Pages

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

A Modest Proposal

WHEREAS Libertarian Freewill (LF) followers maintain that the ability to make a free choice is the most important moral attribute that God has given man, such that it is more important that man be free than that God’s will be done upon Earth;

WHEREAS God refrains from interfering with man’s LF because it would be sinful for God to put restrictions upon man;

WHEREAS God furthermore calls us to be like Him, to be Holy as He is Holy, and to derive our moral precepts from Him;

AND WHEREAS Egomakarios claims LF

I HEREBY DO PROPOSE that sanctions be set forth against Egomakarios for violating LF concepts, as demonstrated:

1. When comment moderation is in effect, man’s free will to post whatsoever he chooses to post is infringed.

2. If it is a sin for God to restrict freedom, it is likewise a sin for man to restrict freedom.

3. Egomakarios is therefore sinning by placing comment moderation on his blog (http://egomakarios.blogspot.com/) for he restricts man’s ability to post in freedom on his blog.

FURTHERMORE, WHEREAS Compatiblist Freewill (CF) is consistent with the idea that man can be free to do some things so long as he is not in conflict with a will that trumps his own;

WHEREAS Egomakarios imposes his will in a manner that trumps LF;

I HEREBY DO PROPOSE that Egomakarios no longer be considered a LF at all, but instead publicly admit he is CF like every other rational person.

FINALLY, I HEREBY DO PROPOSE that if Egomakarios does not submit to this proposal the Committee to Form Proposals prefix his name with “the liar” such that all references to Egomakarios from this point on would be “the liar Egomakarios.”

32 comments:

  1. I know. I bet you didn't even realize we had a Committee to Form Proposals around here.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Peter Pike said:

    "I know. I bet you didn't even realize we had a Committee to Form Proposals around here."

    Which reports to the Committee to Form the Committee to Form Proposals.

    ReplyDelete
  3. And somewhere in the mix is the Committee to Elect Ralph Nadar.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Comment moderation doesn't restrict your free will to post. It just means that your post, although actually made by you, might not make it online. It's like man having the freedom to do good works. Certainly a man may do many good works, for he is able and has the freedom, but unless God by grace accepts them, what are they worth? Nothing. Again it is like prayer in a sense. Remember the parable of the man who knocked on his friend's door but the friend would not open. You may knock on God's door forever, but until he opens by grace, so what? So, comment moderation does not hinder your free will, but rather means that what you do with that free will is ineffective until smiled on by grace. Thus in this situation, unless I graciously decide to post your worthless comment that your free will sent me, it has no effect.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In other words:

    You have the freedom to do whatever.

    Except you don't.

    ReplyDelete
  6. BTW, EgoManiac's analogy fails in that according to his view, man can still actually do the works, whereas if I try to post a comment on his site nothing happens.

    In other words, God won't stop a man from raping someone because that would violate the man's freedom, but Ego can stop me from posting my thoughts and that doesn't violate my freedom.

    Yeah.

    ReplyDelete
  7. BTW, EgoManiac's analogy fails in that according to his view, man can still actually do the works, whereas if I try to post a comment on his site nothing happens.

    Yeah it does--I get an email with your comment. To "post" a comment means for the comment to be sent to the server. Do you not know what "post" means in web terminology?

    In other words, God won't stop a man from raping someone because that would violate the man's freedom, but Ego can stop me from posting my thoughts and that doesn't violate my freedom.

    I don't stop you from posting. I stop the post from being seen. Just as God might not stop the rapist, but in the background unbeknownst to us he may stop the woman from conceiving by it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. BTW, for clarification, Peter Pike has never attempted to post a comment on my blog to begin with. Why don't you try it, and let's see if anything happens?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Peter, you do realize that in arguing against man having a free will in your rape analogy, you are making God the author of rape, right?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ego said:
    ---
    I don't stop you from posting. I stop the post from being seen. Just as God might not stop the rapist, but in the background unbeknownst to us he may stop the woman from conceiving by it.
    ---

    Yeah because we all know the bad part about rape is conception....

    Anonymous said:
    ---
    Peter, you do realize that in arguing against man having a free will in your rape analogy, you are making God the author of rape, right?
    ---

    You do realize I'm arguing from Ego's presuppositions, right? I've said nothing about my own position in that analogy. Nice try, Ego.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ego said:
    ---
    I don't stop you from posting. I stop the post from being seen. Just as God might not stop the rapist, but in the background unbeknownst to us he may stop the woman from conceiving by it.
    ---

    Yeah because we all know the bad part about rape is conception....

    Anonymous said:
    ---
    Peter, you do realize that in arguing against man having a free will in your rape analogy, you are making God the author of rape, right?
    ---

    You do realize I'm arguing from Ego's presuppositions, right? I've said nothing about my own position in that analogy. Nice try, Ego.

    ReplyDelete
  12. By the way, we also all know that a post is a stick in the ground.

    Semantics over thinking hard: 'Tis the Arminian way.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "By the way, we also all know that a post is a stick in the ground."

    Typical Calvinist - ripping everything out of context. A post can also be a mail-man, but we know that not what we mean by post here.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Yeah because we all know the bad part about rape is conception...."

    Why are we talking about bad part to begin with? My point has nothing to do with good or bad. The point is that you have the free will to do something doesn't mean that you are in control of the results of what you do. You may strike a match and it not light. You may flip a switch and the light not come on. Did you not have the free will to flip the switch? Of course, and you did flip the switch, yet the light did not come on. So also, you can post and the post not show up. You can pray, and if God weren't gracious, he wouldn't listen.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ego said:
    ---
    Typical Calvinist - ripping everything out of context. A post can also be a mail-man, but we know that not what we mean by post here.
    ---

    Typical Libertarian - forgetting who brought what up in the first place.

    Ego claimed:
    ---
    Why are we talking about bad part to begin with?
    ---

    "We" apparently aren't talking about anything because you're still searching for the subject. You need to take Hooked on Phonics and learn to read, then you wouldn't look so dumb.

    Ego said:
    ---
    The point is that you have the free will to do something doesn't mean that you are in control of the results of what you do.
    ---

    Fine, but the fact is that people choose to do evil and God doesn't interfere while they do evil, right? And the reason is because to do so would violate their free will which would make God the bad guy, right?

    Yet God could easily stop the rapist from actually committing a rape (you know, sudden heart attack, etc.) and this would prevent the "result" wouldn't it? So, in your worldview, why doesn't God act to stop the sinner?

    Ergo, when you say:
    ---
    You may strike a match and it not light. You may flip a switch and the light not come on. Did you not have the free will to flip the switch?
    ---

    I counter: You may pull the trigger and the gun not fire. You may slash someone with a razor and they not bleed. Did you not have the free will to pull the trigger or stab the person?

    IF SO, THEN GOD COULD CERTAINLY STOP EVIL PEOPLE FROM DOING EVIL DEEDS WITHOUT VIOLATING THEIR FREE WILL.

    See, the murderer/rapist freely chooses yet God can make it so there's no victim, right?

    Do you not see the problem with your methodology?

    ReplyDelete
  16. EgoMakarios said:

    "Just as God might not stop the rapist, but in the background unbeknownst to us he may stop the woman from conceiving by it."

    Notice in the Arminian scheme, God respects the rapist's freedom to violate the victim's freedom. He allows the rapist to violate the woman's freewill. Obviously the woman doesn't freely will herself to be the victim of the rapist.

    So how does the Arminian scheme improve over what it finds so intolerable in the Reformed scheme?

    ReplyDelete
  17. I second the committee's motion. When do you start? Maybe I'll start that over at Beggars All too...

    ReplyDelete
  18. Ego,

    You post comment after comment denigrating Calvinists on the Beggars All blog even when the posts have nothing to do with Reformed Theology and yet you moderate comments on your own blog. That's priceless.

    Btw, I would love to see you repost some of your comments over here and see how well you fare.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Oh, Carrie, by all means feel free to bring some of his greatest hits here on your own. That wouldn't be off topic, since comments are, in point of fact, the topic of this thread. :D

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Fine, but the fact is that people choose to do evil and God doesn't interfere while they do evil, right? And the reason is because to do so would violate their free will which would make God the bad guy, right?"

    No, I never said God couldn't stop someone from doing evil. However, experience shows that he generally doesn't. God doesn't have to let people do whatever they want, but we see that he does.

    I suppose this is the difference between your favorite phrase "libertarian free will" and what I actually believe. I never said anything about God being under obligation to respect someone's free will by allowing them to do evil.

    Free will has nothing to do with God being under obligation to let you do whatever you want, but rather it is the standard of judgement or the basis on which judgement may be made. If God fated everything, then he might as well be punishing a turnip in hell for not being a man. For God to be just in judging men, men must be capable of doing or not doing, of willing or not willing.

    This doesn't mean God can't stop someone from doing a specific action. If someone right now said they wanted to go kill their neighbor across the street, God doesn't have to let them do it--he can give them a heart attack in the middle of the street and end it all if he wants.

    You guys are making a big strawman to burn in effigy. You want a god who is the direct author of evil, who fates every sin on earth, so you can say 'God made me do it.'

    ReplyDelete
  21. I never said anything about God being under obligation to respect someone's free will by allowing them to do evil.

    Free will has nothing to do with God being under obligation to let you do whatever you want, but rather it is the standard of judgement or the basis on which judgement may be made.


    Apparently, you can't see the implications of your own line of argumentation, because you are are a will-worshipper who is trying to defend God ethically when God's Word does not employ this defense. Scripture, you see, never employs the Free Will Defense. Never, not a single time, does it do so.

    If the freedom to do otherwise is the basis of judgment, and God judges all our acts, then the freedom to do otherwise must ALWAYS obtain, Ego, or else the foundation of your ethical (not exegetical) defense shatters. If it always obtains, then, yes, Ego, this means that He is in some way obligated to allow you to do whatever you want or else there is no basis for judgment or His judgment is unjust.

    You want a god who is the direct author of evil, who fates every sin on earth, so you can say 'God made me do it.'

    1. Of course, Calvinism differentiates between primary and secondary causes. You're confusing decrees (certainty) with causality (providence), yet again. You keep invoking this argument after we've refuted it multiple times. In response, you either repeat the assertion, which is a boldfaced lie, and/or resort to the "I don't want to talk about philosophy" response, which is, of course, a tacit admission that you have no response. LFW is, by definition, a philosophical argument, Ego, or are all those Arminian theologians out there who tells us that very frankly wrong? If so, please provide us with an exegetical argument for LFW.

    2. "Fate," Ego requires libertarian freedom to work. Since we deny libertarian freedom, this charge is false. Predestination and Fate are not interchangeable terms, so your analogy minus the argument fails at a critical point. Further, Fate is impersonal,not personal - another critical point.

    Determinism means that all events are rendered unavoidable by the causes, which include our choices. Fatalism says all events will happen, regardless of our choices. Calvinism is not the same as fatalism. In fatalism, Oedipus cannot escape his fate, try as he might. Indeed, he fulfills his fate by trying to avoid it. He is at the mercy of the impersonal forces of the universe. In Calvinism, the reprobate are not trying to escape their fate. Indeed, they regard themselves as masters of their own destiny. In short, fatalism says that God accomplishes his purpose apart from the will of man. In other words, the ends occur regardless of the means. God fulfills his plan regardless of the will of man. But this is not Calvinism. Calvinism, however, states that God accomplishes his will through the will of man; God decrees both the ends and the means.


    Which of us says, "God made me do it?" Calvinists are very candid when the say that the blame for sin and evil lies not with God, but with man." Apparently, you are fixated on the notion that if God decrees all things, this somehow means that man can "get off the hook." But that's not the argument we've put forth. Rather, that is your characterization of our view. So, who here is burning a straw man in effigy? It is not we.

    ReplyDelete
  22. If the freedom to do otherwise is the basis of judgment, and God judges all our acts, then the freedom to do otherwise must ALWAYS obtain, Ego, or else the foundation of your ethical (not exegetical) defense shatters.

    The only thing I'm really arguing here is that man is allowed to obey or disobey and that God doesn't fate you to one or the other. If you think he fates some people to obey and others to disboey, then you have made God the real doer of all action. God then becomes the only real sinner, since every sin done is done by his secret command in the heart of the man who is merely carrying out his hidden will. When I talk about free will I don't mean that God has to give a man the ability to jump to the moon in a single bound if he wants to do that. I just mean that God did not fate this man to unrepentant sin and that one to perseverance in faith, etc. These things are within man's ability, or else God is judging himself moreso than man when he sends a man to hell, since in your system he is the only one really doing anything.

    ReplyDelete
  23. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Fate," Ego requires libertarian freedom to work. Since we deny libertarian freedom, this charge is false.

    Are you smoking crack? Now, I'll grant you that I still don't know what libertarian freedom is, nor do I care. But the very concept of will (will is always free, since that's its definitions, voluntad, voluntary) requires fate to not exist. If there is fate, there is no will. Fate means everything is predetermined.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Since when did "fate" become a verb?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Ego denies original sin. Ask him to explain Romans 5 and following, particularly verse 12. He asserts that Christ's death applies to us all, but Adam's sin applies to no one. Be prepared for repeated slogans as counterarguments, such as Calvinists use original sin so they can say "God made me do it". Also, there will be charges that your defense of original sin (or any other doctrine) are just weak philisophical arguments. And finally, ask EgoMak to produce one example of a person who has NOT sinned, if in fact, no one is born a sinner. Then stand back and watch the hamster wheel spin!

    ReplyDelete
  27. Those who beleive in original sin might as well go march in the gay pride parades screeching "God made me this way" because that's exactly what their doctrine is.

    ReplyDelete
  28. EgoMakarios said:

    "Those who beleive in original sin might as well go march in the gay pride parades screeching "God made me this way" because that's exactly what their doctrine is."

    Those who deny original sin might as well go march in the gay pride parades since they deny the moral authority of Scripture.

    Ego simply rejects Scriptural teachings whenever he dislikes the consequences of Scriptural teachings. So he should feel right at home in the gay pride parade.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anonymous said:
    ---
    Obviously the person who thinks everyone is born unable to do anything right has some sort of moral superiority.
    ---

    Obviously anonymous is too stupid to grasp the fact that if "everyone is born unable to do anything right" that would include Calvinists too, which somehow defuses the charge of "moral superiority" there.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Ego said:

    "Those who beleive in original sin might as well go march in the gay pride parades screeching "God made me this way" because that's exactly what their doctrine is."

    Am I prophetic or what?

    Notice also there was no attempt to deal with Romans 5.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Are you smoking crack? Now, I'll grant you that I still don't know what libertarian freedom is, nor do I care.

    Yes, we are well aware that you are either unwilling or incompetent. You keep talking about "free will" but you refuse to engage the topic when we answer you on your own level. Your "free willism" is just ad hocery from beginning to end. If you want to engage a topic and use terms that have meaning, then you need to bone up on the topic.

    Your lack of caring obviously goes further than LFW, since you don't really care to accurately represent what others believe at all.

    But the very concept of will (will is always free, since that's its definitions, voluntad, voluntary) requires fate to not exist.

    "Free will" and "voluntary" are not convertible terms. One of your peristent problems is that you define a concept like "free will" by a term you think is "synonymous." This is a classic example of the word-concept fallacy.

    We too affirm that a person's choices are "voluntary." We deny that they are voluntary in a libertarian sense. All you are doing here is begging the question of what constitutes a "free" choice or a "voluntary" choice.

    You're the one who used the term "fate." I'm only responding to the way YOU framed the discussion. Of course, since we now know you don't care what LFW is, it is no doubt true that you don't care what "Fate" actually entails. So, why are you throwing around terms about which you don't care to learn the meaning?

    "Fate" is a concept with a historic meaning. "Fate," by definition falls under the rubric of a libertarian action theory, for, in fate, no matter what a person chooses to do the "fated" end will always occur. This requires a theory of agent causation. That theory is LFW. Just check the literature. Since we deny LFW and the idea that a determined end will obtain regardless of what a person chooses , predestination and "fate" are not convertible terms.

    If there is fate, there is no will. Fate means everything is predetermined.

    Fate and determinism are not the same thing. But then you don't care about what these concepts mean, yet you're the one throwing them around.

    ReplyDelete