Posted on 11/17/2009 11:13:30 AM PST by Gamecock
LOL
FAIL
What a rotten view of humanity you must have. The triumph of humanity is in the examples of those who chose other than what they most desired. Unless you claim that the men who charged the machine gun nests in WWII desired death most. Or the man who dies rescuing a flood or fire victim desires death. Or the soldier who puts his life on the line defending us desires death. Or the policeman or fireman who protects the public good desires death.
What kind of crazy beliefs do you people have? I would not have believed it had you not posted it.
Well said! I hadn't quite thought of it that way.
I would ask you to think through the implications of that statement.
Why would you assume death is the desire of each of those actions you cited? I certainly would not. Death may be the result but obviously there is another underlying desire in each of those cases. What those examples prove is that even though death may result another underlying desire leads to those actions.
I realize that takes thinking beyond the surface level but hopefully we can help get there.
Your statement was that humans always choose what they most desire. I brought up the examples of those among us who died for others. Therefore, if one uses the formula of actions resulting directly from one's desires, then every man who gives up his life for others desires death.
And that is a crazy idea. Life is full of humans who choose other than what they most desire. For somebody to state that humans only choose what they most desire reduce humans to the status of animals, unable to do anything other than what strikes them at the moment. Kinda like the Reformation. Anything that one thinks of, can become one's theology.
Honestly, the more I deal with you folks, the more that I think that humanity has suffered from the Reformation.
Oh my... is it really that difficult to come up with motivations for why someone would risk their lives besides death?
A firefighter goes into a burning building. What could possibly be his motivations?
1. Prove he is capable of performing what he was trained to do.
2. For the glory he perceives he’ll receive from those actions.
3. The money he receives for the job.
4. The position has a high esteem in culture and he is able to turn that into opportunities to attract females for sex.
And the list goes on.
I have to admit the Romanists on this forum have really opened my eyes to sorry state they are in. The inability to reason beyond simplistic, linear, Romanistic notions is frightful. I have absolutely no confidence that Romanists in this country are able to resist the despotic efforts of fascists simply because they are unable to reason. They are taught from childbirth simply to accept the simplest notions and if it isn’t spelled out in the Catechism it leaves them in a state of perpetual confusion.
God help us.
Lucifer fell in much the same way as Adam. It was when Lucifer exercised his will over God's will by desiring to climb to the throne that he was cast down. His lust gave way to sin. Does that mean Lucifer, or any other angels for that matter, have/had "free will" in heaven? No; otherwise you would have angels falling from heaven all the time. The scripture tells us the fall of Satan was a one moment in time thing, so no angel is exercising their "free will". The only logical conclusion is that at some point in time, God allow Lucifer to fall just as at some point in time He allowed Adam to fall.
As a side note, I find the fall of the angels interestingly to be the inverse of the fall of man. In the case of the angels, they start out as perfect beings, God withdraws His hands from some, and those who He withdraws His hand from falls. Man, OTOH, starts out depraved and God intervenes to save some and works to perfect us. It is my personal belief that this is to show both angels and men are solely dependent on God mercy and grace to sustain us.
What about Adam and Eve?
God was in the garden. He knew Adam was about to take the fruit. In fact God deliberately PLANTED the tree. Yet when the event occurred, God did not prevent the fall which would doom the entire race of mankind to eternal torment. One would have thought that God would have rushed over and said, "Hey, I wouldn't do that otherwise bad things will happen." That would have been "free will", Adam would have both sides explain the situation and he makes a choice based upon the facts. Now either one has to question why God did not intervene or explain the situation; or one has to accept the fact that God wanted it to happen.
As for Eve, we read in scripture in several places that she was deceived into eating the fruit. Though she sinned, she was tricked into it unlike Adam who with his own will (not free will) took the fruit and ate. Her punishment was less severe (it is through Adam that the race is doomed-not Eve) but sin is sin.
What about Judas Iscariot, chosen one of the Twelve?
Our Lord Jesus said, "Did I not choose you and one of you is the devil?" Christ said that He does not pray for the world but for those that the Father has given Him (John 17:9). I find no record of Him praying for Judas but certainly for Peter. Christ allowed the devil to enter Judas and even commanded Judas what he is going to do, he should do quickly. Does that sound like free will?
Christ prays for us just as He did with Peter, who the devil would have like to have had some mischief with. And, like Peter, it is Christ who sustains us to His great glory. He never does this for Judas.
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air...
Harsh words, but if we were to judge by deeds there is truth in them. I think there is no question that the RCC has a hegemonic attitude towards other Christian churches, but there is a minority within this church that is conservative and is fighting to turn it away from it's liberal/fascist bent. We should differentiate between individuals and the church itself.
Often what we see are the more militant RC's on these threads. On a different thread a RC who wants a RC Monarchy was roundly criticized by a lot of RC's who said they would fight it.
They are taught from childbirth simply to accept the simplest notions and if it isn’t spelled out in the Catechism it leaves them in a state of perpetual confusion.
I don't believe the lack of independent thinking is the simplicity of their teaching. I think it is a result of all the doctrines they hold that teach their church is a conduit you must travel through to be saved. Think of their "Unam Sanctum".
Also, from a very early age they are taught to believe Christians in other churches are "defective". They look down on us. They don't think of us as brothers and sisters in Christ. If someone is raised in this environment it is difficult to develop the independent thinking to consider these other Christian churches are right and their "superior church" is wrong.
A good example is their attitude when people leave the RCC and join Evangelical churches. They act as if it is the end of the world. If I know a Christian that leaves my Baptist church and joins a Presbyterian church I don't get concerned I think of us as equals.
wmfights, I appreciate your distinctions. Obviously I’m reacting to anecdotal evidence which does not prove anything but it sure provides some data points.
I’m not concerned at all how Romanists view other Christian denominations since her doctrine is inherently defective as to the Gospel and thus she must view the gospel of Grace as defective. It is her sociology that concerns me.
Certainly there have been some good Romanist thinkers on liberty such as Acton but Rome’s Social Justice theories are inherently collectivist and when added to the non-critical fealty required to be Romanist it’s barely a step towards accepting full-scale collectivism of the State.
For the most part “conservative” Romanists are one-trick ponies. The Constitution lays out three basic human properties that are basic to human nature: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Truth (Jefferson used Happiness in the Augustinian sense that true happiness is pursuit of truth). For the most part from what I see most conservative Romanists are merely concerned with the first aspect, that is life, as it is manifested in the abortion debate. I see much less urgency for Liberty and Truth. True Conservatism acknowledges that all three aspects are organically related and you can’t have just one aspect and dismiss the other two without surely falling into despotism.
Evangelicals have some problems in this area as well. The recently released Manhattan Declaration is pretty decent on Life and Liberty but the middle section on Marriage seems to me to add to not only the Constitution but it also assumes that Scriptures speaks to the State’s role in upholding that institution. I find nothing in Scripture that would support Christians demanding the State to regulate personal relationships.
Evangelicals have fallen into the trap of thinking our Country is a “Christian” country and by that we should forbid immoralities. Our country was certainly based on Christian principles but these principles are based on the second table of the Law which in essence is forbidding harm to others. The second table does not speak to immoralities; that is those actions done by one to oneself or those actions between consenting adults.
Those of us who believe in the doctrines of Grace understand the depths of depravity that infect all of us. It should never be a surprise that men would engage in all sorts of immoralities, in fact man will surely do so. The most we should demand of the State is that it protect us from the direct harm as laid out in the second table of the Law. Once we begin to ask the State to protect us from indirect harm we begin to travel the road to despotism.
A firefighter goes into a burning building. What could possibly be his motivations?
1. Prove he is capable of performing what he was trained to do. 2. For the glory he perceives he’ll receive from those actions. 3. The money he receives for the job. 4. The position has a high esteem in culture and he is able to turn that into opportunities to attract females for sex.
And the list goes on.
This is type X theory. I am horrified that anyone in this day and age believes this. This is a philosophy of animal men, peasants and serfs, and the justification for keeping the elite in power while the slaves are kept in control by the masters. It is definitely Calvinistic and fits the mindset of the would be masters of humanity. There is no difference except in small details between what you say here and anything that, for example, Rahm Emanuel says.
I am stunned by this revelation. It is true to Reformed beliefs. But it has always been denied by its proponents to my knowledge up to now.
America's first fascist president was stiff-necked Calvinist Presbyterian stalwart Woodrow Wilson.
The scripture tells us the fall of Satan was a one moment in time thing, so no angel is exercising their "free will". The only logical conclusion is that at some point in time, God allow Lucifer to fall just as at some point in time He allowed Adam to fall.
No, Harley, you cannot have these both at the same time. It is not a logical conclusion; it presupposes opposed conditions and opts out with a "God did it and we don't know why" rationalization.
As a side note, I find the fall of the angels interestingly to be the inverse of the fall of man. In the case of the angels, they start out as perfect beings, God withdraws His hands from some, and those who He withdraws His hand from falls.
No, Harley, the angels' defection was a one time thing, according to Scripture. There is nothing that says that it is ongoing.
God was in the garden. He knew Adam was about to take the fruit. In fact God deliberately PLANTED the tree. Yet when the event occurred, God did not prevent the fall which would doom the entire race of mankind to eternal torment. One would have thought that God would have rushed over and said, "Hey, I wouldn't do that otherwise bad things will happen." That would have been "free will", Adam would have both sides explain the situation and he makes a choice based upon the facts.
God created all. Eve, seduced by the serpent, took the fruit. The scenario that you describe here does not need to happen in terms of free will. This is another rationalization in order to reconcile the Calvinist predestination with events as laid out in Scripture.
What about Judas Iscariot, chosen one of the Twelve? Our Lord Jesus said, "Did I not choose you and one of you is the devil?" Christ said that He does not pray for the world but for those that the Father has given Him (John 17:9). I find no record of Him praying for Judas but certainly for Peter. Christ allowed the devil to enter Judas and even commanded Judas what he is going to do, he should do quickly. Does that sound like free will?
The difference is bteween foreknowledge and predestination. Jesus did not command Judas as in predestining him, but told him as man to man to lets get it over with. Vast difference. There are still the irreconcilable differences between predestination and Scripture. God cannot predestine AND people be responsible for their actions. It goes against Scripture (Judgement), against Scripture (the Beatitudes), against Scripture (pick up your cross and follow me) and against Scripture (Matthew 25 entire).
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air...
That did not refer to the burning of Washington. The burning of Washington was in retaliation for burning down many buildings in the Canadian capital in a sneak attack.
No.
But it is an instance where our history mentions rockets.
I'm with you.
...but Rome’s Social Justice theories are inherently collectivist...
And when people of this mindset ally themselves with liberals we end up with the republic threatened.
But it is one of the lowest lows that this country has ever sunk to in its history. I am ashamed of it, as much as I am ashamed of the Church permitting the Reformation to occur. Scurrilous deeds, causing the death and destruction of thousands (1812) and millions (Reformation) of souls.
Thank God you're not describing the Catholic Church.
I guess I’m confused. You’re ashamed of the Royal Navy’s bombardment of Fort McHenry?
I'm ashamed of this country's burning of York (Toronto) in an undeclared war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.