You are not arguing against Me, you are arguing against what the Bible clearly says.
Free will is the ability to act at your own discretion, the act of choosing to do something or not. The act part is important, God's not acting for pharaoh here - in fact he's not even changing what pharaoh thinks here - just solidifying what is pre-existing. It doesn't mean you are free from every external influence like commercials to suggest you need product X or Y. The act of thinking about something or _suggesting_ someone to think about, feel or do something does not impact a person's free will because it's not doing anything for them. These kinds of influences are around us every day from a variety of sources... and this kind of thing would seem no different (in many regards, since it is not fundamentally challenging pharaoh's assertions - it would seem even less impactful than something like peer pressure). The person's capacity to reason about the actions available to them, and consequences of those actions, and to make the decision they see fit is not impacted.
If someone would suggest you must be free from any external influences, then nobody really has free will because even commercials or peer pressure would rob you of it, as they are external influences! If you say that some influences are OK but certain ones are not, now you have the question of where to draw the line.
Either way, it seems to me that pharaoh would likely have acted the same way regardless, since hardening his heart was hardening what was already in his heart. In this case, God may have even done it for pharaoh's benefit, so that the effect of finally conceding that God was sovereign [and not him, he could not be matched by pharaoh's 'magicians'] was potentially more pronounced. I would like to go into how this is similar to the choices we all make, and how we don't always realize the consequences of our actions beyond what we can see in this life (i.e. sin) as in eating the apple in the garden of Eden, but I think that would be best left for another time.
It doesn't matter how they were. What matters here is what the Bible says. It clearly states that God thwarted Pharaohs Will.
You are not arguing against Me, you are arguing against what the Bible clearly says.
Why do you see God hardening pharaoh's heart as thwarting pharaoh's will? I'm just trying to understand. Remember, the act of hardening someone's heart isn't even changing or challenging what they are feeling or thinking... it is just hardening what is already there. That doesn't really fundamentally take away Pharaoh's ability to choose, does it?
Is it not like thinking you really dislike Nike shoes, and then you see a commercial talking about how silly Nike shoes are, and think to yourself 'Yep, I know, silly.' A commercial is an influence, but it does not force you to do something that you don't want to do.
Well of course it doesn't matter....it's in disagreement with your opinion. Part of what makes certain accounts of the bible real history is whether or not we can find them in secular history.
Thanks for showing us how you pick and choose in history depending on what point you're trying to make. Doesn't shock me at all.
I'm not even sure you are being serious in this conversation. You have completely nullified the concept of Free Will in order to justify this action by "God".
What happened here is nothing like seeing a commercial then someone changing their Mind about something. This is far more sinister. It is "God" directly changing Pharaohs Mind without the Pharaoh even being aware of it.
If that isn't a violation of Free Will, then the concept of Free Will has no meaning.
I was asked, by you, to explain why I thought hardening a person's heart does not violate their free will... so I explained that. It's not an argument against scripture. If you think what I said goes against scripture, please explain why... I'm hearing a lot of things that strongly imply 'wrong' without anything even resembling an attempt at an explanation. Frankly, that's not what a discussion is, and it's getting a little annoying.
Except that I've explained many times why I think that the act of hardening someone's heart does not change their mind - it only hardens/affirms what is already existing in their heart. It doesn't impact their ability to decide what to do (free will). Do you disagree with that? If so, why?
What are you trying to say here?
You're choosing to ignore how history portrayed the kings of Egypt back then, who were viewed as gods by not only themselves, but their subjects. Then you're saying the bible is somehow showing this same sort of king all too willing to release his slaves at the demand of their God, and that he had to be forced NOT to.
That doesn't make an ounce of sense, nor is that biblically supported.
Are you forgetting that he tried on his own accord to recapture them, setting up the whole Red Sea deal? That really shows he wasn't willing at all.
"God" did something to Pharaoh in order to change Pharaohs actions. That is what the Bible says. That is a violation of Free Will. All you have done is offer convoluted after convoluted argument trying to change those inconvenient "facts"(for the sake of discussion, as I don't believe these events ever occurred) to fit with the assertion that "God" would never violate a persons Free Will.
If you don't believe these events occurred, then we are officially done. You're essentially arguing the merits of ghost stories.
"God" did something to Pharaoh in order to change Pharaohs actions. That is what the Bible says. That is a violation of Free Will. All you have done is offer convoluted after convoluted argument trying to change those inconvenient "facts"(for the sake of discussion, as I don't believe these events ever occurred) to fit with the assertion that "God" would never violate a persons Free Will.
That is indeed the central question and what it boils down to, I agree: whether God did something to pharaoh in order to change his actions. There are two possibilities, either hardening his heart did change his actions, or it did not.
In the first case, if the act of hardening a person's heart fundamentally changes what pharaoh did - then we must look at why. Did God cause the person to act a certain way directly (like a remote-control robot that can't think or act for itself with no free will) or indirectly (like a commercial or peer pressure may cause a person to consider doing something they would not have otherwise did). We know in scripture that Satan tempts people, with God's permission a la Job - but is the act of thinking something or even being tempted necessarily in violation of a person's free will? There doesn't seem to be anything in either process that takes away the person's capacity for thinking and choosing for themselves, so I can only conclude that it doesn't. Indeed, if being tempted by an external force violates free will then no christian who believes the devil tempts people can also believe they have free will!
In the second case, if the act of hardening a person's heart did not change what the person did anyway - if it just hardened the feelings that were already there - then the question of violating a person's free will is more or less irrelevant because the same thing would have happened.
So, in either case, based on this analysis the act of hardening a person's heart may only be considered violating our concept of free will if it not only changes their mind, but is also more than a passive influence or suggestion - there seems like there must be some active force controlling the person or, arguably, threat of doing something (under duress) to claim that free will has been violated... at least from my understanding. Since neither apply in this case (the threat was actually if he did the opposite of what he did, so one can't argue duress), I can't reasonably conclude that free will has been violated... and so that establishes my position that God does not violate any person's God-given free will.
At least that's my take on it. =\ I understand disagreements, but I very much appreciate constructive debate around this to discover any flaws in my reasoning so that, if I am wrong, I can correct my thinking.
Thank you for trying to explain your view, I hope this helps to elucidate where I'm coming from as well. On that note, it is late here, and I will retire for the evening... but I will try to reply to any interesting comments in the morning.
Then you've effectively nullified your own reason for debating this topic, as you admittedly have your own interpretation.
Self ownage ad-infinitum.
We both are. If you must have an excuse to stop thinking about this, fine.
God is. you missed his point about control I think and irish can certainly correct me if I am incorrect. God has perfect knowledge of all possible choices. Our freewill is our ability to choose from an infinite set of choices. If God exerted His perfect control, their would be no free will.
This is the DC. Personal attacks are not permitted. Reported if this is not removed.
It might be a personal attack but it illustrates how dangerous religion can be. People think it's a good idea to allow their daughter to be raped because a man raping a man is somehow worse.
I think you're taking it out of context, do you remember the circumstances that prompted Lot to 'offer his daughter to the mob'? The mob was going to rape the beautiful men who had come to visit him, which is an even more despicable act of not only forced rape but homosexuality as well.
I'm not even sure you are being serious in this conversation. You have completely nullified the concept of Free Will in order to justify this action by "God".
What happened here is nothing like seeing a commercial then someone changing their Mind about something. This is far more sinister. It is "God" directly changing Pharaohs Mind without the Pharaoh even being aware of it.
If that isn't a violation of Free Will, then the concept of Free Will has no meaning.
Since you are probably referencing an old post I made, I thought I should try to clear up this misunderstanding. You seem to have come to the same conclusion that ThinClient has, that either myself or Job support child rape [at least in certain situations], and as I told him several times and explained several times that is not at all the case.
The most likely statement of debate is centered around:
Yes, at least in light of scripture this would seem to be a true statement - it is more despicable for a person to rape a male, since it is an act of homosexuality and an act of rape combined. The judgment of it seems like it tends to be more extreme in scripture when God acts. Of course, judgment against crimes against children are also more harsh [as Jesus said], so it could be argued that both are the same. However, at least part of the wickedness of the city that prompted its destruction seemed to be primarily centered around homosexuality, because the mob did not want the girl and persisted by threatening Lot, as Genesis 19:9 points out - so we can conclude that homosexuality and rape was regularly practiced there without shame. We should learn from that and try to avoid both homosexuality and rape in modern times. I think this is why many jews/christians/muslims are seen as so averse to the idea of homosexuality and sexuality in society - the punishments against it seem so severe that it is terrifying to think of what might happen if such things become commonplace and grab a hold in society. It has nothing to do with bashing the people in general, I know some people who are, and some are nice people (and, naturally, some are not) - there's more to a person's character and conduct than just that going on here.
That DOES NOT mean in any way that either is OK or that it condones child rape! Saying one thing is potentially worse than another does not mean the other thing is OK, by any stretch of the imagination! Both are truly awful things! Killing a person is an even more despicable act than robbing them, but neither are good things (not that I'm drawing a parallel between the two acts, just demonstrating a related statement - and why that is flawed logic). I will edit my original post on that to try to make it more clear as well.
I also immediately went on to clarify that he probably didn't want anyone to be raped at all (even his children) - and it was then in an effort to safeguard their well-being as he was responsible for the safety of the visitors at the time (and to prevent the situation from escalating) that he offered his daughter. This was the primary motivator, not that the act was worse for them to rape a male, but that he was responsible for protecting the men too. It's difficult to understand that responsibility in modern times because we do not tend to care for strangers very much as a society today - but it was a big deal and very important in how you cared for visitors in the ancient world at Lot's time.
I also explained that the rape mentioned there never actually occurred in scripture - and statements/action made under situations like duress does not mean you condone that action (even if it did happen, Lot would've grieved it and did not support it). Lot most likely didn't think to himself... raping a man is worse than raping a girl... he was just acting out of compassion for the stranger in a tense situation under duress. People often do crazy things in such situations, and they are not entirely culpable for their actions because of the severity and circumstances of the situation. It was the mob who was in much more of a position deserving of severe punishment than Lot!
To say that because he said that in such a tense and threatening situation that he somehow supports child rape is therefore probably not true, based on the above points. Indeed, since God delivered Lot and his family from the city's destruction, since God sees the heart and mind and true intent of a person, shows that he was at least comparatively the kind of person that deserved to be saved. It is a parallel to wickedness throughout human history, and how in the end the righteous will have their salvation through the victory Jesus Christ offered, through his sacrifice, over the death and destruction of sin.
It might be a personal attack but it illustrates how dangerous religion can be. People think it's a good idea to allow their daughter to be raped because a man raping a man is somehow worse.
Free will doesn't exist. How can you have a concept of something that doesn't exist? Of course you can believe in something that doesn't exist, and have a concept of what you think that is, but it would be a false concept. Not based in reality, do you agree?
A disciple of the Buddha, mindful,
clearly comprehending, with his mind collected,
he knows the feelings and their origin,
knows whereby they cease and knows the path
that to the ending of feelings lead.
And when the end of feelings he has reached,
such a monk, his thirsting quenched, attains Nibbana.
-Buddha