Predestination

[Derideo_Te]

Good, you are coming to grips with the essence of the cognitive dissonance that is inherent in this concept.

It is not our brains that can't grasp it. We do understand that there is a logical paradox here. What matters is how do we resolve it.

So, are you saying that there is NOTHING our brains can't grasp?

Where did I make that claim?

We are discussing predestination and yes, we can grasp that concept and the logical paradox that it presents.

You brought it up because it does present a cognitive dissonance problem for theists. Presumably you did so because you wanted to find out how to deal with it yourself.

Understanding the problem is the first step to resolving it.

Actually, I believe the foreknowledge and free will can exist.

I do NOT believe that God "picks/picked" who he wanted in Heaven with him and who he didn't.

I also think there are things people on this earth will never be able to explain, prove or understand, yet, are still true..... I don't think a truth has to be proved or even be logical.

I will stick with the dictionary definition of truth.

Truth Define Truth at Dictionary.com

Your fungible belief in "truthiness" is not something I am willing to embrace.

Truthiness Define Truthiness at Dictionary.com

The former is more honest IMO.

If you choose to believe in Webster or whoever before God that is your choice.
Your heart tells you what is true.
Your flesh and mind tells you what you want.
Which do you listen to?

The truth is honesty whereas religion is truthiness. The difference is significant and I know that I prefer honesty.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I am glad to see the atheists here come to grip with the cognitive dissonance that disguises the fact they cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.

Atheists are under no obligation to "disprove the existence of God".

Just as Christians are under no obligation to prove the existence of God. We are only obligated to obey Him, spread the Gospel, God will prove Himself, to every person, in His time.

If you want others to believe in your god and to obey the dogma of your religion then yes, the onus is on you to provide evidence that your god exists while thousands of others don't.

De, if you want folks to believe as you, the onus is on you as well.

Both militant groups should give grace to one another but won't.

I really don't care what other folks believe. I am not looking for converts. I am just here to defend atheism from those that propagate lies about it.

And yes, I expose the holes in Christianity when they try to attack science and knowledge.

But what anyone wants to believe is up to them. No skin off my nose if they want to be wiccans or shintoists. It is all the same to me.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then treat others as you wish, Te, with calm and grace.

I care not that you are an atheist, which affects in no way my admiration for you.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Then treat others as you wish, Te, with calm and grace.

I care not that you are an atheist, which affects in no way my admiration for you.

The feeling is mutual, Jake.

You are a good person whose judgments and opinions I value.

You are also one of the very first people here at USMB who made me feel that there was a kindred spirit in this forum.

For that I always be grateful.

 

[Fat Bastardo]

What are your thoughts on this?

Obviously, this would be primarily a question for Christians (though non-Christian's could weigh in)

The concept is that with God being Sovereign, it was decided from the beginning whether certain people were going to be "saved" or not.

there is more it than this, but, that the general idea.....

What does the Bible say about free will and predestination?

Keep in mind that the God of Abraham is a particularly evil being and even before people are born God sends them to hell or gives them a shitty life because that's just the evil kind of prick that he is.

• Rom.8:29-30 "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate.... Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

• Rom.9:11-22 "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth .... For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction."

• Eph.1:4-5 "He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will."

• 2 Th.2:11-12 "God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned."

O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps. Jeremiah 10:23

As you can plainly see God's will trumps free will every time. Only a real asshole would act like God.

Isaiah 45:9 -

Woe to those who quarrel with their Maker, those who are nothing but potsherds among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, 'What are you making?' Does your work say, 'The potter has no hands'?

Who are YOU to question God?

Not questioning God at all and you know it. You know damn well all I did was post what God said. God said that he predestined humans for all the bad shit they face and there is nothing they can do about it. I think I need to elaborate.

What the Bible says about Free Will
Firstly: God determines who is going to heaven ...


"And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." -- Acts 13:48


"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate.... Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." -- Romans 8:29-30


"Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began." -- 2 Timothy 1:9


"He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will." -- Ephesians 1:4-5


"God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation." -- 2 Thessalonians 2:13


and who is going to hell.


"God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned." -- 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12


"For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation." -- Jude 4


Secondly: There's nothing you can do about it.


"For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth. .... For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction." -- Romans 9:11-22

What about these verses don't you understand?

God predestined us all to be in Christ's image.
Do you want to accept Christ as the sacrifice for sin? Or not?

Do you accept Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny? I did and then I turned 5 and realized it was a fairy tale.

Now you are misrepresenting what the Bible says. Where does it say that God predestined us to be in Christ's image? Your statement is so full of errors. First off there were many "Christs" who predate Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus Christ is a myth borrowed from other myths. Secondly, GROW UP!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Lots of assertions, Fat Bastardo: not working.

 

[Fat Bastardo]

Lots of assertions, Fat Bastardo: not working.

You are correct; the Bible is just assertions with absolutely no proof. It had to be written by Christians and Republicans. None of the assertions in the Bible work like the lie Jesus told about ushering in the kingdom of god during the lifetimes of his disciples. Jesus was such a bullshit artist.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Fat Bastardo, yes, you are full of assertions. Thank you for agreeing. Assert and blurt \ and act like Yurt, Won't get you far here.

Predestination is an interesting doctrine that deserves far more respect than the nonsense you are delivering.

 

[BluePhantom]

What are your thoughts on this?

Obviously, this would be primarily a question for Christians (though non-Christian's could weigh in)

The concept is that with God being Sovereign, it was decided from the beginning whether certain people were going to be "saved" or not.

there is more it than this, but, that the general idea.....

Usually I read an entire thread before chiming in, but I am not going to do that for this one. The question of free will vs. destiny has always been a subject of debate among Christians. When I was in high school I developed a philosophy to accommodate this which basically suggested that in order for one thing to happen to opposite of it must also exist. Thus, whatever choice we make in life there must exist an alternate reality wherein we have made a different choice. As such there must be an infinite number of realities that account for all possibilities and all are connected to God and the overall God/human experience. Thus there is free will because in any given reality we retain choice but since all possibilities have been accounted for there is also preordination. If memory serves I developed this after snacking on a bag of mushrooms. ;lol:

Still I took note when I began to learn about relativity, quantum mechanics, string theory, m-theory, and the theory of the multi-verse some years later. Was it possible that I had stumbled onto something while I was stoned on what was essentially low-grade acid as a kid? Beats me. I maintain a similar belief although it is not quite what I had developed back then.

Do some reading on Origen's concept of Logos. You might find that illuminating.

 

[BluePhantom]

I am glad to see the atheists here come to grip with the cognitive dissonance that disguises the fact they cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.

Atheists are under no obligation to "disprove the existence of God".

Depends on who is trying to convince who. If I am trying to convince you that God exists, then the burden of proof is upon me. If you are trying to convince me that my belief in God is in error, then the burden of proof lies upon you.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I am glad to see the atheists here come to grip with the cognitive dissonance that disguises the fact they cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.

Atheists are under no obligation to "disprove the existence of God".

Depends on who is trying to convince who. If I am trying to convince you that God exists, then the burden of proof is upon me. If you are trying to convince me that my belief in God is in error, then the burden of proof lies upon you.

Agreed!

I have never tried to convince anyone that God does not exist.

Instead I have asked theists to provide evidence that their God does exist since that is what would convince me that their beliefs are based upon substance.

To date none have produced anything at all so I am sticking with what I know and what works for me.

And yes, I support the right of theists to believe in their God(s).

 

[Agit8r]

If your God is omniscient then there is no free will because the choices you imagine you are making are preordained.

Yes, that includes your sins.

Exactly. It cannot be that a deity creates every individual just as they are, with all their chemical impulses set in motion by his sovereign hand, and then for the person to follow any inclination that can be called their own.

 

[Derideo_Te]

If your God is omniscient then there is no free will because the choices you imagine you are making are preordained.

Yes, that includes your sins.

Exactly. It cannot be that a deity creates every individual just as they are, with all their chemical impulses set in motion by his sovereign hand, and then for the person to follow any inclination that can be called their own.

Preprogrammed too!

 

[Abishai100]

Tool Theater

I remember visiting the famous Madam Toussad's Wax Museum in England with my family and thinking about how human beings are fascinated with creating images/models of behavior/activity (i.e., statues, dioramas, simulations, etc.).

We are at least curious about what a hypothetical supremely-authoritative God wants from us. We make images of our own behavior/activity or ponder the meaning of our own self-perception/self-awareness or the impression of our reflections in the mirror, almost as if we are curious about how others see us.

Maybe the most symbolic 'contract' between man and God deals with labor (i.e., farming, feeding, etc.).

What would a Calvinist say about man fulfilling his contract with God in reference to a dutiful German Lufthansa stewardess whose grandfather was an executioner working for the Nazis during World War II (1939-1945)?

 

[Agit8r]

If your God is omniscient then there is no free will because the choices you imagine you are making are preordained.

Yes, that includes your sins.

Exactly. It cannot be that a deity creates every individual just as they are, with all their chemical impulses set in motion by his sovereign hand, and then for the person to follow any inclination that can be called their own.

Preprogrammed too!

Then, to solve these programming errors, one is to invite the Holy Spirit to take possession of one's inclinations. But even St. Paul admitted that despite this he could not stop sinning. It is no wonder that blind faith is held paramount in such a system.

 

[BluePhantom]

I am glad to see the atheists here come to grip with the cognitive dissonance that disguises the fact they cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.

Atheists are under no obligation to "disprove the existence of God".

Depends on who is trying to convince who. If I am trying to convince you that God exists, then the burden of proof is upon me. If you are trying to convince me that my belief in God is in error, then the burden of proof lies upon you.

Agreed!

I have never tried to convince anyone that God does not exist.

Instead I have asked theists to provide evidence that their God does exist since that is what would convince me that their beliefs are based upon substance.

To date none have produced anything at all so I am sticking with what I know and what works for me.

And yes, I support the right of theists to believe in their God(s).

Fair enough, but I would argue that the standard of evidence is dependent upon the individual. For example, I was asked in this thread upon what I base my faith. I said that I base it upon personal experiences of a spiritual nature that defy explanation. That may not be good enough for you or for the person who asked, but it's good enough for me and that's all that matters where my faith is concerned. In other words, I am under no obligation to prove anything to anyone but myself...unless, of course, I begin to insist that my way is the only way or that others must adopt my belief system. The same is true for you, of course, or anyone else for that matter.

 

[Derideo_Te]

If your God is omniscient then there is no free will because the choices you imagine you are making are preordained.

Yes, that includes your sins.

Exactly. It cannot be that a deity creates every individual just as they are, with all their chemical impulses set in motion by his sovereign hand, and then for the person to follow any inclination that can be called their own.

Preprogrammed too!

Then, to solve these programming errors, one is to invite the Holy Spirit to take possession of one's inclinations. But even St. Paul admitted that despite this he could not stop sinning. It is no wonder that blind faith is held paramount in such a system.

Hmmm, food for thought here.

Are religions just bugs in programming loops that can't advance beyond 2000 years ago?

That would explain some of the oddities associated with predestination and account for deja vu.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I am glad to see the atheists here come to grip with the cognitive dissonance that disguises the fact they cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.

Atheists are under no obligation to "disprove the existence of God".

Depends on who is trying to convince who. If I am trying to convince you that God exists, then the burden of proof is upon me. If you are trying to convince me that my belief in God is in error, then the burden of proof lies upon you.

Agreed!

I have never tried to convince anyone that God does not exist.

Instead I have asked theists to provide evidence that their God does exist since that is what would convince me that their beliefs are based upon substance.

To date none have produced anything at all so I am sticking with what I know and what works for me.

And yes, I support the right of theists to believe in their God(s).

Fair enough, but I would argue that the standard of evidence is dependent upon the individual. For example, I was asked in this thread upon what I base my faith. I said that I base it upon personal experiences of a spiritual nature that defy explanation. That may not be good enough for you or for the person who asked, but it's good enough for me and that's all that matters where my faith is concerned. In other words, I am under no obligation to prove anything to anyone but myself...unless, of course, I begin to insist that my way is the only way or that others must adopt my belief system. The same is true for you, of course, or anyone else for that matter.

Absolutely agreed!

Your faith is a personal matter between you and your God. I would no more question your personal faith than I would pry into your personal life.

And you are correct that if you were to attempt to impose your beliefs on others then your beliefs are held to a higher and more public level of scrutiny.

But since that is not the case I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of your faith and it would be crass of me to expect you to provide personal experiences of your faith.

Religion is how some people define themselves and they assume that any criticism of their religion is a personal criticism too.

That assumption, like so many others, is based upon a fallacy.

Your personal relationship with your religion is not the same thing as your religion as laid out in various texts, hymnals, etc. That dogma and the actions taken by the leaders of that religion are open to criticism as is everything else.

Freedom of expression gives us that right.

And yes, atheists are open to criticism too.

 

[BluePhantom]

I am glad to see the atheists here come to grip with the cognitive dissonance that disguises the fact they cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.

Atheists are under no obligation to "disprove the existence of God".

Depends on who is trying to convince who. If I am trying to convince you that God exists, then the burden of proof is upon me. If you are trying to convince me that my belief in God is in error, then the burden of proof lies upon you.

Agreed!

I have never tried to convince anyone that God does not exist.

Instead I have asked theists to provide evidence that their God does exist since that is what would convince me that their beliefs are based upon substance.

To date none have produced anything at all so I am sticking with what I know and what works for me.

And yes, I support the right of theists to believe in their God(s).

Fair enough, but I would argue that the standard of evidence is dependent upon the individual. For example, I was asked in this thread upon what I base my faith. I said that I base it upon personal experiences of a spiritual nature that defy explanation. That may not be good enough for you or for the person who asked, but it's good enough for me and that's all that matters where my faith is concerned. In other words, I am under no obligation to prove anything to anyone but myself...unless, of course, I begin to insist that my way is the only way or that others must adopt my belief system. The same is true for you, of course, or anyone else for that matter.

Absolutely agreed!

Your faith is a personal matter between you and your God. I would no more question your personal faith than I would pry into your personal life.

And you are correct that if you were to attempt to impose your beliefs on others then your beliefs are held to a higher and more public level of scrutiny.

But since that is not the case I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of your faith and it would be crass of me to expect you to provide personal experiences of your faith.

Religion is how some people define themselves and they assume that any criticism of their religion is a personal criticism too.

That assumption, like so many others, is based upon a fallacy.

Your personal relationship with your religion is not the same thing as your religion as laid out in various texts, hymnals, etc. That dogma and the actions taken by the leaders of that religion are open to criticism as is everything else.

Freedom of expression gives us that right.

And yes, atheists are open to criticism too.

I would agree with that. The reason why is because organized religious structures are not emphasizing a personal faith based upon a relationship with God. I mean they are, but there is the expectation that the relationship will fit into a certain framework. I think how people develop their faith is a bit problematic. Most people are raised to believe certain things or are raised within a given religious community. So their beliefs are based upon the religious structure they are familiar with. So are they "true beliefs" or are they beliefs that have been thrust upon them? Are they having their relationship with God or are they having the relationship the Church has told them to have?

Put in more familiar terms, if Trinity and I were to structure the terms and organization of our marriage on the terms and organization of yours, would we have "our own marriage"? No...we would be having your marriage. It would not be our relationship, it would be an attempt to recreate your relationship. How is that going to work out? I would propose that it wouldn't work out very well because everyone has different needs and different things that are important to them that are based upon their life experiences. The marriage would probably not be terribly fulfilling for either of us.

I would suggest that what would be better is to develop your beliefs and then try to figure out where you stand in relation to everything else. In other words, explore your true inner beliefs and then say "now what does that make me? Catholic? Buddhist? Evangelical Christian? Hindu?", etc. I think what most people would find is that they don't fit any set religion. They might come close to some, but I think what the vast majority would find is that they are actually a mish-mash of a bunch of different faiths.

Thus, what value does an organized religious structure have? I would argue that for a person of advanced faith, it acts as a restraint upon the development of a personal relationship with God that is based upon one's inner truth. Therefore, they are unquestionably subject to scrutiny

 

[JakeStarkey]

Folks of advanced faith may well deal with some restraints openly in their practice of faith with a set organization. However, one can continue to develop hishers relationship with deity. I could worship with RCs without getting into a hassle about transubstantiation. I could worship with Mormons without getting into the fallacies of their supposed authority or what the Atonement means.