Question to Christians

[DianeVera]

Is it correct to say that most Christians, other than Calvinists (who don't believe in free will), would agree with the following statement?

"The individual human consciousness is a free agent apart from the non-conscious forces of nature."

(This question is relevant to Satanism for reasons I'll explain in a future post. Some Satanists seem to think that Christians -- and people of all other mainstream religions -- oppose the above idea. I don't think that's correct.)

[MacG]

Originally Posted by DianeVera

Is it correct to say that most Christians, other than Calvinists (who don't believe in free will), would agree with the following statement?

"The individual human consciousness is a free agent apart from the non-conscious forces of nature."

(This question is relevant to Satanism for reasons I'll explain in a future post. Some Satanists seem to think that Christians -- and people of all other mainstream religions -- oppose the above idea. I don't think that's correct.)

Hi Diane,

I'll take a shot at this based on my ***umed definitions of the words in your phrase, mind you that I am a C kind of student

If I am not mistaken free will is free will to choose. I think some of the choices that non-conscious forces* leave us though impose certain limits to what can be achieved and therefore limit the set of choices before us. Even so the same choice set before two or more individuals may yeild varied choices.

Let me know if I am on track here.

Having said that, a phrase that I have heard not a few times: "God won't make you do anything against your will - but He sure can make you willing!"

*I ***ume gravity, 1st and 2nd law of Thermodynamycs to name a few.

Blessings,

MacG

[DianeVera]

Originally Posted by MacG

If I am not mistaken free will is free will to choose. I think some of the choices that non-conscious forces* leave us though impose certain limits to what can be achieved and therefore limit the set of choices before us. Even so the same choice set before two or more individuals may yeild varied choices.

Let me know if I am on track here.

It I understand correctly, the idea of the original quote ("The individual human consciousness is a free agent apart from the non-conscious forces of nature.") is that humans are fundamentally different from "the non-conscious forces of nature," i.e. humans can make conscious choices whereas the "forces of nature" cannot. I don't think the intent was to claim that humans are omnipotent, or to claim that our choices are not constrained in any way by the "forces of nature." I think the idea is simply that humans are unique and are the only en***ies in the physical universe that can make conscious choices.

This idea, it seems to me, is very similar to the Christian/Abrahamic idea that humans are uniquely created "in the image of God." Do you agree?

[MacG]

Originally Posted by DianeVera

It I understand correctly, the idea of the original quote ("The individual human consciousness is a free agent apart from the non-conscious forces of nature.") is that humans are fundamentally different from "the non-conscious forces of nature," i.e. humans can make conscious choices whereas the "forces of nature" cannot. I don't think the intent was to claim that humans are omnipotent, or to claim that our choices are not constrained in any way by the "forces of nature." I think the idea is simply that humans are unique and are the only en***ies in the physical universe that can make conscious choices.

This idea, it seems to me, is very similar to the Christian/Abrahamic idea that humans are uniquely created "in the image of God." Do you agree?

To be sure, I was not suggesting that the quote was suggesting omnipotence but rather I was demonstrating precisely how we are not omnipotent and in some ways constrained by the forces or laws of nature.

I would agree that the forces are without intelligence and therefore cannot choose.

I would also agree that it is very similar. In fact as it reads, there is no conflict with Judeo-Christian thought whatsoever as far as I can tell. It maybe that the Satanists that you mention would ***ume that they would not have anything in common with Judeo-Christian paradigms rather than asking as you are now.

Blessings,

MacG

[DianeVera]

My quote is from Michael Aquino, founder of the Temple of Set, in his reply to an anti-Satanist diatribe by Isaac Bonewits, a neo-Druid, back in 1991. Aquino wrote:

Satanism is actually based on two very simple principles: first, that the individual human consciousness is a free agent apart from the non-conscious forces of nature; and second, that this fact is so frightening to most people that they have "demonized" it and either suppressed, punished, or sublimated its influence on themselves.

I should emphasize here that Aquino was speaking only for the Temple of Set. As far as I can tell, most Satanists would not agree with the above as a definition of Satanism.

In any case, I don't think it's true that the idea "that the individual human consciousness is a free agent apart from the non-conscious forces of nature" has been particularly "demonized," either by Christianity or by our culture in general. Christian churches have demonized lots of things, but the above idea doesn't seem to be one of them.

[MacG]

Originally Posted by DianeVera

My quote is from Michael Aquino, founder of the Temple of Set, in his reply to an anti-Satanist diatribe by Isaac Bonewits, a neo-Druid, back in 1991. Aquino wrote:


I should emphasize here that Aquino was speaking only for the Temple of Set. As far as I can tell, most Satanists would not agree with the above as a definition of Satanism.

In any case, I don't think it's true that the idea "that the individual human consciousness is a free agent apart from the non-conscious forces of nature" has been particularly "demonized," either by Christianity or by our culture in general. Christian churches have demonized lots of things, but the above idea doesn't seem to be one of them.

I would agree with you that the idea has not been demonized, if anything it seems to be as much a fact as any of the forces.

I would venture to guess that Aquino maybe thinking of how people look to outside forces and "invent" gods that cause things in a rather fatalist way from a position of weakness versus taking control of one's life and being the real "god". To a Satanist such as he it would seem a form of evil to subjugate one's self to such "supers***ions". As I said, it's a guess and I am open to discussing it.

Blessings,

MacG

[Jean Chauvin]

You are begging the question. For there is a presupposition to the question itself, and MUST be answered.

It is rarely answered, due to lack of honestly.

"Whom are you free from?"

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by DianeVera

"The individual human consciousness is a free agent apart from the non-conscious forces of nature."

We have free will...


Im not sure what you mean by a "non-conscious force of nature"?
My guess is that you could be talking about things like "light"? or "sound"?

Im not sure how forces of nature like "light and sound" can change my free will?

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

We have free will...


Im not sure what you mean by a "non-conscious force of nature"?
My guess is that you could be talking about things like "light"? or "sound"?

Im not sure how forces of nature like "light and sound" can change my free will?

This topic is almost 10 years old now....and i still dont understand the opening question?

[alanmolstad]

I still dont get that part of the question....