everneo said:
1. Are you so sure Peter did really not want to betray Jesus?
2. Are you so sure that Peter's faith was perfect?
Are you so sure that Peter truly only wanted to serve Jesus?
1. Why should he hang around a captured, apparently helpless Jesus ? To betray him deliberately?
The issue may become moot if we look at it from this perspective: One can do something without actually deliberately deciding to do it.
Like in the morning, when the alarm goes off, and you know you must get up. You wish to stay in bed, and you think how good it would be if you could sleep a little longer. You then fall asleep again, and oversleep.
You have never decided to not get out of bed, but you have stayed in bed nonetheless.
You are still responsible for oversleeping and being late for work.
Something similar could be Peter's case: He never deliberately wanted to betray Jesus, but he never decided otherwise either. Peter "went with the flow", and so "one thing led to another".
This qualifies as sin: To know that something is wrong, but indulging it. -- It's the "sinful nature of man".
Know that Peter would have acted the way he did with or without hearing Jesus' prophecy.
Prophecies don't change the course of action, even though we think they do, or could. That's the whole point: Prophecies can be made only from a perspective that we humans do not have. They are a truth that fills us with awe. (All this of course if we believe the prophecy to be true!)
Compare:
Prophecy 1 (P1) may say: "You will be married in 2 years from now."
"Grand," you think, "this is what I have always wanted, I'm glad to hear it. Now I don't have to worry anymore."
Prophecy 2 (P2) may say: "You will die in an elevator in July this year." And you think, "Oh no, I will avoid elevators like the plague!"
Depending on what the prophecy says, we tend to direct our actions (or non-actions). (If we believe the prophecy, of course!)
P1 is in accordance with your desires, and you don't worry much about it, you see yourself approved in it.
P2 is announcing something harmful for you, you find yourself threatened -- and you act on this to avoid it.
A prophecy is important inasmuch as it shows your true character -- what you do or wish to do after you've heard the prophecy reveals your faith, your outlook on life.
If you are fine with the prophecy -- whatever it is --, then this shows you are firm in your faith (whatever it is).
If you are not fine with the prophecy -- whatever it is, -- this shows that there are discrepancies in your faith, in your desires.
I assume God took into account how paralyzing it can be for a human to know a prophecy, and this is why He made so few, and such that had something to do with humans knowing Him.
2. The question is strange. What is a perfect faith? If he had perfect faith the question of fear or freewill is moot.
Why do you think that perfect faith makes the question of fear and free will moot?
3. Are you so sure otherwise ?
It's possible that Peter thought he could "get away with it".
Think of the example of oversleeping without actually deciding so: you are *postponing* your decision to get up for so long that the situation decides for you.
It applies that Peter postponed his decision to fully believe in God for so long, that the situation (other people, events taking place in the Garden) decided for him.
Your faith is not true and efficient if you always leave a backdoor open for escape. Pascal's Wager suggest exactly this: to always leave a backdoor open for escape ("And if there is no God, you've still lost nothing, and if there is God, then you've everything to gain.").
To postpone deciding to get up when the alarm goes off.
To postpone having faith.
Were it not for God's grace, we'd be doomed.
Just because we have limited abilities and limited knowledge, does not mean that we have limited free will.
I don't think my fantasy of building a villa in Sun will be considered as my unlimited free will notwithstanding my abilities or knowledge.
I don't understand.
But your basis premise is that free will is an absolutistic ideal.
I don't know why do you say that, but what you are talking is not freewill, it is fantasy.
Said earlier:
everneo said:
water said:
You are arguing from free will being some absolutistic ideal. Nobody really has it then, except god.
Agreed. Human free-will is heavily constrained one when comparing to God's, ofcourse.
Then what exactly have you agreed with?
No.
If anything, If Peter used to be 'in total control of himself' unlike 'an emotional, panicking' Peter then Peter would not have done what Peter did.
yeah, Peter would not have done what he did, so what? what is your point?
You said:
If Peter used to be 'in total control of himself' unlike 'an emotional, panicking' Peter then Jesus would not have said what he said about Peter int he first place.
My point is that the above is a non sequitur, unless you add some inferences.
Peter is responsible for his shortcomings primarily. People still have the ability to learn and change even at that age.
If he is responsible for an act he did, then it is ascribed to him as an act of his free will.
* * *
ellion said:
would you agree because peter was unable to do what he would have liked to do in his heart or what he felt was right does that mean he has no free will?
Take the above example with oversleeping (with the parameters give there).
If I say that I know in my heart and in my mind, that I should get up at the alarm -- then this testifies that I know exactly what outcome of my actions I desire. I thereby declare my responsibility.
But then I find myself "unable to do what I would have liked to do", and don't get up and I oversleep.
Is this due to a lack of free will? No. It's sloth of the mind and the heart -- lack of faith.
for me it means that in this instance the strength of his will was overcome by the strength of his emotions, but he has free will and there will be circumstances wherein he shall determine his fate.
Emotions are often used as an appropriate scapegoat. As if emotions were some mysterious power that one has no control over, some force that overcomes one and one is helpless against it. A monster living in your bosom.
This is, once more, a relegation of responsibility.
Note: If you declare emotions to be the factor that can change the course of your free will, this eventually leads to declaring that "you can't help yourself, it happens" -- you abdicate your free will and responsibility.
But if you do that, you need to be consistent, and do it in good and in bad: If you, in anger, tell someone to go fuck himself and then say you're not responsible for this, for you have been overcome by your emotions, and this is why there should be no consequences;
then you also have to say that when you declare your love for someone, you're not responsible for that either, and your saying "I love you" is to have no consequences for you.
