A Prayer Of Salvation (2 Viewers)

[Captain Cranks]

If your philosophy of mind (i.e., the software/ hardware model of the materialists) is correct, then, yes, I agree that determinism follows. Also, I concede that I can’t prove you wrong. You may very well be right that free will is an illusion.

As I’m sure you already know, I’m a dualist. So, I don’t think that the mind is identical to the brain and its coding, and thus I see your model as only partially right. While the mind and brain are inextricably linked in our current reality, I believe that the mind (which is composed of the intellect and will) acts somewhat separately from the brain (or as the mover of the brain) in certain operations. In particular, I think that we can abstract away from concrete objects and participate in pure reason and free choice (via the mind). When we do this, we can grasp the true nature of things, including the essence of the female human and how she should be treated. Moreover, we can choose to behave according to this latter, morally correct rule vs. the one determined by our programming.

If I failed to do this when interacting with the barista (say, because I’m ignorant and/ or I lack temperance), then my thoughts and corresponding actions wouldn’t be truly free. But, it still stands that I have the capacity for freedom, even if unexercised.

Note: I’m a hylemorphic dualist; that is, I believe that everything in the natural world is composed of form and matter as metaphysical parts. In the case of humans, form = rational soul = mind and matter = body.

Would you agree that impulse control, moral judgment, and reasoning track changes in the physical brain?

Yes, I think that mental phenomena track changes in the brain. But, I suppose it depends on what you mean. The difference between us is that, for you, the mind is like software or code, whereas, for me, the mind corresponds with the rational soul. So, I believe that we have a will and can control brain activity.

To clarify my previous post, we are still exercising our will when we practice instrumental reasoning (i.e., the type of reasoning we engage in when we’re choosing how to satisfy a desire that was determined for us by our biology and/ or conditioned by environmental factors). For example, if I give in to my animalistic inclinations and decide that I’m gonna try to bed the barista, I’m still reasoning through the ways to make that happen and presumably I’ll choose the best one. So, instrumental reasoning is not completely deterministic.

I would contrast the above with pure or abstract reason, which is the kind of reasoning we use when we’re apprehending the laws of logic, mathematical principles, the forms and essences of things, and moral truths. The process of abstraction allows us to move beyond concrete things, not just external objects, but ourselves, our instincts and desires, etc. So, we’re able to act according to principles that we’ve freely chosen.

Thanks for the explanation. I won't bog the thread down anymore by digging deeper as I imagine most are bored by the topic, but I appreciate your perspective.

 

[bolzano]

Are you guys saying God’s design flaw is that he didn’t make man to be morally perfect? If so, I think you may be asking too much of God. Indeed, I think it’s impossible. To be morally good, you have to freely will the good; that is, free will is a necessary condition. But, if God programmed you to only choose the good, then you wouldn’t be truly free.

So I understand your point about free will and evil, and I think it’s a valid argument. So I got a question for you, if God is all knowing and all powerful, he created us and wants nothing more than for us to be in his grace, why did he make it so complicated to understand?

One would think God, knowing that thousands of years and dozens and dozens of generations would exist after Jesus that he could very easily just program us when we were born with an innate knowledge or even a universal language of the rules. Free will could still exist under this where we would still have the choice to follow said rules, but instead things need to be interpreted and understood thousands of years later across multiple different languages. I mean, just look at this thread for example, there’s multiple wide interpretations just within the six or seven people interacting here. It. Makes. No. Sense.

In fact, I could easily argue that it even seems like it’s set up for us to fail. None of this seems like something that was set up by an all knowing all loving all powerful God. In fact because of its inconsistencies and massive flaws, it seems completely set up by a clueless, lost and searching human construct.

@bolzano I know you’re involved in multiple conversations so you might’ve missed this. But I’m interested in your thoughts on the question I posed above. Thanks.

Why doesn’t God just reveal himself? If he did, surely all people would believe, repent their sins, and worship him. Then, everyone would be saved. So, this is what God would do if he truly loved all of us. Right?

I think a lot of Christian philosophers/ theologians would answer you by saying that he’s already done this, many times and in multiple ways. They will say that God is evident from observing the natural order of things. They will reference the rational proofs of his existence that were provided by Aristotle, Aquinas et al. They will point to Christ (i.e., the incarnation of God) and the theophanies from the Old Testament. They will tell you that God continues to reveal himself directly through miracles as well as indirectly via works of the faithful. And so on.

To be honest, I don’t really buy this argument. If God really wanted to make it easy, he would’ve figured out a way to get through to us. So, my conclusion is that God intends for this life to be very difficult, with its purpose being our intellectual, spiritual, and moral development. Perhaps an apt, albeit imperfect, analogy is to see God as a father with a laissez-faire parenting style. He loves us, and he provides us with the resources to succeed. But, he’s not going to spoon feed us the answers to all of life’s questions, nor is he gonna hold our hands and walk us to our destination. He’s going to allow us to figure out what’s right and wrong, make our own choices, and determine the path we want to follow. And, he’s gonna let us fail, consistently and completely. However, he’s always gonna be there if we call to him and ask for help.

I believe we are on a long journey towards theosis/ enlightenment/ salvation that doesn’t end with natural death. I don’t think any of us will be damned to eternal torture if we fail to self-actualize here and now. IMO, the vast majority of us are destined to purgatory, which likely has many layers, and, in fact, this life may be one of them. If there is a hell, it’s just the lowest levels of purgatory. That, or it’s the cessation of your existence because you’ve totally separated yourself from God.

Thank you for the thoughtful response. Appreciate it.

Your perspective and interpretation is fascinating, with many concepts about how to conduct ourselves in life. I agree with. Though I would like to add that I never claimed God should make it easy/easier, just that the reality of the path is more clear.

Where I get stuck with your pov is in the same place I do with @dgreen and his thoughtful interpretations, how this squares with Christianity as I understand it (and with, in my opinion, how most understand it. Though dgreen disagrees with my opinions on this). If you (the theoretical you not necessarily the literal you) were to remove the requirement to believe in Jesus as our lord and savior as the barrier to entry into the next plain of existence then I’d say your interpretations make far more sense to me (I’m not sure I’d still agree, but I could get behind your thought process at least).

But how those two things, your interpretation and the Jesus requirement, blend together fails to connect with me.

I may be in the minority here, but I don’t think you need to believe in Jesus to progress through the stages of theosis and become like God. But, you would have to be Christian in spirit. So, you need live in union with God, his word, and his will, which means adopting a Christian-like paradigm and practicing Christian ethics.

Simply put, you should be striving to unconditionally, selflessly, and self-sacrificially love all things. Of course, this is an incredibly hard thing to do.

You cannot live in Union with God without Christ.

Hebrews 11:6 KJV
[6] But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Romans 8:5-8 KJV
[5] For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. [6] For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. [7] Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. [8] So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

Well, the Catholic Church says you don’t need to be a believer to go to heaven.

Regarding the reading from Hebrews, I think we need to be mindful of the context in which it was written. It was addressed to the Jewish Christians in Israel. So, if they didn’t believe, it wasn’t because they were ignorant of Jesus and his teachings. Moreover, the writer is emphasizing that salvation comes from faith, not from being Jewish and practicing their laws (e.g., circumcision, dietary restrictions).

Below are some thoughts on this topic that I posted a month ago.

My understanding is that you don’t need to be a Christian to be saved, nor do you even have to believe in God. What’s required is that you pursue God (i.e., you’re being faithful to God), which I take to be that you are living a life that’s consistent with his will and his word. While it may be ideal for a person to be a Christian, that doesn’t exclude those who don’t have a belief in Christianity through no fault of their own.

Regarding any person, I believe that what faith requires is the total transformation of oneself at the deepest of levels (i.e., your mind/ soul). When I say good works are necessary, that’s because actions follow being and reflect who you are at your core. But, you still need to be doing good for the right reasons. So, it’s not sufficient to just say you believe in something, nor does it even suffice to do good. Indeed, you have to embody the good, which means the reorientation of your paradigm away from that of original sin (i.e., pride/ vanity/ self-love/ selfishness) towards one of true love (unconditional, selfless, and self-sacrificial love).

Note: If we go back to the first paragraph, that’s why I say it’s ideal to be a Christian because it’s certainly easier to attain this level of good if you’ve been graced with the forgiveness of your sins, the Holy Spirit, an understanding of God’s word, and Jesus as your example.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

BTW, did you see Ehrman gave his last lecture at UNC? He'll still continue to write and do his blog, but sad to see him retire from teaching.

Yep, a week ago today. I've seen some of his course outlines from the blog. I don't think I could do the reading required. I take too long reading this kind of stuff. Well not the time reading, the pondering what I am reading.

Oh, and to the rest of your post I agree that being selfless can be selfish. And maybe it should be.