That's a red herring, since the situation with God isn't the same. Vice is punishment for itself, and virtue is reward in itself. If someone rapes, etc. then he will get punished, by other people, and by the damage his crime does on his own soul. People punish themselves, and its righteous that we are so constituted such that evil leads to destruction. — Agustino

Way to miss the point entirely, >:O

More substance please ;)

I asked you first.

I asked you first. — Heister Eggcart

I don't see a question.

To start with. I believe not in Free will. There, Luther was probably right. Secondly, saying "God is still God and you just a human " just contradicts Everything else you have Said. That is like saying "So what? No man if important. But immorality will still be punished ". A God who created the world just in order to act police. Can that really be Christ's message?

A God who created the world just in order to act police. Can that really be Christ's message? — Beebert

No, it's not at all just to act police. But Justice is part of Goodness.

I believe not in Free will. — Beebert

So if you don't believe in free will, then you refuse to accept the Christian conception of the world, and thus you cannot condemn the Christian God in good faith if you don't at least accept the framework of Christianity.

"So what? No man if important. But immorality will still be punished " — Beebert

Yeah, what's bad about punishing immorality? That sounds like something great to me.

I said according to your view, it seems like you say "NO man is really important.", then what is the purpose of God's muppet show? One part of Christianity says free will is almost the most important doctrine. Another part says predestination is. If christianity claims two important dogmas, on which not only mankind but Christians themselves have different opinions on whether the one thing is true or the other, and yet our eternal well-being is at stake here, it seems like God and christianity should make itself more clear on these things. You all disagree among eachother, calling eachother heretics, and your God doesnt seem to listen. He appears to be more absent than present. Being somewhere out there and in here, threatening us with terrible consequences for wrong-doings, and yet hiding himself. He doesnt tolerate critique apparently, yet he doesnt make his intentions clear. Is he active or not for example in creation? In what way? Is he the one who destroys cities in earthquakes etc? You Christians disagree about these simple matters. So how is it? Btw, the famous "Ehyeh Aser ehyeh" which is usually translated as "I am that I am", is not the best translation. A more correct one would be "I will be present whenever I will be present", which also then means what logically follows: "I will be absent whenever I choose to be absent". It seems to me like God has for the most part preferred to be absent.

I don't see a question. — Agustino

A man needn't ask outright for a substantive answer, such is a subtle expectation, which is why I asked for more substance, seeing as you didn't understand the video.

So if you don't believe in free will, then you refuse to accept the Christian conception of the world, and thus you cannot condemn the Christian God in good faith if you don't at least accept the framework of Christianity. — Agustino

Accepting the "Christian" conception of the world makes you a Christian. Clearly one can condemn the validity of a position without holding to be true the position's framework.

Yeah, what's bad about punishing immorality? That sounds like something great to me. — Agustino

Because morality exists as a result of God's existence, his essence which is to create. God facilitates evil's presence in the world, and so he is ultimately responsible for that evil. This does not, however, remove the problem of evil from us - our actions still carry weight, but such weighted actions need not have ever been were God not to be at all.

Re the Schopenhauer essay - the only interesting thing I found there was S's support for metempsychosis, from a Christian point of view that is interesting. But what reincarnates? Do my atoms reincarnate into different bodies once I die? Sure. Do some of my thoughts reincarnate in people I've touched, talked to, etc. ? Sure. Does my DNA reincarnate? Well if I have children, it certainly does! So there surely is some form of reincarnation, but the soul - according to Christians - does not reincarnate. Schopenhauer does precious little there to address this.

And btw Schopenhauer is wrong that "the Jews" don't accept reincarnation - actually surprisingly, the Jews do accept reincarnation, it's Christians who don't. His religious anthropology isn't very good.

And the fact he thinks the Chinese laugh at the assertions of the Christians, etc. is utterly false. Christianity is the world's biggest religion, many times bigger than Buddhism, and very successful at the moment in Asia and Latin America, where most of the conversions are happening. The largest number of deconversions are in the West, but the West isn't telling of the whole world. In addition, Christianity and Islam are the only two religion posed to either grow or maintain their share of the world's population, all other religions, including Buddhism, are in decline.

Accepting the "Christian" conception of the world makes you a Christian. Clearly one can condemn the validity of a position without holding to be true the position's framework. — Heister Eggcart

No, but if he wants to criticise the Christian God for allowing evil, then he cannot deny free will, cause free will is an essential aspect of the Christian framework. This in effect means that he's not even criticising the Christian God.

Because morality exists as a result of God's existence, his essence which is to create. God facilitates evil's presence in the world, and so he is ultimately responsible for that evil. This does not, however, remove the problem of evil from us - our actions still carry weight, but such weighted actions need not have ever been were God not to be at all. — Heister Eggcart

Ok.

A man needn't ask outright for a substantive answer, such is a subtle expectation, which is why I asked for more substance, seeing as you didn't understand the video. — Heister Eggcart

Well I don't find the video particularly meaningful to the problem of free will and theodicy. I don't feel God asks you to do something that is harmful to you.

Ons part of Christianity says free will is basically the Most important doctrine. Another part says predestination is. — Beebert

The fact that God knows how you will use your free will does NOT mean you're condemned to a certain destiny. You still have free will and you will choose, however God is aware of what you will freely choose. This isn't to say that he controls it, or determines it in any way. He doesn't. Knowing something isn't the same with causing it to be so.

it seems like God and christianity should make itself more Clear in things. — Beebert

It is quite clear actually if you study Apostolic Tradition, use your reason and read Scripture.

He appears to be more absent than present. — Beebert

Well yeah, you're not the first to say that: "Truly, You are a God who hides Himself, O God of Israel, Savior!" Isaiah 45:15. So this is what Christians are already aware of. Come up with something new!

But you seem to have a very rationalistic/Kantian position with regards to morality. — Agustino

I might as well add that this ultra-rationalism with regards to morality is quite a "modern" invention — Agustino

I quite honestly don't understand what you're talking about here. Natural evil has been a problem for the theist for thousands of years and has become ever more problematic with the advent of modern biology and evolutionary theory.

Natural evil has been a problem for the theist for thousands of years and has become ever more problematic with the advent of modern biology and evolutionary theory. — Thorongil

Why is it immoral for people to die in an earthquake? I'd say that's amoral, but not immoral, for to claim it is immoral would be to claim that the earthquake is a moral agent.

No, but if he wants to criticise the Christian God for allowing evil, then he cannot deny free will, cause free will is an essential aspect of the Christian framework. This in effect means that he's not even criticising the Christian God. — Agustino

?? Beebert doesn't adhere to free will. I don't believe he or anyone else is suggesting that, at the very least, Christians do not believe in free will themselves.

Ok. — Agustino

There's just enough substance in this reply for me to in turn write this reply and...nothing more, hmm...this exchange is definitely molto produttivo.

Well I don't find the video particularly meaningful to the problem of free will and theodicy. I don't feel God asks you to do something that is harmful to you. — Agustino

Yes, I think he does. He, as being itself, makes you be and then forces you into making the choice of whether you then want to follow him or not. If you say no, you're damned. If you say yes, all's well then, it is hoped. But the key is that you are told that you can choose, but in the end your will won't be done as God's will is above yours. In other words, you choose a choice unwilled.

Why does he hide himself? Is he Good just because he says "I am God, and I say I am good "? You say "The fact that God knows how you will use your free will does NOT mean you're condemned to a certain destiny. You still have free will and you will choose, however God is aware of what you will freely choose. This isn't to say that he controls it, or determines it in any way. He doesn't. Knowing something isn't the same with causing it to be so." but you dont see the inescapable contradiction in this : Namely that God is the prime mover, the one who willed my existence without my possible approval, alone in knowing my fate already before I was born. Seriously, use your brain here. Dont you see the absurdity in this? There is a reason that one of your great russian orthodox christian philosophers Berdyaev tried to come up with a solution to this immense problem by his idea of the ungrund of uncreated freedom. Didnt you read the article of Schopenhauer that addressed this problems? Yet you chose to focus instead on a meaningless sentence about the chinese who laughs.

?? Beebert doesn't adhere to free will. I don't believe he or anyone else is suggesting that, at the very least, Christians do not believe in free will themselves. — Heister Eggcart

And he's criticising the Christian God based on his belief that we don't have free will? :s That makes no sense, because according to the Christian God, we do have free will. So if he wants to criticise the Christian God - and not some other God - then he should take the contents of revelation as presented.

There's just enough substance in this reply for me to in turn write this reply and...nothing more, hmm...this exchange is definitely molto produttivo. — Heister Eggcart

X-) I like to keep you in suspense...

Yes, I think he does. He, as being itself, makes you be and then forces you into making the choice of whether you then want to follow him or not. If you say no, you're damned. If you say yes, all's well then, it is hoped. — Heister Eggcart

I'm not quite sure what God Himself is. The Trinity is a logical contradiction, I'd doubt that our finite human reason could comprehend God. God is unknowable and incomprehensible in Himself. Now, being separated from God is being damned - and that's no action of God's, it is what you yourself will.

But the key is that you are told that you can choose, but in the end your will won't be done as God's will is above yours. — Heister Eggcart

That's false, it will be your will, that's why God has given you free will, and you're formed in the image of God.

"Why is it immoral for people to die in an earthquake? I'd say that's amoral, but not immoral, for to claim it is immoral would be to claim that the earthquake is a moral agent.".

Is God the cause of the earthquake? If so, then there is a "moral" agent behind it: The creator of morality! If I throw a Stone at someone and that someone dies, then are you suggesting that the act is amoral rather than immoral because the stone is not a moral agent?

There is a reason att one of your great philosophers Berdyaev tried to come up with a solution to this immense problem by his idea of the ungrund of uncreated freedom — Beebert

:s :s :s He tried to come up with it? Don't kid yourself, Boheme, Eckhart, Pseudo-Dyonisyus etc. have already thought through that way before Berdyaev.

but you dont see the imescapable contradiction in this : Namely that God is the prime mover, the one who willed my existence without my possible approval, alone in knowing my fate already before I was Born. Seriously, use your Brain here. Dont you see the absurdity in this? — Beebert

No, I actually don't.

Didnt you read the article of Schopenhauer that addressed this problems? — Beebert

He addressed a strawman.

Why does he hide himself? — Beebert

Because He is a hidden God.

Is God the cause of the earthquake? — Beebert

No. Plate tectonics are the cause of the Earthquake.

If I throw a Stone at someone and that someone dies, then are you suggesting that the act is amoral rather than immoral because the stone is not a moral agent? — Beebert

No, because you threw the stone, and you are a moral agent. The stone can't throw itself. If it could, then yes, a stone knocking someone's head would be amoral.

"He tried to come up with it? Don't kid yourself, Boheme, Eckhart, Pseudo-Dyonisyus etc. have already thought through that way before Berdyaev." I know he was inspired by them (all Three are three of only a few Christian thinkers worth to read), but his thought differed on a very important aspect: The Three mentioned called the ungrund a part of God, Berdyaev thought it was OUTSIDE of God, something God was even born of and didnt have power over.

Berdyaev thought it was OUTSIDE of God, something God was even born of and didnt have power over. — Beebert

That depends it's not as simple as you put it out to be. Eckhart for example takes the Godhead to be a different referent than God. You overly simplify, the same way Schopenhauer does in that essay. That's why what you're saying is such a non-sequitur and so crude.

No it was no strawman Schopenhauer addressed.

How does earthquakes fit Into God's plan? Are they a result of the fall or just something God lets happen for some strange reason?

Crude? Why so? Tell me more. Enlighten me, because you obviously know the truth as a Christian.

Yes and Eckehart was thought of by many as a heretic, even though he is the greatest of all mystics(along with William Blake).

even though he is the greatest of all mystics. — Beebert

:s where do you take this from?

Yes and Eckehart was thought of by many as a heretic — Beebert

He wasn't officially condemned as a heretic, some of his writings however were.

No it was no strawman Schopenhauer addressed. — Beebert

It absolutely is, because the things he addressed there are misunderstandings of actual Christian views.

Crude? Why so? Tell me more. Enlighten me, because you obviously know the truth as a Christian. — Beebert

I would if you have more specific questions. It would be hard for me to guess what you need enlightenment on, and if I were to address each and every one of S's points there, and correct the way he lays out the issues, it would take me a very long post. So specifics would be helpful.

How does earthquakes fit Into God's plan? Are they a result of the fall or just something God lets happen for some strange reason? — Beebert

Why do you suppose I should know how the earthquake fits into God's plan? :s

And he's criticising the Christian God based on his belief that we don't have free will? :s That makes no sense, because according to the Christian God, we do have free will. — Agustino

But he doesn't believe in the Christian God.............................

I like to keep you in suspense... — Agustino

I know that bullshitting answers can take some time. I have patience, don't worry.

I'm not quite sure what God Himself is. The Trinity is a logical contradiction, I'd doubt that our finite human reason could comprehend God. God is unknowable and incomprehensible in Himself. — Agustino

Yet, you still proclaim to know what he wants of us, and that Beebert and I are wrong and that you (and God) are right.

Now, being separated from God is being damned - and that's no action of God's, it is what you yourself will. — Agustino

I think that we have the freedom of choice, but not the freedom to will our will. Because we cannot will our will, we cannot will our will to be, nor even to not be. Presumably only God has the authority to will one's will, which means we've, in fact, no free will in the sense that I can perfectly choose what comes of my being and my will. I don't. And in a world where only God has the authority to will will, we really are just slaves set on a path until our legs tire and we die.

But he doesn't believe in the Christian God............................. — Heister Eggcart

Sure, so? If he wants to criticise the Christian God on moral matters, then he should take the moral framework that Christians hold to, not one that he has invented.

I know that bullshitting answers can take some time. I have patience, don't worry. — Heister Eggcart

Did you get high marks at school just because you had a long time to answer the questions? X-)

Yet, you still proclaim to know what he wants of us, and that Beebert and I are wrong and that you (and God) are right. — Heister Eggcart

In some regards yes, but not in all of them. With regards to morality - at least the morality we speak about - yes.

I think that we have the freedom of choice, but not the freedom to will our will. Because we cannot will our will, we cannot will our will to be, nor even to not be. Presumably only God has the authority to will one's will, which means we've, in fact, no free will in the sense that I can perfectly choose what comes of my being and my will. I don't. And in a world where only God has the authority to will will, we really are just slaves set on a path until our legs tire and we die. — Heister Eggcart

No, you don't control the general tendencies you or your mind has. But you can still choose to give in to them or resist them. For example, if you're a person who is very tormented by lust, you may not choose that, but you certainly do choose whether you give in to it or not.

"I think that we have the freedom of choice, but not the freedom to will our will."

+1

This is 100 percent true. Though I would say "We most often have the freedom of choice in situations where a clear choice can be made between A and B".

But the will then isnt Free, because I cant will whatever I want to Will. I can start doing as ascetics and fast and starve myself in order to kill my Will maybe. But to call that free will... That is very unenlightened.

I claim Eckehart to be the greatest mystic. In what way did Schopenhauer misunderstand Augustine?

But the will then isnt Free, because I cant will whatever I want to Will — Beebert

That's a strawman right there. For Christians never meant that your free will is your ability to control what desires you find yourself having, but rather your ability to control whether or not you ACT on those desires.

In what way did Schopenhauer misunderstand Augustine? — Beebert

Many ways, you can't possibly expect from me a critique of that whole essay in a forum post. Ask me specific questions please.

I claim Eckehart to be the greatest mystic — Beebert

Have you studied all mystics? :s