Ask Mr. Religion

Put a bit of praise and a link to your Dawkins bit in the Darwin Day Backlash thread. :e4e: I thought it deserved wider play.

The God Delusion is such a bland re-hashing of all the usual atheist mantras I have always wondered if Dawkins just wanted to make some more money and knew people like jackiechan would feel obligated to buy it and be delighted by it.

Next time someone mentions Dawkins point them here. Just sayin'.

I suppose he didn't think that the Christians around here read Dawkins. :chuckle:

Had to tweak him a bit for it, though he rolled with it well enough. It's amazing how many otherwise reasonable people turn parrot at the drop of an ideological hat. oly: Ah, well...I'm not done, though a couple of people have stolen a little of my next. :mmph:

I'll do that...and there's more that I find myself in agreement with than not, so far--lest I give the wrong impression. One of those burning cornfields out of many sort of notice, if you follow. :think:

I am glad that you are reading the Confession, TH. Perhaps you should also consult a reasonable exposition of the Confession that is also available at the same site here.

Oh well, I'm only on chapter two and I already disagree with the notion of most free, interpreting the Psalm at the root of that expression in a slightly different fashion, but it's still interesting reading...just hit the sovereignty portion, so you can imagine...fortunately, I don't feel compelled that any man share my understanding nor am I troubled to find good and admirable men, standing in the shadow of the cross with me, who are of differing opinion with regard to the non salvific. :e4e:

Well, the Westminster Confession of Faith is a good start. Many talk about it, but never have read it in its entirety. It is one of the most profound statements of faith to have been written.

AMR

Ah, well it doesn't come as a surprise, does it? :chuckle: Good. He'll liven the place a bit and maybe the vacation did him some good.

I suggested to AA (and now to you) that Calvinism for Dummies might be an interesting thread, setting out the essentials of Calvinism with clear, concise strokes for those who will doubtless be muddled looking at a thread that begins mid stream, so to speak, and then moves back and forth to cover disputes...:think:...at this point I'm not entirely certain I have half of what I thought I was certain of correctly seated in my noggin.

Just a thought.

TH,

I think you would be inclined to agree no one is autonomous from His maker. This is a distinction that I think is getting lost the the discussion.

"Autonomy" cannot be applied in any discussion where the word or its derivatives would be appropriated by the created as an attribute of their existence. It's just the wrong term to use when God is presumed to exist. Hence my point that no man can exist outside the control of their Maker.

For God to grant autonomy to any of His creatures would mean He has elevated them to His own level of governance. Yet there can be only one autonomous being, one who is wholly self-determined, answerable to no other. Thus the discussion now becomes one of matters of degree of what we mean by "autonomy", in other words, artificially redefining the word. So when we use phrases like "man's autonomy" we had better take care to state what we mean. We can choose to do this or that, and in a very real sense, we can "freely" make real decisions having impacts, but to assume that these decisions exist outside the control of the One who is continually upholding our very existence has no basis in Scripture.

We are not self-governing (i.e., autonomous) creatures. We are governed by the one, true, self-governed (autonomous) God. Therefore we are not autonomous and phrases like "man's autonomy" are misleading when used to imply we are somehow self-governed creatures.

Comes down to "autonomy". If we take the word at its clear meaning, man is wholly separated from the providential control of his Maker. To assume his Maker would create autonomous creatures is to assume his Maker is something less than sovereign (again using the clear meaning of the word).
Couldn’t disagree more with your last bit. If man’s autonomy exists as an expression of the will of the sovereign then it is an extension of His authority, not a usurpation, however badly used by those in possession of it.

It comes dangerously close to the disinterested Watchmaker view, a Being who merely wound it all up and now sits back and watches it happen, never helping it happen or making it happen.
It needn’t resemble that in any form or fashion. In fact, I hold that it does not and stand ready to illustrate the principle.
To say that God respects "autonomy" is to imply that He has abdicated His sovereignty.
Asked and answered…well, stated and responded to then. To recap, no. :chuckle:
And again, when speaking of sovereignty in the context of God, we should be applying perfection to the word.
I agree. I believe there is a distinct difference between even the most benign tyranny and the idea of perfected sovereignty.
This is very different than when we consider King Richard … after all, he was not perfectly omniscient or omnipotent. When we ignore these and the other perfections of God, and go off crafting views of God drawn from human experience, versus what He has clearly revealed of Himself, we give way to all sorts of logical incongruities.
Imagine my relief then in considering my position free of that fault.
Better to argue, as do the many church Confessions, that God does no violence to the will of man. The divines who crafted that particular phrase were definitely on to something.
I can well understand their desire for a vague means of reconciling the matter without a particular mechanism, but find it insufficient in practice, however well intentioned in expression.

Comes down to "autonomy". If we take the word at its clear meaning, man is wholly separated from the providential control of his Maker. To assume his Maker would create autonomous creatures is to assume his Maker is something less than sovereign (again using the clear meaning of the word). It comes dangerously close to the disinterested Watchmaker view, a Being who merely wound it all up and now sits back and watches it happen, never helping it happen or making it happen.

To say that God respects "autonomy" is to imply that He has abdicated His sovereignty. And again, when speaking of sovereignty in the context of God, we should be applying perfection to the word. This is very different than when we consider King Richard or some other benevolent "sovereign" father figure who may have indeed granted his subjects some bona fide autonomy. Of course, King Richard was compelled to do so, after all, he was not perfectly omniscient or omnipotent. When we ignore these and the other perfections of God, and go off crafting views of God drawn from human experience, versus what He has clearly revealed of Himself, we give way to all sorts of logical incongruities.

Better to argue, as do the many church Confessions, that God does no violence to the will of man. The divines who crafted that particular phrase were definitely on to something.

And I don't know why AA thinks "I respect your choice to kill yourself" (a misstatement of the actual "I respect your autonomy position I hold) is peculiar when he must surely believe that some, many, will find a fate worse than death and this will be allowed...:idunno:

But then, I'm no theologian, just a simple country lawyer.

Welcome back? :think: Are you thinking what I'm thinking?

:shocked:

RE: your rep comment - I know what you mean. To be sure, though, I've always been more confused by the third position, in which election essentially isn't election at all, but recognition of a decision... I can think of no other instance in which election is based on activity by the elected rather than an elector.

RE: TH's comments below - I wouldn't use the word, 'subvert' is all. I don't think it's necessary to subvert the will of man when God clearly has the ability to simply bring that will into conformity with His own. If said will is conformed, it is necessarily not subverted. Where we differ, I think, is that TH believes that God is a 'respector of man's volition' which, I believe is true as far as it goes. But while I believe God respects every man's volition, I don't necessarily believe God respects every notion that volition produces. Particularly those notions that would result in the destruction of every man...

That's like saying, "I respect your choice to kill yourself" :squint:

Don't be. I mean to draw AA out of his problem of seeming contradiction. On the one hand he asserts that no man desires good and on the other declares that God doesn't necessarily subvert the will of man...I agree, but I don't think he reasons the why of it correctly. We'll see...

Well, once you have godrulz agreeing with CJ, then you know the conversation has moved on to the Z-plane, the imaginary axis, if you will.

Honestly I don't think CJ has the necessary wit to bait anyone. If this conversation is any indication, he can barely read, much less goad or prod those who can count without using fingers or toes...

To be honest, it started as an actual debate, but has devolved into something of an intellectually narcissistic pursuit for me... Sometimes it just feels good to do more reps with a lighter weight, if you catch my drift... :think:

The problem with CJ is that while he has part of a defensible position, he won't stop short of where he runs off those rails and is seemingly unwilling or unable to proceed from that point. :think: It's a mystery....

Okay, seriously. I'm going to have to quit with this CJ guy. I've posed no less than 40 separate questions/challenges which he has been thus far unresponsive to. (without exhaggeration). If I continue, my hair is going to catch on fire and you're going to see me on your evening news hanging out of a clocktower wearing a tutu and dropping water baloons on pedestrians... :freak: