Free will and religious faith

Tiassa

Let us not launch the boat ...
Valued Senior Member
Often, we hear from certain religionists that "God gave people free will". How important is free will in one's faith? I have, in the past, argued that duress does not equal free will, and therefore to worship and honor God as a response to Pascal's Wager is inappropriate. This point, of course, depends on what someone means by free will.

Setting aside duress, what of fraud? In making a point to a friend recently about the behavior of certain religious people of my acquaintance, I pointed out that while they claim to not preach, they attempt to immerse a child in an environment where the religion is everywhere she turns. In this case, it is a sect of Christianity, and while making the point that the bookshelves are lined with titles like A Child's Steps to Jesus and The Clear Word for Kids, I came across a note at the publisher's website.

Now, the thing is that I'm already critical of the very idea of a "Bible paraphrase". One of my favorite examples of the problem with this is that The Clear Word (for adults, as such) actually hands a certain argumentative point to its critics, but without any sense of irony. In Genesis 3.23, God speaks of Adam and Eve becoming "like us". Well, who is this "us"? The paraphrase author, Dr. Jack Blanco, asserts that God is talking to the Son and Holy Ghost, and furthermore assures that the fall of man at Eden is according to His Plan.

The kids' edition, though, is my concern on this count. The publisher notes the following:

With reduced repetition, violence, and genealogies, The Clear Word for Kids is so easy to read that you’ll have to force yourself to stop.

(Review & Herald)

Now, I actually understand the idea of reducing the amount of repetition and genealogy, but that seems a market consideration. As a consideration of faith, I do not find it inappropriate; this is one of the few occasions on which I find myself in agreement with conservative evangelical Christians. For more on the controversy such books, Wikipedia discusses some criticisms of biblical paraphrase in some of its entries (see "The Living Bible" and "Criticism of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church: The Clear Word").

The reduction of violence, though, seems especially disingenuous. I would assert that if children are not capable of understanding the nuances of genocide or appreciating the merits of a father offering his daughters to be gang-raped by an angry mob, perhaps it would be best to leave decisions of faith for a later age. But that, it should be easy enough to see, is both logistically problematic and potentially threatening of the faith's perpetuity. The idea of stacking the deck so that a "free-will" decision is made by someone pre-conditioned to elect one option over the other seems rather dishonest to me. Furthermore, blanching the religion so that the subjects of conditioning exercises are trained to accept a deliberately-inaccurate view of the faith—thus depending on the idea that the desire to avoid punishment at God's hands will govern the reconciliation of what is taught to what the Bible actually says—suggests quite strongly a lack of faith on the part of the adult community. Apparently the Word of God is insufficient to communicate His Grace. The grown-ups need to deceive the children in order to condition them to make a free-will decision based on a conditioned fear of punishment and a fraudulent assertion of the faith itself.

Is it appropriate to lie to children this way in order to condition them to behave as one wishes? If, as Aquinas wrote, the "sacrifice of the intellect" is one in which God most delights, should that sacrifice be made by the believer, or for the believer?

And when that believer makes the demonstrative sacrifice, is it really fair that he or she should be making the gesture under fraudulent pretenses fomented by those whose duty it is to protect children from exploitation?

Why would the faithful fear that God's Word is inadequate? Why should the faithful dress it up to deceive people?
 
Often, we hear from certain religionists that "God gave people free will". How important is free will in one's faith? I have, in the past, argued that duress does not equal free will, and therefore to worship and honor God as a response to Pascal's Wager is inappropriate. This point, of course, depends on what someone means by free will.

Setting aside duress, what of fraud? In making a point to a friend recently about the behavior of certain religious people of my acquaintance, I pointed out that while they claim to not preach, they attempt to immerse a child in an environment where the religion is everywhere she turns. In this case, it is a sect of Christianity, and while making the point that the bookshelves are lined with titles like A Child's Steps to Jesus and The Clear Word for Kids, I came across a note at the publisher's website.

Now, the thing is that I'm already critical of the very idea of a "Bible paraphrase". One of my favorite examples of the problem with this is that The Clear Word (for adults, as such) actually hands a certain argumentative point to its critics, but without any sense of irony. In Genesis 3.23, God speaks of Adam and Eve becoming "like us". Well, who is this "us"? The paraphrase author, Dr. Jack Blanco, asserts that God is talking to the Son and Holy Ghost, and furthermore assures that the fall of man at Eden is according to His Plan.

The kids' edition, though, is my concern on this count. The publisher notes the following:



Now, I actually understand the idea of reducing the amount of repetition and genealogy, but that seems a market consideration. As a consideration of faith, I do not find it inappropriate; this is one of the few occasions on which I find myself in agreement with conservative evangelical Christians. For more on the controversy such books, Wikipedia discusses some criticisms of biblical paraphrase in some of its entries (see "The Living Bible" and "Criticism of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church: The Clear Word").

The reduction of violence, though, seems especially disingenuous. I would assert that if children are not capable of understanding the nuances of genocide or appreciating the merits of a father offering his daughters to be gang-raped by an angry mob, perhaps it would be best to leave decisions of faith for a later age. But that, it should be easy enough to see, is both logistically problematic and potentially threatening of the faith's perpetuity. The idea of stacking the deck so that a "free-will" decision is made by someone pre-conditioned to elect one option over the other seems rather dishonest to me. Furthermore, blanching the religion so that the subjects of conditioning exercises are trained to accept a deliberately-inaccurate view of the faith—thus depending on the idea that the desire to avoid punishment at God's hands will govern the reconciliation of what is taught to what the Bible actually says—suggests quite strongly a lack of faith on the part of the adult community. Apparently the Word of God is insufficient to communicate His Grace. The grown-ups need to deceive the children in order to condition them to make a free-will decision based on a conditioned fear of punishment and a fraudulent assertion of the faith itself.

Is it appropriate to lie to children this way in order to condition them to behave as one wishes? If, as Aquinas wrote, the "sacrifice of the intellect" is one in which God most delights, should that sacrifice be made by the believer, or for the believer?

And when that believer makes the demonstrative sacrifice, is it really fair that he or she should be making the gesture under fraudulent pretenses fomented by those whose duty it is to protect children from exploitation?

Why would the faithful fear that God's Word is inadequate? Why should the faithful dress it up to deceive people?


In short, two points
  1. addressing text critical issues of the bible (social standards/authorship of the old testament vs the new testament) probably wouldn't make for great adolescent reading.
  2. Without addressing text critical issues, your understanding of the bible also stands as "dressing it up" in a certain way.

and a 3rd point is

- this thread seems to be titled inappropriately
 
Last edited:
god's idea of freewill: Do as I DEMAND or I will torture you forever in a hell I made. It's like a man putting a gun to your head and telling you that you can do whatever you want but unless you do exactly as the gunman says, he'll kill you. god would need a dictionary to find out what freewill or love means.

In Genesis 2 + 3, the Devil exposes god's lie about the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, that whoever ate it would die that very day. Adam lived 930 years later after eating it. It is the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, so the fruit of freewill, courtesy of the Devil. It also means that Adam and Eve did not know about evil till they ate of it so could not know it was evil to disobey god.
 
Tiassa. You only have to read the bloody history of the church or any other religion to know that religion = violence.
 
It is the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, so the fruit of freewill, courtesy of the Devil.
Except there is no devil in Genesis, or the old testament generally. The devil was an idea borrowed much later in Hebrew history...probably from the Persians.
 
Lightgigantic said:

In short, two points
addressing text critical issues of the bible (social standards/authorship of the old testament vs the new testament) probably wouldn't make for great adolescent reading.
Without addressing text critical issues, your understanding of the bible also stands as "dressing it up" in a certain way.

Oh, enlighten us.

and a 3rd point is

- this thread seems to be titled inappropriately

Do enlighten us.
 
Lightgigantic said:

plenty of commentaries on text critical issues of the bible - of course its probably simpler just to be your own spin doctor

In other words, it's enough to assert a point, but too much to ask that you support it?

2% issues of free will
98% the bible according to Tiassa

Ironically, this is one occasion where that assertion is purely wrong. Show me one instance of "the Bible according to Tiassa", please. Honestly, I'm fascinated.

The topic post is, indeed, badly phrased at least on two points, but neither of those pertain to the Bible itself. Given that I've not included any actual Bible citations ... um ... how to phrase it politely? Oh, well. What the hell are you talking about?

• • •​

Kaneda said:

You only have to read the bloody history of the church or any other religion to know that religion = violence

Well, right. It's an arguable thesis as such, and I'm not one to argue against its general form. The stakes of redemptionist superstitions are the highest in the known Universe; I don't recall ever hearing of a war fought over pitching spilled salt over your left shoulder, knocking on wood, or whether or not white-knuckling and leaning forward in your seat on the two-and-two in the bottom of the ninth actually helps your favorite team.

While I acknowledge your point, I don't think this discussion has moved to a relevant phase yet.

• • •​

Greenberg said:

Does the Bible actually support the notion that man has free will?

Depends on who you ask. Mind if I get back to you on that on some unspecified future occasion? There might well be a topic of its own in that question.
 
In other words, it's enough to assert a point, but too much to ask that you support it?
approaching a multi-authored text without addressing text critical issues is to assert a point with no support
(or at least to do what you outwardly condemn - "dressing" the text according to one's own bias)
:shrug:
 
Last edited:
Except there is no devil in Genesis, or the old testament generally. The devil was an idea borrowed much later in Hebrew history...probably from the Persians.

Ahhhh, but there was a serpent, yes? One who would forever slither upon the ground for his guile?

At any rate, I was given a Children's Bible when I was about 8 years old. It was toned down a bit and paraphrased. Instead of all the "begots" there was simply a sentence or two explaining that many years past and many generations followed. No harm, no foul at that age. If a child has a question, look to the actual Bible used by your faith for further explanation.

I agree generally with the poster's comments on religious "sects."
 
Except there is no devil in Genesis, or the old testament generally. The devil was an idea borrowed much later in Hebrew history...probably from the Persians.
*************
M*W: I think you are right about the origin of the devil myth. I just read that yesterday. However, there is the Constellation of Draco and Serpens that I believe was the basis of the devil myth, but then there were astrologers in Persia, too.
 
*************
M*W: I think you are right about the origin of the devil myth. I just read that yesterday. However, there is the Constellation of Draco and Serpens that I believe was the basis of the devil myth, but then there were astrologers in Persia, too.

This is way off topic, but just out of curiosity, if we find even more planets in our solar system due to prior mistakes and stuff, doesn't that throw off all the old garbage astrologers used in creating their pseudoscience?
 
*************
M*W: I think you are right about the origin of the devil myth. I just read that yesterday. However, there is the Constellation of Draco and Serpens that I believe was the basis of the devil myth, but then there were astrologers in Persia, too.

Is there a possible link to the devil myth that I could look at? That would be fantastic :)
 
Except there is no devil in Genesis, or the old testament generally. The devil was an idea borrowed much later in Hebrew history...probably from the Persians.

I quite like Job 1 + 2, where god and Satan seem like old buddies.
 
Is there a possible link to the devil myth that I could look at? That would be fantastic :)

You can't have a good guy unless you have a bad guy to make him look good. There is normally a bad guy in any religion and often one of their own, like Loki, or the cast out angel, Satan.
 
This is way off topic, but just out of curiosity, if we find even more planets in our solar system due to prior mistakes and stuff, doesn't that throw off all the old garbage astrologers used in creating their pseudoscience?
*************
M*W: Well, of course, it does! I just aim to interpret the bible astro-theologically for the time period and cultures in which those people lived. Today we know that what they believed as truth is nothing more than myth. Sadly, there are still people out there who continue to believe in this myth.
*************
M*W's Friendly Atheist Quote of the Day:

"All religions, with their gods, their demigods, and their prophets, their messiahs and their saints, were created by the credulous fancy o fmen who had not attained the full development and full possession of their faculties." ~ Mikhail A. Bakunin
 
*************

M*W's Friendly Atheist Quote of the Day:

"All religions, with their gods, their demigods, and their prophets, their messiahs and their saints, were created by the credulous fancy o fmen who had not attained the full development and full possession of their faculties." ~ Mikhail A. Bakunin


Yes, they all had a mental problem hearing voices and all. They were truly

in need of professional help because they were a little crazy.
 
Is there a possible link to the devil myth that I could look at? That would be fantastic :)
*************
M*W: The devil, also called many other names, was known in the near East as earlier than the 6th century BCE. At that time he was called Ba'al'Zebub. Ba'al'Zebub was not known as Satan at that time. Ba'al'Zebub was a Phoenician god at Ekron.

The Hebrew title Baal'Zebub literally means "god of flies" and "lord of dung."

Among several Semitic peoples, Baal was a fertility god. The Greeks and Romans believed Beelzebub to be a master of evil. Later christians identified Beelzebub with Satan on the basis of three passages in thd gospels.

The Satan of the Israelites meant "enemy" and "to plot against." Virtually nowhere in the Hebrew bible is Satan considered to be demonic or a rival of god. The Hebrew peoples became aware of the arch villian of YHWH toward the 3rd century BCE.

To the Jews, Satan appears c.520 BCE in the book of Zechariah, but Satan and god were not adversaries at this time.

It wasn't until about 586-539 BCE when the Jews were in exile in Babylon did the influence of Persian dualism come into play. That is the belief in the continuous battle between good and evil. Persian philosophers (Zoroaster) came up with the idea of a destructive spirit/fiend who was hell-bent on defiling creation and a virtuous man who is isolated, alone, frightened, and forever struggling to remain righteous.

During the 1st century CE, christians took the identification of Satan as the prime evildoer throughout the entire NT. It was during the Middle Ages when the christians started professing that the Jews were the "spawn of Satan."

By 624 CE he is called Shaytan and is associated with genies in Islamic belief. ~ Charles Panati, Sacred Origins of Profound Things: The Stories Behind the Rites and Rituals of the World's Religions, 1996.

The Hebrew Shaitan is found in the Book of Job, and as far as I know, Job may predate the Persian influence. However, the ancient Egyptians believed their god of the underworld was Set who is the equivalent to the Judeo-Christian Devil. ~ Tobias Churton, The Gnostic Philosophy, Lichfield, 2003.

If you need some additional references, I'll have to post them later.
 
Back
Top