Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
57. Then let's use the biblical definition as explained by Theopedia:
Fri May 12, 2017, 04:45 PM
May 2017
Free will

Probably the most common definition of free will is the "ability to make choices without any prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition," and specifically that these "free will" choices are not ultimately predestined by God.

According to the Bible, however, the choices of man are not only ultimately determined by God, but morally determined by one's nature. Man is indeed a free moral agent and freely makes choices, but in his natural state he necessarily acts in accordance with his fallen nature. Man willingly makes choices that flow from the heart, and sin is also always attributed to the desires of the heart (James 1:13-15). When a person turns to Christ, he does so not because of his own "free will", but because God has supernaturally enabled and moved him to do so through regeneration. God never coerces man's will, rather God gives the ability to believe through the work of the Holy Spirit.

This is a doctrinal distinction between the theologies of Calvinism and Arminianism: In Arminianism, God saves those who believe of their own free will. In Calvinism, God saves those who willingly believe as a result of sovereign enablement by the regenerating work of the Spirit.

Rather than man's will being free, Jesus tells us that, "everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin," (John 8:34). The heart, until born again, is "deceitful above all things, and desperately sick" (Jeremiah 17: 9). God saw in man that "every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (Genesis 6:5). "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day." (John 6:44).

Man is most free in heaven, where he is morally unable to sin. True freedom isn't freedom to sin, but freedom from sin.

https://www.theopedia.com/free-will


Now free will has been explained by a credible religious source. Good for Google.

And yet you still haven't answered my questions:

Where does free will come in when children get cancer? Or when parasites make them blind? Or when they're born with AIDS or any number of other horrific diseases?

What does free will have to with any of that?

Why does this god that we're not 'competent' to judge allow innocent children to suffer when he could prevent it?


You keep claiming this is explainable so explain. Why do those children deserve punishment because of original sin?

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Good, as I expected. The Gardai have enough on their OnDoutside May 2017 #1
So Mr. Fry has a special insight into the mind of the Creator, guillaumeb May 2017 #2
I'm sure there is a perfectly good explanation Voltaire2 May 2017 #6
There is an explanation. guillaumeb May 2017 #7
So where does free will come in PoindexterOglethorpe May 2017 #35
It just does, see? trotsky May 2017 #40
Well obviously, when that four-year-old got bone cancer... backscatter712 May 2017 #109
How precisely does cancer happen regardless of free will...? LanternWaste May 2017 #42
What? Act_of_Reparation May 2017 #44
Look again at the posts just above me. PoindexterOglethorpe May 2017 #45
You are confusing free will with quite a number of other things. guillaumeb May 2017 #46
You're the one who said free will was the explanation. beam me up scottie May 2017 #47
You also need to read about the concept of free will. guillaumeb May 2017 #50
Message deleted by DU the Administrators beam me up scottie May 2017 #52
Wikipedia is one source, but the definition is incomplete. eom guillaumeb May 2017 #56
Then let's use the biblical definition as explained by Theopedia: beam me up scottie May 2017 #57
Random natural acts are not punishment. They are by definition random acts. guillaumeb May 2017 #58
Not according the bible which says all things were created by this God we're not supposed to judge. beam me up scottie May 2017 #60
Is an ant competent to judge a human? guillaumeb May 2017 #62
If the ant read a book showing how humans cause innocent ants to suffer - yes it would be competent. beam me up scottie May 2017 #63
If humans are endowed with free will, that means that humans guillaumeb May 2017 #65
Wait, what did those children do to deserve the 'results' they got? beam me up scottie May 2017 #67
And where in my posts did you read that I said anyone deserves anything? guillaumeb May 2017 #68
Right here: beam me up scottie May 2017 #70
Your enlightenment is misnamed. guillaumeb May 2017 #71
Fry is judging the Creator from the ONLY perspective we have. beam me up scottie May 2017 #73
Both of your conclusions are faulty. guillaumeb May 2017 #75
Of course an omnipotent creator intended for evil to take place. He created evil. beam me up scottie May 2017 #77
Who ever said that children, or adults, deserve to suffer? guillaumeb May 2017 #78
According to the story all humans deserve to suffer. That includes children. beam me up scottie May 2017 #81
My "ridiculous tangent" was a reframing of an argument recently made here guillaumeb May 2017 #82
I have no idea what you're talking about. What does abortion have to with this thread? beam me up scottie May 2017 #84
Speaking of judgmental, guillaumeb May 2017 #92
How about you mansplain to the little lady what you think of her healthcare decisions? Act_of_Reparation May 2017 #108
Well said Lordquinton May 2017 #100
Awesome response. trotsky May 2017 #107
Why can't fry judge "the creator"? Lordquinton May 2017 #91
Fry is not proving anything. guillaumeb May 2017 #93
*lack of belief Lordquinton May 2017 #101
His opinion versus mine is what is being discussed. guillaumeb May 2017 #116
You haven't said anything to support it Lordquinton May 2017 #117
The main source of disrespect that I see here, at DU, is the disrespect guillaumeb May 2017 #118
That's because Lordquinton May 2017 #120
Consequences are designed too hurl May 2017 #85
Welcome to DU. guillaumeb May 2017 #94
Did you not read what they wrote? Act_of_Reparation May 2017 #104
Why did your creator make a sun that causes sunburn and cancer? trotsky May 2017 #106
Those worms that eat children's eyes from inside out.. Baconator May 2017 #114
Ah yes, our Just God demands we suffer... backscatter712 May 2017 #110
So the concept of free will includes PoindexterOglethorpe May 2017 #53
Does one need special insight to wonder why a loving god creates bone cancer and parasites? beam me up scottie May 2017 #9
Simplistic, but for some of the "true believers" on the non-theistic side, guillaumeb May 2017 #11
Non theists? You mean people who don't believe in Zeus, Thor or any of the thousands of other gods? beam me up scottie May 2017 #12
The debate has been argued here many times since I have been here. guillaumeb May 2017 #13
Wait, what does science have to do with this? Why on earth would anyone conflate science and gods? beam me up scottie May 2017 #15
Science is a methodology, it's not some hypothetical cosmic boojum with a grudge against shellfish. Warren DeMontague May 2017 #20
His argument doesn't fail....that's the point.. WoonTars May 2017 #14
You're right, it's a logical conclusion. beam me up scottie May 2017 #16
He's all-knowing, all powerful, infalliable.. and, he needs your money, and can't stand criticism. Warren DeMontague May 2017 #28
George Carlin on religion: beam me up scottie May 2017 #31
It's never failed Lordquinton May 2017 #17
Are you saying he doesn't? Or isn't? Lordquinton May 2017 #18
Fry is making an assumption that he cannot prove. guillaumeb May 2017 #22
What assumption? Isn't he simply repeating what's in the bible? beam me up scottie May 2017 #29
I understand your position. guillaumeb May 2017 #30
It's not my position, it's part of the story. God is supposed to be omnipotent. beam me up scottie May 2017 #32
Which premise? WoonTars May 2017 #37
You have stated repeatedly you believe the universe was created by your god. trotsky May 2017 #41
Epicurus said it best . . . . hatrack May 2017 #59
Is sickness evil? guillaumeb May 2017 #61
If the sickness was created yes, it's evil. beam me up scottie May 2017 #64
Accident and intentional are contradictory. guillaumeb May 2017 #66
A creator who's omnipotent is responsible for all things it creates - including accidents. beam me up scottie May 2017 #69
So if you have a child, you are responsible for every action that the child takes. guillaumeb May 2017 #72
God is supposed to be omnipotent. He created humans who he knew would make mistakes. beam me up scottie May 2017 #74
Overblown rhetoric does not a winning argument make. guillaumeb May 2017 #76
It's not rhetoric - all that stuff is in the bible. I'm just citing the source. beam me up scottie May 2017 #79
Still misrepresenting I see. guillaumeb May 2017 #80
You're the one who explained the consequences of free will. beam me up scottie May 2017 #83
Parents are not omnipotent beings... WoonTars May 2017 #88
I was unaware that parents were omnipotent... WoonTars May 2017 #87
... But you can't explain why. Baconator May 2017 #115
What there can he not prove? Lordquinton May 2017 #38
What sort of qualifications are required Warren DeMontague May 2017 #19
Fry's points are unsubstantiated nonsense. guillaumeb May 2017 #23
Based upon what evidence? Warren DeMontague May 2017 #24
If he has proof, he can present it. guillaumeb May 2017 #25
You are right. Just like saying "The Easter Bunny is a jerk and the Tooth Fairy has bad breath" Warren DeMontague May 2017 #26
The Tooth Fairy suffers from bad breath due to excessive sugar consumption. guillaumeb May 2017 #27
It would be reasonable if there was a book claiming the Easter Bunny has bad breath. beam me up scottie May 2017 #33
If you have proof please present it Lordquinton May 2017 #39
What he's got are some very good questions that priests inevitably dodge Warpy May 2017 #34
Stephen Fry is an atheist. Crunchy Frog May 2017 #43
It probably does belong there. guillaumeb May 2017 #51
No different than those who have the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and think the Spirit is with them. TheBlackAdder May 2017 #48
What creator? nt GliderGuider May 2017 #95
The one who created all of existence. guillaumeb May 2017 #96
One? I thought there were a whole bunch of them GliderGuider May 2017 #97
So are you a Hindu? guillaumeb May 2017 #98
No. GliderGuider May 2017 #99
Source? Lordquinton May 2017 #102
Mr. Fry's existence has been repeatedly proven... Orsino May 2017 #112
Hard to have insight into the mind of a fictional character... Baconator May 2017 #113
The Clip in Question Leith May 2017 #3
I am disappointed. surrealAmerican May 2017 #4
They backed down so that the law could stay. Voltaire2 May 2017 #5
Exactly. yortsed snacilbuper May 2017 #8
Precisely. This wasn't a victory for reason. beam me up scottie May 2017 #10
Another reason why we are fortunate to have the 1st Amendment, here in the US. Warren DeMontague May 2017 #86
Remember when we had people on DU arguing that "blasphemous" cartoons should be illegal? Warren DeMontague May 2017 #21
Richard Dawkins on Stephen Fry, blasphemy and the law yortsed snacilbuper May 2017 #36
Awesome response. beam me up scottie May 2017 #49
Hey - I've been told he's just as bad as religious fundamentalists who kill people. trotsky May 2017 #54
And he wears offensive t-shirts!!! beam me up scottie May 2017 #55
Oh noes!!! trotsky May 2017 #105
Saudi Arabia to execute atheist for blasphemy yortsed snacilbuper May 2017 #89
I wonder if someone will call him 'foolish' too? beam me up scottie May 2017 #90
STOP INSULTING THE MAGIC SKY PEOPLE Warren DeMontague May 2017 #119
Even the snot who complained wasn't offended Warpy May 2017 #103
Or any substantial deities. Orsino May 2017 #111
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Stephen Fry blasphemy pro...»Reply #57