I have heard this banal and benign statement several times, and I must reiterate it for the sake of discussion, if not to ease my own sense of insanity.

No man has ever been controlled by God. The idea that God is used to "keep people in line" is a complete and utter farce, irrational and ludicrous to the point of being irresponsible and shameful, with literally no justification whatsoever.

There has never been a man in the course of human history that has ever done something against his own will that could justifiably be blamed on God. The idea of celestial tyranny, a nightmare though it may be, remains just that: a mirage that dissolves at the first hint of illumination.

[EDIT: Grammatical error]

[This message has been edited by Tyrant (edited 02-08-2005).]

quote:The idea that God is used to "keep people in line" is a complete and utter farce, irrational and ludicrous to the point of being irresponsible and shameful, with literally no justification whatsoever.

What do you mean by "keep them in line"? Used by those in power as a tool for securing their power, and in some cases acquiring more?

quote:There has never been a man in the course of human history that has ever done something against his own will that could justifiably be blamed on God.

Why not? The moment I exist, I am completely coerced into believing in god, since if I do not believe in him, I will be punished. How then can that be free will, when there is the underlying and unavoidable threat to my life restraining my decisions?

* Note that this is in regards to the Jude-Christian belief of god. I'm not sure which definition you're using here, since you didn't clarify.

That has nothing to do with God controlling people. If you force your child to believe what you believe that is your free choice, same as it was the free choice of those who forced you into their religion.

Religion has forever been used in politics to gain power, that also cannot be considered the manipulation of God, but rather the manipulation of the people by an institution that supposedly **'represents' the will of God.



**I put a note on 'represents' because they are the self-proclaimed representatives, and so in no way do they have the ability to derive the will of God.

Tyrant - well done you.

This is pretty much why most religions about GOD came into being, to praise him for the gift of freedom, and choice.

though if you'll read in exodous (i think) pharoah, who would not let the people go - got into a right mess. im not sure wether god hardened his heart, so that he wouldnt let them go - because the story of the escape from egypt is very powerful and has some deep meanings in it - im not sure either way on this one tho?!?!

Tyrant, I've discussed this with a friend several times (the "control" issue being one of the primary reasons I don't hold a religion), and he's able to make a logical jump I can't do. Maybe you can clarify.

God controls people because He can see the future. If He knows what will happen in the future, He controls it, to some degree. Because if I tell you "as soon as you walk out of your house I'm going to shoot you," isn't that control? Yes, it is. It's an influencing factor on your decision to leave the house = control.

My friend stated that because we still retain the choice (in general, but in specific choosing Christianity), it is free will. This ties into Rust's argument, but as you can see it's a little bit different.

Can you give me some logic on how God knowing the future still allows complete free will? I really can't see it.

Rust:

What do you mean by "keep them in line"? Used by those in power as a tool for securing their power, and in some cases acquiring more?

That's Christianity. A religion. Not God.

Why not? The moment I exist, I am completely coerced into believing in god, since if I do not believe in him, I will be punished. How then can that be free will, when there is the underlying and unavoidable threat to my life restraining my decisions?

Because you can either acquiesce to Christian demands to ease the tension, or defy them to keep your dignity. The choice is yours. And neither is a genuine reflection of what God truly is (according to any religion).

* Note that this is in regards to the Jude-Christian belief of god. I'm not sure which definition you're using here, since you didn't clarify.

Granted, my definition is separate from the creeds of the Three Mountains (Sinai, Golgotha, and Hira), but my personal definition is ultimately irrelevant, because the circumstance is universal.

severance and deptstoremook:

This is pretty much why most religions about GOD came into being, to praise him for the gift of freedom, and choice.

God controls people because He can see the future. If He knows what will happen in the future, He controls it, to some degree. Because if I tell you "as soon as you walk out of your house I'm going to shoot you," isn't that control? Yes, it is. It's an influencing factor on your decision to leave the house = control.

My friend stated that because we still retain the choice (in general, but in specific choosing Christianity), it is free will. This ties into Rust's argument, but as you can see it's a little bit different.

Can you give me some logic on how God knowing the future still allows complete free will? I really can't see it.

My point wasn't necessarily to address the omnipotence vs. free will argument I see frequently, but more of the direction Rust was taking it to, in terms of blaming God for what men do.

I do, however, find it fruitless to discuss such things. Mankind obviously has free will. The things I do on a daily basis, though representative of one aspect of my spirituality or another, are consciously and willfully dedicated to that spirituality, as can be said of anyone who freely and consciously devotes his actions to a consecrated effort.

Granted, it's clear that some people simply don't have a will to exert, and merely trudge along open paths like a herd of confused zombies. This is not, however, God's fault.

quote:The moment I exist, I am completely coerced into believing in god, since if I do not believe in him, I will be punished. How then can that be free will, when there is the underlying and unavoidable threat to my life restraining my decisions?

Rust, consider that you are a walking personification of "free will", since you have the ability to reject the manipulation and control that the entity of God can potentially have on your life.

You choose to entertain the threat (which means you have placed yourself under that control, of your own free will), or you don't (which means you have exhibited free will as well).

The word "coercion" suggests (if not proves) that you chose to be convinced one way or another.

See what I mean ?

Nice topic, Tyrant. Very different.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Rust, consider that you are a walking personification of "free will", since you have the ability to reject the manipulation and control that the entity of God can potentially have on your life.

You choose to entertain the threat (which means you have placed yourself under that control, of your own free will), or you don't (which means you have exhibited free will as well).

The word "coercion" suggests (if not proves) that you chose to be convinced one way or another.

See what I mean ?

Digital, you are incorrect. See my gunshot analogy in my first post. It is not free will if there are certain universal consequences; I have the free will to jump out of a window, but it is affected by certain implications, such as gravity, and as such is not free will. That's the argument.

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:



That's Christianity. A religion. Not God.



A Religion which uses god for those purposes.

You said, "The idea that God is used to 'keep people in line' is a complete and utter farce". Thus, if a religion does so, then god is being used to "keep people in line".

quote:

Because you can either acquiesce to Christian demands to ease the tension, or defy them to keep your dignity. The choice is yours. And neither is a genuine reflection of what God truly is (according to any religion).

The choices are not only restricted by religion, but the choice is done under threat! That's not free will, or at the very least, not a definition of free will that holds any weight.

The equivalent of claiming a man that has a gun to his head has "free will".

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Rust, consider that you are a walking personification of "free will", since you have the ability to reject the manipulation and control that the entity of God can potentially have on your life.

You choose to entertain the threat (which means you have placed yourself under that control, of your own free will), or you don't (which means you have exhibited free will as well).

The word "coercion" suggests (if not proves) that you chose to be convinced one way or another.

See what I mean ?

The point is, I would have as much "free will" as a man with a gun to his head has.

Free will looses any and all meaning when you're coerced to do something. It looses its weight, since the ability to choose, the back bone of free will, is being attacked by this coercion.

This is exactly why modern judicial systems do not hold contracts done under the threat of force as legally binding.

I personaly feel that if there actualy is a god then when i die and go up to him he wont blame me for not belive because of the shit represntation he has at the moment. (or at any moment)

I mean shit with all the child molesters and people forced to do things becaus of religion and all the people that have died over it even i dout that he would be happy with his representation.(Were saying that god ACTUALY does exist for the moment.)

And i mean that is a bit harsh for there are some christians that are nice and all but i still feel that christianity is evil.

And wouldnt it be funny if God hated the bible but couldnt get rid of it because of the whole free-will thing. He wouldnt look all mighty then would he.

Anyway just some ideas and thoughts sorry for the spelling.

quote:Originally posted by deptstoremook:

Digital, you are incorrect. See my gunshot analogy in my first post. It is not free will if there are certain universal consequences; I have the free will to jump out of a window, but it is affected by certain implications, such as gravity, and as such is not free will. That's the argument.

Since when do spiritual affects and implications nullify free will ?

Having the ability to see the future, which God has, does not rape us of our ability to make decisions.

We are not controlled. We experience consequences for our actions.

Please go tell the convicted neighborhood killer that he was not able to choose between killing and not killing.

That makes no sense.

By the way, you can say, "I do not agree with you.", but you cannot definitely say, "You are incorrect." since none of us TRULY know (based on proof), with any sort of factuality, what is going on.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

The point is, I would have as much "free will" as a man with a gun to his head has.

Free will looses any and all meaning when you're coerced to do something. It looses its weight, since the ability to choose, the back bone of free will, is being attacked by this coercion.

This is exactly why modern judicial systems do not hold contracts done under the threat of force as legally binding.

For the sake of the argument, let's just say that the "weight" of free will is, in fact, lost by coercion.

Does that mean free will is any less existent ?

Now, back to the way I see things...

God does not have any need to "coerce" us, or control us.

He desires a personal relationship with us, and He designed us and our universe to accomodate that desire.

He willed us into existence, and He determined that we would have free will, in order that our relationship with Him could be as meaningful as possible.

To limit God by saying that His intentions and ability to fulfill His desires is merely human perception.

To look upon what He says, does, and thinks with spirituality is the only way to see Him rightly.

By the way, Rust, I could see how you could perceive coercion as a technique of God in the Old Testament, but what about the New Testament, which is a gospel of love ?

How does coercion apply to a doctrine that practices and teaches "love" ?

Rust:

A Religion which uses god for those purposes.

You said, "The idea that God is used to 'keep people in line' is a complete and utter farce". Thus, if a religion does so, then god is being used to "keep people in line".

No, I meant, the actual God; not the one you have a fetish for hating.

The choices are not only restricted by religion, but the choice is done under threat! That's not free will, or at the very least, not a definition of free will that holds any weight.

The equivalent of claiming a man that has a gun to his head has "free will".

Why are you making an analogy based on exactly what I specified was NOT my concern? It is NOT the equivalent of claiming that man has free will if a gun is pointed to his head. The reason why:

God has never... ever... EVER put ANYTHING to ANYONE's head for ANY REASON.

(I know this was directed to DS, but I am compelled to reply):

Free will looses any and all meaning when you're coerced to do something. It looses its weight, since the ability to choose, the back bone of free will, is being attacked by this coercion.

Bullshit. Simply because you don't understand why you're doing something doesn't mean you played any smaller a part in choosing to do it.

Digital_Savior:

I changed my screen name recently, so I'll have to IM you when you're not online via your phone.

im black fuik your gods

This is on the verge of getting moved to Half Baked. But, you explain yourself well enough I'll let the other members decide.

Who thinks this should be moved to Half Baked?

Cheers,

Lost

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:



No, I meant, the actual God; not the one you have a fetish for hating.

Ohh! The Actual God! http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Sorry, but to claim that god has not been used as such, is to claim you know which god it is in the first place, which you do not. Debate was possible before, since I was talking of a general view of gods, which included all interpretations of him, but now, how is debate even possible? How can I debate this, when you arbitrarily decide which god it is? At that point the debate loses all meaning, since I'm certain that you wouldn't decide him to be a god that does the things you're debating in the first place!

In effect, you would be creating a strawman, and then destroying it. The equivalent of me saying, "I'm sick and tired of people saying George Bush is the president of the U.S. !", and the when presented with the fact that there is a George Bush that is president of the U.S., saying "No, I mean the actual George Bush, the hamster that lives in my basement."



quote:

Why are you making an analogy based on exactly what I specified was NOT my concern? It is NOT the equivalent of claiming that man has free will if a gun is pointed to his head. The reason why:

God has never... ever... EVER put ANYTHING to ANYONE's head for ANY REASON.

I was basing myself, like I already said, in the Judeo-Christian version of a god, which I argue DOES "hold a gun to your head", by forcing you to either choose him or not, and then coercing you to choose him, since if you don't, you're punished.

I cannot base myself on a god that even you have no way of knowing what he is! Again, the debate could only continue with a general concept of god, that included the interpretations of whim by man, through out history, one of which is the Judeo-Christian interpretation.

quote:

Bullshit. Simply because you don't understand why you're doing something doesn't mean you played any smaller a part in choosing to do it.

I never said anything about, "not understanding".

---------

Lost, I vote for leaving it here.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-09-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

For the sake of the argument, let's just say that the "weight" of free will is, in fact, lost by coercion.

Does that mean free will is any less existent ?

I believe so. How can someone believe free will still exists, when you're not completely free to choose, but are coerced in doing so, is beyond me.

quote:

Now, back to the way I see things...

God does not have any need to "coerce" us, or control us.

He desires a personal relationship with us, and He designed us and our universe to accomodate that desire.

He willed us into existence, and He determined that we would have free will, in order that our relationship with Him could be as meaningful as possible.

To limit God by saying that His intentions and ability to fulfill His desires is merely human perception.

To look upon what He says, does, and thinks with spirituality is the only way to see Him rightly.

By punishing us for not following him, he is coercing us, that's the point. I'm not arguing that he needs to do so, or what is the nature of the relationship he wants with us, or what are his intentions. The fact is, if I'm threathend with punishment for not following him, I am coerced to choose something, and thus there is no free will.

----



quote:By the way, Rust, I could see how you could perceive coercion as a technique of God in the Old Testament, but what about the New Testament, which is a gospel of love ?

How does coercion apply to a doctrine that practices and teaches "love" ?

The same would apply. The "New Testament version" of god, would still punish me (i.e. send me to hell) if I don't believe he is my Savior?, correct?

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-09-2005).]

LostCause:

Why would this be moved to Half-Baked?

Rust:

Your analogies don't work, your criticisms are limited to Christianity, and you misdirect blame for existential blight.

If you claim that neither of us do not know what God is, I'm certain that, with a relative amount of confidence, that you also believe that the people in religious institutions have an equally misguided perception of God.

You also reject the idea of a God forbidding you from free will.

From this, we can surmise that the figures in religious institutions, blind to any intention God may have, though imperceptible to man, act of their own free will.

Thus, the accusatory finger you wield, furious at the thought of coersion and subterfuge, can only be pointed at the men in religious institutions with any credibility, for these men exercise their own free will.

...Why do you still blame God?

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

Digital_Savior:

I changed my screen name recently, so I'll have to IM you when you're not online via your phone.

Ahhh...that explains a lot ! I was wondering if the disappearing trick was intentional. *lol*

You can simply add my screen name to your new Buddy List.

You are a smart guy (I know this much is true !), but do you need me to explain how to do that ? Their menu's are annoyingly over complicated.

Thanks for letting me know !

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

This is on the verge of getting moved to Half Baked. But, you explain yourself well enough I'll let the other members decide.

Who thinks this should be moved to Half Baked?

Cheers,

Lost

We're debating God.

Why would it be moved ?

I vote that it should stay here.

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

Your analogies don't work, your criticisms are limited to Christianity, and you misdirect blame for existential blight.

1. My analogies don't work? Why don't they work?

2. I already explained why I'm "limited to Christianity", which is not true at all I might add. Given that you have no clue what the "Actual" god is, then I have no other alternative but to take the concept of god as a general one, and base myself on common interpretations. This is the only way for fruitful debate, since the other alternative would be for you to define what the "actual" god is, and you as well as I know that you would not choose a god that would refute your initial argument!

quote:

If you claim that neither of us do not know what God is, I'm certain that, with a relative amount of confidence, that you also believe that the people in religious institutions have an equally misguided perception of God.

Correct.

quote:

You also reject the idea of a God forbidding you from free will.

Explain. If the Judeo-Christian god exists, then I don't have free will. Therefore, if he exists, I wouldn't be rejecting the idea of god forbidding me from free will.

quote:

From this, we can surmise that the figures in religious institutions, blind to any intention God may have, though imperceptible to man, act of their own free will.



See above. If god exists, the Judeo-Christian interpretation of god , then I don't have free will. This would apply to them.

quote:

Thus, the accusatory finger you wield, furious at the thought of coersion and subterfuge, can only be pointed at the men in religious institutions with any credibility, for these men exercise their own free will.

...Why do you still blame God?

You side-stepped the issue completely. The moment god punishes me for not following him, or threatens to do so, he is coercing me into following him, and thus I argue that I do not have free will, or at the very least not a definition of free will that holds any importance.

This has nothing to do with actions of man, but actions of god. Of course, once again, this is pertaining to an interpretation of god, which would punish me for not following him; since once again, I do not know what the "actual" god is, then the only recourse I have is to base myself on a general interpretation of god, and in doing so, take examples from predominant religions.

Even if we ignore all of this, you said "The idea that God is used to 'keep people in line' is a complete and utter farce,"

I need only show that God is being used to "keep people in line".

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-09-2005).]

It initially looked like a lot of Bitching and Moaning to me. But, that's why asked everyones opinion.

Cheers,

Lost