DescentBB

Disclaimer - I am in no way trying to ruffle your feathers; I am looking for an explanation â?? Thanx.

Can you please explain how one can have free will when god has a plan? If god has a plan how can anything you do be considered free will at all? Is this a new concept invented by people trying to explain away their poor behavior?

Free will and God's plan--one of the most interesting (and controversial) subjects of Christians in our day.

I am of the opinion, after a LOT of reading, that it depends where our hearts are--if our hearts are in Christ (regenerated) then we will do mostly good. If we are unregenerated, we will do good, but for the simple reason that it's societally correct, not because it pleases God.

Free will comes into play here because God's plan is an overall, general plan--it does not include every detail of everything that we will ever do. Major participants are often called by God to do things--if they are Christians, they will accept, but if they do not accept, God can bug another person. Not to say that God couldn't just tell us "go here, do this" and we would do it; but that's not really how God works.

The whole Old Testament is a record of how man managed to totally screw up the simplest commands God could give us--it isn't much different today.

On a side note, what is the difference between the old and the new testament?

To put it in a nutshell, the Old Testament is mostly a historical document relating to how we screwed up and hints as to how God planned to fix the world we screwed up--the New Testament is mostly a historical document showing the details of how God fixed things, and containing details of some of the earliest churches.

thanks, that was simple.

I always assumed gods plan was just that, a plan, and people may or may not choose to follow it. Isn't 'choosing his way' the only way you gain salvation? So it stands to reason that free will is a prerequisite to being a part of 'the plan' and ultimately to salvation.
Even more confusing, what about those that never even hear about the plan? Maybe their messenger just hasn't shown up yet...

Some people seem to think gods plan is like a software code and we all live in the matrix, all that we do is merely the execution of our part of the program code. As if every event is part of 'his plan'.

I never bought into the notion that our fate is predetermined. My ego is too complete to accept that

(just trying to establish my interpretation before the scholars chime in so I can see how close I came)

Cops, your question will take some time to write out an answer. At present, I don't have that much time. Maybe this weekend...

CDN_Merlin wrote:On a side note, what is the difference between the old and the new testament?

A slightly longer answer:

Old Testament:

- written by the Jews between 2000 BC and 500 BC

- tells the history of the Jewish people. The first dozen pages are backstory (creation, Adam&Eve, the flood, etc.) and then it starts right in on Abraham, the "father of the Jews". Tells how his descendants got to Egypt, grew numerous, left Egypt, took over Canaan, became a nation, became a kingdom (this was bad -- God was supposed to be their only king), split into two kingdoms, and were eventually conquered and exiled.

- explains that history in terms of how God interacted with the people, how the people kept messing it up and how God kept sending them prophets (teachers) to bring them back. Explains that God sent Assyrian and Babylon to conquer the two Jewish kingdoms (Israel and Judah) because of their sin. Hints (sometimes very blatantly) that God is going to send a "Messiah" (chosen one) to restore the people to Himself.

- About half of the Old Testament is history (written as narrative), and about 40 percent is prophecy (which can be either "future-telling" or simply teaching; usually it involves telling people "you should do X" or "beware, the day is coming when Y".) About 10 percent is poetry and other miscellaneous types of writing.

New Testament:

- Written by mostly Jews between 50 and 100 AD.

- tells the story of Jesus, the Messiah who was told about in the Old Testament. Tells how he corrected the wrong ideas the religious leaders of his day taught, and how he fulfilled the requirements of the Law that was given to Moses in the Old Testament so that people no longer had to be bound to it.

- Explains how Jesus provides people with a way to get to God, and explains how to react to that. Explains how to follow Jesus' example of obedience. Explains that you no longer have to follow the requirements of the Old Testament Law (the stuff given to Moses, recorded in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) because the Law was just meant to teach people they couldn't be good enough on their own.

- About 30 percent of the NT is history (narrative) including narrative about Jesus, about 65 percent is direct teaching (letters early church leaders sent to those in the church), and about 5 percent is future prophecy.

Thanks Lothar. I had read part of the OT many years ago and was disgusted by what I read. So I stopped reading. As you all know I'm not religious but I'm just trying to improve myself and learn more about it so I can relate to others.

So if the Jews wrote the bible (testaments) why are we not jewish instead of christian? Why are the testaments treat as christian works?

They are treated as Christian works because they describe how we as humans, including the Jews, messed up so horribly that it required God's Son to die for us.

People of the Jewish religion do not believe in the New Testament, as they do not believe Jesus fulfilled the prophecies present in the Old Testament pointing to the coming of the savior. Thus, they are still waiting for a savior, while Christians have spent 2,000 years saying "He's already come, guys!"

CDN_Merlin wrote:I had read part of the OT many years ago and was disgusted by what I read. So I stopped reading.

Not a surprise. It's a history book, and it reports on the good, the bad, and the ugly. (I always find it entertaining when people suggest the Bible was written in order to make Jews / Christians / the authors "look good" -- obviously they didn't read it! It's the only history book I know of that consistantly says bad things about its authors.) In one debate, an atheist pointed out the story in Genesis 34*, thinking it would shock me. Not one bit -- history is not all fluffy bunnies; there are some pretty rough things in there. Sometimes Bible characters, even the good ones, do some seriously warped things.

* in Genesis 34, Dinah got raped by Shechem, a village ruler, who then asked to be allowed to marry her. Her 12 brothers responded that, sure, he could marry her if every man in his village got circumcised. Then when all of the men of the village were lying in bed in pain, 2 of the brothers snuck in with swords and killed all the men and plundered the village. Just because it's in the Bible doesn't mean it was the right thing for them to do.

woodchip wrote:So if the Jews wrote the bible (testaments) why are we not jewish instead of christian? Why are the testaments treat as christian works?

The Old Testament is always treated as a Jewish work. It's written in Hebrew (the Jewish language), and it's what Jews consider their scripture. They don't call it the Old Testament, because most of them don't recognize the New Testament as anything special (and it doesn't make sense to talk about the "old" if there's no "new" to go with it.) They just call it the Tanakh.

The New Testament was written by Jews, about the Jewish Messiah (Jesus), and was originally shared with Jews. Jesus and all of his immediate followers were Jews, as were all (?) of the New Testament writers. A lot of the early Christians were Jews. But part of the message of the New Testament was that there is only one God, and He is God of both Jews and Gentiles. (There's a whole complicated argument about why so many Jews rejected Jesus; suffice it to say, their own scripture said they would.) It's clearly Jewish writing, it's just not accepted by all of the Jews.

Part of why we're not Jews is because of what I pointed out above -- "you no longer have to follow the requirements of the Old Testament Law." Ethnic Jews are those descended from Abraham (which most of us aren't) and religious Jews are those who follow the OT Law (which we're not required to.) But there's no requirement that we have to become Jewish.

Woodchip, I've always said Christianity is a Jewish cult.

The Christian Old Testament and the Jewish Tanakh are the same (well, minus some book names and organization and chapter numbering and other inconsequential stuff). The New Testament, though written by Jews, is a Christian book, and the Jews want nothing to do with it.

It is a bit confusing because the term "Jew" has an ethnic, a cultural, and a religious meaning, and different people happily claim and disown any combination of those. Even in a religious context, the term is used more than one way. Jews, in general, are a separate religion opposed to Christians, but there are some Jews who are Christians. This can make it difficult to tell exactly who you're talking about, especially when someone refers to the early Christian church as being Jewish. (I would say that the very early church was mostly made up of people who were fully Jewish in the ethnic sense, had been Jews in the religious sense and had not renounced Judiasm but were certainly at variance with Jewish religious beliefs and customs, and who certainly came out of the culture of ancient Judiasm though they were quite bold about going against it).

This will make a bit more sense when you realize that each of the two modern religions (Christianity and Judiasim) thinks it is the true continuation of ancient Judiasm. Jews have an obvious warrant for thinking this. The Christian thought on the subject can be found in Romans 3:28-29, "A person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision something that is outward in the flesh, but someone is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart by the Spirit and not by the written code."

The two parted ways over whether or not to follow Jesus. Jesus was a Jewish teacher, and during his life he taught mainly Jews; some thought he was the messiah and followed him, while others thought he was an imposter and continued as they had been doing. That is where the break occured. So Christians think Jews missed God's message and follow an obsolete covenant devoid of any real power. Jews think Christians followed an imposter and hold to a false hope of heaven. Each thinks they are the ones faithfully following the God Abraham followed.

Incidentally, Muslims also think they are the true followers of the God of Abraham. That's why those three religions are sometimes called the Abrahamic religions. Though Islam is the youngest of the three religions (Judiasm being some 4000 years old, Christianity 2000, Islam 1300), I would say its break from Judiasm is a lot deeper and wider than the Christian break. Christians and Jews share some scripture and a lot of moral philosophy, and though the difference on the nature of Jesus is no small difference, they have some things in common. Islam on the other hand is a completely different set of scripture, philosophy and culture: though it references Abraham, it really doesn't have a lot in common with the other two.

Stryker,
Are you saying gods plan is the 'ideal that humans should live by' and free will is 'what determines whether or not we get into heaven'?

Itâ??s fair that the thread got derailed into other concepts because I have done that so much on the dbb... but I would love a complete answer from well-read folk.

In all honesty 'gods plan' is one of the biggest roadblocks in my personal understanding of Christianity. "The chosen" being my biggest with Judaism... never understood that one.

Now, to Cops' question:

That's a doozy of a question. Not only is predestination vs. free will one of the larger theological puzzles in the history of Christianity, it's also one of THE biggest and most heated theological debates of the last few centuries. Probably in the top three. And you can add to that the fact that the question is a pretty big secular philosophy question, too. All of that is to say, there is no right and well-accepted answer that I can give you from either secular philosophy or Christian theology. It's the sort of question people have been arguing about for centuries and which everyone following the debate has at least five opinions on.

The question of predestination, from a Christian point of view, really centers on salvation. If you are saved, who is responsible: did you choose God, or did God choose you? There are problems either way. If salvation is your choice, then acquiring the right beliefs and following God becomes a sort of test you pass, after which you deserve heaven. But the idea of "deserving" heaven is completely at odds with the idea--at the very core of Christianity--that heaven is a free gift, given by God out of mercy and not at all deserved by those who receive it. On the other hand, though, if heaven is completely a free gift and salvation is something that God accomplishes without any choice on your part, it hardly seems fair for him to send some people to heaven and others to hell.

You will find all sorts of positions on this issue in the church, some more reasonable than others. The debate was really big in the 17th or 18th century, though, and that's where the extreme positions can be found.

On the one hand is Calvinism, which is usually expressed as consisting of five points. Total depravity means man is completely unable to do anything to save himself. Unconditional election means God chooses who will be saved completely freely and according to his will. Limited atonement means Jesus' sacrifice on the cross covered only the sins of those who will be saved, not the sins of humanity in general. Irresistible grace means that once God has chosen to save someone, there is nothing they can possibly do to avoid being saved. Perseverance of the saints means that once someone is saved, they cannot revert and again become lost. The upshot of all of this is that man is totally dependant on God, and if he is saved and goes to heaven, it is completely because God chose to have mercy on him, and not at all because he in any way, shape, or form did something to deserve it.

Calvinism doesn't come as a whole system all in one lump--a lot of people will accept different bits and pieces of it (so if you hear someone refer to themselves, say, as a four-point Calvinist, that means they accept four of those and reject one). The emphasis in Calvinism is on God's total sovereignty and power.

Calvinism began (surprise) with John Calvin in the early 1500's. It has some modern descendants, including the Presbyterians, the Reformed Churches, and some Baptists and Congregationalists.

At the opposite end of the spectrum is Armenianism, which says essentially that God desires for all men to be saved, but men have the free will to refuse the invitation. In opposition to Calvinism, men are able to save themselves by accepting God's invitation; God does not choose who will be saved; Jesus' sacrifice is universal; and Men can reject God's invitation. (I don't know if it teaches that salvation once gained can be lost--I think that might be a separate debate).

Arminianism is named for Jacob Arminius, who lived in the late 16th century, but it was mostly taught by John Wesley during the Awakening in the middle of the 18th century. In fact, the debate between George Whitefield (arguing for Calvinism) and John Wesley is well known: they were unable to come to terms on the subject, but remained good friends and in fact Wesley gave the sermon at Whitefield's funeral. A wonderful letter from Whitefield to Wesley arguing for Calvinism can be found here. It is very good reading if you want a feel for the theological debate.

I don't know of any modern descendants of Armenianism. I think some of the Methodists might be, but I think Arminianism is generally regarded as a heresy these days. I could be wrong, though.

A lot of the church these days embraces bits and pieces of both positions. Most people will affirm that God chooses who he saves, but they will also affirm that people have a role in the process. I have heard it likened to a marriage--did you choose to marry him, or did he choose to marry you? Well.. both. The well known Christian apologist C.S. Lewis incorporates elements of Calvinism in his Chronicles of Narnia, when a character is told that that no one can call out to God unless God is already calling him first. But there is no harsh, overriding sense of destiny in his stories, and they are not at all shy about assigning moral value to following or not following God.

It is not all that uncommon of a scholastic view to embrace, not just some of one view or the other, but all of both views. Lothar occasionally refers to himself as "a five point Calvinist who believes in free will," a phrase I would also consider descriptive of myself, with a few caveats. Though the predestination and free will debate still rages in some parts of the church, and Lothar and I are in the minority, we're not alone--I was originally convinced of the position by my systematic theology textbook.

But before I give my view, let me give what I see as theological boundaries.

First, the Bible absolutely teaches that people make real choices, and those choices have moral value. God continually judges people for their wrong choices, celebrates their right choices, admonishes them and gives them advice, tells them how much he wishes they would do one thing or another. Very obviously, our choices are real to God and have real moral value. (I'm not quoting a reference here, because the reference is literally the whole book. This point is obvious from just about every story.)

Second, the Bible almost certainly teaches that God foreknows and even causes certain things. This point can be seen very clearly in Bible prophecy: if God tells the future, he obviously knows it. (There is a little leeway here--though my interpretation of scripture is that there is no limit to God's knowledge of the future, and I think that is most clearly what the Bible teaches, there are those who suppose that he has only a rough idea of the future and in some cases he is guessing and in others he is working to bring about what he promised in prophecy. I don't agree, but this view is not completely out of bounds.)

But thirdly, and most interestingly, the Bible clearly teaches that God assigns moral value to actions he clearly forsees and (in some cases) even causes. Here are some specific examples:

In the New Testament, just before Jesus is killed, he gives a prophecy to Peter. He says that Peter will deny him three times before the night is over. Peter is adamant that he won't do that, saying, "Even if I have to die with you, I will not deny you." Later that night, Jesus is arrested by a mob, beaten, mocked and taken away to await trial. Peter follows along quietly, and is asked three times if he knows Jesus. Knowing that he too will be in trouble if he says yes, he loudly denies it each time--and then remembering what Jesus said goes away and cries bitterly. (The full story can be found in Matthew 26:34-75)

Jesus knew Peter would deny him. He knew it specifically--that is, he knew how many times he would do it--and he knew it long before Peter did. And yet this foreknowledge does not stop Peter's bitter tears. Though what he would do was foreknown, the choices were still real.

In the Old Testament, Israel is created as the people of God. The whole story of the old testament--Israel's unfaithfulness and wickedness, God's punishment, her repentance and return from exile can be read spread accross several books. It can also be read in a single chapter: God's prophecy to Israel very shortly after she entered the promised land, in Leviticus 26. Though it's presented in the form of a choice ("Do right, and I will bless you; do wrong and I will curse you,") the details of the curse are so exactly what happens it's hard to imagine God doesn't know. (See Deuteronomy 31:16-18 for further confirmation of this).

God clearly knew in advance that Israel would not be faithful to him. And he clearly saw that decision as having moral value--the entire old testament is filled with his struggling and pleading with Israel.

Perhaps the most flagrant example of this is found in the story of the exodus. Moses is attempting to rescue the Jews from slavery in Egypt with God's help; the pharoah of Egpyt doesn't want to let them go. Nine times, Moses comes to Pharoah and demands in the name of God that the people be let go; nine times, Pharoah refuses. Nine times, God sends a plague on Egypt that is eventually so intolerable that Pharoah promises to let the people go if only the plague will stop. Nine times, the plague subsides, and nine times, Pharoah's heart is hardened and he refuses to let the people go.

The interesting bit is that sometimes the text says "God hardened Pharoah's heart," sometimes it says, "Pharoah hardened his heart," and sometimes it just says "Pharoah's heart was hardened." There's no evident distinction in the usage--sometimes it's one, sometimes it's the other, and God judges pharoah the same each time. Even more flagrantly, God tells Moses before he is even sent to Egypt, "I will harden Pharoah's heart that I may multiply my signs and my wonders in Egpyt." (Exodus 7:3).

So, was God judging Pharoah unfairly--or were Pharoah's decisions real, even though God was causing them?

I am fairly sure the latter is what the text teaches. Here is my opinion.

From a secular philosophical point of view, I think people have things all backwards. Some people think that for choices to be "real" or to have any "meaning" they have to be in some sense random. It has to be something that can't be known in advance. Some people think that if choices are fixed, they are "chosen for you," and consequently have no moral value. I think this is exactly backwards.

I think you make your choices based on your character--you choose what you do based on who you are, and placed in the exact same situation you would always choose the same way. This is in fact a reassuring thing--it is the very fact that our characters determine our choices that gives our choices value. Things are genrally random when they have no meaning; things that have meaning are deterministic.

This solves the philosophical puzzle for me neatly: choices can be foreknown without damaging their moral value if they are determined by character. "Who you are" is the truly morally relevant component of "what you do"--that is, your choices are moral or not inasmuch as they demonstrate *you* to be a moral person or not.

(Curiously, I follow the second Matrix movie very closely here--the Oracle has a line that sums things up well. Referring to a choice about to be made, she comments, "You've already made the choice; you're just finding out why." A convoluted way to say it, but essentially what I think.)

I don't hold the view for purely philosophical reasons--it was in fact theology that forced me to it, and upon reflection it seems to me to be what makes most sense of scripture. Paul seems to describe my view very well when he writes in Romans 9:15-23,

... [As God] says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then, it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.

For the scripture says to Pharoah, "For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth." So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who resists His will?"

On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing moulded will not say back to the moulder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate his wrath and make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and he did so in order that he might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory?

It's kind of convoluted language, but the upshot of it is that God *made* you who you are, whether you're good or evil, and ultimately (enter my reasoning) it's who you are that determines how you choose. So then, God has mercy on who he will, but your choice to follow him is still real. God knows in advance who will follow him, but it isn't arbitrary. Like an author makes villians to kill and heroes to reward, God fashions people for heaven or hell. Yet their choices are real and their characters have value and they will be justly judged; and everything will work out to his glory, either in demonstrating mercy or executing justice.

This is one of those mind-boggling things. Even after many years of thinking about it, it's hard to get your brain around. I understand the logic, but it seems so paradoxical. History is God's plan, his sovereign plan and story--and we are making it with him. We are saved completely by grace, as a result of what God does for us--scratch that, we're made completely by grace: he creates us and shapes us and though we're conscious and participating and really there, somehow everything turns out to be him in the end.

Mind-boggling and awesome, which is the norm rather than the exception for theology. The divine's just like that.

[P.S., I know that was long, Cops, but if I find out you skimmed and mostly read my first sentence and this one... I won't be happy. ]

is one of the few things stopping calvinists from treating "infidels" like poop, is the knowledge that "only GOD can truly see the hearts of men", so we can't presume to know people?

from your description Drac (centralised in a quote at the bottom of this post), i got the vibe that people arn't really capable of changing themselves - that people do not actually possess the capability to self-actualise.
it reminds me of the pre-american (pre-luthar?) christian teachings that assured the lowly peasants that they were born into their lot in life because it was god's will (likewise the rich were rich because of god's will), and therefore any idea of a peasant rising above his born caste was treated as HERACY.
(this point was explored in the philosophical BBC documentary "Status Anxiety", that i was once talking to Lothar about. highly recommended. i got it from bittorrent and have it on CDs, i wish i could send it to you)

it reminds me of this (above), because if someone is labeled as not saved, but wants to be saved, can they be? can they CHANGE their lot? or is the secret of the system the "only god truly knows the hearts of men" clause? - because then no-one can really BE labeled as saved or not saved, since only god knows, any attempt in men to label one another as saved/notsaved could be heracy. if one man is labeled (by man of course) as notsaved, and then his label is changed, it could be said that in god's eyes he was always saved and man's label was wrong. (personal note: why do people bother labeling people)

Drakona wrote:From a secular philosophical point of view, I think people have things all backwards. Some people think that for choices to be "real" or to have any "meaning" they have to be in some sense random. It has to be something that can't be known in advance. Some people think that if choices are fixed, they are "chosen for you," and consequently have no moral value. I think this is exactly backwards.

I think you make your choices based on your character--you choose what you do based on who you are, and placed in the exact same situation you would always choose the same way. This is in fact a reassuring thing--it is the very fact that our characters determine our choices that gives our choices value. Things are genrally random when they have no meaning; things that have meaning are deterministic.

This solves the philosophical puzzle for me neatly: choices can be foreknown without damaging their moral value if they are determined by character. "Who you are" is the truly morally relevant component of "what you do"--that is, your choices are moral or not inasmuch as they demonstrate *you* to be a moral person or not.

"it is the very fact that our characters determine our choices that gives our choices value."

it seems to also label our CHARACTER as valuable, or nonvalueable. if this character is inherit and unchangeable ... that sucks

Drakoma, Lothar...excellant replies. A couple of questions from Drakona's reply:

"The upshot of all of this is that man is totally dependant on God, and if he is saved and goes to heaven, it is completely because God chose to have mercy on him, and not at all because he in any way, shape, or form did something to deserve it." Drakona

The problem I have with this is it smacks of "Live your life in debauchery for all it matters as you will go to heaven only on Gods whim". Kinda defeats the whole concept of living a good clean life.

"At the opposite end of the spectrum is Armenianism, which says essentially that God desires for all men to be saved, but men have the free will to refuse the invitation. " Drakona

Define "saved"

Drakona wrote:.....God knows in advance who will follow him, but it isn't arbitrary. Like an author makes villians to kill and heroes to reward, God fashions people for heaven or hell. Yet their choices are real and their characters have value and they will be justly judged; and everything will work out to his glory, either in demonstrating mercy or executing justice.....

I find that to be a dangerous philosophy to teach to people.

I imagine there are people who at times are on the verge of doing very bad things, things they know are wrong but they are tempted out of frustration to act out in a violent way and if they believe their whole future is predestined and unavoidable then they will rationalize and give in to the temptation by saying
'If I do this evil deed then I must be one of the ones god has chosen to do evil so by doing this evil thing I'm doing his will...therefore it is not that I am evil or even wrong because I'm forced to do this'

I believe we could do an experiment where we teach that philosophy to a control group of a thousand children and teach the opposite to a thousand more, turn them loose on society and the god-has-picked-some-to-be-evil group would produce significantly more violent and criminal personalities.
If we did that, and my experiment proved true, would you say that it was what god planned, that he wanted those criminals to give contrast to his glory in the others who do good?

It really makes me think of god as a malicious little boy who is torturing the creatures he bred in a petri dish or some kind of animal vendor who cares not for the individual animal just that he breeds them up to a standard worthy to be in his inventory.

Nothing personal Drakona, I love to read your thoughts they make me really think hard about things but I truly hope, if there is a god, that you have got this part wrong.

Will Robinson wrote:I find that to be a dangerous philosophy to teach to people.

Most philosophies are dangerous when they're only partially understood.

I thought Will had quite a good point there. Not like you to be condescending Lothar! Or did i miss your invisible smilie?

Flabby Chick wrote:I thought Will had quite a good point there.

It is a good point. I'm just saying, the same argument applies to most philosophies. Even something like "democracy" is subject to being corrupted and treated as "mob rule" instead, especially by those who have just been introduced to it. It takes only a subtle misunderstanding to turn very good philosophies into very bad ones. (Notice how, in politics, often one party will make a very subtle mischaracterization of the other, but it will make the other party's idea sound *really* bad. The same is true in philosophy.)

New philosophies -- especially overarching ones -- are dangerous things, because it's hard to absorb them completely in the first hearing. People will partially understand them, and they'll rationalize bad behavior because they didn't understand the *whole* philosophy.

As an example: A large part of the New Testament is devoted to telling people they're free from the OT Law -- and just as much space is devoted to telling people that no, that doesn't mean it's now OK to lie, steal, or murder. This concept of freedom from the Law was new to people, so it took a while for them to understand it completely. When the idea was new to them, they made all sorts of mistaken conclusions about how it was now OK to do really bad stuff, and Paul and many of the other NT writers spent a lot of time telling them that, no, being free from the Law *doesn't* make it OK to sin.

In this case, all 3 responses (roid, woody, Will) have contained the same misunderstanding: the idea that, if it's all pre-planned anyway, you may as well treat people like crap / do bad things / give in to evil. This is based on understanding only part of the philosophy. If I had the time, I'd try to give a more complete answer, but because I don't, I'll just say this is a misunderstanding and I'll try to clear it up later.

Did Mobius reply to this thread or had a dreamt that?

Not that I ever saw...

Roid, Will, and Woody all gave perfectly reasonable responses. Some of the things you guys said are pretty common objections to the view. In fact, that was considerably less objection than I expected; the hardest bit for most people is not the "this has bad social consequences" bit but the "Kinda sucks if God predestines you wrong, huh?" bit.

Lothar's right that you've misunderstood me, but that's not really to your shame. When I was a grad student in math, I was picking up some serious theology for the first time too--and I found the theology to be the more subtle and logically demanding subject. Counterintuitive properties of infinity really pale compared to the counterintuitive nature of God. Small wonder if it's hard to process the first time you hear it.

I'll see if I can explain myself more fully when I get home (I'm on lunch break here at work... ). But let me leave two general comments.

First, let me underscore that my belief in determinism is a philosophical belief, and though I come to it for theological reasons, it's nothing like universal through Christianity. Lots of Christians disagree with that. Up above, I gave some general boundaries on what one can say about predestination and free will and stay within the bounds of what the Bible teaches. Those are actually quite broad, though there's no escaping at least some paradox.

And second, let me point out that whether or not a teaching has desirable social consequences doesn't directly relate to whether or not it's true. (I don't think the questions you guys raised actually are problems with my position, but even if they were... from my point of view, that isn't evidence that it isn't true.) Theology for me is not a question of "what beliefs make for good social consequences/nice lifestyle" so much as "what beliefs are true?"

And finally, it's okay to disagree with me. One of the things about going against the mainstream so much and believing what you think is true based on evidence is that a lot of the time you're the only one saying a certain thing. Sometimes that's because you're a genius. Sometimes it's because you're a nut. Beating the bell curve is like that. You can't help it, really--most good scholars have a few "nut" positions; I'd be very surprised if all of my outlying beliefs turn out to be true. It's probably good if a few come to light; it'll remind people not to trust me too much as an authority.

All of that is to say, if this sounds nutty to you, that's okay. I think I can explain better and it might not sound so crazy, but if it does... oh well.

-Drak

This may sound far-fetched, but here's more food for thought...

First off, I strongly believe that God, the Bible, history, and science are all precisely consistent with each other, we just don't understand the connections.

God created space and time, as we experience them. It's interesting that even scientific theories of the "big bang" suggest that before it occurred, there was no time. There's a huge paradox there, the notion that there can even BE a "before" if there was no time. Current theories suggest that time itself is a demension, and that there are more dimensions beyond our 3 spacial dimensions and time. So, perhaps "God Time" is different than our concept of time.

If God "created" our space and time, and he existed beforehand, then he existed (and perhaps still exists) outside of the boundaries of our "space and time reality". That lends to the idea that "God is everywhere", since his existence is not constrained by time or position in our way of thinking and our ability to perceive. I'm definitely NOT saying that we can't perceive God. We certainly can.

In addition to God being everywhere, however, I believe that God is "always". For him, time is not a what happened, what's happening, what's going to happen kind of thing. I can't comprehend all of the ramifications of that, not by a longshot. But, I believe that since God is "outside" of time, he can see it all at at the same time. Thus, it's completely within our own control to do whatever it is that we do, and he still knows what that is because he sees it.

Well, this was a really good read.... But i do have a question about something Lothar said.
[quote="As an example: A large part of the New Testament is devoted to telling people they're free from the OT Law -- and just as much space is devoted to telling people that no, that doesn't mean it's now OK to lie, steal, or murder."][/quote]
Are you saying here that the 10 commandments were the ot law that was done away with?

I'll come at this from two principles.

First, to answer Cops' question "Can you please explain ...", for me I think the response is simply 'No'; I can't "explain" in the sense that I can give you a logical, unquestionable answer about free will versus determinism. I think there is a kind of Heisenbergian idea involved here. Imagine for a moment that you are God. What are you? Clearly all the rest of us humans are three dimensional beings living through our 4-dimensional space-time, at least in our ability to perceive our reality. For me to think that God perceieves reality on only this level is ridiculous. Clearly God must be able to transcend this level of perception.

So I am left with a problem like to one in Abbott's "Flatland", where I might have to try to explain to a two dimensional being what a three dimensional creature is as it passes through their two-dimensional perception. People can talk about facets of this perception at great length (see the philosophy and religion stacks at your local library), but I don't think they can ever get a comprehension of the reality of the whole. The more you try to wrap your arms around God's perception of any creatures "free will", the more difficult it is to perceived these ideas as a coherent part of the rest of what God is. Same goes for trying to nail down firmly any aspect of God. Think you know for sure what his "plan" is? Be prepared for your lack of ability to focus clearly on every other aspect of God.

Hey, this is God we're talkin' 'bout. Did you expect it to be easy?

The second related aspect is that the idea of "plan" relates to a linear concept of time; I do this, then this happpens, that that happens, then I do this, etc. If God time is multi-dimensional, then we're back to the same Flatland problem again.

It's not useless to read all the philosophers and theologians, but I think it's best to consider that they are only trying to describe a single facet of the gem; the whole is bound to be more complicated, and more interesting. So walk humbly my fellow travelers, and try to do your best to understand what you may.

Dedman wrote:Did Mobius reply to this thread or had a dreamt that?

He was trolling, as has been his established pattern in these threads, so I deleted his post. I also sent him a PM that contained his message, an explanation of why it was deleted, and a statement that he's welcome to post as long as he actually engages in conversation (meaning, he sticks around for more than one post, and he actually deals with criticisms of his position) rather than just trolling. I don't mind if people want to share the sort of things he shares, but I'd prefer if they stuck around long enough to listen to the criticisms, and since Mobi has made a habit of not doing that I thought it best not to let him drag the thread off topic.

If you or anyone else want to make the same point he did, or ask questions along the same lines, I have no problem with it. But we can do without the trolling.

Teddy wrote:Well, this was a really good read.... But i do have a question about something Lothar said.

As an example: A large part of the New Testament is devoted to telling people they're free from the OT Law -- and just as much space is devoted to telling people that no, that doesn't mean it's now OK to lie, steal, or murder.

Are you saying here that the 10 commandments were the ot law that was done away with?

Short answer: yes, the Ten Commandments were done away with; no, the Ten Commandments are not the WHOLE law that was done away with.

Long answer: "The Law" is a technical term -- it refers to "the Law God gave to Moses", and it spans the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. It's re-told and summarized in Deuteronomy, which is Latin(?) for "second law". (These 4 books, plus the "backstory" in Genesis, are called the Torah by Jews, and the Pentateuch by Christians.) It's basically a whole government/religous code -- it includes laws that tell how to set up the temple, how to set up courts of law, how to settle property disputes, how to treat others, etc. The Law covers things that are civil, religious, legal, ceremonial, and moral. Many modern Orthodox Jews and Messianic Christians (like my sister) try to follow significant parts of the Law. The Ten Commandments are a small part of the Law.

When I say the Law was "done away with", there's also a more technical explanation of what that means. As I wrote in my post Absolute Morality, and the Law as Teacher, "As we look through both the Old and New Testaments, we find commands, stories, poems, and all manner of teaching that let us know what God values. Yet we are not strictly bound to the commands, as those in ancient Israel were -- rather, as Galatians 3:24 tells us, the Law was our teacher (Greek paidagogos) meant to bring us to Christ. The Law was the teacher to show us what God values, and to show us that we fall short of loving Him because we don't always value what He values and we don't always act accordingly." Basically, the Law -- including the Ten Commandments -- was a teaching tool, meant to give us some idea what God cares about and how God would like us to be, and also meant to show us that we couldn't measure up without God's help. But it was only a temporary tool; it fulfilled what it was meant to do, and now we're released from it. Paul, in the middle of an argument that spans 7 and a half chapters, says it this way:

Paul, in Romans 7:1-6, wrote:Do you not know, brothersâ??for I am speaking to men who know the lawâ??that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives? For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.

So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

This same idea is repeated over and over again in the New Testament. The Law is done; it's no longer binding. Just as much space is dedicated to telling people that the Law is done, but you should still pay attention to what it taught. As Paul writes earlier in the 7-and-a-half chapter argument, "Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obeyâ??whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?" In other words, you're free from the law, but don't go rationalizing sin because of it.

(Believe it or not, even trying to answer the questions about predestination would take a LOT more writing than this. Maybe this weekend...)

Lothar wrote:

Dedman wrote:Did Mobius reply to this thread or had a dreamt that?

He was trolling, as has been his established pattern in these threads, so I deleted his post. I also sent him a PM that contained his message, an explanation of why it was deleted, and a statement that he's welcome to post as long as he actually engages in conversation (meaning, he sticks around for more than one post, and he actually deals with criticisms of his position) rather than just trolling. I don't mind if people want to share the sort of things he shares, but I'd prefer if they stuck around long enough to listen to the criticisms, and since Mobi has made a habit of not doing that I thought it best not to let him drag the thread off topic.

If you or anyone else want to make the same point he did, or ask questions along the same lines, I have no problem with it. But we can do without the trolling.

No, it's not that. I thought his post was kind of mean spirited myself. It's just that I clearly remember his post but then it just disapeared. I wanted to make sure I wasn't seeing things

Cops. It's pretty simple really. In christian circles this is called "predestination", .. the posts are soo long on this one I havn't gone over them all yet.

In a nutshell. God has an idea of what he wants done. We have the choice of whether or not to go that direction.

God is beyond time and exists in the present and the past and the future all at the same time. ...whoa. And he sees all things in completion. .. so again.. why does our choice matter? Because we are liniar. We HAVE choice. He gave it to us as illustrated in the posts above.

This is also called a paradox and is an area where you either accept or reject because the "why" is beyond our grasp. God's big. REal Big and He has his reasons.

Remember, he went to Adam to give the animals names. Why? because he wanted to see what he WOULD name them. He was forming relationship with Adam. HE reaches down to our level so we can relate easier. Much like you would squat infront of a little child to see what he or she was drawing or just to talk to them.
Hope that helped.


**EDIT**

on the topic of OT and NT.

"Testiment" is another word used for Covenant.

Old Covenant and the New Covenant.
the Old Covenant Was the Mosaic Law given to the Hebrew people (not jewish they came later)as a steward.

The New Covenant was that of Salvation and Grace through Jesus Christ's blood.

I anticipated my interpretation of Drakona's explanation might be incomplete..at least according to her beliefs and understanding but she's much more well versed and studied on the subject than the common man.
And that's where the problem lies for me. I don't think my interpretation of free will/gods will is uncommon, I think it is the way it has been taught in most churches and mosques and temples.

Regardless of how it might make sense to God or those that have a better grasp of his word, to me, a father and lowly mortal, it presents a real problem that I have to deal with now, without the benefit of the better understanding.
And I have to weigh my possible lack of understanding against the possibility that Drakona might be totally wrong and that after death we are all just worm food!

The quality of my childrens life and our society as a whole will be affected by accepting these kind of philosophies. From the petty inconvienience of blue laws that restrict the sale of some items on Sundays to the catastrophic massacre of thousands of innocent office workers who ended up a target, chosen by god, for bin Ladden's islamikazi pilots!

If my children believe that their actions/choices are the inevitable will of god and not their own then obviously they may rationalize bad behavior as being out of the realm of their responsibility. They may give up on who knows what, where if they didn't have that my fate is sealed anyway conditioning they may have tried one more time get the answer to the test...pushed just a little harder to get out of the burning building....etc. etc.

On the other hand, if they have someone they love a great deal do something terrible it could be devastating and then it could be comforting to them to be told it was gods will...he works in strange ways... etc.

God, what a mess....boy would I love to ask him a few things!

CDN_Merlin wrote:thanks, that was simple.

Keep in mind, it's like a digital image--the more you simplify (resize, if you will) it, the more detail you lose. I know this sounds obvious, but try resizing a 500x500 down to 5x5. I'm really not trying to be cryptic.


Cops, if you're really interested, I would suggest looking at some of "Chuck Missler"'s stuff. He's done some really interesting seminars covering a lot of different Biblical topics. Very very smart guy, and a man of faith. I'm pretty sure recordings of his various seminars are available online. I'm sorry I can't point you to any exact one that might apply to your question, but it's been awhile since I've listened to a lot of them, and I don't believe I've heard them all (my dad has a whole bunch of them).

You can find your answer(s) in the Bible. It might take some real searching, though. Anyone who really has the answer got it from the Bible in the first place.

Not to drag this out, but I've seen an awful lot of beating around the bush, and tossing around of opinions/assumptions concerning God and the Bible. God and the Bible aren't as vague and mysterious as most people portray them--it seems like a lot of people are too stubborn, lazy, or ignorant to read the Bible to the point where they actually know what it has to say; when they give an answer, it stems from their confused, weak grasp of something they haven't studied thoroughly. It's like asking someone who has just taken a web browsing class questions about the intricacies of HTML Rendering and the Document Object Model--they may have some idea, but unless their opinions reflect the manual (for lack of a better term), they're wrong. "I don't know" is a very good--even helpful--answer, when it's called for.

Sorry I didn't get to this last night when I said I would: sleep deprivation and an over-busy work life ganged up on me and knocked me out cold...


Regaurding my own philosophy of determinism based on character, there are some forgivable misunderstandings. Most people tend to look at predestination and say, "Oh, well if things are predetermined, it doesn't matter what I do." That is totally not what I'm saying, and indeed is logically opposed to it.

Really, what I'm saying is that the choices people make are predictable. They're part of a closed and deterministic system consisting of the person's character and the environment they're in. What I'm saying is that the fact they would make the same choice in the same circumstance indicates that choices--real choices--can be foreknown. It means that predestination is not at odds with free will. You can logically have both.

I think people get confused because the mix up foreknowledge with constraint... freedom is not actually the ability to do anything, but rather the ability to do anything you like without interference from the environment. There is a subtle difference. Let me give an example.

I used to live in the seventh story of a college dorm, and there was a balcony on my floor. It dropped nine stories down to a concrete loading bay. The railing on the balcony wasn't particularly high, either--you could sit on it without too much effort. Sometimes I would stand on that balcony and look over the edge and ponder predestination and free will. Logically speaking, I was perfectly free to jump off of it. Realistically speaking, there was zero probability that I would. My choice was not constrained at all by my environment, but it was completely constrained by my character. If you asked one of my roommates, "Do you think Catherine is going to jump off the balcony?" they could give you the right answer every time. My choice was completely foreknown. It was also a real choice.

Freedom does not mean that there is a real possibility that you could choose any choice. Rather, it means that your character can express itself fully without interference from the environment. If the balcony were completely enclosed, my character would not be able to express itself if I wanted to jump off, so I would not have a real choice. If I were sitting on the railing and caught by a gust of wind, my character would again not be able to express itself--I'd be cast off even though I wanted to stay on, and again I wouldn't have a real choice. But because I can freely choose whether to stay on or jump off, the choice is real. It is also totally predeictable. My character constrains my choices.

Incidentally, it follows from this that it is when we are freet that we see our characters most clearly. If I cannot flame someone because I fear the social repercussions, my choice is constrained. If I post anonymously, then I find out who I truly am. If I cannot cheat on my husband because he's always around, I am constrained. It is when he is gone for a week that I find out what I am really made of. Restraints of any sort--physical, social, emotional--are like leashes on a tramp dog. We don't find out how far he'll wander unless they're off. I think anonymity and fantasy are the closest any of us ever get to being truly free (well, barring righteousness). With no consequences and total privacy, you are totally free to do whatever you like. Given that, it is a good thing most of us are not truly free.

Even what we do in complete freedom can be foreknown. If I am completely free to choose between $10 and $100, all other things being equal I'll take the bigger amount every time. Even though in fantasy I am completely free to dream about what I like, it's very often the same thing--constrained as it is by my nature, my character, and my desires.

That is what I mean by saying choices can be foreknown. Not that they are previously made for you or constrained, but that who you are in a given moment and your environment determine what you choose. And that's a good thing: if they didn't, your choices would be meaningless. Choices are meaningful precisely because they're predictable: if I randomly chose whether or not to jump off the balcony, that would mean my character--the desire not to jump--was not getting expressed and the choice was morally meaningless.


I hope that made it abundantly clear. I stress again that the above is a philosophical position on my part--one I'm fairly well convinced of and one that I think is true, but nonetheless is not necessarily endorsed by the Bible.

So, given that, let me turn to the objections Roid, Woodchip, and Will had:


Roid is entirely correct that Calvinism could be used to oppress. It could be said--and I think it historically has been said--that those who are born poor deserve it. I think some eastern religions that believe in reincarnation explicitly endorse this idea, but the Christian idea of predestination has nothing to do with it. Indeed, the Bible offers loud commandments condemning oppression and requiring mercy towards the needy. Arguing from predestination to justified oppression is clearly not an argument that impressed the Biblical authors.

From my philosophy, it is easy to see why: just because it can be known in advance whether a person will be saved doesn't mean you can know it in advance. And it doesn't mean it's set at the beginning of life. From a historical perspective it is, but you are present in and making that history, and your decisions are one of the variables accounted for in predicting the outcome. Just because people are destined for heaven or hell doesn't mean you can't have an affect on where they go.

It's not quite what you're saying, Roid, that only God can know who is saved and that it's heresy to try to label people as saved or not. I think you can know to some degree. It's more that only God can know who will be saved before they die--that is, who will decide to follow him. Knowing that people are predestined to a certain outcome is sort of like knowing that the earth turns instead of the sun rising. It's a background fact that has little impact on daily life. Your decisions are part of what set history, and you see the sun rising. That behind the scenes the earth is really turning doesn't matter a whole lot in how you interact with it.

Roid, you also asked if people can change their characters. Of course they can. And other things can, too--simply growing up and having responsibility, getting a good teacher/mentor, an encounter with God--these can all change your character radically. But if you choose to change your character, you do it based on what your character is now; this doesn't change the fact that it's predictable.

Will, your objection is really along the same lines as Roid's, and makes the same mistake I countered above. Choices foreknown are not choices foremade. Foreknowledge is not constraint. Just because some people are going to grow up to be evil doesn't mean they don't choose to be.

On the one hand, I can see why people struggle with this, because it's a tough concept.
But on the other it seems so strange that it's hard to explain. This wedding of predestination and free will is all over every science fiction time-travel story. Take "Back to the Future." George McFly is a coward and won't stand up to Biff; what he's done in the past happens again when Marty goes into the past. Nobody suggests that because his choice is predictable, it's meaningless. He's still a coward. All sorts of past choices come about, but it's not like Marty is interacting with automata: their choices are real. He interacts with them and affects them. The fact that they are deterministic (and don't fool yourself into thinking Marty escapes this clause...) doesn't change the fact that they're choices. Or take Groundhog Day, or any of the Star Trek time travel episodes, or... really, just about any science fiction time travel story. Foreknowledge and free will consistently coexist, and not even movie audiences [/cheapshot] have a hard time grasping it.

Woodchip, you commented that if heaven and hell outcomes are predetermined, then there's no point to living a good life. I hope by this point in the post I've beaten the horse enough that you can tell that's a misinterpretation of the teaching. There are actually two misunderstandings here, though. One is that predestination means your choices don't affect the outcome. That's absolutely not true; your choices do affect the outcome.

The other misunderstanding--and it's a common one, and Will touched on this a little too--is that living a good life increases your chances of going to heaven. It doesn't. Not one little bit. If you want an excuse for debauchery, there's one. Christianity teaches that no matter how gravely you sin, you can still go to heaven, and no matter how perfectly righteous you are, you can still go to hell. That is totally, 100% what the Bible teaches.

How exactly that works will make sense when you understand what "saved" means.

Back up to what I said about freedom. You know how I said that when you are free, you find out who you truly are? It's who you truly are that matters to God. God sees, not the facade that everyone else sees, but your deepest nature. Things expressed, not on the street corner, but in total privacy; things said not out loud, but in the back corners of your mind; things done, not in the real world, but in quiet fantasy. Things about your character hidden even from yourself. Restraint--even self-restraint--gets you nowhere if you're trying to please God, because you have to change. Even self-discipline to live a rigorously good life means nothing. It only chains the beast. It does not change him.

The Bible teaches that we all are evil, rebellious, and hateful of God. Maybe not on the surface, but in our hearts--which is what God cares about. There are a lot of people out there that think, "I'm a decent person," but they're naive. What they mean by that is that externally they do reasonably decent things, not that they are decent people. I think a lot of people are going to be surprised on Judgement Day, when they'll be interrogated not on the grand accomplishments of life, but on the little bits where their character slipped out--careless words, quiet thoughts, actions in anonymity.

Can you change who you are in this respect? Try it. Nobody ever gets far. The selfish character--the sin nature--is like a bar of soap: squeeze it in one place, and it only sticks out somewhere else.

Only the truly good can stand in God's presence--he himself is truly good. Mind-bogglingly good. Pop culture pictures of God are like propagandistic photos of war: a mockery of the real thing. We cannot be good enough to be even close to him. Our best and most righteous deeds are tainted and repugnant in his eyes; we can't even be friends, let alone to love him, know him, live forever in paradise with him.

Man in sheer vanity thinks he deserves heaven. He doesn't. He deserves hell. His only hope of heaven lies in God's mercy.

And God has a lot of mercy.

God is anxious to forgive us everything we've ever done wrong, and change us--not force laws on us from the outside, but transform us from the inside so we are actually good. God is so anxious to do this that he sent his own son to die to make it possible, and he did this while were still self-righteously screaming that we were "decent people," that we didn't need him, while we still indulged our selfish, petty, private desires. God loves even those who hate him with an unflinching love that makes the deepest marriage seem shallow. He would, without a second thought, die for just a chance to be close.

To allow him to do it is to be saved. Saved from hell, saved from yourself, saved from your evil character, saved from your past misdeeds. It's more than it sounds like--I've only described one aspect. It costs you everything; it gives you something worth more than all of that. It is to go from being all wrapped up in yourself to being all wrapped up in God. The morality stuff is just a prelude--I mean, God does change you and you really become good (or at least, you start to), but that is just a requirement so you can be close to him. In the end, it is all about knowing God. It is about giving everything up to know God, to be loved by him, to be with him. Heaven begins on earth.

God changes you so that you become good inside. This has happened to me, and continues to happen to me, and certainly won't be complete until I die. But I'll tell you something--I'm a completely different person than I was, and that's a story you'll hear all across Christianity. God changes people, and then they go on to know him.

And so you see why common perceptions of moral standing lead you astray. You can be the worst of the worst--say, a serial killer. God's mercy is enough for you--he won't hesitate to forgive even that, and change you. You can be the best of the best--say, an ascetic and a philanthropist--and if you remain unchanged inside, you are repugnant to God and deserve hell.

So you see, even ignoring predestination, it's hopeless to try to be good enough to please God. If you become good, it will be entirely by his doing; if you make it to heaven, it will be 100% because he had mercy on you. The effect is only increased when you take predestination into account: God made you who you are, and knew entirely which way you would choose. So you cannot take credit even for that. Everything is God's doing.

teh back to the future illustration is a good one for me to grasp

so if someone had foreknowedge of future and past events (lets call him Dr_Who) went back in time and did something for someone to try to change them for the better, but they didn't change for the better (ie: it had no effect). but Dr_Who KNEW this wouldn't have any effect (with his foreknowledge), so he was in effect wasting his time and effort - and knew it the whole time. would he still bother?
surely someone who had full past/future knowledge would KNOW the guarenteed best way to effect some outcome - it would come with the foreknowledge.

so he would really in effect have GUARENTEED RESULTS for everything he wanted. he could manipulate people in the most efficient ways and have guarenteed results.

why God does not do this, is a point of some pain. for myself anyway.

since if god made us who we are, and he HAS full forknowledge, then to him we truly ARE just mechanisms walking in random directions. those of us walking towards cliff-faces, that he just lets crash off and die, that's sick.

foreknowledge is all good and well, but you are also saying that God MADE US WHO WE ARE. in otherwords, he not only knows what each of us is going to do (crash & burn), but he PERSONALLLY SET THE WHEELS IN MOTION HIMSELF. think of the combination of powers and where responsability points back to there - that's sick.

this 'being' created the situation. has complete forknowledge of how every event will turn out. has complete control if he wills it, but chooses to just use it sparingly*, it at all.

with these dual powers in mind: i think that when you trace the arrows of responsability back, it points quite damningly (by human standards of course) to God.
i think it's wrong to choose only a select few to have a neat happy afterlife. if it is within god's power, why arn't we ALL created with personalitys and characters predestined to lead us into a happy afterlife? why must some of us be created with "defective" characters just to goto guarenteed hell? (if god doesn't intervene, which given his supposed infalability, this lack of failureless action on his part seems pretty prevalant)


( * it could be said that he actually is doing the best job that could be done, and that the complexity of the situation actually calls for his exact actions. logically it seems he could be doing better, but i can't state that as FACT - lack of evidence you see )


it's one being, created me as i am, and knows how i will turn out. I didn't create myself as i am. if he did, then how is that MY responsability where i end up spending my afterlife?
relative to his power, i don't hold any strings.


(disclaimer: some/many/most of the beliefs (or lack of) this post are based on are beliefs that i actually may OR MAY NOT subscribe to. it's academic, remember this.
this disclaimer will hopefully dodge me from personal insults based on my beliefs, because you actually don't know me, and this post is not a reflection of my beliefs. Academic / Devil's advocate / Seperating yourself, call it what you will, that's what is going on here.)

"Really, what I'm saying is that the choices people make are predictable. They're part of a closed and deterministic system consisting of the person's character and the environment they're in. What I'm saying is that the fact they would make the same choice in the same circumstance indicates that choices--real choices--can be foreknown. It means that predestination is not at odds with free will. You can logically have both." Drak.

So it sounds more like decisions are a enculturated process. If religion is a part of the culture then one can extemporate and say "Gods Will". On the other hand a culture with no god based religion...say buddhism...then we can say simply peer pressure determines one's actions.


"Do you think Catherine is going to jump off the balcony?" they could give you the right answer every time. My choice was completely foreknown. It was also a real choice. " Drak

Maybe yes, maybe no. Someone of their own free will slips some LSD into Drakonas drink, Drak goes to balcony and in her altered state she thinks she can fly and.....
There are always unforseen variables that preclude knowing 100% how a person may react in a certain circumstance. A soldier jumps on a grenade to save his buddies lives. Is the soldier a hero (yes in my book) or would some say he is guilty of committing suicide (which is a crime). Could anyone have predicted the soldier would do such a selfless act? I doubt it.

"Restraint--even self-restraint--gets you nowhere if you're trying to please God, because you have to change. Even self-discipline to live a rigorously good life means nothing. It only chains the beast. It does not change him. " Drak

This is very troubling and one of the reasons I am not particulary into religion (though I like to talk the philosophy of it). Anyway...So if we are made in the image of god and God made us...including all the biological urges to procreate...then a hormonally charged youth who has fantasy's of sex with the opposite sex, is not really a good person even though they are chaste in life? Even though one could say since god created those urges, it is gods will that such thoughts are in the persons mind. This is the logic puzzle that makes me think such interpretations are made by men who lived a sexless life in some monastary and are trying to justify their existance.


"The Bible teaches that we all are evil, rebellious, and hateful of God. Maybe not on the surface, but in our hearts--which is what God cares about." Drak

"Can you change who you are in this respect? Try it. Nobody ever gets far. The selfish character--the sin nature--is like a bar of soap: squeeze it in one place, and it only sticks out somewhere else." Drak

So we are all just dirty peasants with no hope for redemption? Kinda get back to the "Why even try" idea. I find it amazing that inspite of the above classification of mankind, we have evolved to where most of us are compassionate human beings...in spite of the idea such compassion may not get us to heaven. Maybe the Islamakazis have the right of it. Die killing an infidel and you are guarandamteed to go to heaven.


"Everything is God's doing."

Then everything is Gods fault

woodchip wrote: "Everything is God's doing."

Then everything is Gods fault

Nope and Nope

Thank you for your replies. Obviously, none of us can answer the question. I was looking for opinions.

And BTW drakona... I know I used to complain about "novel length" posts quite a bit but it was only my own laziness rearing its pretty head. It must be my something awful habit that changed me because I rather like well written internet novels, and you are a great writer (must be part of the plan not your hard work and discipline ;-0 )

I guess where you got me confused is when you said;
" Like an author makes villians to kill and heroes to reward, God fashions people for heaven or hell."

That made me think that regardless of the choices they make, by what you describe as free will, they are predestined to end up making wrong choices that lead them to do evil things.

It really came off like you were saying god needs some evil people to play a part in this thing we mortals call life and he made sure they were going to make those choices to fill that role.

Did you mean that he fashions people people in a way that some will end up in heaven and some will end up in hell but he doesn't plan each individuals destination ahead of time?

I also have a real problem with accepting the fact that I can just be as bad as I want as long as I sincerely repent and seek gods mercy I will be saved.
It's not that I don't believe this is how it works. It's that in everything I know in mortal life that kind of arrangement is the equivalent of a 'fixed fight'.

I feel like I couldn't possibly wait until the end and be able to sincerely ask for mercy if I knew the rules the whole time.
Where's the integrity in that?
It seems my chance to ask for forgiveness would be cancelled by my premeditated state of past sins.

How could I ever stand before him with a straight face and say "Yea, I know I did all those things and I knew you were watching too, but still I'm truly sorry and I seek forgiveness."
I just couldn't bring myself to ask that, it goes against everything I am.

If any of you have children you might understand this alot easier, when you raise your children your hope is that they will follow the path that you set for them. this is God's plan for us he wishes that all be saved and not suffer the eternal fires of Hell. but while raising your children sometimes you know what they will do in certain situations(your intuition). now God not being linear like we are can see in the future and knows what you will do. and he uses ppl or event to shape his will. prime example that sticks in my mind, scriptures talk about the reforming of Isreal as a nation, and that this would happen in 1 day. well that happened in 1949 when the United Nations formed Isreal in 1 day creating a new nation and ulfilling prophecy. did God cause WW2 to complete his will? or did he know and use Hitler to fulfill his plan?, I dont know, either way the results are the same. God's plan for us is that no one should perish, but he gives us free will to follow or not to follow, just like in raising your children you train them and teach them but they follow thier own paths, not always to our liking. as some of you know I have 8 children 4 boys and 4 girls with my oldest @ 22, and youngest at 11, so far all of my kids are turning out great and following a path I approve of, save 1, my 18 year old daughter is leading a life that I dont approve of, now was it something that I did? or her choice as a person that leads her along that path? we are God's children and he raises us as such. I look upon my relation with him as a father son relation. and speak to him as I do my own paternal father. not as a banker that I'm trying to get a loan from knowing I have bad credit

Will Robinson wrote:
I also have a real problem with accepting the fact that I can just be as bad as I want as long as I sincerely repent and seek gods mercy I will be saved.
It's not that I don't believe this is how it works. It's that in everything I know in mortal life that kind of arrangement is the equivalent of a 'fixed fight'.

in theory this is a possibility Will. but how many of us know when or death will come? suddenly or in a hospital? do you want to wait? also in reality how many ppl sincerly on their deathbeds "truly" confess their sins and "accept" the fact that Christ died for their sins? I seriously doubt that it happens. but anything is possible. as far as standing before God with a straight face. NONE of us will be able to do that, we will all be shamed of our actions from Hitler and Saddam, to Mother Theresa and the Pope. and when we all stand before God

By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. 11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. 14If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.

our actions on this earth will not get you to heaven. and when we stand before God on judgement day you will be able to hide nothing every action and every thought will be revealed and your only advocat being Christ, who by the way has never lost a case

So this all boils down to one word...Joss