And that's the problem. God is all powerful and created each and every human (directly: Adam and Eve, indirectly: every other human). Saying that God saves those who he loves means that he purposefully created some humans so he can love them, and created other humans so he can dislike them, and then punish them. In this case, the punished ones are completely innocent. They didn't ask to be created in the first place, it was a decision out of their control. From God's viewpoint, he simply created these people just so he can punish them.
Is the Christian sin/salvation set-up basically immoral?
-
- Posts: 25
- Joined: October 16th, 2019, 3:32 am
Re: Is the Christian sin/salvation set-up basically immoral?
-
- Posts: 307
- Joined: August 31st, 2012, 6:21 pm
Re: Is the Christian sin/salvation set-up basically immoral?
Why do you keep calling God "He?"Mlw wrote: ↑October 21st, 2019, 1:52 pm No, we are not predestined to doing whatever we are doing. Predestination means that the elect will be saved whatever they choose to do, even if they are sinful. The point is that the Holy Spirit works through the will of humans to accomplish salvation. (Human beings have a degree of free will.) Some Lutherans, however, believe that salvation is predestined for those who seek God.
We don't really know what predestination means, and the doctrine hardly affects our way of life. It's pure theology. God is a personal and a loving God. He saves those who He loves. That's how I see it.
Your analogy about predestination shows lack of understanding of the basic conventional Characteristics of God.
From the Christian viewpoint, there is no-one predestined for anywhere. It is entirely up to one.
Predetermined future would be inconsistent with the events and teachings in the Bible and God is not supposed to contradict itself.
-
- Posts: 307
- Joined: August 31st, 2012, 6:21 pm
Re: Is the Christian sin/salvation set-up basically immoral?
- stefan22x
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 2
- Joined: May 4th, 2022, 7:38 am
Re: Is the Christian sin/salvation set-up basically immoral?
I would argue that knowing what is going to happen is not the same as predestine what is going to happen.
If I know a person will do X in the next second. Do I intervene with his free will or do I simply know what is going to happen?
Why is this distinction important? Because if everything you do is predestined, you have no free will and are not responsible for your action and therefore should not be punished for your actions. BUT if you have free will and choose to do "bad" things it is just to be punished.
The argument goes basically down to: If I know what you will do, do you have free will?
I'd say you still have. I am open for discussion
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7940
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Is the Christian sin/salvation set-up basically immoral?
It depends on your meaning of "know". If you mean "successfully predict", then that is consistent with Free Will. If you really mean "know", then that is true predetermination which is not consistent with Free Will.stefan22x wrote: ↑May 4th, 2022, 8:37 amI would argue that knowing what is going to happen is not the same as predestine what is going to happen.
If I know a person will do X in the next second. Do I intervene with his free will or do I simply know what is going to happen?
Why is this distinction important? Because if everything you do is predestined, you have no free will and are not responsible for your action and therefore should not be punished for your actions. BUT if you have free will and choose to do "bad" things it is just to be punished.
The argument goes basically down to: If I know what you will do, do you have free will?
I'd say you still have. I am open for discussion
- stefan22x
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 2
- Joined: May 4th, 2022, 7:38 am
Re: Is the Christian sin/salvation set-up basically immoral?
I have some problems with this approach. If I know (as truly know) that person X is going to do Y, by your logic he is predetermined to do Y and has therefore no free will. Just because I know that he is going to do it. This means that his free will or predetermination is dependent on my knowledge.
If I don't know what he is going to do, he has his free will, right?
Following this logic: As long as nobody truly knows what you're going to do, you have free will. But when someone starts to truly know your next move and things you will do, you have no free will anymore. Even when you don't know this someone or what his thought is.
With this in mind, I'd come to the conclusion that if we hypothetically one day create a computer with an algorithm (and database) so powerful, that it can calculate the next move of a child, would this mean, that this child has no free will anymore? The people before the computer all had free will (in this example) but this child does not because a computer truly knows his next move? So when we shut down the computer, the child get his free will again?
I'd say truly knowing someones destiny is not removing the free will of this person, as the persons freely chooses to go his own way.
I would say that it is predetermination if person X truly knows from the computer his wife will be person Y but can not change his destiny. But if he does not know it, he would choose person Y as his wife in following his free will.
What is your thought about this? Have I missed something or misunderstood you?
- Leontiskos
- Posts: 695
- Joined: July 20th, 2021, 11:27 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle and Aquinas
Re: Is the Christian sin/salvation set-up basically immoral?
The key in these discussions is the means of knowledge. The naive approach to foreknowledge is to assume that the means of knowledge of future events is deterministic prediction, and this is why Lucky concludes that knowledge precludes free will. Yet Boethius overcame that naive paradigm long ago.stefan22x wrote: ↑May 5th, 2022, 5:59 amI have some problems with this approach. If I know (as truly know) that person X is going to do Y, by your logic he is predetermined to do Y and has therefore no free will. Just because I know that he is going to do it. This means that his free will or predetermination is dependent on my knowledge.
See, for example: Foreknowledge and Free Will | Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Socrates: He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7940
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Is the Christian sin/salvation set-up basically immoral?
Huh ? No, I don't mean that at all. Your red conclusion, doesn't follow from my premise. If someone has Free Will, they have choice in decision making, thus their brain's physical antecedent state A does NOT always lead to resultant state B (the decision). Therefore their decision is statistically unpredictable at least in part. Thus you cannot always "know" what they are going to do (if they have Free Will). This is true whether you try to make a prediction or not (it is entirely independent of your knowledge). The knowledge is the proof (after the fact), not the cause.stefan22x wrote: ↑May 5th, 2022, 5:59 amI have some problems with this approach. If I know (as truly know) that person X is going to do Y, by your logic he is predetermined to do Y and has therefore no free will. Just because I know that he is going to do it. This means that his free will or predetermination is dependent on my knowledge.
If I don't know what he is going to do, he has his free will, right?
Following this logic: As long as nobody truly knows what you're going to do, you have free will. But when someone starts to truly know your next move and things you will do, you have no free will anymore. Even when you don't know this someone or what his thought is.
With this in mind, I'd come to the conclusion that if we hypothetically one day create a computer with an algorithm (and database) so powerful, that it can calculate the next move of a child, would this mean, that this child has no free will anymore? The people before the computer all had free will (in this example) but this child does not because a computer truly knows his next move? So when we shut down the computer, the child get his free will again?
I'd say truly knowing someones destiny is not removing the free will of this person, as the persons freely chooses to go his own way.
I would say that it is predetermination if person X truly knows from the computer his wife will be person Y but can not change his destiny. But if he does not know it, he would choose person Y as his wife in following his free will.
What is your thought about this? Have I missed something or misunderstood you?
So knowing proves the absence of Free Will, but not knowing doesn't prove anything, though it is consistent with Free Will (it could also be consistent with Determinism and even Predetermination, assuming that the understanding upon which the unsuccessful attempt at knowing was based was inadequate).
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023