I was wondering if this bothers anyone else, or maybe it’s just me. What is it that makes A’s freewill > B’s freewill. A and B both are equally religious, and “A” and “B” might not even know each other. And yet, “A” could be the CEO of Enron and “B” is the utility lineman far down on the food chain. And yet, “A”'s freewill to pillage totally envelops the freewill of “B” causing him to lose his quality of life.
And, this is what we say God wants when it comes to us having freewill? Maybe, we really mean “limited freewill with fine print”.
I fail to comprehend this. Maybe when we speak of freewill, we really mean "it’s in God’s hands, or man proposes and God disposes…and freewill is just a simple way to sweep the whole issue under the rug?
Jinx, thinking too hard with brain cramps, it’s dark, and we’re wearing dark sunglasses
Hmm, as an aside, could it be that the Old Testament started out with examples of Man really NOT having freewill…and somewhere along the line the storyline changed?
I believe you are absolutely right. For me, whatever happens is the only thing that could have happened. That doesn’t excuse me from being involved in trying to see that what happens is a good thing.
How, specifically, did you arrive at that conclusion? Was this based on reasoning or supposition?
If it was based on reasoning, then how can we trust the validity of that reasoning? After all, if “whatever happens is the only thing that could have happened,” then your train of logic was governed exclusively by the chemical reactions within your brain. Even the perception that your logic is valid is “the only thing that could have happened,” and as such, could be nothing more than an illusion and a delusion.
