Gunny's Thread on Religion

[Care4all]

I just had a thought occur to me.

God knows everything that is going to happen, and has known since...well, since forever, right? And it's all part of God's plan, right?

And God endowed humankind with free will, right? Meaning that God doesn't control the decisions and actions we take, right?

Here's my point: If God knows what is going to happen, and its part of His plan, then how do we have free will? Either human beings have free will to make decisions which God has no control over which then are necessarily not part of His plan, or human beings act according to God's plan. Which is it?

If you expand the scope of the question to all humankind, meaning the billions of decisions made every moment of the day, how does God's plan account for the free will of all those decisions, especially after centuries of those decisions? For example, was Jesus Christ God's contingency plan when humankind wasn't going the way He planned for? Or was Jesus Christ planned for from the beginning? If God always knew that He would send Jesus Christ to Earth as a sacrifice, then He must necessarily have known in advance the decisions that would be made by each human being on Earth so that the necessary situation would arise in which Jesus Christ's sacrifice was needed.

Can anyone address that paradox?

This is one example of the duality and complexity of God. There's no way that humans can grasp it.

But, even though humans can't understand it, YOU can, so you go on to explain it to us...

He has complete knowledge of what will happen and what has happened...and everything happens according to his plan...and yet at the same time we in our ignorance are able to experience free will. We are allowed that freedom, but because God is so far ahead of our curve, he still knows exactly what we will choose and how, and has constructed the universe to encompass our decisions.

Several times in the Bible, God is surprised by what his people do. How can that be so if he has complete future foreknowledge?

The Christian faith says that God is omniscient...but, logically speaking, can the future be known? Maybe God doesn't know the future because knowledge of the future is a logical impossibility, and the future doesn't yet exist to be known.

can you give me an example of God being surprised by our actions i-a-i? i can look up the passage and see if i read something in to it, that you may not see?

care

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I just had a thought occur to me.

God knows everything that is going to happen, and has known since...well, since forever, right? And it's all part of God's plan, right?

And God endowed humankind with free will, right? Meaning that God doesn't control the decisions and actions we take, right?

Here's my point: If God knows what is going to happen, and its part of His plan, then how do we have free will? Either human beings have free will to make decisions which God has no control over which then are necessarily not part of His plan, or human beings act according to God's plan. Which is it?

If you expand the scope of the question to all humankind, meaning the billions of decisions made every moment of the day, how does God's plan account for the free will of all those decisions, especially after centuries of those decisions? For example, was Jesus Christ God's contingency plan when humankind wasn't going the way He planned for? Or was Jesus Christ planned for from the beginning? If God always knew that He would send Jesus Christ to Earth as a sacrifice, then He must necessarily have known in advance the decisions that would be made by each human being on Earth so that the necessary situation would arise in which Jesus Christ's sacrifice was needed.

Can anyone address that paradox?

Again, you're trying to apply your limited senses to the Creator...

As a human biologic, you're brain is only able to perceive this single dimension, and within this dimension a sliver of the light spectrum, and a very narrow range of lower frequency waves within our atmosphere....

Beyond that, the extent to which our cutting edge of scientific technology can expand on that is designed within the limits of that which our observations are able to cull, with regards to what may be out beyond our perception.

As discussed earlier, theoretical physics has determined that the universe which we perceive is but one of an infinite number of universes, which the theory holds are comprised of dimensions wherein every conceivable potential moment exists simultaneously... meaning that everything that can happen, is happening right now in this ( which we perceive as an) instant.

If such is true, then a being or entity which exists within the scope of that reality would have little trouble with onmiscience.

Leading many to conclude, that at the end of the day, when all the math is summed, all the tests are in; science will come to realize that once again, the secular left is or was wrong... and that God does indeed exists and that what those us us who have allowed ourselves to listen, were closer to the truth than those who refused to listen and allowed themselves to be decieved.

It's a certainty that god exists, but the composition and means of God is wholly irrelevant to us, as we've no means to control it; no means to contest it and in the end no means to deny it.

 

[AllieBaba]

-and 'God' was unable to protect hos word or inspire those who translated it, so that all could know his true word? Or just unwilling?

freewill....of man.

the Bible specifically mentions and gives warning that man will try to change words or add words to the Bible for their own meaning....and what their destination is after death if they are one of the ones that did such.

Obviously God was well aware of what we would do or could do, with our own freewill....I still wouldn't give it up for anything in the world....who wants to be without their own free will and a puppet of sorts?

care

So how do we know that the current canon of the scriptures is not corrupt and leading everyone away from God?

-Joe

We know it because it is holy. The book itself cannot be wrong because it has the Holy Spirit within it. God determined we would have the Word, in the form of Christ and the Holy Bible, and those two things are incorruptible. Because God's hand is on it, in it, and the Holy Spirit is within it, it remains the word of God and we can have faith that it is whole, correct, and holy.

Other books are fallible. But because God promised us that he would see to it that the Bible would remain correct and infallible, we can be assured that it is. It's that simple. Whatever has happened with the Bible has happened according to God's plan, and it remains the word of God, and therefore holy and a living entity.

 

[AllieBaba]

Isn't dialogue wonderful? I do NOT believe in the great "I AM", and yet Barb and I have significant agreement regarding historical religion on this planet.

Thank (insert your preferred Deity here) for America!

-Joe

Good for you Joe.

No doubt that this moment of comity; with you having used it to proudly declare yourself here as rejecting fellowship with the Father... thus using the full scope of your infuence on this board to discourage other souls from such fellowship... will provide you with much comfort during the eternity wherein you suffer incomprehensible anguish and torment.

Could it be that he instead rejects your interpretation? And hell, how could he do such a thing, as attractive as it is. "Let ye be fishers of men" does not mean "you stab them, we'll slab them." I'm just sayin.

It doesn't matter, that's what's so sad. You can whine about interpretation till the cows come home, the word of God is straightforward, and we are supposed to take it at it's word. In the end, there will be those who do so, and who are saved...and those who think they can argue with God and still get to heaven..or who doubt the existence of God and deny Christ, and who won't get to heaven.

You can make the best argument in the world for not believing. It won't matter in the end...because then you WILL believe, but because you rejected Christ and essentially said, "He died in vain and not for me because my intellect wants to argue with God"....then you will likewise be rejected by Christ.

Those who rejected him in life will be rejected by him at the end. It doesn't matter what you believe, that's the way it will be. You can laugh all you like, and argue semantics all day long. It won't make you right in the end.

 

[AllieBaba]

No, you were deleted because you did exactly what Gunny asked the anti-Christian assholes not to do in the begining...that is troll the thread, insult believers, and make ridiculous assertations of their own superiority while at the same time demeaning believers as insignificant retards.

You can't argue intelligently or in a civilized manner, so you resort to insults and pompous self-aggrandizing. Which not only is insulting to those of us who are intelligent, but is offensive to all who believe, and bigoted besides.

 

[AVG-JOE]

freewill....of man.

the Bible specifically mentions and gives warning that man will try to change words or add words to the Bible for their own meaning....and what their destination is after death if they are one of the ones that did such.

Obviously God was well aware of what we would do or could do, with our own freewill....I still wouldn't give it up for anything in the world....who wants to be without their own free will and a puppet of sorts?

care

So how do we know that the current canon of the scriptures is not corrupt and leading everyone away from God?

-Joe

We know it because it is holy. The book itself cannot be wrong because it has the Holy Spirit within it. God determined we would have the Word, in the form of Christ and the Holy Bible, and those two things are incorruptible. Because God's hand is on it, in it, and the Holy Spirit is within it, it remains the word of God and we can have faith that it is whole, correct, and holy.

Other books are fallible. But because God promised us that he would see to it that the Bible would remain correct and infallible, we can be assured that it is. It's that simple. Whatever has happened with the Bible has happened according to God's plan, and it remains the word of God, and therefore holy and a living entity.

I appreciate your passion Allie, but do you know it is 'holy', or do you believe it is 'holy'?

There is not much difference in the words per se, but there is in their usage here, especially how it applies to acknowledging the existence of other, contradictory beliefs. For instance, I believe that no book, or man-made thing, including The Bible, is 'holy', but I have enough respect for your beliefs to not proclaim my belief as common knowledge.

Is this not something we can agree to disagree on, while defending each others American right to be wrong?

-Joe

 

[Gunny]

I am afraid to post to much on this thread since stating something I think is true (my perception) could seriously insult someone possessing a radically different Perception from mine. Yet the question begs, How does one talk about religion and compare beliefs and understanding.

Should we tip toe around each others emotions? Like If I were a Christian, I have to not inscribe the concept "All non-believers go to hell!!" when I talk to JB or Agnaposte? Or if I were Jewish, should I hold my tongue and agree dishonestly when someone exclaims the glories of Christ?

I can understand the sensitivity surrounding religon. In a sense, you are talking about an intricate part of persons personality and how the individual might view themselves. But where is the fine line, the no man zone, when we discuss such a topic.

Is there some set of rules that describes what is acceptable language and what is considered RUDE.


Since we are about to start attacking each other over the Divine topic(religion), I took up the liberty of drawing upon my STATIST side of my brain and wish to suggests these rules.

The Politically Correct way of discussing Religion

1) When making a statement that is peculiar to your belief, Please Start the following with "I believe that..." or "According to my understanding,....."

For instance "According to my understanding about Atheism, The practioner does not possess any religious principles. Therefore, how can I trust an Atheists??"

2) When addressing someone outside your religious belief. Please refrain from using terms that could be provocative. A suggested term is Non-co-religionists.

3) If you are not part of a religious belief, do not make arguements as if you have obtained mastery of it. UNLESS, you do hold all necessary documents that indicate that you have mastery of said religion as indicated and honored by the ranking members of that religious belief. There are exception such as religions without a central governing body.

4) If you are fearful, or completely dislike a relgious belief and/or the people that practice it. Please treat them as human beings and treat them as if they were apart of your belief system or social group.


Are there any other suggestions. With enough help, we will make this the most Political Correct Religion Discussion board on the planet. How many of you are with me!!

(SIGNATURE WITHHELD DUE TO THE SENSITIVITY OF MY FELLOW NON-CO-RELIGIONISTS!!)

I just don't talk about it usually. You might find a post here and there in this forum, usually when I'm bored. I tend to stay out of the same back-and-forth trash-talking I've heard for the past 8 years. It never changes.

 

[Gunny]

Would you agree that where theology tries to encroach on science, it is also out of its depth? At least that the two should be taught as separate disciplines?
As for happenstance in science, ecology, specifically the study of biota, suggests evolution is evident in many more places than you might think. The hierarchy of levels, scales, and natural constraints of different criteria, and even landscape corridors match in some way arrangements of human government, civil engineering, competition, family structure (more cohesive within than without), and social activity points to the smallest of organisms. Humans, no matter how one sees them emerging, got here last. Does it not seem more reasonable that the similarities we see are evolutionary, and that we copy other organisms because we have a (or some) shared beginning (s)?

As for me, I believe in the great "I am," but I also believe that a supreme being, or deity, has the necessary reach to reach all people in the way they would best understand. Its the "dad likes me best" wars of exclusive use I find disturbing about organized religion, the social controls built into the dogma, and the history of using it as an excuse to demonize others to steal their women, their land, and their water.

Isn't dialogue wonderful? I do NOT believe in the great "I AM", and yet Barb and I have significant agreement regarding historical religion on this planet.

Thank (insert your preferred Deity here) for America!

-Joe

I find much that is admirable in the atheist view that people have only one shot to get it right, and that one shot carries the responsibility to do the good one would do in this world while one is present in it. Just in case, or if there just isn't as much time left, or simply because its the right thing to do regardless, I believe everyone should live as such.

Your comment makes no sense. How does one "get it right'? if there is no consequence, right or wrong? There's nothing TO get right.

 

[Gunny]

Moses was a reluctant messenger, as were Christ and most of the prophets.

Some of the posts from last night were deleted?

Must be JB's obnoxiousness deleted by Gunny?

I got 16 going so far, and not even on the last page. They aren't all JBs. Only 1 is as a matter of fact. He has been better than some at adhering to my OP.

 

[Gunny]

No, you were deleted because you did exactly what Gunny asked the anti-Christian assholes not to do in the begining...that is troll the thread, insult believers, and make ridiculous assertations of their own superiority while at the same time demeaning believers as insignificant retards.

You can't argue intelligently or in a civilized manner, so you resort to insults and pompous self-aggrandizing. Which not only is insulting to those of us who are intelligent, but is offensive to all who believe, and bigoted besides.

I have not deleted one of his posts up to this point. I have one I am going to delete that was a response to someone else's attack.

My OP does NOT say he cannot argue his beliefs. Only that members will behave and be civil in this thread. The fact that he does not believe what you or I does is not the issue I addressed.

 

[Gunny]

Anyone missing a post can re-read my OP to understand why. Behave. If all you have are insults, then you have no argument to make here.

I think al gunn and PI lost most of their posts. Get a clue, huh?

 

[KittenKoder]

Back on topic ...

Religion can have almost any incarnation but is essential to the development of humanity. I have made my post on the reasoning, and no, not one "science freak" has yet to counter anything I said then. As to which religion is better, I see very little reason one is better than any other. All go through a period of violence and aggressive expansion, and hopefully evolve to a better form finding a balance or failing they fade into history.

 

[Barb]

Isn't dialogue wonderful? I do NOT believe in the great "I AM", and yet Barb and I have significant agreement regarding historical religion on this planet.

Thank (insert your preferred Deity here) for America!

-Joe

I find much that is admirable in the atheist view that people have only one shot to get it right, and that one shot carries the responsibility to do the good one would do in this world while one is present in it. Just in case, or if there just isn't as much time left, or simply because its the right thing to do regardless, I believe everyone should live as such.

Your comment makes no sense. How does one "get it right'? if there is no consequence, right or wrong? There's nothing TO get right.

Everything has consequences, for or from people we share space with here on earth, or future generations who have to deal with or enjoy what we leave in our wake. It isn't necessary for the results of our actions to be judged from on high, as it were, to care about the results. There is plenty to get wrong or right from an ethical standpoint. Ethics and morals might seem similar, but ethics are independent of religious dogma.

 

[JBeukema]

Back on topic ...

Religion can have almost any incarnation but is essential to the development of humanity.

How are you defining 'community'? For instance, if a re3ligous ideology promotes discrimination against non-believers, then sure, it betters things for the 'community' of believers. For the larger society and greater community, however, it is detrimental to equality. If 'community' is simply those who believe the right dogma, you are correct. Insomuch as all of humanity is considered a community that must coexist, religious beliefs can and oft have been detrimental.

I have made my post on the reasoning, and no, not one "science freak" has yet to counter anything I said then

What post are you referencing?

All go through a period of violence and aggressive expansion, and hopefully evolve to a better form finding a balance or failing they fade into history.

They don't 'go through' any such 'period'. Religion posits that it is unfalsifiable, absolutely true, and therefore unchangable. The teachings and commandments, once made a part of the religion, are there to stay and will always remain. The periods of peace do not reflect the 'evolution' of such religions, byt the progress of a society that rejects those religons (or begins to reject them, starting with the most abhorrant aspects therof).

 

[KittenKoder]

Back on topic ...

Religion can have almost any incarnation but is essential to the development of humanity.

How are you defining 'community'? For instance, if a re3ligous ideology promotes discrimination against non-believers, then sure, it betters things for the 'community' of believers. For the larger society and greater community, however, it is detrimental to equality. If 'community' is simply those who believe the right dogma, you are correct. Insomuch as all of humanity is considered a community that must coexist, religious beliefs can and oft have been detrimental.

I have made my post on the reasoning, and no, not one "science freak" has yet to counter anything I said then

What post are you referencing?

All go through a period of violence and aggressive expansion, and hopefully evolve to a better form finding a balance or failing they fade into history.

They don't 'go through' any such 'period'. Religion posits that it is unfalsifiable, absolutely true, and therefore unchangable. The teachings and commandments, once made a part of the religion, are there to stay and will always remain. The periods of peace do not reflect the 'evolution' of such religions, byt the progress of a society that rejects those religons (or begins to reject them, starting with the most abhorrant aspects therof).

Aaah ... with all that vast storage of facts on your computer and yet ... nothing about religion huh? Most religions do not actually discriminate against "non-believers" ... only a few organized ones, none of the pagan ones do, on the contrary the pagan ones are so unorganized you cannot determine who the "non-believers" are in most cases. Only a few of the thousands of religions also have "commandments" ... most of us are not arrogant enough to say any of the possible gods spoke to us directly over all other people. What you are doing is ignoring all but one religion, and oddly doing a poor job of interpreting that one (which oddly has many variations now, even a few pagan ones). They have evolved as a whole though, and the progress of society does not reject religion, it rejects zealots from all walks, even yours. There is only one universal "law" to all religions, though rarely followed by some of the organized ones, the "live and let live" law.

 

[Gunny]

I find much that is admirable in the atheist view that people have only one shot to get it right, and that one shot carries the responsibility to do the good one would do in this world while one is present in it. Just in case, or if there just isn't as much time left, or simply because its the right thing to do regardless, I believe everyone should live as such.

Your comment makes no sense. How does one "get it right'? if there is no consequence, right or wrong? There's nothing TO get right.

Everything has consequences, for or from people we share space with here on earth, or future generations who have to deal with or enjoy what we leave in our wake. It isn't necessary for the results of our actions to be judged from on high, as it were, to care about the results. There is plenty to get wrong or right from an ethical standpoint. Ethics and morals might seem similar, but ethics are independent of religious dogma.

Really? If you don't get it right the first time, how does what happens differ from you getting it wrong if there is no afterlife in which to suffer consequences?

Ethics don't mean a thing to eternally dead.

 

[JBeukema]

Aaah ... with all that vast storage of facts on your computer and yet ... nothing about religion huh? Most religions do not actually discriminate against "non-believers" ... only a few organized ones,

You said that 'Religion can have almost any incarnation but is essential to the development of humanity'. I have shown that i is oft, in fact, detrimental.

none of the pagan ones do,

Define 'pagan', seeing as I've already tried explaining this simple concept to you before. 'Pagan' is a catch-all for non-christian religions; it is not a convenient label for whatever new-age neopaganism KK findsconvenient

on the contrary the pagan ones are so unorganized you cannot determine who the "non-believers" are in most cases.

Such non-systems of personal spirituality lack the ability to have ann dramatic effect on society as a whole- including progress, making them unfit to support your assertions.

Only a few of the thousands of religions also have "commandments" ...

All moderately-sized to large organized religions (notice this thread is about 'religion' NOT 'personal belief systems') issue commandments. Even most personal systems are used to justify morality and codes of ethics amongst adherents.

Of course, you refuse to site the 'thousands of religons' that fit your utiopian vision, I've noticed

most of us are not arrogant enough to say any of the possible gods spoke to us directly over all other people. What you are doing is ignoring all but one religion

What you are doing is projecting and speaking utter falsities. Show that what I said applies only to a single faith, or where I said that all religions are inherently discriminatory,. as you implied at the beginning of your response. You're so blinded by your personal desire to attack me and anything I say that you do not read what is written and what is not, and you fail to actually address the points I have made.

, and oddly doing a poor job of interpreting that one (which oddly has many variations now, even a few pagan ones).

So, forst you insist that my statements are only appliocable to a single religiion, and now you say that it's really many religions- some of which you'd give your beloved titl;e of 'pagan'? Your're contradicting yourself again.

They have evolved as a whole though,

You have not addressed my points; you are mearly ignoing the fact that religion declares itself true and infallible (with few exceptions, which are better defined as ideologies and philosophies)nd that, therefore, those teachings can always be cited as valid, or the religion must decalre itself invalid.

There is only one universal "law" to all religions, though rarely followed by some of the organized ones, the "live and let live" law.

What world do you live in? Judaism teaches that the non-believers must be slain and their lands conquered. Islam teaches that the infidels must be purged from the Arab penninsula, sve for other abrahamites, who can seek protected staus as second-class citizens. Chritianity teches that non-believers follow the devil, cannot be trusted, and must be converted. Hindu isn't even so much a religion as an umbrella term for numberous sytems that have had past trouble getting along with one another.Buddhism ismore of a philosophy than a religion, and many local 'pagan' religions involved conquest, sacrifice, or similar beliefs that made clear sdistinction between 'us' and 'them'

 

[AVG-JOE]

It doesn't matter, that's what's so sad. You can whine about interpretation till the cows come home, the word of God is straightforward, and we are supposed to take it at it's word. In the end, there will be those who do so, and who are saved...and those who think they can argue with God and still get to heaven..or who doubt the existence of God and deny Christ, and who won't get to heaven.

You can make the best argument in the world for not believing. It won't matter in the end...because then you WILL believe, but because you rejected Christ and essentially said, "He died in vain and not for me because my intellect wants to argue with God"....then you will likewise be rejected by Christ.

Those who rejected him in life will be rejected by him at the end. It doesn't matter what you believe, that's the way it will be. You can laugh all you like, and argue semantics all day long. It won't make you right in the end.

Thanks Allie. Your position and passion could not be more clear and I for one appreciate that. I also appreciate your sharing with me and I can tell that you're intention was not to beat me up or belittle my beliefs, but out of a genuine concern for my soul.

I will tell you that I do understand EXACTLY what you're talking about, and if time and death proves you right I will have regrets. Deep regrets. On the other hand, I accept the fact that I made my choice and, unlike many in my position, I made my choice with a complete knowledge of the options. That being said, I can't in good conscious profess a desire to go to a heaven that I have an intellectual understanding of if I don't have a sold-out personal belief in the creation and redemption stories that are the foundations of the Christian Faith.

To me, in my humble opinion, the stories are not supported by the physical evidence left over by our planets history. There are other reasons I have lost faith in the accuracy of the history and stories of The Bible, but both points are moot in the context of this post - we will have to agree to disagree regarding the 'holiness' of The Bible - Though I don't share it, I respect your faith in The Bible.

In light of that, can we be friends anyway? All I ask is a mutual respect for each others belief systems.

-Joe

 

[Al Gunn]

So Allie, serious question: So the only people who are going to heaven are the tiny sliver pf people who completely adhere to the bible and believe in jesus...? Maybe a max of 10% of the world's people? No muslims, no hindus, no ...?
Btw, calling someone an asshole, is that a christian term?

 

[Barb]

Your comment makes no sense. How does one "get it right'? if there is no consequence, right or wrong? There's nothing TO get right.

Everything has consequences, for or from people we share space with here on earth, or future generations who have to deal with or enjoy what we leave in our wake. It isn't necessary for the results of our actions to be judged from on high, as it were, to care about the results. There is plenty to get wrong or right from an ethical standpoint. Ethics and morals might seem similar, but ethics are independent of religious dogma.

Really? If you don't get it right the first time, how does what happens differ from you getting it wrong if there is no afterlife in which to suffer consequences?

Ethics don't mean a thing to eternally dead.

It means something to others who have to live with the results of the life one has lived on earth. Some consider other peoples well being even without the threat of being darned to heck, or the promise of a castle in the clouds. By what authority do you assume what ethics mean to others? If we must assume at all, isn't it better (and in the case of Christians, more Christ like) to assume our fellows best intentions?