A Lion, Rabbit and a Woman

[Skandelon]

A lion, a rabbit and a woman stand before you. You place a steak and a salad in front of each one of them and say, "You are free to choose which one you want to eat."

We already know what the Lion and Rabbit will choose, because their instinctive nature dictates it. It is predetermined by their inborn nature. We don't know what the woman will choose, because her choice is truly free, because her nature is such that she could eat either one. It is contra-causally free. She is free to willingly choose the steak or the salad. Nothing in her nature or anything created by something outside herself is determining that choice. She determines that choice. She may desire to lose weight and choose the salad, or she may desire the taste of a steak. She might desire both and have to determine on which desire to act. The actor determines the act.

Some seem to think that the Lion's and Rabbit's choices are equally free simply because they are 'choosing what they want.' But, clearly they are not. They are instinctive. Some reduce mankind's morally accountable choices to animal instinct because they wrongly assume men are determined by innate desires set by their inborn nature.

What say you?

 

[annsni]

So the rabbit and the lion would really have no choice? I disagree. It is like saying when I offer my kids brussel sprouts or a chocolate bar, they really do have a choice, do they not? But we know pretty well what they will choose - but it is still a choice. Even ask them and they will tell you that they COULD have chosen the brussel sprouts if they wanted to - but they didn't want to. In the same way, the lion had a choice and the rabbit had a choice.

 

[Skandelon]

Lions won't eat lettuce, and Rabbits won't eat meat, because that is the way they were created. There is no "choice" (picking between available options) in the matter because lettuce isn't a viable option for a Lion and meat isn't a viable option for a rabbit. Both are viable options for the woman, thus an actual CHOICE is made.

 

[annsni]

Lions won't eat lettuce, and Rabbits won't eat meat, because that is the way they were created. There is no "choice" (picking between available options) in the matter because lettuce isn't a viable option for a Lion and meat isn't a viable option for a rabbit. Both are viable options for the woman, thus an actual CHOICE is made.

Well, I guess you never met my rabbit and lions eating lettuce is documented.

[snipped - personal and inflammatory]

 

[jbh28]

So the rabbit and the lion would really have no choice? I disagree. It is like saying when I offer my kids brussel sprouts or a chocolate bar, they really do have a choice, do they not? But we know pretty well what they will choose - but it is still a choice. Even ask them and they will tell you that they COULD have chosen the brussel sprouts if they wanted to - but they didn't want to. In the same way, the lion had a choice and the rabbit had a choice.

Exactly. Well stated.

Well, I guess you never met my rabbit and lions eating lettuce is documented.

[snipped - inflammatory

Well, when your proven wrong, you start another thread to try again. If the first 24 attempts fail, try try again. At least he's not a quitter!

 

[Skandelon]

Well, I guess you never met my rabbit and lions eating lettuce is documented.

I'm a minister, not a zoologist, so bare with me on my illustrations.

But I have to ask you a question Skandelon. I just looked at the last 25 threads you have started and every single one of them is an argument against the doctrine of grace. I understand you disagree but honestly, this is very tiresome and indicative of something wrong, IMO. Are you against sin and evil as much as you are against a doctrine?

Here we go again. THIS is a debate forum on Christian doctrine, of which the doctrine of soteriology is arguably the most important and most debatable. I average just over 2 posts here a day, not excessive by anyones standards. (especially one with an average of over 6 posts daily and twice the total post count as I have, and I'm a moderator...thus one might argue you are the one who has something "wrong."). This is virtually the ONLY place in my life I discuss this soteriological disagreement.

As to your TIRESOME issue. Listen very carefully, and I say this in LOVE. If you don't want to debate theological differences then DON'T COME TO A FREAKIN THEOLOGICAL DEBATE BOARD AND KEEP CLICKING ON THREADS HAVING TO DO WITH THINGS YOU DON'T WANT TO DISCUSS. :love2: Again, I say that in love. No one is holding a gun to your head. YOU DO have a CHOICE.

OR do you?

 

[Skandelon]

Well, when your proven wrong...

:laugh::laugh::laugh: Good one.

 

[annsni]

I'm a minister, not a zoologist, so bare with me on my illustrations.



Here we go again. THIS is a debate forum on Christian doctrine, of which the doctrine of soteriology is arguably the most important and most debatable. I average just over 2 posts here a day, not excessive by anyones standards. (especially one with an average of over 6 posts daily and twice the total post count as I have, and I'm a moderator...thus one might argue you are the one who has something "wrong."). This is virtually the ONLY place in my life I discuss this soteriological disagreement.

As to your TIRESOME issue. Listen very carefully, and I say this in LOVE. If you don't want to debate theological differences then DON'T COME TO A FREAKIN THEOLOGICAL DEBATE BOARD AND KEEP CLICKING ON THREADS HAVING TO DO WITH THINGS YOU DON'T WANT TO DISCUSS. :love2: Again, I say that in love. No one is holding a gun to your head. YOU DO have a CHOICE.

OR do you?

I like to read the debates to see the arguments but honestly, this is old. [snipped - inflammatory]

 

[jbh28]

:laugh::laugh::laugh: Good one.

thanks!

 

[preachinjesus]

A lion, a rabbit and a woman stand before you. You place a steak and a salad in front of each one of them and say, "You are free to choose which one you want to eat."

And the lion eats both of the them...I mean come on man, that is easy!

We already know what the Lion and Rabbit will choose, because their instinctive nature dictates it. It is predetermined by their inborn nature. We don't know what the woman will choose, because her choice is truly free, because her nature is such that she could eat either one. It is contra-causally free. She is free to willingly choose the steak or the salad. Nothing in her nature or anything created by something outside herself is determining that choice. She determines that choice. She may desire to lose weight and choose the salad, or she may desire the taste of a steak. She might desire both and have to determine on which desire to act. The actor determines the act.

The difficulty here is that neither the lion nor the rabbit are free moral creatures. They are bound by a determined design that, while appearing to be free, is actually bound over to specific norms of behavior. They have no freedom and thus the example falls a part too quickly.

Some reduce mankind's morally accountable choices to animal instinct because they wrongly assume men are determined by innate desires set by their inborn nature.

Genetic determinism aside for a moment the determinist's point isn't about the nature of innate desires. It is, instead, about the nature of a fallen humanity and the cravenness of sin. There is, and you should know this, a difference.

What say you?

After more than a few years of marriage and a lifetime of being around women I can safely say there is no logic for any choice that the woman makes...

See I can have fun too!

 

[Skandelon]

The difficulty here is that neither the lion nor the rabbit are free moral creatures. They are bound by a determined design that, while appearing to be free, is actually bound over to specific norms of behavior. They have no freedom and thus the example falls a part too quickly.

Actually, the example is based on those facts. I know they aren't considered to be free moral creatures, and I realize they are bound by a determined design. That is the point. In the Compatibilistic system mankind is really no different, mankind is just doing 'what they want' and what they want is determined by how they were made...just like the animals. The only real difference is that man is held to account for his instinctive choice, while animals are not.

Genetic determinism aside for a moment the determinist's point isn't about the nature of innate desires. It is, instead, about the nature of a fallen humanity and the cravenness of sin. There is, and you should know this, a difference.

A difference without a distinction. In the Calvinistic view mankind, according to God's predetermined plan, is born with a nature that will not, cannot, chose to follow Christ even when invited by God to do so. So, just like the rabbit, made by God's predetermined plan to be vegetarians, mankind may be offered a 'choice' to come to Christ, but its no different than offering a raw steak to a rabbit.

After more than a few years of marriage and a lifetime of being around women I can safely say there is no logic for any choice that the woman makes...

We agree on this point, FOR SURE! :laugh:

 

[Skandelon]

I like to read the debates to see the arguments but honestly, this is old.

So, stop reading it then. No one is forcing you to read my threads. Put me on your ignore list and I won't bother you anymore. Geesh. How often are you going to put yourself as my judge on this issue?

I see your name and I see one thing: an anti-calvinist. [snipped - inflammatory and personal attacks]

And I see a personal attack after a personal attack from you, while I do what this board was created for, debate theology. At least one of us is following the rules. Plus, you obviously haven't read ALL my posts, have you? I've prayed with people here, I've given testimony of God's work in my life and how He speaks to me. My signature is a reflection of how God has moved me from being more of a 'theological' thinker to one enraptured by God. I used to be somewhat anti-emotional and now I see God has just as much the creator of our emotion as our intellect.

You have NO idea who I am. I'm a husband of an awesome woman who challenges me to be a better man and who I'm madly in love with. I'm a father of four beautiful kids who I love with all my heart. I just baptized my oldest this year and announced that here...maybe you missed it. I am a pastor, friend, brother, son and I like discussing theology CORDIALLY, and without being judged by people who have NO IDEA who I am or what they are talking about. You see a small glimpse of me that is obviously clouded by your theological bias and you set yourself up as my judge and then you personally insult me over and over again. I'm sure you are probably a fine lady in real life and we'd probably get along fine if we met, but here it ain't working, so please do me a favor. Put me on your ignore list and I will not bother you again. Okay?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Well, I guess you never met my rabbit and lions eating lettuce is documented.

But I have to ask you a question Skandelon. I just looked at the last 25 threads you have started and every single one of them is an argument against the doctrine of grace. I understand you disagree but honestly, this is very tiresome and indicative of something wrong, IMO. Are you against sin and evil as much as you are against a doctrine?

Skandelon has never once argued against the doctrine of grace: it is the philosophy of determinism he disagrees with. No one has a problem with grace.http://evangelicalarminians.org/?q=glynn.CALVINIST-RHETORIC.Euphemism-and-Dysphemism&page=4

 

[annsni]

Skandelon has never once argued against the doctrine of grace: it is the philosophy of determinism he disagrees with. No one has a problem with grace.http://evangelicalarminians.org/?q=glynn.CALVINIST-RHETORIC.Euphemism-and-Dysphemism&page=4

Yes, he absolutely has an issue with the doctrine of grace.

 

[preachinjesus]

Actually, the example is based on those facts. I know they aren't considered to be free moral creatures, and I realize they are bound by a determined design. That is the point. In the Compatibilistic system mankind is really no different, mankind is just doing 'what they want' and what they want is determined by how they were made...just like the animals. The only real difference is that man is held to account for his instinctive choice, while animals are not.

A difference without a distinction. In the Calvinistic view mankind, according to God's predetermined plan, is born with a nature that will not, cannot, chose to follow Christ even when invited by God to do so. So, just like the rabbit, made by God's predetermined plan to be vegetarians, mankind may be offered a 'choice' to come to Christ, but its no different than offering a raw steak to a rabbit.

The trouble with your position is that it isn't the nuanced Reformed position which asserts mankind has a kind of agency (clearly different than animals) though how it functions in regards to salvation is different. I can't find too many thoroughgoing Calvinists who suggest double determinism is the way to go.

The nature of their determinism (again, this varies) is primarily predicated on how they see God's sovereignty working with and/or through individuals to accomplish His plan. I think you've got an incorrect view of Reformed theology here.

Of course, I'm not Reformed so I'm sure someone else will chime in to help clarify. I'm just going on the studies of the system I've done.

 

[Bobby Hamilton]

Actually, the example is based on those facts. I know they aren't considered to be free moral creatures, and I realize they are bound by a determined design. That is the point. In the Compatibilistic system mankind is really no different, mankind is just doing 'what they want' and what they want is determined by how they were made...just like the animals. The only real difference is that man is held to account for his instinctive choice, while animals are not.

Please explain this further. I'm not sure I agree with you here. From just basic observation, just about every living creature is held accountable for their choices, in one way or another.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Yes, he absolutely has an issue with the doctrine of grace.

I would be fascinated if you found one place where he has stated he does not believe that men are saved by grace alone through faith alone. He has a disagreement with your determinism (hence the entire thrust of the thread), not grace. Unless you were to quote or furnish proof of his denying savation by grace alone you are merely guilty of libel.

 

[psalms109:31]

Oops wrong thread

 

[jbh28]

I would be fascinated if you found one place where he has stated he does not believe that men are saved by grace alone through faith alone. He has a disagreement with your determinism (hence the entire thrust of the thread), not grace. Unless you were to quote or furnish proof of his denying savation by grace alone you are merely guilty of libel.

No one said he denied that. She said he had disagreements with the doctrines of grace.

 

[preacher4truth]

God's ways don't follow a scientific protocol, they're instead supernatural and beyond our reason and logic. :thumbsup: