breadcrumb socrates44 Blog

BIRTH – Destiny or Accident

Some persons appear to have things in life easy
Others have to struggle to cope desperately
Just what is the reason for this discrepancy
Is it due to their actions or just destiny?
Some are born into a family of poverty
While others are born into a life of plenty
Reincarnation says the home of our birth
Is determined by a previous life on this earth
Others say such an explanation has no worth
It's just due to the accident of our birth
The situation certainly makes one wonder
If we are all born according to some order



What do you think?

Open discussion welcome!

Thanks for your responses!

Atheism, Theism and God

When the term “God” is mentioned, it seems it is generally assumed that everyone has a clear and common understanding of what it refers to.
But is this really so?
Could it be that there are significant differences in what different persons perceive as God?
I think that it is very important to closely examine the answer to this question in fairness to those who consider themselves to be atheists, and also theists, since these terms are both related to the notion of God.

We define ourselves as beings, that is, human beings. A being is a living entity, endowed with some type of life force which may be termed spirit. Each human being is said to have such a spirit (or soul). God is also normally perceived as a spirit.
A human is viewed as a being at the natural level whereas God is viewed as a being at a higher level, referred to as the Supernatural level.

I wonder if viewing a human being as an entity at the natural or human level and viewing God as an entity at a higher or supernatural level somehow seems to suggest that God may be viewed as a superhuman being. In other words, God is viewed as having human-like attributes, but at a higher or superhuman level. Essentially, this is an anthropomorphism.

In the Bible, the book of Genesis states that God created man in his own image. George Bernard Shaw said: “God created man in his own image and man has returned the compliment”. That is, man has created God in his own image, with human-like attributes.

Is it possible that one can have a direct apprehension of that spirit (or force) which religion (theology) refers to as God, without viewing it in terms of human or superhuman attributes, that is, natural or supernatural? One simply views it directly as some phenomenon and is contented to apprehend it at that level.

I think most persons would agree that there is some sort of order or principle in the working of the cosmos. Here on planet Earth, we experience the orderly changes in the seasons, and from day to night and vice versa, etc.. The Natural Sciences have revealed to us certain laws like the Law of Gravity, the Law of Conservation of Energy, etc., that are manifested in the operation of Planet Earth.

Perhaps having a direct awareness of this principle in action is having a realization of the very “essence” of what is commonly termed God. Scriptures or religious teachings attempt to put a “form” to this "essence" and view the essence and form as being synonymous and co-existing with each other. Both are essential from the religious perspective.

If a person has such a direct awareness, that is, of the “essence” without having an interest in the teachings or dogma of any religion, is such a person an atheist or “godless” - a term which, to many, has negative connotations such as evil-mindedness and an uncaring attitude towards others, etc.?

The commonly quoted statement “God is Love” seems to suggest that one should have a belief in and an acceptance of God as taught in religion in order to love others and to express that love in action.
However, does one need to believe in God as defined in the dogma of religion in order to love others and to have a caring attitude toward them and, more importantly, to express this attitude in action?

Some of the world's notable philanthropists are atheists. These include Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.
I know of several well-to-do theists who profess a caring attitude toward others but do little or nothing to express it in action.

What do you think?

(Please note that I am aware of Proverbs 16:25)

Anorexic Identical Twins and Male Anorexia

Embedded image from another site


Maria and Katy Campbell, identical twins, can recall the life-changing statement their father made, that would forever alter the course of their lives. They were only 11 years old, when they overheard their father tell their mother, “Gosh, those girls are becoming young women, aren’t they? They’re getting hips.”
The twins, now 33 years old, decided that very day to stop eating in order to lose their blossoming hips…

Maria and Katy have spent the last 20 years of their lives, attempting to “punish” their parents for the remark their father made, so many years ago. Obviously, these women have severe mental issues along with their anorexia.
The twins have preternaturally childish bodies and voices. The illness causes their hair to fall out in clumps. Maria is 5’5” and weighs 87lbs and her sister, Katy is the same height, but weighs 70lbs. Neither twin has even started their period yet, because their body weight was never enough to support one.

The twins say they feel like the anorexia has imprisoned them.
Katy states, ‘I can’t walk any more. My back hurts, my heartbeat is irregular, I’ve got osteoporosis, chronic gastric pain and pancreatitis. I’m on diuretics because my kidneys don’t work.

‘Katy and I began to resent Mum because she was so slim,’ says Maria. ‘We looked up to her as a role model and felt we came up short.’
‘Maria started keeping a food diary and would jot down everything we ate, our weight and how much exercise we’d done. We started skipping breakfast and exercising fanatically, doing 50 lengths of the pool in the morning and gymnastics after school.

‘We had a system where we’d starve ourselves for six days, only eating 400 calories precisely a day — ten pieces of pic ’n’ mix, an orange, a banana and a diet cola,’ says Katy. ‘Then, on the final day, we’d eat anything and everything we could get our hands on — bread, pasta, crisps, cakes.’
‘When we were 15, Mum noticed we were losing weight, but we brushed her off. She began to sit with us during supper — but one of us would distract her while the other put food up their sleeves.’

Despite the illness, both girls gained excellent grades at GCSE and A-level and were accepted into medical school at the Royal Free Hospital in London.

Maria explains: ‘We were having just one cup of coffee and a packet of chocolate buttons a day, and Katy had lost a lot of weight. So we were called in and told that she would have to go to hospital to recover.
‘I remember one of the doctors saying they had noticed I had lost weight, too, but that my weight loss wasn’t quite as bad as Katy’s.
‘Rather than be relieved, I thought: “No one is going to say that Katy is better than me at something.” It was a trigger for me losing another 2st.’
Because of this deadly competitive streak, the girls were sent to different hospitals in London in the hope they would not be able to encourage each other’s weight loss.

‘We were force-fed 3,000 calories a day through tubes,’ says Maria. ‘We were not allowed any contact with each other, but we got around that by writing letters under pseudonyms and getting friends to pass them on. We also managed to get hold of mobile phones and hid them in cupboards.
‘It was the first time I had been apart from Katy and we were both in pieces. It’s hard enough being forced to eat, but I hated being without my sister.

Incredibly, they both graduated from medical school in 2009 and are now qualified doctors.

(Continued in Comments)

(See later comment for Male Anorexia)
Post Comment

Strengths and Weaknesses

It may be necessary sometimes, in dealing with others to toughen up oneself mentally. Consider the following scenarios:

1. A bright hardworking employee is promoted by management to a supervisory position. This person may have less seniority in the workplace than some other employees who have been there longer but have not shown the dedication and initiative of the newly promoted employee. That, in fact, is the reason why they were bypassed for the promotion. Their displeasure in being overlooked may be expressed in non-cooperative and hostile behaviour toward the new supervisor. Consequently, he would always have to be on guard in dealing with them. He must always ensure that he “covers his a**” on the job. Despite this, it is his responsibility to ensure productivity in the department. He must develop a “new strength” to do so.
However, this attitude of constantly having to be on the defensive may spill over into his social relations with others. It may affect his ability to trust others, including his friends and acquaintances, perhaps even certain members of his family. This may adversely affect his personal relationship with others.
Also, the person may become so "uptight" that, even away from the workplace, he/she may find it difficult to "unwind", and to engage in some "relaxing" recreational activity.

2. A person falls in love with another. Initially, the relationship is very beautiful and they are both quite happy. They trust each other completely, at least that is what they tell each other. They may even marry and have children of their own. However, after some time, the person notices that his/her partner seems to be “holding back” in the relationship. Later, he/she discovers that the partner is having an affair with another person. The effect of this is quite devastating initially, but gradually the person overcomes the trauma of the experience. However, he/she becomes emotionally scarred by the experience and is very wary to enter into a new relationship for fear of being hurt again. The disappointment of the heartbreak has given the person a “new strength” with respect to relationships. However, the new found strength may prove to be a “weakness” in dealing with others and starting a new relationship where trust is required.
As they say: “Once bitten, twice shy”.

Can a person's greatest strength also prove to be his/her greatest weakness?

What do you think?

(Open discussion welcome)

What do you think will happen after you die?

Most religions state that when a person dies, his/her soul/spirit/consciousness leaves the body which decays. However, they differ in what they believe happens to that soul, etc., which continues to exist after the experience of death.

The Abrahamic religions, that is, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, teach that, after death, the soul is faced with a fixed permanent state, either heaven, where there is eternal happiness, or hell where there is eternal suffering and damnation. This final state is determined by the way one lives one's life on this earth, prior to one's death. A life filled with goodness and kindness towards others will be rewarded with heaven. However, “good” actions alone are not sufficient but also a belief in a divine being or God as advocated by that religion. In this regard, a philantrophist who may spend most of his/her life in doing “good” to others, or helping them, unless he/she believes in God as prescribed by that religion, will not make it to heaven and eternal happiness. It does not matter if the “good' actions part of his/her life exceeded that of a believer. The believer will be rewarded with heaven whereas the philanthropist will not.

Several Eastern religions, including Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism do not accept that the soul is faced with a final permanent state after death. They teach the doctrine of reincarnation instead. They say that, after death, the soul/ spirtit/ consciousness will be reincarnated and born into a new human body, and live a new life right here on this earth. The actual “quality”of life that one experiences, after rebirth, in the new life will be influenced by the measure of "goodness", or lack thereof, that one did in the previous life. Thus, if there are some persons who appear to be suffering a lot in their lives here on this earth, despite the fact that they may be kind and good towards others, according to reincarnation, they are paying for their misdeeds in their previous life. This process of reincarnation or rebirth will continue until one has attained a “sufficient” or adequate quantity of goodness in this life here on earth. Upon doing so, one will break the cycle of rebirth and would not return to a life here on earth but will enter into a permanent state of union with God or the Divine.

There are others who advocate that when a person dies, in addition to the fact that the physical matter of that person's body decays, there is total annihilation of everything that was initially referred to as that person; this includes the soul, spirit, consciousness or whatever. Absolutely nothing is left after death.
Personally, I find such a view difficult to accept. According to the Law of Conservation of Energy, energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It may be changed from one form to another, but not annihilated. Whatever it is that drives us when we are alive, whether we refer it as soul, spirit, consciousness or whatever, is certainly some form of energy, psychic or otherwise. Then, according to the Law of Conservation of Energy, total annihilation of this energy is impossible. It may be changed to another form but it can never vanish into nothingness.

In his Rubaiyat, Omar Khayyam states :

"Strange, is it not? that of the myriads who
Before us pass'd the door of Darkness through
Not one returns to tell us of the Road,
Which to discover we must travel too."
- Omar Khayaam

What do you think will happen (to you) after you die?

Will it be:

1.Permanent Location?
2.Reincarnation?
3.Annihilation?
4.Other?

If other, please describe briefly.

Thanks for your responses.
Post Comment

Free Will

Do we really have free will?

At the societal level, the assumption that we have free will is an essential requirement. In fact, our legal system is premised on this assumption, and that we must take personal responsibility for our actions. If a person is tried legally and found to be in violation of the law of that country or state, then he or she is likely to face some form of punishment, even including the death penalty. In some cases, if a person's action is found to be commendable, he or she may be rewarded.

A person's socialization, that is, the type of home and social environment in which he or she was brought up, especially in the earlier stages of life, may be related to his/her actions or behaviour in later life; however, this is not necessarily so. The legal system normally does not make provision for this factor. A person who is legally tried and found guilty of a violation of the law, even if he/she was raised in an “adverse” environment, that is, a “broken home” with a lack of love and support from his/her significant others, and in a “high crime rate” neighbourhood, cannot expect any special consideration from the legal system. The system insists that, regardless of a person's socialization, he or she has “free will” and personal responsibilty for his/her behaviour.

Perhaps, future research may show that a person's genetic make-up may predispose him/her to certain behaviours that violate the legal system; this is only a suggestion. I am not aware of any such research findings at present.
Even if research uncovers such genetic evidence, this is unlikely to impact on the legal position that a person must take personal responsibilty for his/her behaviour.

Most theists, insist that we have “free will”, which is given to us by God.
God is normally viewed as being omniscient, infallible and omnipotent. My personal view is that if we accept those attributes of God, then there is a logical inconsistency between those attributes and the acceptance that human beings have “free will”. I have summarised this position in the following argument:


Premise 1:
To have free will, there must be no constraints on how one chooses to act.
One must be free to act how one chooses.

Premise 2:
God's foreknowledge places a constraint on one's actions.

God is omniscient and infallible. He knows everything - past, present and future.
God knows the future actions of everyone and since he can never be wrong,
one's future actions are constrained by God's foreknowledge since they must be in accordance with it.

Conclusion:
Therefore, in the context of God's foreknowledge, one does not have free will.


The question of whether God's foreknowledge “causes” one to act in a certain way is irrelevant; besides, this blog is not making such a claim.
The fact remains that one cannot act outside the constraints of Gods foreknowledge.


In summary, I agree that I have the freedom to act according to what I honestly feel or believe to be my free will. Thus, relative to my thinking, I am exercising free will, that is, with no constraints.

However, if God knows how I am going to act, even before I do so, and since I have to act in accordance with God's foreknowledge and I cannot do otherwise, I do not have free will.

As an analogy, I exercise my free will within a box, or limited space, constrained by God's foreknowledge.
The question here is:

Is such “free will” really “FREE”?


In the context of God's foreknowledge with respect to the actions of everyone, and if our actions determine our ultimate fate, then God already knows what our ultimate fate will be. Based on this, Reform theologian John Calvin, argued that some people are predestined to be saved and some are predestined to be damned, and there is nothing anyone can possibly do about it.


What do you think?
Post Comment

The Highly Sensitive Man

I posted a blog recently on "Highly Sensitive People". One male blogger said it seemed to apply more to women than to men.

The following is from an article in "Psychology Today" magazine titled "The Highly Sensitive Man":

"Being a sensitive man can present unique challenges as men are still held to a standard of masculinity that does not often include showing their feelings. Being a highly sensitive person involves struggling to cope with feeling overwhelmed by sensory and emotional information and the stress of modern life and finding opportunities to express those feelings can be difficult. But with an understanding of themselves and an appreciation of their traits, highly sensitive men can find their sensitivity is both a gift and a strength.

While many people do not understand the reasons for a highly sensitive woman becoming upset over the sound of a screaming baby or overwhelmed by the crowds at a fair, they will still usually accept her reaction. Highly sensitive men are not often accepted in the same way. Men are expected to hide their feelings, suck it up, and soldier on.

The result is that men often bury their feelings in an attempt to conform to social pressure and as a way of dealing with the feelings they themselves struggle to understand. This kind of compartmentalising of emotions, that is, separating your feelings from your thoughts and actions, is often an unconscious coping tactic. By stuffing unpleasant feelings, such as anger, fear, anxiety, worry and hurt, into an imaginary box, a man can find it easier to move on. Unfortunately, you can’t pick and choose which feelings go into the box. If one goes, they all go, including the positive ones, like happiness, enthusiasm and love. This strategy may make life easier for the highly sensitive man, but it also makes his life flat, cold and ultimately lonely.

Without the practice of showing their feelings, it can be difficult for men to even know how to begin. What’s more, it becomes increasingly difficult for them to even be aware of what they’re feeling. Consequently, when someone does ask how he is feeling, he responds that he is fine, that there’s nothing wrong. The problem, however, is that he becomes emotionally distant from those people he cares about and who care about him, making it nearly impossible for him to receive the love and support he needs.

Compartmentalising your feelings can be a useful and often an essential technique for coping with overwhelming feelings when you are in a situation that prevents emotional expression. For the highly sensitive man, however, becoming aware of and expressing those feelings on a regular basis is crucial for maintaining a positive sense of self, as well as being a powerful tool for lowering stress levels. HSPs experience so much stress, thanks to environmental overload, that facing their feelings is fundamental to their health. Pushing feelings away does not make them disappear. In fact, feelings tend to grow the longer you avoid them. This might explain why some men appear to be calm and coping well, until they suddenly explode with anger. It just all becomes too much.

Recognising and accepting yourself as a man who is highly sensitive is the first step. Sensitivity is a gift, not a weakness, and it means that you are creative, empathetic and able to appreciate wonderful sensory elements in life like music, art, fragrances and colours that other people often miss. Being highly sensitive also means that you have an ability to help others. Burying your feelings is easier, but talking about your feelings takes courage. By becoming aware of your feelings and learning to express them, you not only draw loving people towards you, you can also teach others how to cope, simply by being an example of that magical combination of sensitivity and strength".





What do you think?
Post Comment

16 Habits Of Highly Sensitive People

1. They feel more deeply.

One of the hallmark characteristics of highly sensitive people is the ability to feel more deeply than their less-sensitive peers. They're very intuitive, and go very deep inside to try to figure things out.

2. They're more emotionally reactive.

People who are highly sensitive will react more in a situation. For instance, they will have more empathy and feel more concern for a friend's problems.

3. They're probably used to hearing, "Don't take things so personally" and "Why are you so sensitive?"

4. They prefer to exercise solo.

Highly sensitive people may tend to avoid team sports, where there's a sense that everyone is watching their every move. However, this is not a blanket rule -- there are some highly sensitive people who may have had parents who provided an understanding and supportive environment that would make it easier for them to participate in group sports.

5. It takes longer for them to make decisions.

Highly sensitive people are more aware of subtleties and details that could make decisions harder to make. Even if there is no "right" or "wrong" decision -- for example, it's impossible to choose a "wrong" flavor of ice cream.--- highly sensitive people will still tend to take longer to choose.

6. And on that note, they are more upset if they make a "bad" or "wrong" decision.

7. They're extremely detail-oriented.

Highly sensitive people are the first ones to notice the details in a room, the new shoes that you're wearing, or a change in weather.

8. Not all highly sensitive people are introverts.

In fact, about 30 percent of highly sensitive people are extroverts. Many times, highly sensitive people who are also extroverts grew up in a close-knit community and thus would interact with a lot of people.

9. They work well in team environments.

Because highly sensitive people are such deep thinkers, they make valuable workers and members of teams. However, they may be well-suited for positions in teams where they don't have to make the final decision.

10. They're more prone to anxiety or depression (but only if they've had a lot of past negative experiences without having a supportive environment).

11. That annoying sound is probably significantly more annoying to a highly sensitive person.

While it's hard to say anyone is a fan of annoying noises, highly sensitive people are on a whole more, well, sensitive to chaos and noise.

12. Violent movies are the worst.

Because highly sensitive people are so high in empathy and more easily overstimulated, movies with violence or horror themes may not be their cup of tea.

13. They cry more easily.

That's why it's important for highly sensitive people to put themselves in situations where they won't be made to feel embarrassed or "wrong" for crying easily.

14. They have above-average manners.

Highly sensitive people are also highly conscientious people. Because of this, they're more likely to be considerate and exhibit good manners.

15. The effects of criticism are especially amplified in highly sensitive people.

Highly sensitive people have reactions to criticism that are more intense than less sensitive people. As a result, they may employ certain tactics to avoid said criticism, including people-pleasing (so that there is no longer anything to criticize), criticizing themselves first, and avoiding the source of the criticism altogether.

16. Prefer solo work environments.

Many highly sensitive people enjoy working from home or being self-employed because they can control the stimuli in their work environments. For those without the luxury of creating their own flexible work schedules (and environments), highly sensitive people might enjoy working in a cubicle -- where they have more privacy and less noise -- than in an open-office plan.

Abridged version of article at
Post Comment

Better to have loved and have lost...

Even before entering into a relationship, one person is always attracted to the other more than the other is attracted to him/her. This may be purely a matter of chemistry. Both persons may enter into and develop the relationship, being fully aware of this. The one who is more strongly attracted may end up putting more effort into the relationship in the hope that this may cause the other person to become more attracted to him/her. However, things may not necessarily work out that way, at least in the short term; there is a better chance of this taking place in the long term. Ultimately, one may have to make a decision with regard to committing or not committing oneself to the relationship.

If things work out well and both parties are happy and remain happy in the relationship, that is great.

However, if things do not work out that way,then what?

Most likely, there are several persons here at CS who may have experienced such a situation, and some who may be experiencing such a situation at present.

Perhaps the one whose love was not reciprocated in the relationship, leading to a case of unrequited love, may console himself/herself with the saying:

“It is better to have loved and have lost, than to never to have loved at all”.

What do you think?

Open discussion, on the topic, welcome!!!
Post Comment

Marriage and Divorce: A Rigged Game for Men, But A

If you’re a man considering marriage, there are some statistics you should know before you go ring shopping.

Today, more than 50% of marriages in the U.S. end in divorce.

What many people don’t know is that women initiate approximately 70% of all divorces. Interesting, since men as a gender are the ones who are typically shamed for being commitment phobic and not willing to settle down.

An article on a marriage support website states that women primarily file for divorce because they feel “neglected.”

Author and researcher Deirdre Bair finds that women are generally the initiators of divorce worldwide, not just in the U.S.

In my opinion, the primary reason women initiate divorces in 70% of divorces cases is because most women stand to gain far more than they have to lose if they choose to divorce.

Even though women initiate approximately 70% of divorces, men are frequently ordered to pay their ex-wives legal costs. So, in addition to potentially losing their assets, their homes and their children, men are also expected to pay for the privilege of being emotionally and financially eviscerated by their ex-wives.

Not only do women initiate 70% of divorces, women are awarded primary custody in 82.6% of custody cases and this figure has remained largely unchanged since the 1994 U.S. Census.

Courts typically refuse to lower child support payments when a father’s income drops. The Bradley Amendment, which was passed in 1986, forbids any reduction in child support arrears, even if the father is disabled.

The amendment ensures that even if a man can prove he is the victim of paternity fraud, that he cannot be absolved from paying child support to a child that is not his biological offspring, which brings us to another disturbing statistic.

Approximately 30% of paternity tests submitted come back negative. That’s nearly one-third of challenged paternity cases proving the woman lied.

What about brave men who marry a second time? Men can have their new spouses’ income held against them and used to extort more child and spousal support to their ex-wives.

This is nothing more than a “backhanded way of tapping into a second spouse’s income” to pay for the ex who believes she shouldn’t have to work because she was once married to her ex once upon a time or wants to maintain that magical and totally unrealistic “marital standard of living.”

However, if the ex-wife remarries, her new spouse is under no legal obligation to financially support his stepchildren. The court’s rationale? Hey, they’re not his children and, therefore, not his responsibility. Yet, it is the new wife’s responsibility to give a portion of her salary to her husband’s ex-wife and children. Can someone please explain to the logic of this to me?

In many states, long after a divorce has been settled, ex-wives can come after their ex-husbands to shake down their retirement plans — even after they received a portion of the man’s retirement during the divorce settlement! This essentially allows some ex-wives to “double dip” into their exes’ retirement savings.

Here’s another statistic: Divorced and separated men are two and a half times more likely to commit suicide than married men. Divorce, however, doesn’t seem to lead more women to commit suicide. Separated and divorced male suicides outnumber their female counterparts by 4 to 1.

Marriage rates are on the decline in the U.S. and worldwide as many men are deciding to opt out of marriage due to the extremely unfair nature of divorce and custody “awards” and the extremely entitled attitudes of many women (MGTOW and the Herbivores) and I can’t say as I blame them.


The above is an abridged version, (due to space constraints), of an article by female consultant, Dr Tara J. Palmatier.

The full article can be viewed at:

Post Comment

Judas's Betrayal Of Jesus

This is a follow-up to my previous blog.

As I mentioned in a response to my Christian friends in the previous blog:

“I wish to state that the position expressed in this blog is based on a logical deduction made from the premises that I have mentioned.

I respect your position which, I believe, is based on your faith and which may not be in agreement with the deduction I have stated.

The Bible(KJV), in Hebrews 11:1 states:
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

This indicates that faith is based on hope and trust. It is not based on the evidence of things seen, which I refer to as “hard” evidence. Rather, it is based on evidence of things not seen, which I may refer to as “soft” evidence. 
Faith is a personal internal experience.

I would like to believe that your faith provides you with a psychological security and sense of meaning in your lives, and I am happy for you all in this regard.”

Also, the Bible(KJV), in 1 Corinthians 3:19, states:
“For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.”

I accept that, based on your faith, you may choose to adopt this position and dismiss the process of logical reasoning, based on the principles of deductive logic, which is presented below.


Premise 1:
God is omniscient and infallible.

(i.e., God knows everything - past, present, future,
and he can never be wrong).


Premise 2:
Jesus (God) knew beforehand that Judas would betray him.

(as stated in the Bible)


Conclusion:
Therefore, Judas could not avoid betraying Jesus.


(God can never be wrong, and what God knows beforehand
must come to pass so it is inevitable and cannot be avoided).

Based on the principle of deductive logic, applied to the premises stated above,

Judas could not have avoided betraying Jesus.

(I am refraining from using the terms “free will” or “free choice”)

This is the context for the position stated in my previous blog.


I welcome any relevant comments, criticisms, of the process of logical reasoning presented above which is based on the principles of deductive logic.

I am not disputing the comments made by my Christian friends with reference to the purpose of Jesus's death, sin, salvation, etc. in my previous blog.
Post Comment

Judas Iscariot and Free Will

During the recent Easter season, there was a focus on the crucifixion and death of Jesus Christ.
According to the Biblical account, Jesus was betrayed by Judas Iscariot.
Jesus, who is also God, (being part of the Godhead or Trinity), knew beforehand that Judas would betray him.
God is said to be infallible, that is, he can never be wrong or mistaken.

To have free will, one must be free to do how one chooses.
Judas was not free to avoid betraying Jesus. If he did not betray Jesus, then it would mean that God was mistaken.
But God is infallible and can never be mistaken.
Therefore, in the context of God's infallibility, Judas did not have free will in the matter.

What do you think?

(I look forward to any relevant comments, criticisms, etc.)
Post Comment

This is a list of socrates44's Blogs. Click here for socrates44's Blog List

We use cookies to ensure that you have the best experience possible on our website. Read Our Privacy Policy Here