I'm sorta confused as to who this fella Asaph is. I looked him up and all it said was he was a choir leader for David.
To me its hard to read and really understand the Psalm, if I don't know the story behind them. Like what was going on in his life when he wrote it. We know all about David's trials, therefore his prayers make sense.
All I can really say about these is I didn't really get a warm fuzzy feeling from them. He seems a little unhappy, maybe?
They, to me, are in sharp contrast to Davids. At least the first 2 are, the last one is strictly review....Egypt, the red sea, the disobedience....
I do like the Psalms BUTTT, I will sorta be glad to get back to some story telling.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
What I got out of this reading was that we often see un-believers doing well, and think this is the way of the un-believer, but, in fact, they are no more likely to be successful than a Christian. Actually, I think most statistics show that people who believe in some kind of religion are happier and tend to lead more successful lives. Maybe this false comprehension of success as it relates to believers observances of unbelievers is sometimes believers get a sense that nothing is supposed go wrong in their lives if they believe in God. But as we've already read in Ps. that is not true. God, via David, tells us flat out that trials and tribulations are a part of life. I would say mostly a part of other peoples free will affecting and influencing our lives in a negative way. Because we ALL have free will that cannot be helped. I felt like Asaph was saying the same thing...that although sometimes it may seem like the wicked are successful and the upright are afflicted that is really not true. Then he recounts all of the good things God has done for Israel and David.
S before had given us an example of what he thought was our lack of free will. The example was a person robbing you with a gun to your head. Well, first of all, that has nothing to do with God giving/implanting into all of us, Christians and non-Christians alike, free will - the ability to choose, act, and react however we want. I don't believe that someone exercising their free will in a way that affects you negatively (or positively for that matter) or puts you in a situation that you didn't ask to be in, is in any way stripping you of free will. And as I said, that has nothing to to with God. Are we all supposed to live lives completely independent of one another...to where the exercising of our free will never affects anyone else on the planet? That is clearly not how reality works. And I couldn't imagine a world where it did. The world as we know it could not exist. The fact is our existence is constantly being affected by others exercising their free will. And from each new situation we encounter, whether initiated by us or someone else or something else, we have the ability to freely choose how to react to those new circumstances. The quality of our choices not withstanding, it is the ability to choose amongst them that is free will.
Tomorrow, Ps. 81, 88, 92-93; 1 Chron. 7-9
Jamie,
You have once again misunderstood and misrepresented my previous statements.
Maybe you should go back and reread them. Oh,wait... You deleted them.
How is that you can bring up your "fluid" interpretation free will anytime you want, but when I make logical arguments (using your own definitions) that render your views absurd, you delete my comments?
Let's see if you delete this:
This is the M-W Definition of 'free will' you supplied:
1 : voluntary choice or decision (I do this of my own free will)
2 : freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention
This is the M-W definition of 'voluntary' I supplied:
1 : proceeding from the will or from one's own choice or consent
2 : unconstrained by interference : self-determining
If you accept these definitions, they raise a number of logical problems with your views on God. (If these definitions are no longer acceptable to you, please explain why you changed your mind.)
• Why would an omnipotent God who is supposedly loving and morally perfect design a system that is so sadistic? (Do exactly as God says or suffer eternal torture in Hell)
If you believe God is omnipotent then you must believe God knew BEFORE He created the Universe that the vast majority of His creation would end up in Hell where they would be tortured for eternity. It would be very easy for an omnipotent God to create a less sadistic Universe. Why didn't He?
• Why does an omnipotent God limit our choices to: do exactly as He says or be tortured forever in Hell? An omnipotent God could have given us at least two additional options: cease to exist or be reborn to try again. Why does God limit our choices in this way? Doesn't this place severe limits on our free will?
As we see from the definitions above, FREE WILL requires a VOLUNTARY choice UNCONSTRAINED by interference. Since God limits our choices (God's Way or Burn in Hell), this means we do not have free will as defined above.
It is, in fact, very much like the robber with a gun to your head comparison. At least with the robber we do have some other options like running away or trying to grab the gun. But God artificially limits our choices and we are forced to choose without choice or consent.
Seriously... It's hard to imagine a system with LESS free will, but easy to imagine one with more free will.
Keep in mind that I haven't offered any of my personal views here even though I'm not trying to hide the fact that I'm an atheist. I've only pointed out the logical fallacies in your own views and once again ask you to defend them.
If you can't or won't do this, please stop bringing up the issue and misinterpreting my statements.
I would also ask that you refrain from making personal attacks and stick to the issues.
Thank you.
S, I didn't delete anything. Crystal did. She, and everyone else on here, except G (and maybe even him), clearly know what free will is; and clearly know that you are making no sense. You take the first line in the definition I gave, and run with. All while ignoring the rest of the definition that clearly indicates that outside forces, Divine and physical, can influence a person some what and not take away that person's free will. I'm not going to argue about his anymore because you are clearly wrong on every level of this argument. I am sticking to the issues, it is you who keep bringing up issues that are not in keeping with the purpose of this blog. It is you who is being judgemental and engaging in personal attacks. I only responded in kind, and mostly in jest, to entertain myself one bored afternoon. Either way, you are wrong, and I haven't deleted anyone's comments, yet. Your first question here is asking me why God would do something. It is not asking about free will. It is your belief on how you think an omnipotent god would create a universe that eliminates free will, or at least, the need for it. If one choice is Heaven (and all that entails), then what would the logical flip-side to that be? If all choices were "good" then according to your own example (being robbed or being shot - both bad) then there would be no free will because both are good in value. The rest of your comment is apparently you who has changed his mind or at the very least softened his position. You finally confirm that we have free will, as restricted as you claim it may be. If you'll re read the definition I gave, you'll see that it is you who've misinterpreted it. Is that your problem with God?...you don't think He behaves in a way that you think is good or right or makes sense? Btw, I would love to do another blog with you just to find out exactly what a "moral atheist" is. Where do these morals come from? They can't be inalienable. Do you believe in inalienable rights? If so, how do you when you're an atheist? Are you morals applicable to others or just yourself? How would you mesh yours with others? Are they just whims? Should our gov.t act the same way? If morals are defined by each individual or society, can't they be changed whenever we want? Who determines what is moral? Under what authority? Etc. Etc. You don't have to answer, I was just giving you an example of the level of participation I would give in a scenario where we discussed this type of stuff on a more appropriate blog.
I'm confused here. Please clarify the following points:
You said:
"You take the first line in the definition I gave, and run with. All while ignoring the rest of the definition that clearly indicates that outside forces, Divine and physical, can influence a person some what and not take away that person's free will."
And the second part of the definition of free will states:
"freedom of humans to make choices that ARE NOT DETERMINED by prior causes or BY DIVINE INTERVENTION" [Emphasis added]
According to the Bible, our choices are clearly limited and determined by divine intervention. In your view, an omnipotent God created everything and consciously limits our choices which in turn forces us to choose without consent and, most importantly, out of fear of eternal torment.
In the first part of the definition I gave it said 1)voluntary decision. That means to me that as long as you can choose between at least two things, despite their quality, then you have free will.
The second part said: 2) the doctrine that human action expresses personal choice and is not determined SOLELY [emph. add.] by physcial or divine forces. The word "solely" there tells me that there can be some influence by phys. or div. forces, and still be free will. It just seems like you take the first part of the definition and use it, but ignore the second part, esp. the use of the word "solely". Although, I must say, I think the first part makes my point as well. I hope I explained what I meant well enough. It was actually Random House Dictionary. I can't remember, but I might also have used a Webster's New World Dict. definition in one comment also.
My feeling is that our choices are always finite. I know some would say they are not, but I think, even if there were a million of them, they're not infinite. And I don't think our choices are determined by divine intervention as you put it, but I do completely acknowledge they are limited ULTIMATELY to two...serve God or don't. That may or may not have anything to do with how we live our lives. For instance, I allow it to influence my life because I'm a believer, you, on the other hand, excercise your free will by choosing not to believe and live according to your own morals. Which is what it's all about. Do I believe that by each of us doing this that we are ultimately choosing between the two - Heaven or Hell?..the answer is yes.
That seems to me to be the very definition of free will. I am choosing one thing, and you are choosing another. God isn't making me serve Him any more than He is pushing you away from Him. Now, you may not like the situation we're born in to, but, nevertheless I believe this is where we're at; as you know, because of Adam and Eve. I think it's our free will that got us into this mess into the first place. We chose to be disobedient, and in doing so, changed the game so to speak (not the outcome). I know, you're going to ask why a benevolent, loving God would do things that way. And I don't know. But I've seen enough of His goodness, and enough accuracy (both historically and prophetically) in His Word to believe in Him and give Him the benefit of the doubt. The reason I focus on the "good stuff" is because I grew up southern Pentecostal. Anytime the doors of the church were open, we were in it.....getting yelled at, threatened, and being told we were going to Hell...even though I knew I wasn't doing anything particularly wrong. This is one reason (along with all of the nonsense I've seen from other Christian religions) why I don't consider myself part of any organized religion. I am a Christian and I go to a Bible church. And although it may not seem like it to you, I consider myself a "common sense" Christian. You call me a zealot and a fundamentalist, but I probably couldn't become a member of a Baptist or Pentecostal church cause I don't espouse their extreme views of the Bible. To me, what is written, is what is written. I understand that there are gray areas, but I believe in using common sense to interpret those areas, and taking things into a historical perspective and in context with the whole Bible. I know, you didn't ask for this much info.
Jamie,
I appreciate where you're coming from. I've been there. I tried for many years to reconcile what the Bible taught with what science and logic can demonstrate. Not to mention what my own experience tells me.
I'm not patronizing you. I lot of what you said resonated with me.
You said: "I know, you're going to ask why a benevolent, loving God would do things that way. And I don't know. "
But why don't you know? Why does this cause you to stumble? I think it's because it doesn't make any sense for a omnipotent benevolent God to act this way. It's a contradiction so you avoid it or "focus on the good stuff".
You give God the benefit of the doubt and you also go pretty easy on yourself.
You say the Bible has some gray areas and thus are open to interpretation, but then tacitly assert you're interpretation is superior.
There are many interpretations of the Bible and there are many interpretations of life. I believe all have some merit, but the danger arises when one group thinks they have all the answers. This goes for theists and non-theists alike.
We should all keep an open mind and notice the part of our beliefs that cause us to stumble or make excuses.
Brushing them under the rug serves to aggrandizes our beliefs at the expense of others. This is the beginning of intolerance and we all know where that can lead.
Well, with that I'm going to gracefully bow out of this discussion. I think I've done all the damage I can do. (kidding!)
Thank you for the conversation and I sincerely apologize if I've offended you.
Post a Comment