why ALL the suffering????

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

why doesn,t GOD stop all the evil & suffering??? well no.1 HE will at the=appointed time.[HIS-TIME] jesus SAID=''ONLY god IS GOOD[all the time] so there is a clue--we judge GOD instead of=ourselves hmmmmm.

so if GOD destroy,s ALL EVIL [we] ALL get destroyed. think we,re not=evil?????? ~~~~~and the beat go,s on~~~~~~~

-- al-d (dogs@zianet.com), March 26, 2001

Answers

who originally said, "A little suffering is good for the soul?" My mommy used to say that to me when I whinned about not having an air conditioner when I was a kid. I'm sure she heard it somewhere.

How are your ducks, Al? Did you keep any of the original flock?

-- (kb8um8@yahoo.com), March 26, 2001.


Why suffering? Duality. Maya. Seeking to fulfill desires promises to result in pleasure and pain. One does not visit us without the other trailing along for company. The Yin/Yang symbol serves to describe this well.

Humanity is not evil, IMO. Merely delusional.

"God" does not destroy. Merely transforms. Even I know THAT much physics. ROTFL!

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), March 26, 2001.


If you believe that we are made in the image of your god, and you also believe that we are evil, then your god must also be evil.

Actually, this makes a lot of sense. After all, your god created Satan, right?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 26, 2001.


Not exactly Tarzan. We all were given free will, choice if you please. We choose to disobey God in the Garden of Eden. Sin has been a reality ever since. God wants willing followers not preprogramed ones.

God created Lucifer, not Satan. Lucifer too had/has free will as well as the other Angels of Heaven. One third choose to follow Lucifer and were cast down like a bolt of lightning when they disobeyed God.

blessings Tarzan.

-- I believe in Him (Jesus is King@Kingdom.come), March 26, 2001.


God wants willing followers not preprogramed ones.

If your god is omniscient the nothing has ever or will ever happen that he doesn't know about. For example, if your god is all-knowing, long before he created Satan, he knew that he would create a being named Lucifer who would rebel and take 1/3rd of the host with him. Long before he invented the Garden of Eden, he knew the female being he created, Eve, would be tempted by the snake, give in to temptation, and take Adam with her. Since your god knew about it long before it happened, these occurances, and every other, were already destined to occur and there was absolutely no free will involved at all.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 26, 2001.



If your god is omniscient the nothing has ever or will ever happen that he doesn't know about.

Correct.

For example, if your god is all-knowing, long before he created Satan, he knew that he would create a being named Lucifer.

Wrong. He never created Satan, Lucifer CHOOSE to rebel. God never created a being to do evil. He created the Angels and Man with free will and they both choose the path they took.

Since your god knew about it long before it happened, these occurances, and every other, were already destined to occur and there was absolutely no free will involved at all.

Having foreknowledge of events does not take away free will. Any parent with teenage children can attest to unwise choices and direction children take at times against the advise given them by their parents. These teenagers have been given wise guidance but make a choice not to follow this on occasion and thus pay the price of their decisions.



-- I believe in Him (Jesus is King@Kingdom.come), March 26, 2001.


Wrong. He never created Satan, Lucifer CHOOSE to rebel.

No, since your god created Lucifer with the knowledge that Lucifer was going to rebel and become Satan, your god created Satan. Having foreknowledge of events does not take away free will. Any parent with teenage children can attest to unwise choices and direction children take at times against the advise given them by their parents.

Ah, but parents don't know everything that's going to happen, unlike your god. If your god knows everything that will ever happen, then free will is nothing but an illusion. There is nothing we can do to change what your god knows will happen.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 26, 2001.


You have already made your decision Tarzan.

Peace be with you.

blessings.

-- I belive in Him (Jesus is King@Kingdom.come), March 26, 2001.


You have already made your decision Tarzan.

Actually, if the Christians have it right, I never actually made a decision, I only fulfilled what your god knew would happen. For that, your god would send me to hell.

Strange religion, eh?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 26, 2001.


Hey Tarzan, if you get to hell before me, would you mind starting a forum there so we non-believers have a place to congregate? Any ideas what to name the place?

Thanks in advance...

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), March 26, 2001.



Here's two possibilities:

Tarz's Infernal Place Of Torment - Uncensored

To Be Damned or not To Be Damned (Well THAT'S Settled)

-- Planning for our future (howe9@shentel.net), March 26, 2001.


;-)

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 26, 2001.

I'll Be Damned! They were right!

Uncensored Spinoff: Perdition Edition

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), March 26, 2001.


If you are sent to Hell, it is because of the choice you make now. God has provided all with an alternative to Hell through acceptance of His Son Jesus Christ. Accepting the free gift Jesus offers will get you a 'get out of Hell' free card.

Only through the blood of Jesus Christ are we sanctified and made pure.

-- I belive in Him (Jesus is King@Kingdom.come), March 26, 2001.


Since free will is only an illusion in the face of an omniscient god, why should I be sent to hell for fulfilling my destiny? For that matter, why send me into the world to live knowing full well (as an omniscient diety must) that I would go to hell? Isn't that sort of cruel?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 26, 2001.


No Second Chance Saloon

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), March 26, 2001.

...so I says to god, "Prove it!" Next thing ya know sweat's pouring off a me. (OK, that one's too long for a forum name)

"Beelzebub has a devil put aside for me..."

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), March 26, 2001.


God may know you are going to Hell Tarzan, but it is because you choose to go there.

-- I believe in Him (Jesus is King@Kingdom.come), March 26, 2001.

FRL (This one's probably already taken)

Does this mean we can now take His name in vain without recrimination? (Again, too long)

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), March 26, 2001.


Hades: A Sinner's Guide to the Hotspots

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), March 26, 2001.

Called Heads. Came Up Tails.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), March 26, 2001.

If your god is omniscient, then none of us have a choice about anything. There can't be an omniscient being if the future is left to choice and chance.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 26, 2001.

How 'bout Tarzan's Skeptics Inferno?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 26, 2001.

Tarzan, when you hear the gospel[good news]GOD is calling you. forget what others say, go for yourself.

the BIBLE say,s the more we harden our heart,s--the less chance of our being saved. think about it !!!

-- al-d (dogs@zianet.com), March 26, 2001.


Al-d

That's the problem, I'm thinking about it and it doesn't make sense. If you have a being who is omniscient, then you can't truly have free will. If you have free will, then you can't have a being who's omniscient.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 26, 2001.


Tarzan, do you mean to state that EVEN IN HELL you shall remain a skeptic? Jesus H., are you ever a hard sell!

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), March 26, 2001.

Just wondering...

How's the food in heaven? There are many foods I'd like to eat here on earth but I can't justify the $$$. Does the Bible mention anything about all you care to eat buffets? Is there a regularly scheduled seafood night?

Since good works CANNOT get me into the big dance hall in the sky, how much sin is allowed before the No Vacancy sign gets shoved in my face?

Thanks in advance...

-- Looking for some inside information (howe9@shentel.net), March 26, 2001.


Just wondering...

Which translation of the Bible is the CORRECT one? Any that I should avoid?

Does the Bible state in which language the Bible should be read?

Is the imperfection of translation between languages addressed in the Bible?

Thanks in advance...

-- Inquiring No-Mind Wants to Not-Know (howe9@shentel.net), March 26, 2001.


All sin is worthy of death. Only through God's son Jesus are we made righteous.

None are worthy on our own to enter heaven. No not one. All have fallen short of the mark. Jesus came to make us a way.

-- I believe in Him (Jesus is King@Kingdom.come), March 26, 2001.


Which translation of the Bible is the CORRECT one?

The one that says Jesus died for your sins; loves you; and wants to forgive you.

-- I believe in Him (Jesus is King@Kingdom.come), March 26, 2001.


Only through God's son Jesus are we made righteous.

So in point of opinion, Jesus is a restorer of righteousness? We WERE righteous. Adam blew it. One guy. One guy blew it for billions. Jesus' job is to restore us to our pre-Adam state?

I see now why churches advertise in the Yellow Pages. But shouldn't there be a category called - Soul Restoration, or a reference line such as Redemption: see White Pages under Christ, Jesus H.? Or is his number unlisted?

What I don't understand is how Jesus, or God for that matter, expects anyone to buy this story when it is ONLY we the fallen who bring it to each other? I mean let's be fair about this. We require restoration, are as al-d states EVIL, yet we are the ones bringing this message to each other of how to get to heaven in one easy step.

I'm sorry, but I'm not buying. If God wants us with him AND we can only get there through one door, he'll send the guy with the key to each and every one of us. That guy will then show us the key fits the lock (why is that damned door locked anyway?), give us a glimpse of what's behind door numero uno, and then show us to a comfy chair while we consider the evidence.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), March 26, 2001.


Actually, since Jesus knew what his mission was, knew that he was going to tortured and killed only to come back to life, ascend to heaven, and reign forever, where was the sacrifice? It sounds more like a big reward than a sacrifice.

Now Judas, there's a good example of a sacrifice. There could have been no redemption without Judas. Through his sacrifice, he saved the whole world and lost his soul in hell (or sheol, as he would have called it) forever. Now THAT'S a sacrifice. How come no one recognizes Judas?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 26, 2001.


your close , YES GOD HAS SENT THE MAN WITH THE PLAN=JESUS. YOU SEE IT,S=all ABOUT what JESUS/GOD has done. you want the=key....take it[you can,t=earn it]

SIN is no-longer an hindrance[as some teach]thats NOT the=focus!! JESUS loves=sinners & changes our destructive-desires. because HE loves me=I love you. JESUS said=''IT IS FINISHED'' get it????

we don,t have what it takes to be HOLY--so HE makes us HOLY [set=apart] it,s a no sweat-relationship--what HE demands=HE SUPPLY,S-----------chill & watch HIM do it......

-- al-d (dogs@zianet.com), March 26, 2001.


Rich since when did you become an unbeliever?

-- (cin@cin.cin), March 26, 2001.

Tarzan:

Based on the best information that I can find, Judas was the younger brother of Jesus.

Then I am not part of this discussion and would prefer to stay that way: carry on.

Cheers,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), March 26, 2001.


Cin,

I never was a believer that through Jesus Christ all must pass in order to return "home". Even during bouts of high fever I'm positive I've never uttered my agreement with such a "way". I'm open to proof of this, but the premise is so contrary to my most basic philosophy that it would take a yeoman's amount of it to convince me. And NO book written by humans is proof of anything other than perhaps humanity's incredible ability to suspend disbelief.

That said, a (supposed) likeness of Jesus sits on my altar next to Lord Krishna. After having endured a tremendous amount of grief at the hands of Christian children - for I was raised a Jew and brutalized for it - it has been a difficult road to my acceptance of him as a great one. I work in spurts to cultivate love for him. It wasn't his fault some of his followers failed repeatedly to heed his call to love. Some old wounds heal slowly. But heal they do if we let them.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), March 27, 2001.


Rich, the Jewish people have been a 'favorite' target for thousands of years. On behalf of Christians every where please accept my appologies and heart felt sorrow that you and other Jews have been treated so badly by those who call themselves followers of Jesus Christ.

Jesus said in Matthew 24:4-5

4 Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in my name, claiming, `I am the Christ, (coming in the name of Jesus, as a Christian) ' and will deceive many.

You said: Some old wounds heal slowly. But heal they do if we let them.

The healing you speak of is forgiveness. Thank you for being a forgiving person to those of us that have deeply hurt you in the name of Jesus.

May God Richly Bless you!

-- I believe in Him (Jesus is King@Kingdom.come), March 27, 2001.


Tarzan,

I have to take issue with your assertion that omniscience prevents free will. And you do realize that you're talking about something that philosophers have debated for millennia, right?[g] They haven't been able to settle it definitively one way or the other, either.

By your logic, should mankind ever learn how to travel in time (or even to merely know the future with 100% accuracy), free will would no longer exist. That's obviously incorrect because cause and effect would still exist.

What you could have in that case would be something that science fiction writers have incorporated in novels for years: you would simply be able to see the END RESULT of your actions and modify them accordingly. You might even try different courses of action until you see a "foreordained" result in the future. But the cause that resulted into desired effect was still a function of free will on your part.

The proof of this is to consider what happens when TWO OR MORE people begin doing the same thing -- simply put, you have more than one "time machine." Now you're basically back to square one zero, because more than one free will is in conflict: you've merely spread the chaotic circus across the dimension of time. :)

Merely knowing what a person (or group of persons) will do with 100% certainty does not mean that you CAUSE the end behavior (or end effects).

If God exists outside of time (and the Bible indicates this), then He DOES operate with 100% omniscience.

There's another way to look at it. Is there any chance that WWII won't happen? No, because it has ALREADY happened. From our perspective on the ray of time (we always move forward, never backwards), history is etched in stone and is unchangeable. But to the people alive in, say, 1930, WWII wasn't even a consideration. It's a matter of perspective, then.

But we now KNOW (because we can look backwards down the ray of time and observe the results) that the decisions made by Hitler, Chamberlain, Roosevelt, et. al, under the principle of Free Will, *DID* result in that war and its end effects.

So, from our perspective, we are perfectly omniscient of anything backwards on the ray of time. In that respect, we have at least some of the ability of a Divine Being outside of time. Problem is, we can only exercise halfway, and always backwards. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), March 27, 2001.


That's kind of you to apologize, but entirely unnecessary. That is unless you were one of the nutcases, in which case apology accepted.

Although it was confusing at the time, I realized eventually that these kids did not practice what Jesus taught, so much as what their parents and churches taught - Jews killed the Son of God, Jews were & are bad news. The dullards took it to mean I would kill Christ when he came back because I was a Jew.

Hey, I learned how to fight, how to pick and choose battles and battlegrounds, so it wasn't a total loss. Of course, I also learned to hate and how to incapacitate attackers. Drawing blood quickly served to lessen the frenzy of most kids. Young noses bleed with minimal prodding.

Those experiences also taught me to evaluate people individually based upon their actions, not by labels, looks or heritage. It taught me the power of mob-think. It taught me to use fear and the accompanying adrenaline rush in a positive manner.

The Jews I knew were no better, Orthodox and Conservative alike. Some of my Hebrew school teachers villified Christians en masse. Such a sad game of US v THEM. Everyone loses that ugly game.

Most importantly of all, those experiences taught me that children should not be brainwashed into any one religious belief system, but allowed to choose their own paths as they see fit when they are ready.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), March 27, 2001.


I have to take issue with your assertion that omniscience prevents free will. And you do realize that you're talking about something that philosophers have debated for millennia, right?[g] They haven't been able to settle it definitively one way or the other, either.

Don't take this the wrong way, but this is only a problem is you believe in an omniscient being.

By your logic, should mankind ever learn how to travel in time (or even to merely know the future with 100% accuracy), free will would no longer exist. That's obviously incorrect because cause and effect would still exist.

Actually, even if we did learn to travel through time, we would still not be omniscient. Omniscience is the perfect knowledge of everything. Even if I know the Titanic is going to hit an iceberg on her maiden voyage, I still don't know how the captain would react to me warning him ahead of time. An omniscient being would.

Merely knowing what a person (or group of persons) will do with 100% certainty does not mean that you CAUSE the end behavior (or end effects).

I wrote several fancy analogies here before I settled on an old proof that I stole from someone who stole from someone who probably stole from Skeptic magazine at some point (nod to FactFinder). For our purposes, let's assume that there is a god, that he is the Christian god, and by definition, perfect (as in, infallible). A will refer to any given action, X will refer to any action other than A, as in, not A.

1. God's knowledge cannot be wrong. 2. God knows that I will do A. 3. If I have free will, then (I can do A) and (I can do X). 4. If I can do X, then it is possibly true that I will do X. 5. If it is possibly true that I will do X, then God's 'knowledge' that I will do A is possibly false. 6. If God's knowledge that I will do A is possibly false, then God's 'knowledge' can be wrong. 7. Therefore, God's knowledge that I will do A is not possibly false. 8. Therefore, it is not possibly true that I will do X. 9. Therefore, I cannot do X. 10. Therefore, it is false that (I can do A) and (I can do X). 11. Therefore, I don't have free will.

If God exists outside of time (and the Bible indicates this), then He DOES operate with 100% omniscience.

Yet God does exist in this time, making decisions and appearances, inspiring prophecy on a timeline , spending a few years walking around as Jesus. So either God doesn't actually exist out of time or he exists outside of time and can interact with our time, which begs the question of exactly what framework does God live under and does he have free will? And if so, is he omniscient about the condquences and repurcussions of his choices?

Yada, yada, yada. From our perspective on the ray of time (we always move forward, never backwards), history is etched in stone and is unchangeable. But to the people alive in, say, 1930, WWII wasn't even a consideration. It's a matter of perspective, then.

No, it's not. Although we know about WWII, and may know the events leading up to it, we do not know everything about that war, thus we are not omniscient. An omniscient being, like the Christian god, would know every decision, every thought, every motivating factor in the events that lead up to WWII .

So, from our perspective, we are perfectly omniscient of anything backwards on the ray of time.

No offense, but I think you're playing fast and loose with your definition of omniscience. According to the dictionary, omniscience is defined as having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight. I don't see how any of us can achieve that about events in our own lives, let alone events in history.

In that respect, we have at least some of the ability of a Divine Being outside of time. Problem is, we can only exercise halfway, and always backwards. :)



-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 27, 2001.


Tarzan,

Somehow I just KNEW that would be your response. I KNEW that you would argue about the definition of "omniscience." :)

Sure, I grant my "fastness" and "looseness." I shouldn't have compared our limited ability (in the fanciful case that we should discover time travel) to omniscience.

But you're trying to argue that the DEGREE of knowledge somehow makes a difference to the root logic of your assertion. Can't you see how that breaks down?

If I have access to knowledge across time, maybe I just could choose what I want to look at or learn. God doesn't have to refer to the books (or the CRT screens, or whatever), 'cuz He's got it all in His head already. But my ability, limited though it might be compared to God's, would still be close enough to practical "omniscience" as makes no difference.

OK, so say I have this ability. Maybe I choose I not to look in on your neighbor this evening, but I DO choose to watch you. I read your reply to this before you write it.

In that case, my question is perfectly valid: do you then have free will in this specific case? If I have perfect and certain knowledge of what you will do, you HAVE to do that thing, do you not?

The principle is the same whether you're taking one single, knowable case or all possible cases.

The example of WWII is valid, too. I'm perfectly willing to keep it at the "macro" level: let's just say the War happened and forget the picky details. Is there then any chance then, for the people living in 1930, that it won't happen? None. Nada. We KNOW this with certainty because we sit North of WWII on the timeline. Unless we ACTIVELY (aha!) go back in time and try to change things (ie, get involved in a DIFFERENT history of cause-and-effect), that War WILL happen in the years designated 1939-1945. It's etched in stone.

To people prior to those dates, it's in the future. To us, it's in the past. But it has/will/must happen.

And I can't resist this one:

Yet God does exist in this time, making decisions and appearances, inspiring prophecy on a timeline, spending a few years walking around as Jesus ...

NOW you know why we traditional Christians believe that crazy doctrine called "Trinity." God is both plural and singular at the same time; He is the timeless, eternal God who created the universe and also the Son who willingly assumed human form and lived within the confies of this cosmos. Both were fully and uniquely God.

In fact, without some form of plural-singular nature, any postulated Supreme Being would break down logically on things like the "big rock" question.

If God is all-powerful, can He make a stone so large that He can't lift it? The Christian's response is, He already has. God the Father made the stone, God the Son couldn't lift it.

These answers may not satisfy you. Like I said, philosophers have debated them for millennia (and incidentally, the ones I've read usually conclude that free will ITSELF is an illusion).

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), March 27, 2001.


Once again, no offense Stephen, but there's no arguing about omniscience. A being is either omniscient or a being is not. If you read Psalms 147:5 you'll see that those who wrote the Bible clearly felt God had infinite knowledge and understanding.

We can't even come close to omniscience in the knowledge you gain by watching historical events unfold. Human being lack the perspective granted by omniscience. I realize that you want to keep this on the macro level, but there is no way you can do that and discuss true omniscience. In this case, God truly is in the details.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 28, 2001.


Tarzan -- some terrific stuff, there, guy.

Personally, at two different times I attempted Christianity, but I gave up, as I found too many contradictions. Just one example would be the doctrine of the Trinity. How is it possible for Jesus to be God and Not-God at the same time? It's impossible. An analogy would be to try and imagine a black horse that's white.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), March 28, 2001.


Eve, according to what I was taught (Catholicism), it's called "faith" -- specifically (and this was where I'd get "in trouble"), unquestioning faith.

My theory (which still stands to this day) was that if "God" gave me a brain to use it (as I was also taught), then why is it a problem to question things as said brain sees fit?

Spent alot of time in the principal's office. Kind of turned me off to "organized religion". Besides, I don't feel a real need to "make a scheduled show" of my spirituality (e.g., church every Sunday and the major holy days). If, as I was also taught, "God is everywhere and God knows everything", then s/he knows even better than I do what kind of person I really am, and no amount of "showiness" is going to change that.

Please understand I'm not knocking others who live their lives this way; more power to them if they can unquestioningly believe what they're told. I've always been pretty impressed with people who have "faith". I have to question.

Probably shoulda been a damn scientist, but ...............

Rich, I'm so glad I had put down the coffee prior to reading the new fora names ..... rotflmao.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), March 28, 2001.


Eve-

Thanks. The mechanisms and process of belief have always fascinated me. Everyone in my family, with the exception of my younger brother, are atheists. My dad comes from a fairly long line of atheists, my mother's the first in her family. I don't have a personal frame of reference for how someone absorbs the contradictions or how religion fulfills psychological needs, so I'm fascinated by those who do and I want to learn from them.

Stephen-

I just realized I left off a chunk of your post. I just had my machine restaged yesterday and I'm still ironing out the chinks. As I finish that, I'll respond to the rest of your post, probably tonight.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 28, 2001.


Tarzan,

But remember, I already know what you'll write. :)

(G,D&RVF!)

Patricia,

Spent alot of time in the principal's office.

No! I'm shattered!

Not MY sweet lil' Patricia! A stinker?!?

I'm disillusioned now .. .. ...

(Well ... erm ... I made a couple of trips myself, now that I think of it ... usually associated with things like setting off a homemade rocket in science class one day, and watching everyone dodge the fire and smoke. It was cool.[eg])

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), March 28, 2001.


"My theory (which still stands to this day) was that if "God" gave me a brain to use it (as I was also taught), then why is it a problem to question things as said brain sees fit?"

Patricia, that's so dead-on, I can practically TASTE it. We're definitely "of a mind" on this one.

Tarzan, I can see two psychological needs: That imagining non- existence is unbearable -- thus, the need to envision an eternal life; and the fear of the possibility of eternal punishment.

But I'm not exempting myself from feeling the first of the two from time to time -- often, for stretches -- and sometimes it gets pretty intense. I think that was the impetus for my studying the possibility of eternal life and/or reincarnation from a more or less scientific perspective. Riveting, fascinating stuff, too -- start with the book "Immortality" by Paul Edwards. Then I have an "eternal recurrence" reincarnation theory that I've posted on the Board a couple of times.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), March 28, 2001.


I don't see how God's omniscience conflicts with my volition. God knows all that will happen in my life, but I still decide how to live my life...in the Spirit or in the flesh.

-- (bygrace@thru.faith), March 28, 2001.

by grace,

General theological issues about the nature of omniscience aside for the moment -- according to about a dozen or more New Testament passages (e.g., Romans 8:28-30, etc. etc.), we're predestined. To me, most of these are about as clearly anti-free will as you can get.

I know you'll be able to quote antithetical passages -- ones implying we have free will. But that only reveals a contradiction.

This was another doctrinal problem that prevented me from accepting Christianity.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), March 28, 2001.


Stephen, whenever "parents' night" occurred at my elementary school, my Mom was told the same things:

"She's SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO bright, BUT..."

"She never stops talking...AND..."

"She questions EVERYTHING....."

And they said it as if it was a BAD thing. Go figure. (PLEASE tell me you didn't do the "sulphur bombs" thing. Nothing cleared out an entire school like sulphur bombs. What a stench.)

bygrace, I don't know why you'd make such a distinction between living "in the Spirit" and living "in the flesh", as if they were mutually exclusive of each other.

They aren't, IMO, unless you MAKE them so.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), March 28, 2001.


BOOK of Galations for descrip. of flesh=old man[adamic=nature] yup the flesh=wars against the spirit. and manifests itself in world. the root is =self-love=selfishness.=ADAM but GOD sent the=new=ADAM=CHRIST JESUS.

out with the =OLD--[IN] with the =NEW.

-- al-d (dogs@zianet.com), March 28, 2001.


hey al -

At the top, you wrote;

"...so if GOD destroy,s ALL EVIL [we] ALL get destroyed."

What takes our place then?

-- flora (***@__._), March 28, 2001.


Flora, I have heard the cockroach is the longest living on earth.

Do you suppose? :-)

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), March 29, 2001.


Karma. Just answering the question here.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 29, 2001.

Okay Stephen, I'll bite. What will I say? :-)

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 29, 2001.

Tarzan,

You WOULD ask. Wait until I get new batteries for the time machine. The flux capacitor is looking a little long in the tooth, too ... :)

(By the way, I hope I haven't offended you with anything I've said. My friends tell me that I must have some dad-blamed Jesuit blood in my somewhere.[g])

Eve,

You know -- honestly -- I didn't begin this week planning to discuss Deep Theological Stuff at Unk's. But I can't help it; when I see a misunderstanding, I have to address it.

Just for the record, there are several schools of thought on Predestination. Of the two major ones, the first is the "mild" form, which believes that God simply KNEW (being omniscient) who would choose (via free will) to accept Christ.

(Whence the friendly discussion between Tarzan and I: does God's perfect knowledge prevent free will?)

The "stronger" form says that God literally chose who would become believers. But this position is often misunderstood. We look at it in three stages:

1. The first chance you have to get to heaven is to live a perfectly good life. If you can do that, you're in. But who can do that?

2. The second chance is to accept God's forgiveness. The Bible indicates, though, that this message is "foolishness" to "those who are perishing." In plain English, you can explain it to people until they're blue in the face and they won't believe it unless the Holy Spirit opens their heart to receive the message.

(Pause to make a point: this isn't God's fault, it's OURS. We refuse to listen.)

3. So ... God chooses certain people and, through the Holy Spirit, changes their hearts so that they will decide to believe. He "opens their eyes."

I vascillate between the "weak" and "strong" forms, depending on what I'm reading at the time, and in spite of the fact that I came up as a strong Presbyterian.

My scientific nature even wonders if we'll ever find a "belief gene" in human DNA, at which point the strong form should be considered correct. :)

(Tongue FIRMLY in cheek, there.[g])

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), March 29, 2001.


Hi Eve -

Glad to see you posting again. I see differences in the bible, but no contradictions. Here's some biblical info on predestination, election, volition, etc if you're interested....

predestination summary - http://biblefragrances.com/pages/docsp.html#anchor1043520

volitional theology - http://biblefragrances.com/pages/voltheo.html

Patricia -

>>>> I don't know why you'd make such a distinction between living "in the Spirit" and living "in the flesh", as if they were mutually exclusive of each other.

If I am walking in the Spirit, I am having fellowship with God (spiritually alive) and will have characteristics in my soul of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, etc. If others happen to see me walking, these qualities should be evident if I'm walking in the Spirit...unless of course I were faking it.

If I am walking in the flesh, I have separated myself from fellowship with God (spiritually dead) and will have characteristics in my soul of malice, deceit, hate, arrogance, greed, etc. If I am ignorant enough to open my mouth while I'm walking in the flesh and reveal what's in my soul, it should be obvious that, "nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh." (Ro 7:18)

Light cannot have fellowship with darkness. I can't be walking in the Spirit and walking in the flesh at the same time. I'm either walking with God, or walking with self.....one or the other. Ro 7:23 - the battlefield of the mind. I must constantly choose between good and evil.

Stephen -

Good points. thanks.

-- (bygrace@thru.faith), March 29, 2001.


bygrace, you have a rather harsh (and narrow) definition of "walking in the flesh".

Now I see how and why you believe they are mutually exclusive; you equate "flesh" with "evil".

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), March 29, 2001.


(That sounded a lot more "snappish" than was intended; my apologies.)

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), March 29, 2001.


>>>>bygrace, you have a rather harsh (and narrow) definition of "walking in the flesh".

I wouldn't say that's all that's included in "walking in the flesh"....was just giving a few examples.

Re "my apologies." I had imagined you meant, "bygrace, I believe..." so I heard it a little differently. But I accept. Thank you.

-- (bygrace@thru.faith), March 29, 2001.


Stephen,

Interesting points. But take, say, Ephesians 1:4...

“...He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him...”

I’m not sure how we can glean anything but the “strong” view from this. You may be able to cite other passages that could be interpreted as supporting the "weak" view, but the passage above (as well as others, as I recall), appears to allow for no wider perspective.

bygrace,

Thanks, and hi back atcha! My posting has been sporadic lately. A few here, a bunch there, then gone for weeks, then back again. The rest of my life tends to wedge its way in there from time to time, y’know? :) And thanks for the sites; I’ll try to take a look at them soon.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), March 30, 2001.


Eve,

Sure, I admit that the difference is of degree.

But just for the record, the weak view is primarily based on the passage beginning at Romans 8:28 (going from memory here, 'cuz I'm in a hurry, so be careful!): "We know that in all things, God works for the good of those who love Him, who are called according to His purpose ... [and here's the key] ... for those those whom He foreknew, he also predestined ... [that they should be] be conformed to the image of His Son."

The greek for "foreknew" is a form of "progno" (whence comes our our modern term "prognosis"). In this view, Ephesians is simply endorsing this, that we are indeed predestined to become like Him ("in Him").

Of course, we get back to what Tarzan and I have been discussing: if God foreknows with 100% certainty that you will accept Christ, is there any doubt that you will do so? Does this prevent free will? I say not, because the cause and effect are still the result of your conscious decision.

If I put a bowl of treats on the floor, I know with near-100% certainty that our cats will knock me down trying to get to it. But they still do so of their own free will. :)

(But that brings us to the idea of "irresistable grace," and like I said, I didn't come on here this week planning to be Dr. Theology.[g])

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), March 30, 2001.


Stephen,

Your take on Romans 8 seems to make sense by itself. But read Ephesians 1:4-6, where it seems to imply that it was God's free grace that caused him to choose the elect -- not anything that He foreknew they would do. If that conclusion is correct, it would contravene your view of the Romans 8 passages. (I believe the whole section is Romans 8:28-30.)

Predestination aside, for the moment, I agree with your position (vs. Tarzan's) on omniscience -- always have. I mean, so what if God knew in advance? How does that make our choices any less free?

[I didn't come on here this week planning to be Dr. Theology.[g])]

Oh, but you've put out some fine stuff here. And as long as you don't end up going off into some wild tangent -- like an interpretation arguing that Revelation really ends with a high-speed car chase, or something like that -- you can be OUR very own Dr. Theology. :)

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), March 30, 2001.


Eve,

I'm reminded of what C. S. Lewis once said in a lecture to some laborers about this; he said that it was "a damned hard thing."

(Scandalous, especially for the day. Christians weren't supposed to say "damn," unless they were consigning the unsaved to Old Scratch's Hotel.[g])

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), March 30, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ