Nothing You Can Do Will Affect Your Fate

[JoeMama]

JoeMama wrote,

Paul teaches that God makes common, flawed humans he means to cast into the fires of hell, as well as noble ones he has predestined for heaven.

Here is what Paul said:

Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

For the Scripture says to Pharaoh (on whom he visited all those horrible plagues): "I raised you up for this very purpose (to impress him with his magnificence), that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."

One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us (for being sinful)? For who resists his will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? (Romans 9:13-21)

Do faithful Christians believe that God plays with the lives of humans in this way?

[theophile]

[Replying to theophile in post #18]

Good effort. But the context won't help you here. I agree (and we could quote chunks if you think it will help) that Pharaoh is shown as initially not wanting to release the israelites; but then, when he HAD decided to let them go and good riddance, God overruled his Free Will decision to do that to harden the King's heart to make him rescind that decision just so God could show off a bit and that is what that passage says and context won't make any difference.

What you say here is opinion and not necessarily the case of the text. It's all rooted in your insistence that the hardening of pharaoh's heart is some sort of magical act by God, versus shrewd insight into human nature.

But whatevs. I'm happy to admit my view is opinion as well, but I think your heart is too hard to even consider such a compromise.

[theophile]

[Replying to theophile in post #18]

Good effort. But the context won't help you here. I agree (and we could quote chunks if you think it will help) that Pharaoh is shown as initially not wanting to release the israelites; but then, when he HAD decided to let them go and good riddance, God overruled his Free Will decision to do that to harden the King's heart to make him rescind that decision just so God could show off a bit and that is what that passage says and context won't make any difference.

This is just another example of Christians interpreting the Bible in any way they need to at the moment. Here, they need to defend God's love of Free Will over everything, while contradicting Paul (or calling it cryptic).

Pretty sure I did none of the above except say that Paul is cryptic, which he is. But I appreciate the commentary without any actual argument against my points.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to theophile in post #18]

Good effort. But the context won't help you here. I agree (and we could quote chunks if you think it will help) that Pharaoh is shown as initially not wanting to release the israelites; but then, when he HAD decided to let them go and good riddance, God overruled his Free Will decision to do that to harden the King's heart to make him rescind that decision just so God could show off a bit and that is what that passage says and context won't make any difference.

This is just another example of Christians interpreting the Bible in any way they need to at the moment. Here, they need to defend God's love of Free Will over everything, while contradicting Paul (or calling it cryptic).

Pretty sure I did none of the above except say that Paul is cryptic, which he is. But I appreciate the commentary without any actual argument against my points.

There's only two ways to look at it. Either God hardens hearts, thereby thwarting the Free Will Christians claim is sacrosanct to God (excuse for sin), or he intervenes, thus showing Free Will is limited when God wants to show his power, which means you can't explain why God allows Evil.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to theophile in post #18]

Good effort. But the context won't help you here. I agree (and we could quote chunks if you think it will help) that Pharaoh is shown as initially not wanting to release the israelites; but then, when he HAD decided to let them go and good riddance, God overruled his Free Will decision to do that to harden the King's heart to make him rescind that decision just so God could show off a bit and that is what that passage says and context won't make any difference.

What you say here is opinion and not necessarily the case of the text. It's all rooted in your insistence that the hardening of pharaoh's heart is some sort of magical act by God, versus shrewd insight into human nature.

But whatevs. I'm happy to admit my view is opinion as well, but I think your heart is too hard to even consider such a compromise.

Nice try at the 'agree to differ' ('my view of the evidence is as valid as yours') ploy but I posted what the Bible says. God hardened Pharaoh's heart. He did it. It says he did it. This is not my opinion.Yours is disregarding what the Bible says. No cigar.. Not even a whiff of one.

[Replying to theophile in post #18]

Good effort. But the context won't help you here. I agree (and we could quote chunks if you think it will help) that Pharaoh is shown as initially not wanting to release the israelites; but then, when he HAD decided to let them go and good riddance, God overruled his Free Will decision to do that to harden the King's heart to make him rescind that decision just so God could show off a bit and that is what that passage says and context won't make any difference.

This is just another example of Christians interpreting the Bible in any way they need to at the moment. Here, they need to defend God's love of Free Will over everything, while contradicting Paul (or calling it cryptic).

Pretty sure I did none of the above except say that Paul is cryptic, which he is. But I appreciate the commentary without any actual argument against my points.

You jumped on that as a get - out petty darn quick and never mind what the Bible actually says. Yes,Paul is cryptic about how and when he converted and it isn't certain that the vision in the third heaven is anything to do with it. But Acts (and i guess you credit it,even if I don't) makes it clear;Jesusgod blinded Paul until he got converted and did God's work and never mind his Free Will.

Again, the Bible in one place OT and new (at least) gives example of overriding Free will when it suits him so Free Will is not an unbreakable rule for god and is therefore no escape from the problem of non - intervention, let alone problem of evil.

[theophile]

[Replying to theophile in post #18]

Good effort. But the context won't help you here. I agree (and we could quote chunks if you think it will help) that Pharaoh is shown as initially not wanting to release the israelites; but then, when he HAD decided to let them go and good riddance, God overruled his Free Will decision to do that to harden the King's heart to make him rescind that decision just so God could show off a bit and that is what that passage says and context won't make any difference.

This is just another example of Christians interpreting the Bible in any way they need to at the moment. Here, they need to defend God's love of Free Will over everything, while contradicting Paul (or calling it cryptic).

Pretty sure I did none of the above except say that Paul is cryptic, which he is. But I appreciate the commentary without any actual argument against my points.

There's only two ways to look at it. Either God hardens hearts, thereby thwarting the Free Will Christians claim is sacrosanct to God (excuse for sin), or he intervenes, thus showing Free Will is limited when God wants to show his power, which means you can't explain why God allows Evil.

I can agree with that except this part. But no one said anything about God not intervening... Clearly God intervenes in the case of Egypt, so I have no argument there. What's at question is how does God's intervention cause a hardening of pharaoh's heart? Is it a direct causation, as in God has some supernatural power that God uses to fulfill God's plans? Or is it a more simple, natural mechanism as I have described?

Pace what others have said, it is not at all clear in the Exodus chapters or passages cited. And I think natural, simple explanations should always be preferred over supernatural... So call it what you want, but you can't just dismiss it.

As to this part, I do have explanations for God's allowance of evil. The most basic is God doesn't always have the power (in line with above). Another is mercy. God gives evil ones another chance and so allows evil. (And who can fault God for either of those reasons?)

[Purple Knight]

Another is mercy. God gives evil ones another chance and so allows evil. (And who can fault God for either of those reasons?)

This is, I think, a good canonical explanation. The other options are:

1. Never creating the evil person to begin with, in which case it is the same as annihilating him.
2. Changing the evil person into a good one and destroying his self and identity, which is the same as annihilating him.
3. Punishing the evil person before he actually does anything wrong.

And the fourth option, which is now the only one left, is to create the evil fellow and let him do wrong (and have a theoretical chance to do right) before punishing him.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to theophile in post #18]

Good effort. But the context won't help you here. I agree (and we could quote chunks if you think it will help) that Pharaoh is shown as initially not wanting to release the israelites; but then, when he HAD decided to let them go and good riddance, God overruled his Free Will decision to do that to harden the King's heart to make him rescind that decision just so God could show off a bit and that is what that passage says and context won't make any difference.

This is just another example of Christians interpreting the Bible in any way they need to at the moment. Here, they need to defend God's love of Free Will over everything, while contradicting Paul (or calling it cryptic).

Pretty sure I did none of the above except say that Paul is cryptic, which he is. But I appreciate the commentary without any actual argument against my points.

There's only two ways to look at it. Either God hardens hearts, thereby thwarting the Free Will Christians claim is sacrosanct to God (excuse for sin), or he intervenes, thus showing Free Will is limited when God wants to show his power, which means you can't explain why God allows Evil.

I can agree with that except this part. But no one said anything about God not intervening... Clearly God intervenes in the case of Egypt, so I have no argument there. What's at question is how does God's intervention cause a hardening of pharaoh's heart? Is it a direct causation, as in God has some supernatural power that God uses to fulfill God's plans? Or is it a more simple, natural mechanism as I have described?

Pace what others have said, it is not at all clear in the Exodus chapters or passages cited. And I think natural, simple explanations should always be preferred over supernatural... So call it what you want, but you can't just dismiss it.

As to this part, I do have explanations for God's allowance of evil. The most basic is God doesn't always have the power (in line with above). Another is mercy. God gives evil ones another chance and so allows evil. (And who can fault God for either of those reasons?)

The issue has always been: Why does Evil exist, if God exists. Either he is unwilling or unable to stop it.
Theists have argued that he is clearly powerful enough to stop it, and they have argued he is All-Good, so would want to stop it. This is the classic argument that has developed over centuries, and Theists have said that God's insistence that we have Free Will is sacrosanct.

However, when we look at ancient depictions of the Gods (Yahweh, Zeus, etc.), we see that they are not what Theists for the last centuries have described. They are petty, vengeful, wrathful, and jealous. So, when we get some Theists (Abrahamic, mostly) insisting that the Old Stories are true, they need Apologetics to explain away the problem.

So, could God have intervened to stop Evil? Yes. Did he? No.

In fact, he actively intervened to allow Evil to happen. In the case of the Pharaoh, Job, Midianites, Canaanites, etc, we have God directly intervening to allow or even cause evil to occur.

What is the Bible Believer to do? Claim it's not evil (not evil to slaughter babies, children, etc.), or worse, that it's the Good thing to do.

This is why I repeat it often: Theists have no understanding of Morality. They have tied Morality to God's Character, but they can't describe God's Nature accurately (and therefore can't understand morality), or have such contradictory stories of God's Nature that they can define Morality as anything they want (Killing ones kids is Good if you think their souls are going to be taken by Satan).

And, as I pointed out, the Free Will defense for Abrahamic Theodicy is demonstrably incoherent.

These are not problems atheists have invented. In their desperation, Theists have tried to weave a narrative that fits into a neat bow that allows them to claim all kinds of things about God's Nature. It's not our fault that we point out the huge inconsistencies in the total story. (Theists often try to restrict the conversation to pat apologetic answers, but they rarely look at it in total).

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to theophile in post #18]

Good effort. But the context won't help you here. I agree (and we could quote chunks if you think it will help) that Pharaoh is shown as initially not wanting to release the israelites; but then, when he HAD decided to let them go and good riddance, God overruled his Free Will decision to do that to harden the King's heart to make him rescind that decision just so God could show off a bit and that is what that passage says and context won't make any difference.

This is just another example of Christians interpreting the Bible in any way they need to at the moment. Here, they need to defend God's love of Free Will over everything, while contradicting Paul (or calling it cryptic).

Pretty sure I did none of the above except say that Paul is cryptic, which he is. But I appreciate the commentary without any actual argument against my points.

There's only two ways to look at it. Either God hardens hearts, thereby thwarting the Free Will Christians claim is sacrosanct to God (excuse for sin), or he intervenes, thus showing Free Will is limited when God wants to show his power, which means you can't explain why God allows Evil.

I can agree with that except this part. But no one said anything about God not intervening... Clearly God intervenes in the case of Egypt, so I have no argument there. What's at question is how does God's intervention cause a hardening of pharaoh's heart? Is it a direct causation, as in God has some supernatural power that God uses to fulfill God's plans? Or is it a more simple, natural mechanism as I have described?

Pace what others have said, it is not at all clear in the Exodus chapters or passages cited. And I think natural, simple explanations should always be preferred over supernatural... So call it what you want, but you can't just dismiss it.

As to this part, I do have explanations for God's allowance of evil. The most basic is God doesn't always have the power (in line with above). Another is mercy. God gives evil ones another chance and so allows evil. (And who can fault God for either of those reasons?)

It doesn't matter how God did it. God did it, it says so. Good luck with the "Ghost Bible" ploy of pretending that God saying he hardened the king's heart really means the king did it himself and God didn't.

I have said it before, that Atheists show more respect for the Bible than Christians do because at least we don't try to rewrite what it says to suit ourselves.

[TRANSPONDER]

Another is mercy. God gives evil ones another chance and so allows evil. (And who can fault God for either of those reasons?)

This is, I think, a good canonical explanation. The other options are:

1. Never creating the evil person to begin with, in which case it is the same as annihilating him.
2. Changing the evil person into a good one and destroying his self and identity, which is the same as annihilating him.
3. Punishing the evil person before he actually does anything wrong.

And the fourth option, which is now the only one left, is to create the evil fellow and let him do wrong (and have a theoretical chance to do right) before punishing him.

Yes, well there's the pot and potter problem again. If the pot is made 'evil' the potter, not the pot, is to blame. Of course the potter can smash the pot and refuse to accept the blame but pots do not have consciousness and free will. Doing that to a bad dog because the trainer didn't do a good job is evil. And God is supposed to be good.

Problem.


Your points about alternatives are good ones. But is it really 'destroying 'self and identity' to make people Good? Aren't True believers supposed to be good enough to get into heaven? Or rather, Forgiven because they believe? Well then why does God remain Hidden? If He let everyone know he was real and taught us as he teaches the believers we'd all get to heaven, right? And isn't that what God wants? (1)

It can only be (and this is the point as Paul argues) Faith is what saves, not being good. Faith, not Works. Good is supposed to come naturally through Faith and that is a common belief - Religion supposedly makes people better. And sometimes it does. But aside the 'God is with us' evils, Adam's sin means that nobody can be saved, other than by Faith and there is no sense in that Faith having to be without persuasive evidence. But that is the excuse. Knowledge of compelling evidence nullifies faith.

(1)at this point believers (if they even get this far) will switch off and say 'God knows best'. It's where the 'problem of evil'after all the evasions and wriggling and redefining Evil will eventually end up - appeal to Godfaith.

[theophile]

[Replying to theophile in post #18]

Good effort. But the context won't help you here. I agree (and we could quote chunks if you think it will help) that Pharaoh is shown as initially not wanting to release the israelites; but then, when he HAD decided to let them go and good riddance, God overruled his Free Will decision to do that to harden the King's heart to make him rescind that decision just so God could show off a bit and that is what that passage says and context won't make any difference.

This is just another example of Christians interpreting the Bible in any way they need to at the moment. Here, they need to defend God's love of Free Will over everything, while contradicting Paul (or calling it cryptic).

Pretty sure I did none of the above except say that Paul is cryptic, which he is. But I appreciate the commentary without any actual argument against my points.

There's only two ways to look at it. Either God hardens hearts, thereby thwarting the Free Will Christians claim is sacrosanct to God (excuse for sin), or he intervenes, thus showing Free Will is limited when God wants to show his power, which means you can't explain why God allows Evil.

I can agree with that except this part. But no one said anything about God not intervening... Clearly God intervenes in the case of Egypt, so I have no argument there. What's at question is how does God's intervention cause a hardening of pharaoh's heart? Is it a direct causation, as in God has some supernatural power that God uses to fulfill God's plans? Or is it a more simple, natural mechanism as I have described?

Pace what others have said, it is not at all clear in the Exodus chapters or passages cited. And I think natural, simple explanations should always be preferred over supernatural... So call it what you want, but you can't just dismiss it.

As to this part, I do have explanations for God's allowance of evil. The most basic is God doesn't always have the power (in line with above). Another is mercy. God gives evil ones another chance and so allows evil. (And who can fault God for either of those reasons?)

It doesn't matter how God did it. God did it, it says so. Good luck with the "Ghost Bible" ploy of pretending that God saying he hardened the king's heart really means the king did it himself and God didn't.

I have said it before, that Atheists show more respect for the Bible than Christians do because at least we don't try to rewrite what it says to suit ourselves.

God caused it, sure, but there are different ways of causing things. Your "don't care, it's all the same" attitude is not helpful. It's a conversation-stopper and prevents what could be richer discussion on the topic. And frankly, all it does is furthers ridiculous stereotypes of God that reinforce your own atheist views on the matter (i.e., God as supernatural and therefore dismissible).

That said, let me ask you a simple question / hypothetical. Let's say you show interest in someone at a bar. Their friend becomes jealous as a result. You (in all fairness) caused, and could have had the foresight to know you would cause, such a result. Does that mean we should jump to the ridiculous conclusion that you physically moved the chemicals in that person's brain to initiate said jealousy? Or that you were wrong to show interest in the first place? Or that you are culpable and should be held accountable for that jealousy? Absolutely not. So why here?

As such, it does matter how God did it. Because now let's look at the situation in Egypt, where a people was enslaved. Should God have not intervened because there was a good chance it would cause pharaoh to pull back or do worse to Israel? Is God culpable for pharaoh pulling back or doing worse to Israel as a result of said intervention? Absolutely not!

Pharaoh's meanness and hard-heartedness is all on pharaoh here, not God. The only thing God did was the right thing -- i.e., trying to free an enslaved people.