|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 28, 2017 21:49:44 GMT
Yes I would argue that there is a world where that is possible. If (and lets assume he did, if he did not then my stance changes considerably) Jesus had free will he could have changed the path of the story (I wont say history) at any time, and I guess that old adage that in an infinite universe there is a world where Jesus just changed his mind halfway and got married, is true. Ah ok, but what then do you make of prophecy? Is it fallible? Mostly it's poetry, in that prophecy that turns out to be true in interpreted and prophecy that turns out to be false is either 'mis' interpreted or ignored. I don't think I have seen accurate prophecy that is also specific enough to be really amazing, it's mostly "some guy will come along and people will follow him" kind of vagueness. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 28, 2017 22:00:08 GMT
It depends on how technical we get.
I say "No" simply because as the standard maker, God has no reason to do anything wrong.
He does have limitations in terms of what he can do but because he has the ability to know anything he wishes, he's a perfect judge of a situation. He doesn't need to assume anything because he can know anything.
Technically, people could argue that he could be wrong just when he changes his mind or feels regret, but those aren't really proofs of wrongdoing as much as they are proofs of his not being static and not basing things on predestination.
By "wrong" I meant more that he expects someone to do something and they instead end up doing something else. Do you think that's possible? Or are God's predictions always accurate? Got it.
I think people disappoint God all the time because he doesn't concern himself with knowing what people do ahead of time unless it affects his purpose.
Most instances of God foreknowing something is tied into his plans for mankind as a whole.
plus mixing prophecy with pre-ordaining is a slippery slope since both God and Jesus have manipulated prophecy to ensure it's certainty. Jesus was so in step with God that he was the perfect person to guarantee its success.
You can do those kinds of things when you have enough knowledge or power.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 28, 2017 22:01:01 GMT
Ah ok, but what then do you make of prophecy? Is it fallible? Mostly it's poetry, in that prophecy that turns out to be true in interpreted and prophecy that turns out to be false is either 'mis' interpreted or ignored. I don't think I have seen accurate prophecy that is also specific enough to be really amazing, it's mostly "some guy will come along and people will follow him" kind of vagueness. Well probably the most specific prophecy in the Gospels is Jesus' prediction that Peter would deny him 3 times before the cock crowed. It doesn't seem that if Peter hadn't done so that we could say Jesus was merely being poetic or that he was misunderstood, it's pretty crystal clear. So it seems we are left with one of the following options: 1. Peter was doomed to deny Jesus 3 times 2. Jesus had a chance of being wrong 3. Jesus never actually made that prediction and it was a later invention There are a few other options like William of Occam's novel idea that if Jesus made a prediction that turned out false, he'd change the past so he never said it which is kinda amusing for how contrived it is though it's logically sound. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 28, 2017 22:07:40 GMT
Mostly it's poetry, in that prophecy that turns out to be true in interpreted and prophecy that turns out to be false is either 'mis' interpreted or ignored. I don't think I have seen accurate prophecy that is also specific enough to be really amazing, it's mostly "some guy will come along and people will follow him" kind of vagueness. Well probably the most specific prophecy in the Gospels is Jesus' prediction that Peter would deny him 3 times before the cock crowed. It doesn't seem that if Peter hadn't done so that we could say Jesus was merely being poetic or that he was misunderstood, it's pretty crystal clear. So it seems we are left with one of the following options: 1. Peter was doomed to deny Jesus 3 times 2. Jesus had a chance of being wrong 3. Jesus never actually made that prediction and it was a later invention There are a few other options like William of Occam's novel idea that if Jesus made a prediction that turned out false, he'd change the past so he never said it which is kinda amusing for how contrived it is though it's logically sound. ok yeah that is a good one, well we know it happened (at least in the narrative), so it's a bit of a moot point, but I would suggest that if you held the doctrine that we have free will then either Jesus knows because he is out of time and so was accurate because he was speaking from the perspective of already having seen it happen, or else Jesus had a chance of being wrong. Actually the most likely scenario is that Jesus did not say exactly that, but we have to work from the narrative. |
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 28, 2017 22:18:02 GMT
Jesus knows because he is out of time and so was accurate because he was speaking from the perspective of already having seen it happen The problem with that tack is that while it might explain how Jesus could know the future without violating free will, once Jesus tells Peter he will deny him, can Peter still choose not to? If so, then it seems Jesus can still be wrong. If not, it seems Peter has no free will after all. So the outside time argument does not really solve the dilemma. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 28, 2017 22:21:02 GMT
Jesus knows because he is out of time and so was accurate because he was speaking from the perspective of already having seen it happen The problem with that tack is that while it might explain how Jesus could know the future without violating free will, once Jesus tells Peter he will deny him, can Peter still choose not to? If so, then it seems Jesus can still be wrong. If not, it seems Peter has no free will after all. So the outside time argument does not really solve the dilemma. Yeah good point. So we are left with Jesus may have been wrong, but also there is self fulfilling prophecy, Peter believes so much that Jesus is right that he denies him each time because Jesus said it would happen. |
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 28, 2017 22:32:15 GMT
The problem with that tack is that while it might explain how Jesus could know the future without violating free will, once Jesus tells Peter he will deny him, can Peter still choose not to? If so, then it seems Jesus can still be wrong. If not, it seems Peter has no free will after all. So the outside time argument does not really solve the dilemma. Yeah good point. So we are left with Jesus may have been wrong, but also there is self fulfilling prophecy, Peter believes so much that Jesus is right that he denies him each time because Jesus said it would happen. Interesting perspective - maybe Peter's failing was a lack of faith in his own free will? Anyway thanks for the discussion folks. Good to get stuck into some knotty theology here  |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 28, 2017 22:34:10 GMT
Yeah good point. So we are left with Jesus may have been wrong, but also there is self fulfilling prophecy, Peter believes so much that Jesus is right that he denies him each time because Jesus said it would happen. Interesting perspective - maybe Peter's failing was a lack of faith in his own free will? Anyway thanks for the discussion folks. Good to get stuck into some knotty theology here I think this is my first real discussion with you, thanks. I guess we have Erjen to thank since he rightfully pointed out I am not in any theological discussions on this board. At the end of the day I am not really sure what the truth is here, but it was certainly interesting to ponder. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 28, 2017 22:39:48 GMT
tpfkar Why would it not have been possible for him to give in to an appetite that conflicted with his "morals"? I think those that have a natural inclination to be "good" are generally more praiseworthy than those that don't but struggle to conform.
I'd go the whole wide world |
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 28, 2017 23:12:06 GMT
Why would it not have been possible for him to give in to an appetite that conflicted with his "morals"? I suppose it would be but the consensus seemed to be he wouldn't do that. Ah well that is a conversation we have had before, probably best we don't go through it all again since we'll probably just agree to disagree again! |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 28, 2017 23:54:26 GMT
tpfkar I thought the story had him struggling at points.   I guess your memory is better than mine. But jic, my response to your posed question is that yes, it is always impressive when someone is "good", even more so if that is what they actually are/feel. Not to take from those that are good after some struggle, but they do in fact have some darker bits and so ultimately are inferior in comparison.
Forgiven/Forgotten |
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 29, 2017 7:17:32 GMT
I thought the story had him struggling at points. Sure, but Gadreel said he didn't think Jesus would ever give in to those lower temptations so I was going along with that for the sake of argument. Though he did later say it's possible Jesus might have done. Yeah I know. I don't think that view is wrong per se, it's just not how I view it. It's like I think the person who hates the gym but has a sixpack is more impressive than the one who loves the gym and has a sixpack. So similarly I find it more impressive if someone doesn't feel inclined to do good but does it anyway out of duty. But I wouldn't say my outlook is any more valid than yours, it's just how I feel about it. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 29, 2017 7:23:42 GMT
The latter, but He still could have avoided it if He had wanted to, I would say. OK so in that case I kind of err into stance 2, Jesus could do it, but to be who he really is and stay true to himself, he will not. So you two seem to broadly agree that the future was set for Jesus because despite his powers he would not want to use them. Do you think since Jesus could be said to have free will in that case as he has no control over his wants? And whether you do or don't think he has free will, do you think he merits praise for doing what he wanted to do? Praise, in my opinion. Although He was born to do what He did, following through with it was not any less of a choice, right? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2017 7:30:49 GMT
I can never understand why God sent Jesus here to be tortured to death or why any innocent babies are tortured and killed as well. Why do innocent lives have to be sacrificed? Cruelty is wrong and it's immoral. There's too much suffering in this world
|
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 29, 2017 10:47:24 GMT
tpfkar I guess I thought you were making a deeper statement concerning free will. Otherwise, I couldn't see how "won't" could get to "couldn't". But is a person who hates the gym more impressive? What of, remarkable vanity? If the measure is "six packs", then it's the guy with the better six pack. If it's the guy with the better character, it's the one who six packs come naturally to, as the one who works inordinately for it seems to be a bit shallower. And when dealing with character, I just don't know how someone who actually possesses empathy and love and so finds fulfilling their duty toward their fellow man comes easier would not be innately superior on that level to someone who for example deep down wishes to strangle people with their own entrails but suppresses it, for whatever internal and or external reasons. I know I'd like the world predominantly populated with one rather the other.
I said good-bye to the ground |
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 29, 2017 11:52:20 GMT
I guess I thought you were making a deeper statement concerning free will. Otherwise, I couldn't see how "won't" could get to "couldn't". Well I was saying that if someone would never do something then, for all intents and purposes, it could be said they can't do that thing. I was trying to find out from Gadreel whether he thought that mattered when it came to praise/blame. But it turned out to be a moot point as he later clarified that he thought there could be possible worlds where Jesus gave into temptation.
What would be superior about them though? The effects would be the same. It would be nicer for the person doing the good deed to enjoy doing so I guess but chances are you're not going to get that all the time.
But my main problem is if you are a good person re virtue ethics you haven't really done anything. You follow your whims and your whims just happen to be in line with what is generally considered good. Really there's little difference between that kind of a virtuous person and a serial killer, they're both slaves to their whims. The only difference is that in one case those whims just happen to be good while in the other they just happen to be bad. Praise and blame becomes not a question of what someone deserves but a pragmatic tool to encourage good behaviours and discourage bad. But perhaps that is all they should be.
This is why I lean more towards deontology over virtue ethics - whenever we want to give into our whims we must first question whether they are in line with the universal duty to do good. If so, we can carry on right ahead. If not, we must resist our whims. Which is difficult. And I think doing anything difficult is impressive (though even then I wouldn't say it's praiseworthy since some will be better at resisting their whims than others). But at the end of the day it doesn't overly matter whether you like doing your duty or not, just as long as you do it.
By the way, I'm not sure you're doing the quote tags properly - I never seem to get notifications when you quote me. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 29, 2017 13:08:56 GMT
tpfkar I don't see why. "Would never" =/= "can't". One's a judgement of character and the other of ability. That's the part I was engaging you on, not necessarily the whole of your discourse with Gadreel. I don't know that the effects would be the same. Certainly the good of one can ultimately be judged not as strong. In weakness or collapse one would tend behave very differently than the other. It's inherently superior for someone to be good and act naturally rather than merely act good, to whatever degree. You have been. Someone whose whims are "good" are infinitely more virtuous than those whose are bad, by definition. You even say it with your "in line with what is generally considered good". Could maybe not be a difference of more import. And "slaves to their whims" is simply a framing of nothing really. The point being that people's whims, or rather their natures, are exactly what's being judged. Why possibly would someone's "whims" to suppress their bad bad thoughts be better than "whims" to just be good naturally? Seems only negative by comparison. I don't think so. You seem to value struggle over character. Praise and blame are for how people are, and how they act is a manifestation of that. Those attributions are a measure. Can also be used as a tool to attempt to temper those inclined towards "bad" as well, but that doesn't change the fact that those that need such corralling are strictly inferior to those that don't, in terms of what is "good" of course. If you press "quote" and look at "BBCode" you shoud see " @lostkiera". What else is there to tagging? Sure you haven't blocked notifications from me in the past? 
My body's strong, my will is weak |
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 29, 2017 13:35:08 GMT
I don't see why. "Would never" =/= "can't". One's a judgement of character and the other of ability. That's the part I was engaging you on, not necessarily the whole of your discourse with Gadreel. It probably boils down to semantics really. I suppose what I was trying to say that if your moral compass will never let you do X then you can't do X. What's limiting you though is that moral compass rather than any external constraint on your ability. One could imagine the naturally good person's whims changing though. Without an appeal to duty, if they continued to follow their whims, they would no longer be doing good but their thought process would be the same as it ever was. While as the person who "acts good" would continue to do good even if their whims changed. Fair point. My thinking would be that in the former case you are pausing to logically consider what is the right thing to do before you listen to your whims. But yes I take your point that the inclination to make that pause is a whim in itself. Perhaps that is what it boils down to. Like I said I don't consider your position invalid as such, it just doesn't fit with my way of thinking. Lol no. I dunno what it is but for some reason it's not working. Ah well. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 29, 2017 13:59:50 GMT
tpfkar I do think it is semantics, as in framing of the "can't". That word generally has connotations beyond "don't want to". And "don't want to" is in and of itself either blame- or praiseworthy. One doesn't preclude the other, as in being good is not to the exclusion duty. And is still beside the point that being good is inherently superior to solely acting good due to external factors. Sure, I just don't know why added labor is a virtue in of itself or could signify any more than at most neutralizing bad traits. A test: The Lost One
Pure sadism |
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 29, 2017 14:07:16 GMT
Yep that worked. To take a slightly different tack in all this, you consider a good character worthy of praise and a bad character worthy of condemnation. Would you also consider innate attributes similarly? For instance are intelligent people more praiseworthy than stupid people? Are ugly people deserving of condemnation for being ugly? |
|
