I am only examining the "human" logic involved in the scenario I mentioned. A person's belief in God is based on faith and their personal experience. This transcends any logical contradiction, in regard to human reason, real or imagined.
In my last comment to Seren, with respect to God and "foreknowledge" I wrote:
"I agree that what human beings refer to as past, present and future is viewed by God in a single instant, not successively. In fact, I never disputed that in my comments."
Perhaps, you can view that comment.
I think there is some similarity between what I have stated in this blog and Calvinism.
I agree that what human beings refer to as past, present and future is viewed by God in a single instant, not successively. In fact, I never disputed that in my comments. Perhaps, for convenience, we can refer to past, present and future as a “timescape”
Wouldn't he also be aware of what we human beings call past, present and future, even though he views everything in a single instant, not successively?
God is aware of all human actions within that "timescape".
I agree that God's existence is infinite whereas man's existence is finite.
What is wrong with making reference to “future human actions” and saying that God knows those actions,, upon which my Premise 2 is based, in that "timescape"? This in no way interferes with, contradicts or limits God “seeing” past, present and future in a single instant, not successively, or God's “timeless” view.
In what way does this apply finitude to God?
A lot of what you wrote has already been mentioned. If there is something specific to which you would like my response, please let me know.
Glad to see you back on the blogs with your own unique touch. With regard to the people and the bus scenario, I think the problem has more to do with logic than with understanding language per se.
Consider the following:
A dog is an animal. A cat is an animal. Therefore, a dog is a cat.
With your permission, Let's invite some responses from others to the above.
I shall not engage in personal derogatory comments and judememental statements about you as you have been doing with respect to myself in the past, and still continue to do so.
My judgement is in God's hands, not yours.
I will not stoop to your level.
I engage in discussions with my good friend, Serendipity, whom I respect and I believe he has a similar respect towards myself, even though he may not be in agreement with the views I express.
He does not engage in judgemental claims as you do. Other persons on this site have a similar respect for him. You can learn a lot from him in this regard.
Thanks for your comment. I agree with you that there may be exceptions in some cases but I wonder how widespread such a practice is. Perhaps, a lot depends on the judge in charge of the trial.
Thanks for your input, especially in pointing out the interconnectedness of everything in relation to the question of free will. In this regard, I think that genetic and environmental factors re our socialization have an effect on our actual behaviour.
Thanks for your input, part of which is quoted below:
"Is it possible that life is such a complex thing and our human brains operate on a much more simplistic level that our free will does seem intact from our conscious state? So, maybe from our human form, we actually do have free will. (maybe?)"
In my opinion, exercising one's free will is a conscious human activity.
"Otherwise, we do not have free will (just a grand illusion of it). or God is not all knowing and our lives are not predestined"
Of the two options you stated above, in my opinion, free will seems more feasible with the second.
It is probably more difficult for a highly sensitive man to be fully accepted in today's society than it is for a highly sensitive woman.
This is supported in wishvis's earlier comments. Such a man is likely to arouse suspicion and distrust from both men and women. (You can view wishvis's comment for details.)
Thank you very much for openly sharing your views and feelings with us, with regards to certain difficulties a highly sensitive man may have in relating to some women.
As you stated:
"Yes, there are often times I would speak but do not because of the responses I might expect to my apparent sensitivity."
"Children start facing norms that define “masculine” and “feminine” from an early age. Boys are told not to cry, not to fear, not to be forgiving and instead to be assertive, and strong. Girls on the other hand are asked not to be demanding, to be forgiving and accommodating and “ladylike”. These gender roles and expectations have large scale ramifications. In many parts of the world, girls face discrimination in the care they receive in terms of their access to nutritious foods and health care, leading them to believe that they deserve to be treated differently than boys. The degree of gender differences observed varies in all cultures in respect to infant, toddler and young child health, nutrition, care developmental activities, education, hygiene and protection.
UNICEF, guided by the Convention on the Rights of the Child, advocates for gender equality and equity in care, protection and development of all children."
"Girls for instance. Every other point you've described sounds more like girls than men - cry more easily, indecisive, more refined etiquette, inability to take criticism, distaste for team sports, emotionally reactive etc"
I received the above-stated comment from a male blogger in one of my previous blogs.
What you have mentioned may be true to some extent. Women tend to express their emotions more freely than men. Men are supposed to be "strong" and not display such emotion openly, in keeping with the stereotype image of the "macho" male. However, there may be a "downside" to this behaviour.
"I don't like the way this article appears to try and freeze people in a state and not recognise we all evolve fluidly over time. I don't like the way it tries to view people collectively, rather than recognising individuality. I don't like the way it appears to impose identity, just like any other form of prejudice."
I disagree with the accusations you have levelled at the article, especially that it appears to try and freeze people in a state and not recognise we all evolve fluidly over time,and that it appears to be prejudicial.
The characteristics mentioned are not rigid and frozen. In fact, I do not think that can be said of any human characteristic. I would like to think that most of the others who have viewed the blog recognize and view the reference to these characteristics as a tendency toward them, and not as being frozen and rigid.
Your point about poor parenting is well taken. The unabridged article states:
"Parents of highly sensitive children, in particular, need to "realize these are really great kids, but they need to be handled in the right way," Aron says. "You can't over-protect them, but you can't under-protect them, either. You have to titrate that just right when they're young so they can feel confident and they can do fine."
(I abridged the article due to space constraints. In fact, it just fit into the 4000 characters limit. But I stated the link to the full article at the bottom of the blog.)
Your statement:
"But if there is one single thing I have learned in life, it is that our strengths are also our weaknesses. They are one and very same."
...seems like a very good theme for a blog. Perhaps you can consider doing and posting such a blog yourself.
Human nature is too complex to have a rigid definition of a "normal" person. Usually, this is defined by a society and its culture. I agree that, as you said, very sensitive people are normal. They may be considered a minority but being highly sensitive carries a multitude of positive characteristics.
As I said to Angel, being overly or highly sensitive may not necessarily be a good thing.
I also wish you success in your new relationship since, as you say, both of you "seem to have the same mental wavelength and understand each other's sensitive nature." In my opinion, such understanding is vital for the success of a relationship.
online today!socrates44 Blog Comments (1,088)
Free Will
calmThanks for your response to my request.
I am only examining the "human" logic involved in the scenario I mentioned.
A person's belief in God is based on faith and their personal experience.
This transcends any logical contradiction, in regard to human reason, real or imagined.
In my last comment to Seren, with respect to God and "foreknowledge" I wrote:
"I agree that what human beings refer to as past, present and future is viewed by God in a single instant, not successively. In fact, I never disputed that in my comments."
Perhaps, you can view that comment.
I think there is some similarity between what I have stated in this blog and Calvinism.
Have a nice day!