God botherers, I want your opinions.

[skiraz]

It is not "my suggestion", it is how Eastern Religions or Philosophies see "Reality".

If you want to suggest that 500 million Buddhist, one billion Hinduists or hundreds of millions of Taoists (not to count an unknown number of Westerners) are irrelevant, who is the solipsist here? (Dictionary.com, meaning 2).

 

 

Well,i agree wif Alessandro17..

[apowerr]

If there is indeed a God, and he is a omnipotent omnipresent 'Christian god' (one who knows all things) as you discussing: why would God go through the trouble of making the universe, making time, making 'the devil', making a son 'save' people and all that? Also, If everything is predestined or God knows all of the choices you're going to make, and you have to get saved to go to heaven, why is God making you go to 'not-heaven'? Surely there must be free will, because it would not make sense for God to knowingly doom his followers to fire and brimstone. Also, if Jesus died for your sins does everyone not go to heaven? I've heard different things from different people. Local Baptist have told me that a murderer will go to heaven as long as they accept Christ. These same local Baptist have told me someone who has not accepted Christ will go to hell. Really, if there is a God and there is a heaven I don't see why everyone shouldn't go. If you kill people, or if you don't accept Christ you're really no different than someone who has killed people or someone has accepted Christ.

 

Anyways, in the opinions of those who have been debating Arminians and Calvinist: who goes to heaven, who doesn't?

[skiraz]

I thinking that if all of us continue this topic...theres gonna be religion problem created...

[Alessandro17]

I think that he means that those views are not especially relevant to this particular thread topic. The topic presupposes that (1) God is real, and (2) what is the interaction of God's sovereignty and man's free will?

 

Those Eastern views don't operate on the first presupposition, so they don't apply to this thread.

 

Wrong again. Hinduists believe in Brahman:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism#Concept_of_God

 

Buddhism has the Adi-Buddha (and, from a much higher point of view, "Void"):

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi-Buddha

 

Taoists have Tao, although things are much more complicated.

[Numberzz]

Just what is the definition of free will anyway? Does it mean the ability to do anything or the thought that you can do anything?

[socal swimmer]

I think that he means that those views are not especially relevant to this particular thread topic. The topic presupposes that (1) God is real, and (2) what is the interaction of God's sovereignty and man's free will?

 

Those Eastern views don't operate on the first presupposition, so they don't apply to this thread.I agree with everything that you said. This is the only part that needs lots, and lots, of careful thought.So... who's the crazy, smelly guy? Jesus?

 

It's 3:30am here in the UK, so as much as I'd like to keep chatting tonight while everyone in online, I have to continue tomorrow.

 

-3nigma

 

the crazy smelly guy's "magical powers" represents god, and he himself sort of represents christians. <joke> They are crazy and smelly </joke>

 

It just shows how some things can be denied if they are absurd and unprovable, even if they are not disprovable.

 

in the words of Carl Sagan:

 

We succeeded in taking that picture [from deep space], and, if you look at it, you see a dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever lived, lived out their lives. The aggregate of all our joys and sufferings, thousands of confident religions, ideologies and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilizations, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every hopeful child, every mother and father, every inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every superstar, every supreme leader, every saint and sinner in the history of our species, lived there on a mote of dust, suspended in a sunbeam.

 

 

so what makes the christians think they are right?

[3nigma]

The only reality is the Divine, Eternal "I Am", or "Atman", which is our true Higher Self.

Hinduists believe in Brahman

Buddhism has the Adi-Buddha

Taoists have Tao, although things are much more complicated.

My mistake- what I meant to say was the idea that you originally said, that the only reality is our true "Higher Self," is not pertinent to a conversation about a hypothetical, actual God and man's free will interacting with that God. I may be misunderstanding your original point about "Higher Self," but if you perhaps rephrase it, it may become more pertinent.

Just what is the definition of free will anyway? Does it mean the ability to do anything or the thought that you can do anything?

This is a great point. A lot of this debate boils down to how one defines the terminology.

 

erie33, I will write a post to give you the Calvinist view on your questions (and maybe Armenian, as well). I have to write two papers, first.

 

-3nigma

[Embio]

I dont believe in a god, but there might something greater at work in the world, you never know. Being atheist is just ignorant, being agnostic is smart

 

 

By that thinking, I should be open to ANY belief. Including if a billion people say there is a teapot orbiting our sun between Mars and the Asteroid Belt, and that the teapot is too small for human equipment to see. Also - the teapot has been there since the beginning of time, we all come from the teapot, we all go there when we die, and there are many, many books written on the subject of the teapot dating back millions of years.

 

Not sure the argument stacks up Kiko. I think I am a lot less ignorant than the vast majority of christians.

[3nigma]

It just shows how some things can be denied if they are absurd and unprovable, even if they are not disprovable.

That is faulty reasoning. The concept of a God is not absurd whatsoever, albeit possibly unprovable (and likewise possibly provable). Humans throughout all of civilization have started with a default presupposition of deities or a deity in existence, rather than the opposite (starting as atheists). Scientist even today are not all categorically atheists, there are very very many scientists that say that science indeed points moreso to a "Creator" than otherwise.

 

In fact, the great atheist philosopher Antony Flew in 2004 became a deist (not a Christian), due to advancements in science. Science has shown that during the big bang, if the matter was travelling at one millisecond faster or slower, it would have radical implications. If the matter/stars moved faster or slower by one tiny increment, then the stars would be hotter or colder, and could not sustain or promote life.

 

However, this is again off-topic.

in the words of Carl Sagan:

We succeeded in taking that picture [from deep space], and, if you look at it, you see a dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever lived, lived out their lives. The aggregate of all our joys and sufferings, thousands of confident religions, ideologies and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilizations, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every hopeful child, every mother and father, every inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every superstar, every supreme leader, every saint and sinner in the history of our species, lived there on a mote of dust, suspended in a sunbeam.

King David wrote to God in Psalm 8:3-9,

 

When I consider your heavens,

the work of your fingers,

the moon and the stars,

which you have set in place,

 

what is man that you are mindful of him,

the son of man that you care for him?

 

You made him a little lower than the heavens

and crowned him with glory and honor.

You made him ruler over the works of your hands;

you put everything under his feet:

 

all flocks and herds,

and the beasts of the field,

the birds of the air,

and the fish of the sea,

all that swim the paths of the seas.

 

O LORD, our Lord,

how majestic is your name in all the earth!

so what makes the christians think they are right?

Christians think that they are right, because Jesus said that he is the only way to gain access to God. There are not "many paths" that lead to God, but rather, Jesus said there are many paths to death, and He is the only path to life.

 

However, this is also off-topic. Maybe we should start another thread on Jesus, and who he claimed to be.

 

-3nigma

[Xogede]

I think numberzz asked the right question here: I believe that not only do we imagine that we can choose anything, we can, in fact, choose anything. This is where we get the problem.

 

1) God is omniscient.

2) Therefore, God knows with 100% security what you will do in situation X.

3) Therefore, there is only one possible outcome (Y) for situation X - the one that God knows will happen.

4) Therefore, when you are in situation X and think you have a choice of what to do, there is actually only one choice that you can make - Y.

5) If you think you have a choice in situation X, there must be at least one choice (Z) that you think you can make in X, that is not equal to Y.

6) But, as Y is the only possible outcome of X, you do not really have the choice to do Z.

7) Therefore, you think that you can make choice Z (you think you have free will to do it), but, in fact, you can't (you do not have free will to do it).

8) Repeat 5-7 for every choice that you think you have, that is not equal to one already dicussed.

9) Therefore, for every situation X, you do not have free will to do anything but one choice, which means you have no free will.

 

My view is not as subjective as yours. The reason for this is due to WHY the theologians become Calvinists.

This is where you make the error: you suppose that the theologians become calvinists. I suspect the opposite, that the calvinists become theologians. These really are equal points of view, until you can prove that the Bible actually supports calvinism (which I hope you are not about to try - I have better things to do than arguing with you forever ).

 

 

This is exactly where the idea that I first presented comes to hand: even when the Bible says that there is nothing we can do that God wouldn't know about (we can't "catch Him by surprise"), we can still have free will in the way I mentioned above.

 

Jesus told us to pray. He told us that what we ask about in His Name, His Father will give us: the point of praying is to change something. If everything is predestined, nothing can change. This means that the only reason for praying is the fact that your prayer is pre-destined as well. But then, if you don't pray, that is also pre-destined.

This brings us to the next interesting question: can one be accused of doing something that he is pre-destined to do?

[3nigma]

I think numberzz asked the right question here: I believe that not only do we imagine that we can choose anything, we can, in fact, choose anything. This is where we get the problem.

I agree with you. However, your first sentence throws off a lot of your foundation. "I believe that..." is a bad starting point. You have to start with "The scriptures teach that..." We cannot base theology on what we personally believe on a subject. You start with scripture, then formulate your beliefs.

This is where you make the error: you suppose that the theologians become calvinists. I suspect the opposite, that the calvinists become theologians. These really are equal points of view, until you can prove that the Bible actually supports calvinism

I think it's an extremely interesting hypothesis that Calvinistic-minded people are more inclined to become theologians, and may very well be correct. However, that statement, while related to mine (that theologians become Calvinistic), is not equal or the same- they are different facets of the same subject.

 

I know that you "suspect" what you say, but that is no grounds whatsoever that my proposition is invalid. On the contrary, it's not a matter of opinion, it is fact- theologians, who dedicate themselves wholly to the study of the scriptures, learn that ultimately everything leads to God.

 

In fact, this is the very proof itself, that the Bible supports Calvinism. The fact that a simple survey of the greatest theologians yields a list of nothing but Calvinists is itself proof. Nobody starts with the presupposition that they have no free will. This is also proven by a simple survey of every single Christian surrounding oneself, and indeed, across the globe. Nobody believes it. Nobody on this forum of atheists believes it. Nobody, on the grounds of casual rationalization, Christian or otherwise, believes that there is no free will. It's not until people scrutinize the Bible intensely do they come to face topics that seem to say otherwise.

 

I was not always a Calvinist, and was a die-hard Arminian. That was before studying for my bachelor's in Theology. As a matter of fact, I have a friend who debated me on this same issue intensely, and I insisted that he was wrong and I was right. But in hindsight, it is the same as this conversation. I was starting with the presupposition of "I believe this..." instead of "The scriptures teach this..." When you have to systematically study the Bible, it points in this direction. I am a convert. That is the only reason that I know it is reasonable, I never used to be on this side of the fence.

 

I think that perhaps a reasonable reconciliation is that there is a dialectical paradox between the sovereignty of God and man's free will. It is not "either/or," but rather perhaps it is "both/and." There is an infinite amount of truths in the Bible that are paradoxes- they are seemingly contradictory, but are both truths held in tandem.

 

For example: Jesus is both fully God and fully man. He is not half God and half man, he is fully both.

God is one God, yet in three persons- Father, Son, and Spirit. Yet all one God.

The eschatological Kingdom of God is simultaneously present, and yet to come in full consummation.

etc.

 

Read the Bible with these tiny seeds in the back of your mind- that perhaps, just maybe, this Calvinism is at least a possibility. Read about Moses and Pharaoh, and see if anything strikes you as interesting regarding this subject. Read the New Testament letters, particularly by Paul, and see what sifts in your thinking.

 

I am debating on whether to write my dissertation on this, but this is what it boils down to:

Arminianism begins with man, focuses on man, theologizes about man's relationship with God, and ends on man.

Calvinism begins with God, focuses on God, theologizes about God's relationship with man, and ends on God.

 

In the Fall of man, everything became corrupt: not only our morality, but also our rationalization. This is why people cannot rationalize their way to finding truth, because rationalization itself is fallen and not sufficient. Nothing in our own power can bring us to God. We cannot save ourselves, only God has the power, and the grace, to save us- the ones that he loves. This is why grace is so amazing.

 

This same logic is applied to theology. When we study or read the Bible, we still do it with our natural predispositions. In the Fall, man became very self-centered, and man-centered, and removed God from the center. Arminianism accidentally approaches scripture and the Bible the same way- by starting with man and focusing on man. But with a careful study of the scriptures, it is God that is the center, God that is the focus, and his love and amazing grace for man that saves.

 

-3nigma

[Xogede]

You're right, replace that with "The scriptures do not teach the opposite, so I have the right to (and do) believe that..."

 

I did not mean that they were equal (identical), but that they are aqually subjective.

 

In different times, "the greatest theologians" have had different opinions. Some centuries ago, almost all christian theologians were either catholic or orthodox, does it mean that catholicism or orthodoxy was true at that time? Opinions change; the truth does not. This is just a prefect example of appeal to authority.

 

I don't like the "read the Bible" kind of arguments, especially when they're mentioning a big part of it: they make it impossible to reply until you have read it (which may take hours, days or months), and if, after reading, you still don't agree, you "read it wrong", and have to re-read it. Refer me to the specific locations, and we can discuss.

 

You are trying to turn this conversation into a debate between armianism and calvinism. I'm only speaking about the free will aspect of these.

 

And what is your opinion on the last question in my previous post?

[apowerr]

Wow 3nigma, thank you for taking the time to post all of that.

 

Ok so if God knows all outcomes, and in reality you really don't have choice/freewill, how are some people saved and others not? If I don't accept Christ, it was not my choice to do so. I really had no choice, as good new the outcome. No matter what I did I would not have accepted Christ. (I'm trying to apply the Calvinist view here, forgive me If I am misunderstanding it).

In the Fall of man, everything became corrupt: not only our morality, but also our rationalization. This is why people cannot rationalize their way to finding truth, because rationalization itself is fallen and not sufficient. Nothing in our own power can bring us to God. We cannot save ourselves, only God has the power, and the grace, to save us- the ones that he loves. This is why grace is so amazing.

Based on what you have said, God knew that man would fall. In fact God knew everything and everychoice and the one outcome for all of those choices. So then God, all evil, all good, the fall of man, and 'the devil' are the result of God and were planned by God. Right? I think I may be misunderstanding things. Could you correctly apply the Calvinist point of view to these situations?

[Xogede]

Thanks, erei33, this was exactly what I meant by "can one be accused of doing something that he is pre-destined to do?"!

[3nigma]

You're right, replace that with "The scriptures do not teach the opposite, so I have the right to (and do) believe that..."

The scriptures do, in fact, teach the opposite, when studied more scrutinizingly. However, I will not go as far to say that they teach exclusively the opposite. Rather, there are verses that teach both- which is why there is a debate.

I did not mean that they were equal (identical), but that they are aqually subjective.

My proposition is statistically verifiable. Go to the bookstore, find the theology section, and see what they teach on soteriology. I think your hypothesis is a fascinating one, and is also verifiable, but not by any practical means. (One would have to survey all Reformed theologians and ask them if the were reformed before becoming theologians). Both ideas can be true without eliminating the other, I just don't think your idea is a sufficient substitute for the former.

In different times, "the greatest theologians" have had different opinions. Some centuries ago, almost all christian theologians were either catholic or orthodox, does it mean that catholicism or orthodoxy was true at that time? Opinions change; the truth does not. This is just a prefect example of appeal to authority.

This is a matter of Church History and Historical Theology. Before the Reformation, all Christians were Catholic or Orthodox, there wasn't all the splintering that there is now. That was only 500 years ago. "Catholicism" did not mean then what it means today. Theologians cited from church history were all Catholic, such as Thomas Aquinas, Augustine of Hippo, etc. Their being in the Catholic church (i.e. "Universal" church), had no consequence on theology that is unrelated to specific "Roman Catholic" dogma. Every Catholic and Protestant theologian agree on the fundamentals of the faith. Indeed, the Protestant branch inherited everything from the Catholic forefathers. The Patristic period (AD0-400) was full of councils and meetings to establish the orthodox teachings, and eliminate heresy from the early church. This includes Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Eusebius, Athanasius, etc.

 

The debates on the present subject arose in light of the Reformation. Hence, "Reformed" theology. The contrary "Arminianism" arose out of the same.

I don't like the "read the Bible" kind of arguments, especially when they're mentioning a big part of it: they make it impossible to reply until you have read it (which may take hours, days or months), and if, after reading, you still don't agree, you "read it wrong", and have to re-read it. Refer me to the specific locations, and we can discuss.

I deliberately tell people to read entire sections of the Bible, because that is the best way to exegetically read it. Theological problems arise because of exactly what you want me to do- find specific sentences. This pulls them out of context, and it becomes a pretext. I have the verses at hand, but as it says in Acts, "search the scriptures." If more people did that, then there would be less of these types of theological debates.

You are trying to turn this conversation into a debate between armianism and calvinism. I'm only speaking about the free will aspect of these.

Mistake in terminology. However, they are interrelated, and on any discussion of such topics, such labels are appropriate (and used in theological discussions of the subject).

And what is your opinion on the last question in my previous post?

I will detail that part of your post after I write my two papers. erie33, I will also do my best to answer your questions when I return.

 

For the sake of getting my papers done, consider me absent from this forum for a week and a half. Sorry for the long delay, but I'll be back soon.

 

-3nigma

[Xogede]

That's exactly what I'm saying: the Bible does not have a clear opinion about this, thus I'm entitled to my own opinion. The reason for this opinion is exactly what erei33 said.

 

There are no "theology" sections in the bookstores of this country. If I'd look at the bookstore in my church, I would find the opposite of what you're saying. As examples I just took the two books that stood closest to me in my bookshelf, "Letters from a skeptic" by Gregory and Edward Boyd, and "Kristen på goda grunder" ("Christian, because of good reasons") by Stefan Gustavsson, which both are extremely armianistic on the question of free will.

 

Of course it's not a complete substitute. But because of it, this specific argument of yours should be considered a pro hoc reasoning until you prove the opposite.

 

You can talk as much as you want about church history etc, it's irrelevant. Using the opinion of theologians to prove a point is called appeal to authority.

 

In most cases, reading the entire chapter (or chapters) is enough to put a verse into context. Anyway, it may do me well to read what you said, but it's not a good argument... and I'm not going to stop reading what I'm reading now and start reading something completely else.

 

No mistake in terminology: you are trying to explain to me what armianism is and what calvinism is, and why the latter is better than the first. I have no interest in discussing this topic.

[Alessandro17]

My mistake- what I meant to say was the idea that you originally said, that the only reality is our true "Higher Self," is not pertinent to a conversation about a hypothetical, actual God and man's free will interacting with that God. I may be misunderstanding your original point about "Higher Self," but if you perhaps rephrase it, it may become more pertinent.

 

The Atman, or "I Am", is identical with Brahman (Non-Dualism).

 

Thus the Atman is God (albeit a God very different than the Christian one).

[Xogede]

just because God knows you will take Path A instead of Path B, doesn't mean you CAN'T take Path B. If you disagree, think about it this way: What's stopping you from taking Path B?

The fact that if you choose path B, it would mean that God was wrong, which we pre-suppose that He isn't. I have already explained why I'm right in this post; please try to find an error in my reasoning instead of coming up with you own.

 

We do not make God any happier than he already is in and of himself, for if we did, that would mean God is incomplete in happiness and thus imperfect.

What about when the Bible speaks about God being angry? Always being completely happy when the world looks like it does is surely not a sign of perfectionism - rather it's a sign of ignorance.

 

Furthermore, it is not anyone's place to say that there is indeed only one way to the kingdom of God. For as Jesus said, in the house of God, there are many rooms.

It's not in the place of anyone of us to say. The thing is that God himself said it.

 

What does that verse remind you of? Right, four chapters earlier, Jesus says "I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd."

One possible interpretation is this: Jesus mostly teached the jews, but He knew that people of other nations would also listen to His voice. Even if this is not the right interpretation, I can't imagine "listening to His voice" being applied to, say, atheists.

 

nor can we say that all those who don't even know of Jesus are doomed

No, we can't, because the Bible is only directed to those who can actually get it (or hear it's message) - anything else would be stupid/unjust of God. This means that we can't possibly know what happens with people who have never heard of Jesus - we can only believe that God is just towards them too. As Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would be innocent. But, now, you claim that you see..."

 

God forgives us - if we want to. It's our choice.

 

BTW, please use paragraphs. They make life easier for all of us.

[3nigma]

I have a free moment, and thought I'd post. I will still have to come back to post more, but here are some thoughts briefly:

That's exactly what I'm saying: the Bible does not have a clear opinion about this, thus I'm entitled to my own opinion. The reason for this opinion is exactly what erei33 said.

The Bible does have a teaching on this, although it certainly is not "clear." That is why there is debate. There are random verses that can be used for Arminianism (pretexts). However, when one interprets those texts in light of the whole of scripture (one of the basic, fundamental rules of biblical exegesis), that is when they don't add up to the big picture. We must be understanding them incorrectly.

 

For example, a pretext in Job says that "God does not exist." An atheist could use this verse to prove that God is not real, according to the Bible. However, you have (1) the immediate context. The immediate context is that it is Job's unbelieving friends that are trying to discourage his faith. You also have (2) the holistic picture of scripture, that God is resoundingly real.

As examples I just took the two books that stood closest to me in my bookshelf, "Letters from a skeptic" by Gregory and Edward Boyd, and "Kristen på goda grunder" ("Christian, because of good reasons") by Stefan Gustavsson, which both are extremely armianistic on the question of free will.

I love Greg Boyd's thinking, especially on Christianity and the role of civil government. However, he is very outside of orthodox Christianity in his view of God. He is an "Open Theist," which means he believes that God does not know the future, but rather only in possibilities (like Jesuits, etc.). This is why he leans arminianistic, due to his unorthodox open theism.

Of course it's not a complete substitute. But because of it, this specific argument of yours should be considered a pro hoc reasoning until you prove the opposite.

"pro hoc" is putting the effect before the cause. I am stating that the cause (being a theologian) comes before the effect (becoming a Calvinist). You are saying the that the effect (becoming a Calvinist) comes before the cause (being a theologian).

 

However, you are not guilty of pro hoc reasoning any more than I am. We are simply starting with different causes and different effects- they are opposite one another. So yours is pro hoc compared to mine, as well.

You can talk as much as you want about church history etc, it's irrelevant. Using the opinion of theologians to prove a point is called appeal to authority.

The question is, "are most theologians calvinists?". The only measure is the theologians themselves- they are the factor in question.

In most cases, reading the entire chapter (or chapters) is enough to put a verse into context. Anyway, it may do me well to read what you said, but it's not a good argument...

I will make a very, very detailed and comprehensive list for you. In the meantime, read Exodus chs. 7-14, Romans chs. 1, 8-9, 1 Peter chs. 1-2, 2 Thess 2, Titus 3, Ephesians 1.

 

Not even a sparrow will die, apart from God (Matthew 10:29).

No mistake in terminology: you are trying to explain to me what armianism is and what calvinism is, and why the latter is better than the first. I have no interest in discussing this topic.

I wasn't clear. "That was my mistake in terminology" was what I meant to say. Often "Arminianism" and "Calvinism" are generalized terms used to refer to the very specific doctrines of predestination/election and man's free will. Both camps make this broad generalization and apply it in this way, so it is not a mis-use of the terms. However, it can be misleading if one is getting pedantic. However, it's just a debate over semantics, it's not important to the issue.

 

To address Dermatea:

Furthermore, it is not anyone's place to say that there is indeed only one way to the kingdom of God. For as Jesus said, in the house of God, there are many rooms. This mostly suggests that there is indeed more than one way to Heaven, but no one can say for certain.

Jesus himself said that there is only one way to God- and that he, himself, Jesus, is the only way.

 

Again- read scripture in context (John chs. 13-14). When Jesus said that heaven had many rooms, he was addressing Peter's concern that Jesus was going to be leaving the disciples (ascending to heaven). Jesus said he was leaving, and Peter said, "I want to go, too!" Jesus said "Don't worry, heaven is big enough for the both of us," i.e., it has many rooms.

 

Furthermore, if you read IMMEDIATELY after that, Thomas says, "Lord, we don't know where you're going, how can we find the way?"

Jesus replies, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, you know my Father also."

 

Here is the text:

John 13:33-14:9

"Dear children, I will be with you only a little longer. And as I told the Jewish leaders, you will search for me, but you can’t come where I am going. So now I am giving you a new commandment: Love each other. Just as I have loved you, you should love each other. Your love for one another will prove to the world that you are my disciples.”

 

Simon Peter asked, “Lord, where are you going?”

And Jesus replied, “You can’t go with me now, but you will follow me later.”

“But why can’t I come now, Lord?” he asked. “I’m ready to die for you.”

Jesus answered, “Die for me? I tell you the truth, Peter—before the rooster crows tomorrow morning, you will deny three times that you even know me. Don’t let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God, and trust also in me. There are many rooms in my Father’s house. If this were not so, would I have told you that I am going to prepare a place for you? When everything is ready, I will come and get you, so that you will always be with me where I am. And you know the way to where I am going.”

 

“No, we don’t know, Lord,” Thomas said. “We have no idea where you are going, so how can we know the way?”

Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me. If you had really known me, you would know who my Father is. From now on, you do know him and have seen him!”

 

Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied.”

Jesus replied, “Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and yet you still don’t know who I am? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father!"

(/bible)

 

This is why we have these kinds of problems. Like I said before, everyone takes everything out of context.

We can say that God is a just God, but not in an "eye for an eye" kind of way, for God is a merciful God, for if he wasn't, all those who have sinned, which is everyone, would be doomed if not for our freedom to choose to reconcile our sins.

God is just. Everyone has sinned, every person deserves punishment. For God not to punish, he would not be just. Jesus decided to take on this punishment on his head instead of on ours, so we don't have to face the punishment for sin. He faced it in our stead. Now, we only have to accept that he did that for us, and then we can have eternal life. This is the "gospel," or "good news" of Jesus to the world. Jesus lived a perfect, sinless life- he didn't deserve to die, or to face separation from God. But he did- because he loves us, and wants to give us access to eternal life in heaven with the God. God is only merciful in that he allowed Jesus to pay the penalty for our sins, instead of us having to. We just have to accept Jesus as ruler of our lives, and believe that what he did and lived was true.

However, all matters pertaining to the details of the afterlife are pure speculation

Jesus made it pretty clear, with no speculation. "The road to Hell is wide, but the path to eternal life is narrow." He is the path. Contrast this teaching with the postmodern view that is so prevalent today: "There are many paths to God." Actually, Jesus taught the 100% exact opposite. To rephrase what Jesus said, "There are many paths to Hell" is a lot more like it. Jesus had a radical message- there are not many paths to God, he is the one and only way.

 

Jesus says "I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd."

One possible interpretation is this: Jesus mostly teached the jews, but He knew that people of other nations would also listen to His voice.

This is the correct, universal interpretation.

However, it would be wrong to say that all those who deny Jesus are forever condemned. We cannot say all Jews are condemned because they don't believe in Jesus, nor can we say that all those who don't even know of Jesus are doomed.

No, we can't, because the Bible is only directed to those who can actually get it (or hear it's message) - anything else would be stupid/unjust of God. This means that we can't possibly know what happens with people who have never heard of Jesus - we can only believe that God is just towards them too.

We can, and indeed DO, know what happens to people who have never heard of Jesus-

 

Romans 2:13-16-

"For merely listening to the law doesn’t make us right with God. It is obeying the law that makes us right in his sight. Even non-Jews, who do not have God’s written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it. They demonstrate that God’s law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right. And this is the message I proclaim—that the day is coming when God, through Christ Jesus, will judge everyone’s secret life."

 

Romans 1:19-20-

"They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. For ever since the creation of the world, people have seen the things that God has made. Through everything God created, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God."

 

God's majesty is evident throughout creation. This is why for all of human civilization and history, religion has existed in some form or another. This is also why people have an inner sense of "right" and "wrong," even if people dumb it down or "suppress" it (as that verse talks about in other parts).

 

Jesus is the only way. He is the way, because he loved people so much, that he died in their place as a penalty for sin, so that we wouldn't have to. We just have to believe in what he did, and accept him as the ruler of our life, and submit to him, and give up our lives with our own interests at the center.

 

-3nigma

[socal swimmer]

Hey man, I try, seriously. But when you're writing so many things that so closely relate to one another, it becomes a bit difficult to separate points into their own paragraph if you know what I mean.

 

please try. Even if its just hitting return at random places, do it. Walls of text are scary.

 

 

 

 

 

And learn to be concise. Statement, reasoning/proof, conclusion, new paragraph, repeat.

[Xogede]

The main reason I believe in free will is not that the Bible teaches it. To me, it seems like the Bible implies it. The Bible tells us to do things rather than not doing then, which implies that we have the choice whether to do them or not.

 

There is also the problem with evil. The well-known problem of the existance of evil is usually answered in the following way: God gave us free will, we used it to do evil, thus we are responsible for all the evil, not God. I have heard no answers to this problem that do not involve free will (other than "This is actually the best that could have happened"). And, as previously stated, there is the problem of convicting somebody who did not act of his own will.

 

If '"pro hoc" is putting the effect before the cause', I'm sorry: I remember reading somewhere that it meant making the conclusion that "A because B", with no other reason than B preceding A (or no other reason than "A and B").

 

It is indeed an argument (or, rather, the argument) in the question "are most [famous] theologians calvinists?", to which I now largely agree. But you used it as an argument for the Bible teaching calvinism, which is appeal to authority in its purest form.

 

I will surely consider reading that.

 

You were talking about armianism beginning with man and calvinism beginning with God, which I interpreted as a reference to all the other teachings of those.

 

This is the correct, universal interpretation.

As you may have noticed, I'm not a theologian, so I have no idea what theologians currently consider being the "correct, universal interpretation" (and neither do I care too much).

 

AFAIK, when you said "non-Jews" at Jesus' time, you meant the peoples living around the Jews ("the uncircumsized"), not, say, indians living in the jungles.

 

The thing about both of these verses is that they do not reference Jesus. That means, if you have never heard about the gospel, you can still be saved "merely" by following the rules that God has put in your heart.

 

Dermatea, by trying to find an error in my reasoning, I meant finding the specific one of my nine points that was wrong, and why.

 

The difference between our reasoning is this: you believe that it is possible (even if only to God) to know somebody so well, that you can predict his actions with 100% accuracy. What this means, is that all your actions depend on who you are, not what you choose to do. This is exactly what I talked about before, it means that we think we have a free will, [in this case] because we do not know ourselves good enough.

I believe that free will means that you can make a choice that is not based on ANYTHING. That is, "you choose it", instead of "some circumstances or other factors (e.g. your personality) make you do it".

 

Don't get me wrong, I believe in free will. My first post in this topic described one way that we could have free will, while God would "remain" omniscient. What I have argued for through all of this topic is that God's omniscience vs. our free will is a problem in need of a solution! I believe that what I said in my first post is a possible answer, and I expected other people to write their own possible answers so we could discuss them! Instead, everybody started arguing about why this is not a problem, which forced me to kind of argue against myself (since I do believe in free will).

 

BTW, I hope you listen to socal swimmer, in spite of him currently having 666 posts!

 

 

We've had some atheists replying in this topic. My question for you remains:

What do you think about free will? If what we can (or could possibly) see (that is, materia) is all there is, what is free will? If everything in the world is controlled by cause and effect (and maybe randomness, if you consider radioactive decay), can there be any real free will?

[Xogede]

To explain in your terms, let's say what God knows you will do is "G". So whatever you do the result is always G. This does not mean that G represents one choice, or any choice for that matter. G only represents God's knowledge of the choice you will make. This means that G does not affect the choices one is given be it X, Y, or Z etc.

We should clear one thing up here: Is God's omniscience limited to what the results of our actions are, or does He, in fact, know our actions? When you say that "let's say what God knows you will do is "G". So whatever you do the result is always G", you are first saying that G is an action, and immediately stating that it is the result of an action. The rest of your reasoning builds on G being the result of an action.

 

The fact that you theorize that people only have one choice represents the gaping flaw in your logic. You don't have only one choice, you have many choices,

Where did I speak about only having one choice? I clearly allowed for an unlimited amount of options in my reasoning, I just said that, when all comes around, only one is applicable. What you are actually saying is that my conclusion in itself "represents the gaping flaw in my logic".

 

and you can not only choose one, you can choose two or all of them or none of them, if applicable.

It doesn't matter if you can choose both X and Y at once, we can still label this combination with one letter (just to make things easier).

 

However, your decision will always coincide with G.

...and after stating that "G does not affect the choices one is given" because it is not a choice, but the result of one, you revert to G being a choice after all.

 

Also, we cannot assume to know the intricate workings of "G", for that is for God alone,

Do you mean that G is both a choice and not a choice? Or do you mean that G is a choice, but still doesn't limit our choice? Of course we can't know exactly how God can be omniscient, but stating that God can do something that is logically (i.e. per definition) impossible simply because we can't know how He does it, is not the way to go.

 

Simply KNOWING for certain what someone will do, cannot ENSURE that they do it, you only know that they will.

From Wiktionary:

To ensure: To make sure or certain (my underline) of something (usually some future event or condition).

Sure: Physically secure and certain (my underline), non-failing, reliable.

If something is known with 100% certainty, it is said to be sure. So you are actually right: God has always known what you will do, so it has never been ensured. Nevertheless, it is still (per definition) sure. This is actually what your whole point is about.

You can think of it the other way around. Since I have not yet decided what to do, there is no unambiguous answer to what I will do, thus this answer cannot be known. Basically, your reasoning:

However, your decision will always coincide with G.

works both ways: "However, G will always coincide with your decision." Thus, if G is known and cannot change, your decision is also known and cannot change! In other words: when you're trying to "fool God", you think that you're choosing between several options, but no matter what you do, you'll end up choosing the constant G. This is what I call an illusion of free will. And don't try to say that G is not a constant: a "constant" is something that cannot change. If G isn't a constant, then it can change, and we assume that God's knowledge about our actions does not change.

Imagine it this way:

You are not sure if you have free will in the choice between A and B, and you want to find out.

Suppose it was known that, no matter what you do (or want to do), you'll choose A. The conclusion is that you have no free will in this choice.

Now, suppose it was known that, no matter what you do (or want to do), you'll choose B. The conclusion is still that you have no free will in this choice!

What do these two suppositions have in common? They cover all the cases where your choice is known! If your choice is known, it is either known to be A or B, and in both cases, you have no free will. The only remaining case is that your choice isn't known!

how can God NOT know what you will do when he knows what you are thinking ALL the time? It's logically impossible. If the thought of trying to outsmart God came into your mind, God would be aware of it.

If what He knows about my future actions is based on my current thoughts, it would need to change with my thoughts. (else, see below)

 

In fact, God would be aware of it even before it came into your mind, since he is aware of all the previous, present and future thoughts of everyone, so he always knows what you will do ahead of time, since he always knows what you are thinking every step of the way leading up to your decision even before you do.

He knows my thoughts ahead of me in the same way as He knows my actions ahead of me, so you have just moved the problem one step.

 

 

 

 

The whole point of my first post is the "ahead" part about all of this: what I mean is basically that God does not know ahead of time what I will do, because "ahead" is something that is related to time, and God exists outside of time. But it's nice that you at least have some opinion about it, that's what I thought we were supposed to discuss in this topic!

[JonTheSavage]

Here's another possibility, there is no god, therefore everything you do is your own doing.

 

Thus is your free will granted to you by the living God. You have explained free will without knowledge of it.

Your knowledge is without understanding, thus your knowledge is limited to your own thoughts, and not

a sense of liability or history.

[woteva]

Okay, lets get through this quickly. For God: there is no such thing; for a set of social conditions: there is. If you operate under a set of specific social conditions - in this case, God, then free will is negated by the implied boundaries of said conditions (providing one is conscious of them. There is as well another case for being unconscious of God and still being influenced by enacted social conditions. But that is not for here). Remove God and one is then free to act. But here you will also find other social conditions impinging on described freedom. e.g, traffic controls, rule of law, fashion choice, and so on and so forth.

 

What needs to be considered further is that if God- described as "he," is omniscient, but male, then how can "omniscient' be proved as true when there is no inclusion of female? In such a case, if god is assuming male form for our convenience then by virtue of such limits free will for God is negated also? Or are we talking about a pantheon ?

[killbot1000]

Most Religions, including the big C (Christianity) are based almost entirely on astrology. Much of this relates to the Sun, seasons, etc. The themes that are presented in Christianity have been presented thousands of times before. (12 disciples [12 months of the year, zodiac], virgin birth [constellation virgo], jesus fish [age of piscies, an age is 2150 years], 3 kings [3 stars that align with the brightest star in the sky sirrius], december 25th birthday [the date the sun perceivably starts to come back from the death of winter, and the date that the sun aligns with sirius and the 3 kings]) just to name a few astrological connections.

 

I find it very hard to believe that any religion based on this mythology is in any way true, and if one believes it, good for them, but it would be ignorant to ignore the evidence.

 

I make no assumptions, I could very well be wrong about the existence of god, but I will not choose to believe in something until there is sufficient evidence to support it. Until then, I do not believe, which I guess makes me an atheist, but I will not go out there and say "I KNOW FOR SURE GOD DOES NOT EXIST". I would however say "it is unlikely that a god exists, based on the evidence".

 

The fact is, religion is slavery. Most religions teach human beings to follow a certain set of rules and to not ask questions, this scheme promotes ignorance, and lets the elite control everything about us they want, using religion as the justification. This is slavery, plain and simple.

 

My advice, who cares? Think for yourself, question authority, figure out how the system works, and use it to your advantage, and use it to help people. Whether it is predetermined for us or not does not matter, what matters is that we get the job done, whether it was destined to be or not.

 

"This machine...is the slayer of god..." (Xenogears, Weltall)