet to the fire which will prove them wanting and being the tryers one step closer to the Living God every time they knock down one of their pet gods. But when you go far enough in this, you eventually see there's a God you can't hold his feet to the fire, though you are equipped more than ever with wisdom, knowledge and understanding to do it because of all your past wars and your growing skill in soldiermanship, and that apparently sound philosophy will also give you the green light to do it and accuse the Living God.

There much to say on this matter, so maybe more later.

Brent

Brent, remember, I believe in the restoration of all things. So at rock bottom, none of this accusing applies to my God. If I blaspheme and accuse, it is against a god that never existed, but I bring up these points hopeless to reconcile with justice just to get people thinking, but apparently, that if very hard to do. Believe me, I am not asking a serious question for my self here, and I really don't mind holding an imaginary god's feet to the fire.

But even in my world, I am still perplexed why God allows so much temporary injustice, and it is injustice because my sense of justice tells me so and I got that from God, and therefore my sense of justice agrees with God's sense of justice, and if it didn't, we could never fellowship or be in agreement.

Scott,

Don't misunderstand me, you were right when you said God is responsible for everything in this world and universe. But what I was challenging, it appeared you were on a fast track to another religious belief, because nothing can sneak up on God, and everything was planned just like it is, and that if there's a God in this all, we shouldn't work up our self righteousness, but know our self righteousness was part of the plan to deceive us as a buffer against just having things handed to us which would decrease meaning in the world, and apparently God didn't want to do it that way. So there is contradictions, tricks up the sleeves, and apparent inconsistencies and religion to bring drama and all the abundant thoughts and works into the world to show the great wealth of God. Without any of it the world would be less than it is now and headed toward a more mundane and so so world. Look around you and what you love and thrive on. If something of the world was taken away, it would start to make what we love less meaningful. Even if the Holdemans were out of the picture the world would not be as wealthy as it is. Every cell, every mouse dropping, every error, beauty, hate, is all in the plan. Our job is not to accuse the plan but to reconciling it. Accusing the plan is religion. But religion is in the plan too. So reconcile, reconcile, reconcile. Or fade, fade and fade into more and more religion and unbelief.

Jesus said he prayed not to take us out of this world but to send us into the world.

Scott, what I wrote above is also a good start on true love. One has to learn to receive, not blame, and thereby grow spiritually.

Brent

If the bible teaches that authority does not equal responsibility

Scott, you quote this maxim quite often, but I am not convinced it is a naturally true statement.


Sovereignty equals unlimited liability, but not necessarily "authority=responsibility"

Think this through for if authority = responsibility then all evil in the land would fall to the authority of the land, instead of the sovereign.

on another note:

I let my 14 year old buy a pellet gun yesterday, but if he shoots at the building, or one of the animals, I will take it away and the gun will be mine.

I loaned another boy the remainder of the purchase price for a property, another the remainder for a car.

Now will they pay me back? will the responsibility to be careful with the gun hold? Who knows?

I give them a chance, and then then pick up the pieces when they fail.

If you don't do this with people in your life, I feel sorry for them. But I trust everyone i chose to contract with, and give them the benefit of the doubt till proven unworthy.


So God gave our first father a chance, and he well knew he would fail, but he picked up the pieces and fixed them by sacrificing his son to fix it for those who beleive.

May God richly Bless your day!

Fred, of all people, I depend upon you to discern and embrace natural law, which in the long run, is God's true law.

You wrote: Sovereignty equals unlimited liability, but not necessarily "authority=responsibility"

but your argument fails at the outset because Sovereignty is merely a stronger form of authority, and liability is an interchangeable term for responsibility.

If you look carefully at your argument above, it takes this form: A = B, but not a = b, where the Capital versions are merely stronger. I'm not buying that!


Actually, the proportionality of authority and responsibility is always true on a sliding scale. For example, the parent has total authority over, and total responsibility for an infant. At eighteen years old, the parent has much less authority over, and much less responsibility for them.

To me it is clear. A world in which one can "boss" someone else around, but then suffer no accountability for the consequences of this "bossing" is only demonstrated in one context, and that context is under the regime of fascist tyrants. In fact, the more I look at it carefully, the more I understand that the underlying MO of a fascist tyrant which is so destructive to the people boils down to breaking the relationship of responsibility and authority. Fred, you are on dangerous ground with this one.



<<< Think this through for if authority = responsibility then all evil in the land would fall to the authority of the land, instead of the sovereign. >>>>

I'm sorry, I don't understand your point here well enough to refute or agree.

I believe the point Scott is bringing forward is his position on the final destiny of man. That is, that God made man and He will finally restore Him to eternal life as initially in the Garden of Eden. I understand Scott has no dispute about man being able to make choices of his own, and that that when we make bad choices in life we will suffer the consequences. When we make good choices in life we will have a better life then if we make bad choices. If I understand this... this is natural law. We cannot be sloppy in life and expect the house to be clean and organized.

Scott has his view on punishment and restoration that hell will bring to all individuals who reject Christ, but sees this as a temporary interval before heaven. His concept of God is that God did not (would not) create man with the ability to sin and then hold man eternally responsible for that created "possibility to mess-up". This is the way Scott reads the Bible and understands God. And, in Christendom he is not alone in his beliefs.

I hope Scott is right because that does seem to put a kinder loving face on God. However attractive this may look, such a face is really only necessary to such that do not know Jesus Christ. Those who know the kindness and mercy of God through Christ already fully view the love and kindness God has for His creation. They fully experience the sure hope of eternal life and rest in the redeeming grace of the blood of Jesus Christ. For believers, the final correct answer to the question discussed here is neither here nor there. God has promised eternal redemption to those who are in Christ. This is the crux and the love of the gospel... and it is enough for me.

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life." John 3:16