The Christian God Does Violate Human Free Will

[The Grand Nudger]

I didn't miss it, I'm ignoring it for it's base ignorance....hoping god will hit you with another bolt of wisdom magic...and you'll realize how and why you've failed to comepl me to choose to serve..or be a slave to your sins or your master.

Or is that too much to ask..is that not something he does?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Maybe ya'll are just choosing not to be believe in free will?  Or perhaps you just don't believe in it because the initial conditions of the universe made you to not do so?

Another case of theists deliberately misunderstanding a clear point.

I did not start this thread to discuss whether I believe in free will.  The thread is a refutation of the Christian claim that god allowed evil into the world out of respect for human free will. The bible itself is its own refutation. All I'm doing is pointing out what it says.

You are doing no such thing. Yes, God hardened Pharaoh's heart, but long before then Pharaoh had a history of repeated injustice. Those prior actions were the offences. God hardening Pharoah's heart is not the only example. As foretold by Jesus, Peter denied Him three times. So in some sense, Peter did not truly have free will with respect to those three times. But that does not negate all the other moments throughout his life when Peter was not compelled by overwhelming fear and professed His love and obedience to our Lord. Freely. People are only judged according to the decisions they actually make and not for things that are forced on them.

[The Grand Nudger]

"In some sense" he didn't have free will....with regards to that?  Talk about a lightfooted attempt at damage control.   You have assumed he had free will some other time.  Did god not know about any of those times beforehand?  He knew Peter would reject him thrice, but everything else was a tossup, Peter had no choice there, but the rest of his life was a free-for-all "in some sense"? We're only judged for decisions we actually make? Was Peter not judged for that denial...is the denial of christ a non-adjudicative offense? I ask, ofc, because we're often told precisely the opposite...just looking for clarification from your sects POV.

[Old Baby]

What I don't get is why people like Drich are here.  They don't bring any new arguments or new evidence to the table.  It might be different if they were defending their own turf from the challenge of atheists in an environment where empty faith claims and pseudo science actually has a pacifying effect on the audience.  At this point Drich is like the guy who registers with the forum just to say "If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

at the moment you are 132 posts into this forum...

Aside from a closed mind, and speaking from stereotypes how in all honestly are you able to make that assertion?

I don't teach faith.

I literally employ far more real science than most of you do (I literally used science to dispell every counter claim made about the 'flood' in the last Ark thread we just had, which literally left you guys with nothing more than ad hom attacks) I've quoted works from major universities, NASA, Various experts in given fields, and their books ect..

And i have successfully integrated all of evolution into the creation account, to the point that neither the church or all of 'science' can legitimately argue that the theory I provide is completely dismissable outside of just wishing this were the case.

What you're guilty of BCB (Big Cry Baby just incase you forgot) is a sweeping dismissal. You want your peers to support a dismissal without addressing the talking point you find yourself out of your depth to answer. So you make an appeal against me that actually does not even come close to what I have consistently brought here in the way of discussion for the last several years... This kind of high school crap may work in the other forums you are use to, but does not work here. the established members here (on both sides of the discussion) hold themselves to a high standard, so if you want to stay and not feel like a 'Dry sand' then you are going to have to start speaking topically.

Just now saw this post, and it's pretty good.  Big Cry Baby and all that... a fine line of attack.

I don't need my peers to support anything, though.  My contribution to this thread is honestly, superfluous.  It was merely an observation and nothing more.

What you call 'sweeping dismissal', I think is based on your presuppositionalism.  I don't need to be a scientist to spot it.  I'm an ex Christian, so I know what that's all about.  You can borrow from real science and look really smart doing it, but the smoke screen isn't good enough to hide the presuppositionalist nature of your assertions, which are not deserving of respect.  I know enough to understand this isn't how science works, regardless of the farcical claims of your Christian apologetics.

Waiting for the "You presuppose you're not a brain in a vat" or something.

[JuliaL]

Waiting for the "You presuppose you're not a brain in a vat" or something.

He's also presupposing that God isn't a brain in a vat.

[Rhondazvous]

Another case of theists deliberately misunderstanding a clear point.

I did not start this thread to discuss whether I believe in free will.  The thread is a refutation of the Christian claim that god allowed evil into the world out of respect for human free will. The bible itself is its own refutation. All I'm doing is pointing out what it says.

You are doing no such thing. Yes, God hardened Pharaoh's heart, but long before then Pharaoh had a history of repeated injustice. Those prior actions were the offences. God hardening Pharoah's heart is not the only example. As foretold by Jesus, Peter denied Him three times. So in some sense, Peter did not truly have free will with respect to those three times. But that does not negate all the other moments throughout his life when Peter was not compelled by overwhelming fear and professed His love and obedience to our Lord. Freely. People are only judged according to the decisions they actually make and not for things that are forced on them.

Since god had the power to harden Pharaoh's heart to make him disobey, then he also had the power to soften pharaoh's heart so that he never would have committed those earlier offences. You cannot have a god with full power and full knowledge yet no responsibility for the choices he knowingly makes. Your defense of this is nothing more than the Stockholm syndrome.