How things unfold and God's will

[RRL]

If nothing happens, nor fails to happen, outside the will of God, then what is the point of ever proactively taking any action? How does any action have any sort of ethical importance if things will unfold according to the will of God regardless of what we do?

For example, if God sees fit to let a group of people die in a building fire, and you want to try to save them, why make an effort to rescue them, because no matter what you do, God will make sure that those people burn alive in that building? Conversely, if you set out to burn the building and cause the group of people inside to die, if God sees fit to not let the group of people die in the building fire, then no matter what you try to do, you will NOT succeed...

Perhaps it's in the intent; we INTENDED to save those people, and set out to save those people. Perhaps what matters in terms of ethics is our intent, even if the outcome is ultimately out of our hands.

This would seem to also include stuff that we could prevent. For example, if we are in a position to prevent a disaster, but instead do nothing, are we really responsible in the context of Christianity, because if God had seen fit to prevent the disaster and prevent people from suffering, then he would have intervened to prevent it if you failed to act, but since he didn't intervene and prevent it, then clearly he saw fit to allow it, which seems to indicate that even if you had tried to intervene, you would not have prevented it. Unless...Maybe God leaves some outcomes up to chance, in this case, if we act and prevent the disaster, we have prevented the suffering of people. If we don't act, God just sits on his hands, the people suffer, and God says "That's on you, you should have acted to prevent the suffering." Then, God makes everything ok and right in the end for the people who suffered, either in this life and/or the afterlife, but you are on the hook for not acting as you should have. If that really is what God does, in my view, that's absurd, irresponsible, uncaring, unloving, messed up, and evil.

[marco]

Then, God makes everything ok and right in the end for the people who suffered, either in this life and/or the afterlife, but you are on the hook for not acting as you should have. If that really is what God does, in my view, that's absurd, irresponsible, uncaring, unloving, messed up, and evil.

The human concept of a caring God is perhaps the absurdity. Let God offer free will and at the same time apply the formula: "deus vult - God wills it" and confusion reigns. The caring God, not Adolf Hitler, becomes responsible for the Holocaust.

If we accept that God with his dying breath made the universe and we are all on our own, subject to the dictates of chance, we have a closer picture of what seems to be the case. And if we simply say, with Socrates, we have no idea how everything started, then we get on with this mysterious thing, life, and leave God to thunder in the Bible. We get things done more quickly that way without first praying for permission and fighting with folk who have fashioned other gods.

[ttruscott]

If nothing happens, nor fails to happen, outside the will of God, then what is the point of ever proactively taking any action?

Islamists follow inshallah, IF God is willing and the kismet theory of fate, that if it is Allah's will, man can do nothing.

While Christians live predetermined lives they are called to be actively involved with their lives and HIS calling and we are called to care and to respond to suffering with compassion: Matthew 25:31-46. Without striving for GOD in HIS compassion, we miss the reason for our sufferings and are doomed to repeat them...against it is God's will, blame him, not me.

[RRL]

Loving the crickets from the fundamentalist camp

[1213]

If nothing happens, nor fails to happen, outside the will of God, then what is the point of ever proactively taking any action? How does any action have any sort of ethical importance if things will unfold according to the will of God regardless of what we do?.....

Bible has this:

"Then they will also answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and didn't help you?' "Then he will answer them, saying, 'Most assuredly I tell you, inasmuch as you didn't do it to one of the least of these, you didn't do it to me.' These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
Matt. 25:44-46

I think that means basically that we should always do good and help others. Maybe the outcome will not be successful always, but I think that is still the goal.

[RRL]

If nothing happens, nor fails to happen, outside the will of God, then what is the point of ever proactively taking any action? How does any action have any sort of ethical importance if things will unfold according to the will of God regardless of what we do?.....

Bible has this:

"Then they will also answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and didn't help you?' "Then he will answer them, saying, 'Most assuredly I tell you, inasmuch as you didn't do it to one of the least of these, you didn't do it to me.' These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
Matt. 25:44-46

I think that means basically that we should always do good and help others. Maybe the outcome will not be successful always, but I think that is still the goal.

1) So basically, you are taking the position that, like I suggested is possible, it's the intent that counts, even if the ultimate outcome is out of our hands? I can see that, and that makes sense. Still, I just don't get the point of doing good or doing bad when the outcome is out of our hands.

For example, if I have an opportunity to prevent someone from suffering, and God sees fit for the suffering to be prevented, then it will be prevented regardless of what I do. You see what I am saying here? If I act to prevent the suffering, then did I really do anything if God would have prevented it in the event that I did not act?

Say there is a situation where it looks like if I do not take action, someone will probably suffer, and, God sees fit to allow the person in question to suffer, and I do not taken action. Am I really liable for that person's suffering, because it was going to happen regardless of what I did?

2) Glad you mentioned the Matthew verses, because they are a great example, and perhaps the best example, from the Bible of "If you don't do X , then you will go to Hell." This should be great ammunition to use against the Christians who try to skirt around, whitewash, downplay, spin doctor, obfuscate, obscure, deny, pretend isn't there, and/or circumvent. It doesn't get much plainer and clearer than in Matthew 25:44-46: If you don't do X, you will go to Hell.

[Overcomer]

RRL wrote:

Loving the crickets from the fundamentalist camp

I'm sorry, but I can't see how that one-liner adds to the discussion. What exactly does it mean and what does it have to do with free will, divine providence, intent, etc.? Or is it simply meant to be a random insult?

[RRL]

RRL wrote:

Loving the crickets from the fundamentalist camp

I'm sorry, but I can't see how that one-liner adds to the discussion. What exactly does it mean and what does it have to do with free will, divine providence, intent, etc.? Or is it simply meant to be a random insult?

It was an attempt to get Christians to come out of hiding and start addressing the material. Whether it worked or not, to his credit, 1213 stepped up to the plate and wrote one of his best and also most helpful posts ever.

[1213]

1) So basically, you are taking the position that, like I suggested is possible, it's the intent that counts, even if the ultimate outcome is out of our hands? I can see that, and that makes sense. Still, I just don't get the point of doing good or doing bad when the outcome is out of our hands.

For example, if I have an opportunity to prevent someone from suffering, and God sees fit for the suffering to be prevented, then it will be prevented regardless of what I do. You see what I am saying here? If I act to prevent the suffering, then did I really do anything if God would have prevented it in the event that I did not act?

I don’t know if it is possible that suffering would come anyway, even if we try to help. But, Bible tells we should love others as ourselves. And I believe righteous people do so, even if the outcome would not be in every way what is wanted. And actually, I think, when we love, the love is the wanted outcome. Love is the higher goal and I think it doesn’t fail. Every situation in this world is a chance to love.

Say there is a situation where it looks like if I do not take action, someone will probably suffer, and, God sees fit to allow the person in question to suffer, and I do not taken action. Am I really liable for that person's suffering, because it was going to happen regardless of what I did?

I think, in Biblical point of view, you are “liable� to love others as yourself, nothing more or less. (if you want to be a disciple of Jesus and live as he taught).

2) Glad you mentioned the Matthew verses, because they are a great example, and perhaps the best example, from the Bible of "If you don't do X , then you will go to Hell." This should be great ammunition to use against the Christians who try to skirt around, whitewash, downplay, spin doctor, obfuscate, obscure, deny, pretend isn't there, and/or circumvent. It doesn't get much plainer and clearer than in Matthew 25:44-46: If you don't do X, you will go to Hell.

I think that is not correct interpretation. It really doesn’t say “if you don’t do this, you go to hell�. It tells people who did not do the things, go to ... But the reason for hell (or death) is that person is not righteous. Eternal life is for righteous, as said in Mat. 25:46.

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Mat. 25:46

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:23

Righteousness is wisdom of the just, like right understanding that makes person freely do right things, because he understands it is good and wants to do good. Actions are only result of mind. If the mind is righteous, then the actions are also. That is why the mind is crucial and eternal life depends on is person righteous or not. Those who are righteous, can be recognized by this:

He who does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. To this end the Son of God was revealed, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever is born of God doesn't commit sin, because his seed remains in him; and he can't sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn't do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn't love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10

If you do right actions just to be saved, then you are probably not righteous.

[Diagoras]

The supposition in the OP looks a lot like ‘hard determinism’, and without ever stating it specifically, I believe the question is close enough to “do we have free will?� to allow some thoughts on that. I’ve linked to two consecutive Youtube videos from the ‘Crash Course Philosophy’ channel below, which better explains things.

I’d probably come down on the side of the ‘Compatibilists’ (or ‘soft-determinists’), who believe that when the actions of an agent (e.g. you) are self-determined - or determined by causes internal to themselves - that the action should be considered free. This is a philosophy part-way between libertarian free will (the belief that some human actions are truly freely chosen) and hard determinism (the belief that all events are caused by past events such that nothing other than what does occur, could occur). Compatiblism thus seems to provide for moral responsibility, although there are plenty of cases (e.g. mental illness) where separating what are truly internal causes from external ones become problematic. A fascinating related topic people might be interested in is the phenomenon of ‘Frankfurt cases’. It may well be that we have to content ourselves with feeling ‘more or less’ free, without being able to prove it conclusively, and from a practical perspective, ask ourselves instead what degree of control we possess over our actions.