I was not really sure where to start this thread, it deals with current events and religion. I went with current events but welcome a refreshing religious discussion too. I sure hope it doesn't turn in to another Zimmerman debate because there is a deeper point to it. I came across a story today on CNN about the Zimmerman interview on Hannity show. Zimmerman echoed what I have been reading in Christian forums for years. That it was God's plan for him to take Martin's life. Of course he is alluding to the Calvin doctrine of predestination and that God is always in complete control of all the events and nothing happens against God's Will. The Catholics disagree. While they do agree with predestination to a point, they believe in free will, which pretty much means things don't always happen according to God's Will. Needless to say as one can expect, this debate has always been very passionate and fierce in Christian forums. That Zimmerman brings this up is not unusual for Christians. What strikes me a little odd is he went to a Catholic Church which would disagree with this view. Any way I will provide the link to the story for those that would like to read on it first. HERE. If you want to brush up on your Calvinism and Arminian doctrines just google it! The question here is what do you think? Is God always in control? Does every thing happen according to God's Will or does things happen that disappoints God if that is possible. Please, lets not turn this into a bashing contest. If possible I ask that you try to be as civil as possible, present your view and why. Despite the name of the thread, it's really not about Zimmerman and also don't make it about why you disagree with Christianity. This is about a fundamental divide among Christians and how you view the topic.
Well, this really should be in the religion section since you want to take this angle with the thread, and focus on predestination vs. free will. First, I doubt that Zimmerman even knows who John Calvin is, and his statement is probably more of a way to absolve himself in his own mind, not really a statement of his own religious creed. I doubt that he believes that he didn't have free will in the incident, more like he didn't really "have a choice". The distinction is fine. The former is when choices are made for you, the latter is simply a lack of available choices.
Note: Could a mod move this to the religious section? I think your right because for one thing, and it's a biggie, he's Catholic. I realize it's possible for a Catholic to be a Calvinist too, but I never met one in any of my journeys. Do you think it was God's Will for these two men to meet the way they did? What level of free will do we have?
Don't get me lying. The truth is that I have no idea. I'm not really even convinced that God exists. But logically speaking, I have always liked the way Calvinism treats the idea of an omnipotent God. The Calvinist God is the greatest God, IMO. If I want to believe in a truly all-powerful God, whose will cannot be resisted by mere humans, then this is it. I think that many Christian denominations put free will above God, much like the 3 fates were above the Greek pantheon: not really gods, but somehow more powerful.
God wills us to do the right thing. To do what is moral and right. No other creature has that abilty that he gave us to choose. He gave us the knowledge then left us to choose which path to take. To follow him or to follow the Shaitan. Every human knows the difference between right and wrong. There are very few who dont. Some know the evil but choose it instead either for greed , money, power, to steal someone land or house, for worldly gains. Others choose the better path because they prefer an eternity of good things rather than fire BUT some have no patience and want everything now so follow the bad path. God allows us to choose our own destiny and whether we choose heaven or hell.
It is not surprising to me that he said it. I would think that when faced with something like this a feeling person has to find some way to rationalize an incomprehensible thing. Zimmerman knows he is not a killer at heart so this fits that framework of thinking.
I'm Catholic and free will is a bigee, but most religious folk I know do interpret some things differently regardless of the Church's belief. To me Free will is the entire sha bang,,we decide not God. We were taught right from wrong and understand we must live with the consequences.
The catholic nun of my sunday school always said to me: Thy shall learn if god is willing. Anyways I always found predestination one of the most stupid things of religion, that would mean god picks random people and it is his will that they are doomed to eternal suffering.
I've always had a problem rationalizing this and I am a firm believer, just not sure who was more correct, Calvinism or Arminianism. The big issue really is how can God have complete Sovereignty if He is always at the whim of what man decides to do? How could He carry out His Will? At the same time on there is the issue of then how can we be held responsible for our actions if we are merely carrying out God's Will? Then there is the whole debate on the 5 points of Calvinism (TULIP). Irresistible Grace, the Elect and the reprobrates. believe me I've examined this thoroughly and just when I think I have a position I become undecided again! The Catholic Church pretty much believes in predestination but strong free will, in fact to the point of saying God can be disappointed. How can God be disappointed if He already knew who would do what before they were even born? They have a feel good doctrine but lack appropriate explanation. Only John Calvin and his opponent Jacobus Arminius provided an explanation to their doctrine. And certainly the truth can be some where in between that or some thing different. Reading Zimmerman's interview reminded me of this endless debate. I personally do not believe God can be disappointed. If we have free will it is either a illusion or very limited. I suppose I can best be described as a Calvinist Lite. But by no means claim to be 100% certain.
Well, of course even in full-on 5 point Calvinism (which BTW, is the only Calvinism that makes sense, b/c it is all linked logically) free will is believed to exist. Many people think that predestination=no free will. But the Calvinist version of free will stems, in part, from the first point: total depravity (or inability). You have free will to determine what you will eat for breakfast, what you will wear today, what you want to major in, etc. But spiritually, when left to your own devices, you will always make the wrong choice, due to your inherent badness. God has to override your free will (through the Holy Spirit) to even give you the desire to do right spiritually. Hence God "elects" certain people, essentially by mind-controlling them into doing right. According to Calvinism, spiritual free will is actually something you want to get rid of, in order to be saved. P.S. This mechanism is how we can be held responsible for our own actions, and God is not the "author of evil". Our evil was done of our own free will, hence earning the "wages of sin". But the "gift" of salvation (notice the difference?) is from God.
You seem knowledgeable in this subject. It's always refreshing to meet some one who actually took the time to investigate this. So I hope you don't mind if I pick your brains a little here. How would you explain we can still be held accountable for some thing we can NOT change on our own, that is to seek righteousness on our won, if the only way is thru irresistible grace. With out God overriding our "free-will" we will continue to chose evil. I still question if this is even free will because on our won we only can chose one way. I agree that Calvinism does make the most sense, but I'm afraid has some holes in it for me, and this is a big one.
I'm afraid I don't have much of an answer for that. I asked the same thing, and never got a satisfactory (to me) answer. On its face, the answer is that we can be held accountable because we deserve whatever we get because of our own evil which we voluntarily chose, but the question then becomes, why did God create such an inferior product? And why does He not offer grace to all, so that all might be saved, if that is truly what he wants (as the bible says)? Whenever I ask these things, my religious mentors just tend to get angry and spout some stuff from Job about not questioning God. "Who are you, O man" and the like. But is it free will, if you can only want to choose the wrong thing? I guess that depends on how you define the term free will. By the predestinarian definition, yes. By the Arminian definition, no. The Calvinists want to give you enough free will to condemn yourself, no more. The Arminians want to give you enough to save yourself. And that is the real divide, I think. Who does the saving? You, through your voluntary act of believing, or God, by taking the reins and personally saving those who He elects?
For every yin there is a yang. What we are discussing here in this thread is how much control we have over it. If one looks at the immediate picture only, they miss the bigger picture. How much is God involved in our world? How much free will do we have. If you say you believe in God, then these are legitimate questions. And just as remarkable these questions can also be addressed in a atheist form as well. The debate over free will is not just on the religious side. It can be just as deep on the atheist side. Are we simply wired by (fill in the gap with what you prefer, nature, God, other), to act accordingly? What makes a person be a homicidal maniac verses a Gandhi? What really made Zimmerman pull the trigger? Look at the bigger picture. Zimmerman is merely a token subject here to some thing much bigger
