Plantinga's "Free Will" defense contradicts Christianity

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Christian notions of grace, free will, and predestination aren't based on anything in the OT.  They got all that from their synthesis, not their borrowed ladder.

*shrug* A difference which makes no difference is no difference.

Boru

[John 6IX Breezy]

Assume that all of that is true, and the moral dilemma remains.

If you assume what I said is true, there is no dilemma as Boru has presented. That's all I'm concerned with. I don't know anything about Plantiga or whatever other moral issues you have.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think it does make a difference, and it resolves alot of the things that any person, christian or atheist, might otherwise struggle with.

There's a vast amount of moral discontinuity between the christian god and the OT god. That's largely due to discontinuity in god beliefs and moral systems between the people who came up with the respective works of fiction. Platingas god, for example, bears little resemblance to the god of the hebrews. They did not seek to constrain gods potency, and did not need to do so in order to resolve a moral issue that would not have struck them -as- a moral issue. By the metrics of Platingas moral system, and within the context of thew god that he believes in, much of the OT is negotiable. He's very much in the habit of deferring to some message from god in these stories..when they contradict fact. Whether there was ever a global flood, for example, unimportant. There is, presumably, a message that the flood narrative is intended to convey, and only god..it's author, can know what that is.

---

No, John, assuming what you have to say is true doesn't resolve any dilemma, you're just refusing to confront them.

You don't have to, it's not a problem for you, just as there are things in Platingas formulation that are problems for him, but not for you. You don't believe that the fruit was moral knowledge, but that doesn't change anything about the objection from that belief. No more so than you not accepting Platingas arguments would make valid criticism of that argument, somehow, suddenly invalid.

[John 6IX Breezy]

I don't think there's any moral discontinuity. The same God that talked about destroying the Earth with a flood in the OT is talking about destroying the Earth by fire in the NT. And the same God that was talking about love, forgiveness, and redemption in the NT, said the same things in the OT. Jesus is quoting the OT almost half the time he speaks, and the other half he's doing things because the OT said he would.

[The Grand Nudger]

I appreciate that you don't think that, but why would I sit here and argue with you over the fact that the christian god and the jewish god are not the same god? I'm commenting from the point of view of cultural anthropology - not statements of the articles of your faith. Similarly, it seems beyond absurd to engage you in any conversation where you're forced to take the ridiculous position that the moralities described in either book are the same moral system.

You're allowed to be a christian instead of a jew. You're allowed to have a different moral system than the one the authors of the OT possessed. You are a christian, and not a jew, and you do possess a moral sensibility disparate from those authors. The same was true of the authors of the nt.

[John 6IX Breezy]

The first Christians were Jews. And even if I'm not a Jew by blood neither was Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob (where it starts), etc. There's a continuity to the Biblical narrative that transcends any particular denomination or group of people.

You're creating artificial divisions, where there's a continuum.

[The Grand Nudger]

The first christians..were christians.

It's only an article of your own personal faith that there is a continuity. Jews disagree. Honestly, this is pointless, the article of your faith that you're trying to protect is in no way impacted by the truth of my comments. You, are not a jew. You do not share the moral sensibilities of the authors of the ot. You are a christian. You share (at least some) of the moral sensibilities of the authors of the nt, instead. Christ, the very idea of christ, is itself the defining and major point of moral divergence between two distinct religious and moral traditions.

Take a line when you get one.

[ColdComfort]

Okay. Is this the correct place to ask. What is the source of your information about this writer you are talking about? Which of his books or articles have you read? I'd like to check his views out for myself.

[The Grand Nudger]

Welcome back. You can find plantingas argument here.

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=Plantinga+free+will+defense

Or, if you'd prefer the lf of the boards, here-

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/

Or, if you like a quick wiki link..here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plan...ll_defense

[ColdComfort]

The first christians..were christians.  

It's only an article of your own personal faith that there is a continuity.  Jews disagree.  Honestly, this is pointless, the article of your faith that you're trying to protect is in no way impacted by the truth of my comments.  You, are not a jew.  You do not share the moral sensibilities of the authors of the ot.  You are a christian.  You share (at least some) of the moral sensibilities of the authors of the nt, instead.  Christ, the very idea of christ, is itself the defining and major point of moral divergence between two distinct religious and moral traditions.

Take a line when you get one.

He doesn't need a line in my view. The discontinuity is between the God of Scripture, about two thousands years of His Church and modern theologians who like to imagine God as being a real nice guy. The God of Sinai may throw you into hell, they say, but surely Jesus won't. There are in for one big surprise.