Destiny and Free Will

[Quantum Windbag]

Are you trying to prove how stupid you are?

The major problem you have is your complete lack of understanding of a complex subject. Utter depravity is only one of the things you have to consider when we delve into Calvinism, which is the basis of all deterministic theology in Protestantism.

The five points of Calvinism:

1. Total depravity.
2. Unconditional election.
3. Limited atonement.
4. Irresistible grace.
5. Perseverance of the saints.

The key point here is not total depravity, it is limited atonement. Total depravity/original sin is not the opposite of universal reconciliation, limited atonement is. Even Catholics believe in original sin, and that people are born sinful. The fact that you don't know this is more proof that you are oversimplifying a complex subject, which gets us back to my original claim which offended you.



Yet you keep posting, and proving me right.

Catholics also believe that people are universally endowed with grace to overcome original sin. Calvinists among others believe in predestination where some are elected for salvation, but others are not.

I don't know why you're bringing up limited atonement here. That deals with the synthesis of grace plus acceptance, not grace by itself.

Even after I take the time to explain where you are oversimplifying you still spout nonsense, what a surprise.

 

[PainefulTruth]

The Book of Life is not unchanging, people can be blotted out (Exodus 32:33) and added to it. Therefore there is no such thing as predestination in the sense that God knows who will go to hell, which is why citing the hypothetical existence of a book is not proof of anything other than the book's existence. Which brings us back to you not understanding theology, wherever it is you get it from. If you don't get it from the Bible, you will always get it wrong.

How is the Book of Life hypothetical if it's written in holy scripture, at least for those who believe that it's holy? The passage in Rev. 13:8 says "And all the people who belong to this world worshiped the beast. They are the ones whose names were not written in the Book of Life before the world was made.

Now your quote from Ex. does appear to contradict that--not the first of many such contradictions. But......if God is omniscient and knows everything, then It would know who was going to be blotted out before they were even written in, making free will not possible as well. The answer is that free will is a gift (a portion of It's omniscience presented to us, if you will) putting us beyond God's knowledge, not an externally imposed limitation.

 

[pacer]

Some Christian groups read more into Scripture than what is actually there.

Jeremiah 32:17
17
"Ah, Sovereign LORD, you have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and outstretched arm. Nothing is too hard for you."

Interpretation from Christianity.com

God can do all things and accomplish all things. Nothing is too difficult for Him, and He orchestrates and determines everything that is going to happen in your life, in my life, in America, and throughout the world. Whatever He wants to do in the universe, He does, for nothing is impossible with Him (Jeremiah 32:17).

Therefore , if everything is orchestrated by God and he determines everything we do, we do not have free will.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Book of Life is not unchanging, people can be blotted out (Exodus 32:33) and added to it. Therefore there is no such thing as predestination in the sense that God knows who will go to hell, which is why citing the hypothetical existence of a book is not proof of anything other than the book's existence. Which brings us back to you not understanding theology, wherever it is you get it from. If you don't get it from the Bible, you will always get it wrong.

How is the Book of Life hypothetical if it's written in holy scripture, at least for those who believe that it's holy? The passage in Rev. 13:8 says "And all the people who belong to this world worshiped the beast. They are the ones whose names were not written in the Book of Life before the world was made.

Now your quote from Ex. does appear to contradict that--not the first of many such contradictions. But......if God is omniscient and knows everything, then It would know who was going to be blotted out before they were even written in, making free will not possible as well. The answer is that free will is a gift (a portion of It's omniscience presented to us, if you will) putting us beyond God's knowledge, not an externally imposed limitation.

It is hypothetical because, unlike idiots, I don't see every single word of the Bible as being literal.

Also, as I already proved, it is possible to get your name blotted out of the book, and Jesus made it possible for new people to be added to it. That makes your insistence that you are right because you found one verse, while simultaneously ignoring everything else in the Bible, pathetic.

 

[PainefulTruth]

It is hypothetical because, unlike idiots, I don't see every single word of the Bible as being literal.

So the quote from Rev. is.....what? How should it read?

Also, as I already proved, it is possible to get your name blotted out of the book, and Jesus made it possible for new people to be added to it. That makes your insistence that you are right because you found one verse, while simultaneously ignoring everything else in the Bible, pathetic.

You proved no such thing. You only posted one biblical quote that contradicted another. You're not using verses to prove your theology, you're using your theology to "prove" some of your "holy scripture" while excluding others. On top of that you don't say if the verses are allegory, false, literal, or go with the catch all dodge, that's for only God to know. If we can't understand the verses as written, why is that and who are they written for?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It is hypothetical because, unlike idiots, I don't see every single word of the Bible as being literal.

So the quote from Rev. is.....what? How should it read?

Also, as I already proved, it is possible to get your name blotted out of the book, and Jesus made it possible for new people to be added to it. That makes your insistence that you are right because you found one verse, while simultaneously ignoring everything else in the Bible, pathetic.

You proved no such thing. You only posted one biblical quote that contradicted another. You're not using verses to prove your theology, you're using your theology to "prove" some of your "holy scripture" while excluding others. On top of that you don't say if the verses are allegory, false, literal, or go with the catch all dodge, that's for only God to know. If we can't understand the verses as written, why is that and who are they written for?

I proved no such thing? Let me guess, Exodus doesn't count in your brain because it isn't in Revelations.

Get a life, idiot, you can't handle theology.

 

[PainefulTruth]

I'm sure I'm not the only one to notice the sarcasm, name calling and non-responsiveness in your post--which, BTW, also leaves my post unchallenged. What'd you do, pick up on the first sentence and ignore the rest?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm sure I'm not the only one to notice the sarcasm, name calling and non-responsiveness in your post--which, BTW, also leaves my post unchallenged. What'd you do, pick up on the first sentence and ignore the rest?

Until you actual respond to my points, instead of just repeating the assertion that single verse makes you right, I see no reason to address anything you say, or take you seriously. Feel free to pretend you won, as long as you don't do it outside your head.

 

[Daktoria]

Are you trying to prove how stupid you are?

The major problem you have is your complete lack of understanding of a complex subject. Utter depravity is only one of the things you have to consider when we delve into Calvinism, which is the basis of all deterministic theology in Protestantism.

The five points of Calvinism:

1. Total depravity.
2. Unconditional election.
3. Limited atonement.
4. Irresistible grace.
5. Perseverance of the saints.

The key point here is not total depravity, it is limited atonement. Total depravity/original sin is not the opposite of universal reconciliation, limited atonement is. Even Catholics believe in original sin, and that people are born sinful. The fact that you don't know this is more proof that you are oversimplifying a complex subject, which gets us back to my original claim which offended you.



Yet you keep posting, and proving me right.

Catholics also believe that people are universally endowed with grace to overcome original sin. Calvinists among others believe in predestination where some are elected for salvation, but others are not.

I don't know why you're bringing up limited atonement here. That deals with the synthesis of grace plus acceptance, not grace by itself.

Even after I take the time to explain where you are oversimplifying you still spout nonsense, what a surprise.

Do you want to construct consensus, or not?

Again, for all intents and purposes, what I said might as well have been right and you're just saying it's wrong.

If you want to call something nonsensical, then say what makes sense that relates with what's said.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Catholics also believe that people are universally endowed with grace to overcome original sin. Calvinists among others believe in predestination where some are elected for salvation, but others are not.

I don't know why you're bringing up limited atonement here. That deals with the synthesis of grace plus acceptance, not grace by itself.

Even after I take the time to explain where you are oversimplifying you still spout nonsense, what a surprise.

Do you want to construct consensus, or not?

Again, for all intents and purposes, what I said might as well have been right and you're just saying it's wrong.

If you want to call something nonsensical, then say what makes sense that relates with what's said.

Why would you ask me the same question twice?

I don't give a fuck about meeting you in the middle. I don't want to agree with you, find common ground, or even trying to get you to admit you are wrong. All I care about is making you look stupid.

Will you stop asking about a consensus now?

 

[Daktoria]

Consensus isn't compromise. :-\

I'm not asking you to meet me in the middle. I'm asking you to make sense.

In fact, this even has religious precedent. You should be a little ashamed that you're not willing to do this:

Scholasticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[daws101]

Consensus isn't compromise. :-\

I'm not asking you to meet me in the middle. I'm asking you to make sense.

In fact, this even has religious precedent. You should be a little ashamed that you're not willing to do this:

Scholasticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

don't expect a logical or even honest answer from QW

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Consensus isn't compromise. :-\

I'm not asking you to meet me in the middle. I'm asking you to make sense.

In fact, this even has religious precedent. You should be a little ashamed that you're not willing to do this:

Scholasticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is this, the fourth time? I do not want consensus.

Did that make sense? If it doesn't, I suggest you look up what consensus means. Until you get that you are wrong, asking me to agree with you is going to keep not making sense.

 

[Daktoria]

Consensus isn't compromise. :-\

I'm not asking you to meet me in the middle. I'm asking you to make sense.

In fact, this even has religious precedent. You should be a little ashamed that you're not willing to do this:

Scholasticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is this, the fourth time? I do not want consensus.

Did that make sense? If it doesn't, I suggest you look up what consensus means. Until you get that you are wrong, asking me to agree with you is going to keep not making sense.

I don't think you understand.

In society, it doesn't matter if you want consensus. You need consensus:

1) People can have disagreements because of believing in the same ideas but just in different words,

2) People can be jerks who screw around over ideas, and

3) People can have honest misunderstandings, disagreements, and lack of sympathy over ideas, but they still have to coexist, so they need to get along.

If you don't realize consensus, then you end up with conflict, and in democracy, that means tyranny of the majority where an appeal to popularity wins instead and minorities get discriminated against.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Consensus isn't compromise. :-\

I'm not asking you to meet me in the middle. I'm asking you to make sense.

In fact, this even has religious precedent. You should be a little ashamed that you're not willing to do this:

Scholasticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is this, the fourth time? I do not want consensus.

Did that make sense? If it doesn't, I suggest you look up what consensus means. Until you get that you are wrong, asking me to agree with you is going to keep not making sense.

I don't think you understand.

In society, it doesn't matter if you want consensus. You need consensus:

1) People can have disagreements because of believing in the same ideas but just in different words,

2) People can be jerks who screw around over ideas, and

3) People can have honest misunderstandings, disagreements, and lack of sympathy over ideas, but they still have to coexist, so they need to get along.

If you don't realize consensus, then you end up with conflict, and in democracy, that means tyranny of the majority where an appeal to popularity wins instead and minorities get discriminated against.

I don't think you understand, you are wrong.

Let me clarify that for you, you are the opposite of right.

In order for there to be consensus you have to admit you are wrong, and agree with me. You are trying to get me to join you in being wrong for the sake of society. I am not going to do that even if it brings about the zombie apocalypse.

If you are so hung up on society and consensus, feel free to agree with me. I don't give a fuck because I don't care if society crashes, I don't need the fake approval of judgmental assholes.

 

[Daktoria]

...so if someone says another is wrong, it counts?

2+2=4. Cat is spelled C-A-T. The sky is blue.

YOU'RE WRONG!

Uh huh.

 

[Daktoria]

Let's be clear.

We're talking about dogmas here, so what we're talking about is a little different compared to ordinary analysis.

However, this is what makes consensus even more important. Dogmas are defined in terms of other dogmas. They only way you can understand them is if you have a mutual understanding of which dogmas correspond with other dogmas.

Unto themselves, dogmas have no intrinsic meaning. They're just characters lined up. It's when people mutually understand that alignment that they mean something.

 

[amrchaos]

I think I kind of understand what the OP is getting at.

If we have free will, then God cannot be all knowing and all powerful because Free will will allow some randomness into the universe. I.E. God can't possibly know exactly what you will do in the future because your free will allows you to mak a different decisions, on the other hand if he did know then free will can not exist because you are following a script that god has written before hand(How else would God know what is to occur)

So there seems to be a contradiction here--either We have free will even from God, or we believe we have free will but God has determined everything ahead of time and we only are misleading ourselves into believing we are in control of our destiny.

Of course Free Will versus Predetermination has some similiar contradictions on their own.

For instance--If we live in a fully predetermined universe--God already knows which of us is going to Heaven and Hell before we are even created. In fact, God has designed all of reality so therefore all good and evil in it has been predestined to exist before the Universe was ever created. It is Gods script, we are no more than play actors following our roles. This seems like a pretty hopeless view of existance to me.

On the other hand, Free will tends to indicate that God cannot be all knowing for God cannot know an individuals action(If God did know an individual actions it is because God made it so--thus predestination pops up again. But we are suppose the opposite.) Thus God cannot be all knowing. For if God is all knowing, then we have predestination--God knows because he made it so.


Maybe I am missing something here. I guess I need to look at some Christian theological arguments to see what others say.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think I kind of understand what the OP is getting at.

If we have free will, then God cannot be all knowing and all powerful because Free will will allow some randomness into the universe. I.E. God can't possibly know exactly what you will do in the future because your free will allows you to mak a different decisions, on the other hand if he did know then free will can not exist because you are following a script that god has written before hand(How else would God know what is to occur)

So there seems to be a contradiction here--either We have free will even from God, or we believe we have free will but God has determined everything ahead of time and we only are misleading ourselves into believing we are in control of our destiny.

Of course Free Will versus Predetermination has some similiar contradictions on their own.

For instance--If we live in a fully predetermined universe--God already knows which of us is going to Heaven and Hell before we are even created. In fact, God has designed all of reality so therefore all good and evil in it has been predestined to exist before the Universe was ever created. It is Gods script, we are no more than play actors following our roles. This seems like a pretty hopeless view of existance to me.

On the other hand, Free will tends to indicate that God cannot be all knowing for God cannot know an individuals action(If God did know an individual actions it is because God made it so--thus predestination pops up again. But we are suppose the opposite.) Thus God cannot be all knowing. For if God is all knowing, then we have predestination--God knows because he made it so.


Maybe I am missing something here. I guess I need to look at some Christian theological arguments to see what others say.

It is entirely possible to know everything that has happened without knowing everything that will happen.

Not that I actually believe that God is omniscient, that is a quality ascribed to God by Greek philosophy, not the Bible.

 

[daws101]

I think I kind of understand what the OP is getting at.

If we have free will, then God cannot be all knowing and all powerful because Free will will allow some randomness into the universe. I.E. God can't possibly know exactly what you will do in the future because your free will allows you to mak a different decisions, on the other hand if he did know then free will can not exist because you are following a script that god has written before hand(How else would God know what is to occur)

So there seems to be a contradiction here--either We have free will even from God, or we believe we have free will but God has determined everything ahead of time and we only are misleading ourselves into believing we are in control of our destiny.

Of course Free Will versus Predetermination has some similiar contradictions on their own.

For instance--If we live in a fully predetermined universe--God already knows which of us is going to Heaven and Hell before we are even created. In fact, God has designed all of reality so therefore all good and evil in it has been predestined to exist before the Universe was ever created. It is Gods script, we are no more than play actors following our roles. This seems like a pretty hopeless view of existance to me.

On the other hand, Free will tends to indicate that God cannot be all knowing for God cannot know an individuals action(If God did know an individual actions it is because God made it so--thus predestination pops up again. But we are suppose the opposite.) Thus God cannot be all knowing. For if God is all knowing, then we have predestination--God knows because he made it so.


Maybe I am missing something here. I guess I need to look at some Christian theological arguments to see what others say.

It is entirely possible to know everything that has happened without knowing everything that will happen.

Not that I actually believe that God is omniscient, that is a quality ascribed to God by Greek philosophy, not the Bible.

so god is not all we make him out to be?