Free Will
(The parable of the infatuated young man)
Nathan Bond, June 2004
A young man went to a place of learning and fell in love with a beautiful young woman. He gifted her with flowers and chocolates and airtime. The young woman had many temptations as she had many suitors.1 The captain of the First XV2 wanted her. The rising young professor of physics wanted her. Even the rag queen looked upon her with lust. The young man knew of her temptations and wanted her all to himself, but of her own free will. Therefore he allowed her free reign on campus in the hope of her choosing him above all her other (suitors). And it came to pass that the young woman knew3 the rugby captain and that she did feel regret and that she did find comfort in the arms of the professor of physics. And she went forth and knew first the back line, and then the tight five and then the loose forwards of the rugby team. And she then did turn upon the bench and knew them all. First the replacements and thereafter the impact players. And she did regret her actions and went on to her abode. But as she passed her on the streets, she went in with the rag queen and knew her and then she did flee, as her burden was heavy.
The wrath of the young man flared against his lover and he pursued her for many days and when he did find her, he took her and her child and carried them off to a distant location where he did torture them for many days. And when the young man was apprehended he told his captors that he did love the young woman and that she was the apple of his eye.
Free Will. Yeah. Right.
We despise the young man’s dreadful action, yet when God acts accordingly, people build him cathedrals and sing his praises. Religion… no insult great enough, no greater lie has anyone.
_____
1 Greek peirazo, tempter.
2 Greek theriomacheo, to fight with wild beasts; met. to be exposed to furious hostility, cf. 1 Co. 15.32.
3 Greek porneia, fornication, whoredom.
In my mind there is one wrong part in your parable.
“took her and her child and carried them off to a distant location where he did torture them for many days”
I don’t think he tortured them, but they got tortured.
Well, he cept on saying to her that he loves her, and he wrote her love letters, and said that he forgives her unconditionally, and promised her that he will love her forever, but she doesn’t except it. Is it then his fault that she got tortured?
Johan
July 24, 2008 at 9:03 am
Johan
You’ve got the time and place of the characters somewhat wrong, but… he knew her address; he knew that she was tortured… and he did NOTHING!?
Man, what a “God”!
Nathan Bond
July 24, 2008 at 9:44 am
Excuse me, Johan! If you are omnipotent and omniscient and SOMEONE tortures a child, then YOU tortured the child.
The all-powerful one keeps ducking responsibility!! (Or at least: His acolytes keep making excuses for him. Why does such a large fella need others to cover for him? Wimp!).
bewilderbeast
July 24, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Nathan, If God forced everyone to do as He wishes, you would not wright such crap and then you still have fellow idiots, whom think you have proven somthing. You have only proven yourselves highly intellectual idiots. I must say, your reasoning is very poor and less intellectuals have better reasoning than you and co.
Hans Matthysen
November 12, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Hans Matthysen wrote (12 Nov 08 at 9:02 pm):
There’d be no need to force anyone or anything if your god had done his/her job properly to begin with – specifically, dropping his/her own jealousy and the threat of eternal torment for those who do choose freely against him/her. That’s the whole point of Nathan’s parable.
Hans Matthysen wrote (12 Nov 08 at 9:02 pm):
It’s not about proof. It’s about ongoing demonstrations of the insidious absurdity of religion from all angles. If my support in that task makes me an idiot, I’ll wear that label proudly.
Hans Matthysen wrote (12 Nov 08 at 9:02 pm):
Another “gift” to us from your god, this intellectual idiocy, perhaps?
Hans Matthysen wrote (12 Nov 08 at 9:02 pm):
Sorry, not so. Aristotle set forth the basics of both deductive and inductive reasoning that we still use today, among certain other modes. Proper reasoning proceeds from premises to conclusions. Your god is a premise that leads to odious and incongruous conclusions. Atheism is a conclusion drawn from several empirically verifiable premises.
Hans Matthysen wrote (12 Nov 08 at 9:02 pm):
Only in their own unreasoning minds.
Con-Tester
November 13, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Hans
Ek lees die woorde ‘idiot’ en ‘crap’ in jou begonoemde bydrae. Verder reken jy dat Con-Tester se bydraes en argumentering, wat ek oorwegend steun, baie swak is.
Nogal!
Is jou argumentering, daarenteen, beter? Onthou, JY is die een wat in die volgende glo:
1. ‘n god waarvoor daar nie n enkele bewys bestaan nie, en wat ook nie bereid is op sy/haar gesig te kom wys nie.
2. ‘n ‘Profeet’ wat ongeveer 1900 jaar ‘laat’ is.
3. Bogenoemde profeet wie ook direkte ooreenkomste met tientalle heidense karakters het. JOU profeet is egter heilig, die ander nie, GEEN TWYFEL!
4. ‘n Verwerping van duisende ander gelowe, baie waarvan jy nog nie gehoor het nie. Geen probleem, jy het mos die ‘regte’ een.
Hans, oorweeg asb die volgende: Dalk is nie een geloof ‘reg’ nie…..
Mvn bogenoemde paar punte, moenie oor swak redenasie skryf nie.
groete
rick
Rick
November 13, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Hans, ek vra om verskoning. Jy het na Nathan se bydraes as çrap verwys, nie Con-Tester s’n nie.
Tester, pardon me!
rick
Rick
November 13, 2008 at 4:36 pm