Theological Opinions

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Spock

The full quote IMR was "I am the truth, the way and the life" There's more to it but that places it in the correct context.

More awesome claims of the Christ . Thanks for posting them!

By the way, recognizing that Jesus says, "I am the truth, the way and the life," is important. Language matters. He didn't say, "I am a truth, a way and a life." Just making sure we all recognize this important point.

So to you, Spock, how does this context alter the meaning?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'm sure God will take your advice into account, next time he decides to create a universe .

i hope so... i always listen to my children's concerns, even if i think they are misguided

[inked]

I say, BJ, you seem to think God is made in the image of man. Christianity asserts that man is made in the image of God. And that the Divine Humility is such that HE became human, but here's a literary expression you may find interesting:

http://merecomments.typepad.com/mere...edict_a_3.html

Enjoy!

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

By the way, recognizing that Jesus says, "I am the truth, the way and the life," is important. Language matters. He didn't say, "I am a truth, a way and a life." Just making sure we all recognize this important point.

So to you, Spock, how does this context alter the meaning?

The full quote is: "I am the truth, the way and the life, no man goes to the Father but by way of the Son."

IMO, this holds true for those who believe that Christianity is for them.
However, Jews have 'spoken with The Father' for centuries before and since Jesus was on earth and I cannot believe that the statement totally makes their beliefs invalid.

Lastly, remember that Jesus also said : "I and my Father are one." and " He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." One of my favorites is: "there are many paths to The Father". This was expressed recently, thusly:

there are many paths to the Father where Christ can be found. He is not confined to one way as opposed to another. There are many churches and Christian sects who differ from one another in doctrine and theology, rituals of liturgy and sacrament, and in polity and every day practice in the field. Questions of who is right and who is wrong, who maintains orthodoxy and who pushes the window toward heresy, have occupied the church’s thinking always. Reformation is an ongoing necessity to keep the church true to its founder and relevant to the age in which it exists.

Hope this clarifies my views on your question.

Therefore it becomes a bridge and joins the two beliefs.

[inked]

a - theological counts, too, but does it?

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAF1A.htm

a review of Richard Dawkins and thoughts.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

We're agreed that the term free will is being used as meaning freedom from God, correct?

I wouldn't put it that way, mainly because I"m not sure what you mean by that. I think free will means that God has granted us the right to make many choices, in a subset of choices that He has allowed, that He does not force on us. I don't think our free will is unlimited. Nor do I think that it can thwart what God, in His omnipotence, wishes to specifically have happen. But I do think that God chooses to let us choose in many instances.

So God does not choose what actions we make. We do.

He allows us to choose, from options controlled by Him, in many areas of our life. Also remember that God can control things in ways that do NOT involve our personal choice. If He doesn't want me to meet with my girlfriends today, he could have me come down with the flu, and that does NOT interfere with a free-will choice of mine. Or He could choose to allow me to choose whether or not I"ll meet with them. Or He could determine that I MUST meet with them today and arrange for that, too, in a way that doesn't involve a choice that I would make or not make (we could bump into each other at the store).

I don't think I"m articulating this too well, I'm quite tired now. I guess this is kind of a first cut. But I think you're taking the predestination concept too far and applying it wholesale to everything in life, and I think that is an erroneous viewpoint. Why would God admonish us to choose things if He doesn't give us a choice? Usually in matters of interpretation, one interprets the unclear in the light of the clear, and I see personal choice written and called for all throughout the Bible, mixed in with moments of God not allowing us to choose.

And the bigger issue, which I'm too tired to write about now, is how God Himself states that He relates to us.

In that case, God has no hand in our choices, by definition. If he has no hand in our choices, he is leaving them to random chance.

I don't see how you can say He's leaving them to random chance. He's leaving them to the choice of a rational being made in His image.

Therefore he cannot both control our fates and not control our fates. They're contradictory.

I think He controls our larger fates and leaves many of the smaller choices to us, as an opportunity for us to hear, "Well done!"

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

you can go back to adam and eve... he tells them not to eat the fruit from the tree, but he doesn't take the time to say why... basically it's just "because i am who i am and i said so"

Are you perhaps quoting from the Bad Memory Version? In all of my Bibles, He definitely tells them why - "...for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die."

And they did

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Are you perhaps quoting from the Bad Memory Version? In all of my Bibles, He definitely tells them why - "...for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die."

And they did

considering the fact that death was foreign to them, how could they possibly understand the choice?

[Rían]

Do you think that God said, in effect, ""...for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely xofitrwslknfg." ?

I think a reasonable assumption would be that if they didn't understand the word, they would ask what it meant.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Do you think that God said, in effect, ""...for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely xofitrwslknfg." ?

I think a reasonable assumption would be that if they didn't understand the word, they would ask what it meant.

how could they possibly understand something that did not exist until after they were cast from eden? and by that i mean really understand the consequences of their actions?

[Rían]

First, I'm assuming that God knows more than people do, and until a person creates a universe I think that's a pretty safe assumption.

Now given that assumption, I think a good analogy is me explaining something to my 9 year old daughter. She hasn't taken physics yet, and doesn't understand about potential energy, but I could still explain that it's dangerous standing under a huge rock that is unstable looking. She would understand well enough to make an informed decision.

And besides, if you look at the reasons WHY Eve decided to go with what the serpent tempted her to do, it doesn't list "she didn't understand what death meant" as one of the options.

One doesn't need to fully understand nuclear fusion to know that nuclear bombs will be harmful.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Do you think that God said, in effect, ""...for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely xofitrwslknfg." ?

Awesome.

Maybe Adam and Eve did ask about the meaning of this new word...

Eve: God, what did that last word you said mean?
God: xofitrwslknfg?
Eve: Yes, that's the one.
God: It means that your life will end.
Adam: But what is life?
God: This is life. Your being. Your existence.
Adam: But how can that end, it's the only thing that exists?
God: There is death also.
Adam: But what is- er... you know, we're not being deliberately obtuse here.
Eve: We'll try to figure it out. Sorry to be a bother.
God: Oh, it's no bother.
Adam and Eve: *feel a bit sheepish*

edited to add: By the way Lief, no pressure on the replies. Good luck on your exam!

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I see what you mean now. Though it furthers my dislike for predestination. I smacked myself in the face; did God decide that for me in advance? Why God? That's just mean. (I actually hit myself kind of hard too. Whups. I didn't mean to! But maybe God intended me to, for doubting predestination. )

I was thinking about your post last night as I went to bed, my mind going over the argument, and then I woke up with a new thought on the subject. It's an overall point about free will arguments.

I think that the modern philosophy of free will is an attempt by man to bring God down to their level, so that we can understand him better. We understand that for a human to inflict random pain on someone else, this is bad. We don't take into account that God's ways are higher than our ways. If some of his actions don't make sense to us, we assume there is no sense in them, and just as a human inflicting random pain on someone else is bad, God inflicting random pain on someone else is bad. We're making a rather drastic assumption when we say that because we can't see the sense in God's choice, there can be no sense to it.

Another part of what inspires the philosophy of free will is that we hate the idea that we're out of control. We love to be in control. The more control we have, the better. The idea that we have no control, therefore, is instinctively repugnant.

However, in his control, God does not forbid us from being ourselves. He creates us in a certain way. Then we act according to the personalities he has given us. We have complete freedom to act according to our own natures, and God does not limit that freedom, to my knowledge. God also has complete freedom to act according to his nature. None of us, and God also, has the freedom to act in a way that's contrary to our natures, yet all of us have the freedom to act according to our natures. We do not have free will in the sense of freedom to act according to someone else's personality. I could try to act like my brother and might pull it off for a while, but that's not me. In fact, the decision to imitate him comes from my personality. I cannot imitate him forever, either. As Jesus said, "out of the contents of his heart, man speaks."

We do not have the freedom to choose anything God did not choose already, but we do have the freedom to be who we are and choose whatever comes out of our personality. God does not prevent us from being ourselves.

This is the same with an author writing a book. His characters are who they are. They have their own personalities, and the author does not interfere in them. He respects his characters enough to give them the freedom to act in the way their personality dictates they should. The author does not make the characters act in ways that are inconsistent with who they are. We have freedom to be who we are, and God to be who he is, but none of us has free will to be someone else, or to do things that are contrary to who they are. Thus, in predestining, God does not interfere with who we are. He does not "control us". He decides what we will do, but we decide to do it because that's who we are.

If a character in my book said to me, "why did you make me evil? Why don't you just let me change?" I would say tell that character, "you're being absurd! I don't make you do anything that doesn't come from you (or your own personality). Go change yourself!" If the character's personality is in such a condition that they want to change, the character will change. I will not use my omnipotence to make the character act in a way that is out-of-character. The character can choose for him or herself what he wants to do, not separate from my control, but not dominated by it either.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I agree with that. Well, free will = freedom from God deciding the course of our lives, but semantics shmemantics.

Agreed .

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

What God does not control, IMO, is the decision itself. Some people decide to be cruel. I don't think this means God doesn't care about us. I think of Him as a parent with grown children who lets us live our own lives out of love.

I agree that he lets us make "our own decisions" in a sense. He controls everything, designs everything, yet does not dominate everything. He does not use his control to make people do things. For example, if J.K. Rowling made Voldemort start acting nonstop like Neville Longbottom, that would be an abuse of her omnipotence. She doesn't do that. She gives Voldemort the freedom to be who she made him to be, according to the personality she gave him, just as God gives us the freedom to be who he made us to be. I don't agree with you that we are "grown children" ; in the Bible we're rightly compared to sheep, bullheaded and stupid. But God allows his creatures the same freedom he has, the freedom to be who they are.

Are you saying that God should give us freedom to act in ways that are outside of our personalities? Freedom to be someone else (though by the way, we do have the freedom to change in our personality, if it's in accord with the current personality that that personality change occurs)?

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

If I had a child who was 25, I would let him make his own decisions. I would give him advice sometimes (solicited or otherwise), and I would have raised him to be a kind person which hopefully would have worked out, but ultimately his life decisions would be his. That's more how I see God's relationship with humanity. I have a hard time putting some of my feelings on this into words - I see our relationship as being more complex than what I wrote, but I think that's a decent analogy. (All analogies, at some point, fall apart.)

Any control you sought to exert over someone who's 25 years old would be a dominance over him. It would be denying who he is, refusing to let him be who he is. God does not do that. He allows us to be who we are (who he made us to be), and like you said, he gives us advice. He allows us, according to our own personalities, to choose whether to follow that advice or not. He does not make us accept, or make us reject it, in the same way that you would if you made a 25 year old do what was against his will. You would be rejecting his personality's decision. God accepts our personalities' decisions. He allows us to act according to our personalities, according to who we are. He also decides our personalities, decides who we are, and decides all events. However, this does not mean he dominates us. He allows the 25 year old (and the 2 year old) to be who he is, and gives him advice. To my knowledge, he does not impose his power to make us be who we aren't. Neither does he allow us the freedom to do that. He has mercy on who he would have mercy, and hardens who he would harden, because he is the one who makes all decisions in the end. However, he also allows us to be who we are. What we decide is completely natural for us, and we can decide to do what we want to do. Whatever decision we make will come from our own personality, so we have freedom to act according to who we are. God, however, designs all events according to his purposes simultaneously.

Am I making any sense?

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Does that mean God predestined all the children who would die of curable childhood diseases, AIDS and HIV, starvation, war, child soldiers, torture, poverty, cruelty, intolerance, rape, hatred, ignorance, and all the other awful things in the world? I have a hard time believing that God is such a complete dillhole. This is my biggest problem with predestination. Because if it is so, I would have trouble believing that God loved us at all. (But I do think He loves us, thus my problems with this theology.)

Yes, God predestined all of the horrible and the wonderful things that have happened in this world. We do not understand all the reasons why.

Because we do not understand what all of his reasons might be, we should assume that there are no reasons. Is that what you're saying?

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Frodo had a personality and made decisions solely because Tolkien wrote him that way. Frodo is nothing at all without Tolkien. Is that what you mean about predestination? (I'm not judging this point.)

I agree with this.

A difference between us and fictional characters is that we have had the breath of life breathed into us. We are real.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

With free will, I could choose to work hard in life and try to help other people. I could also choose to be nasty to people. Or I could just coast through life.

Without free will, any of those outcomes are no longer choices. Then, what's the point of working hard?

If you choose not to work hard, you're condemning your own personality as lazy. God made lazy personalities and diligent ones. If you choose to work hard, you prove your personality to be a diligent one. God doesn't stop us from acting according to our personalities. He makes us act according to who we are, or "gives us the freedom" to act according to who we are. Are you asking for the freedom to act according to who someone else is? That sort of freedom is meaningless. Like RÃ*an just was saying, God gives us a subset of choices, rather than all choices. I don't have available to me the choice to act according to someone else's personality. My subset of choices is my personality. Every day, every minute, I choose what I will do according to my personality. All God "makes us" do is act according to our personalities. I wouldn't define our personality as having a "subset" of choices though. There is what we would naturally do according to our personality, and that is all. Our personality doesn't have multiple options, in my opinion. The one we choose is the one we are, and that is why at God's Day of Judgment, we will be judged according to our actions. If there is a subset of choices we randomly choose from, God wouldn't judge us based on our actions. What we do comes from our hearts.

I don't see this as meaningless, or without point. In fact, I'd say it has maximum meaning.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I'm going to try out a scenario from a predestination standpoint.

Let's say you get an A- on your exam, because you studied hard. Would that mean God decided you would work hard, and remember what you studied, to get that great mark? (I hope this is so. )

Yep. Though God may have had more purposes in it than the simple one that I get the mark. I also got the mark (In real life, jury's still out on what mark I got, by the way ) because I acted freely in accord with who I am. This freedom of choice isn't freedom from God's choice, but is freedom nonetheless to be who I am and do what I please.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I don't think I"m articulating this too well, I'm quite tired now. I guess this is kind of a first cut. But I think you're taking the predestination concept too far and applying it wholesale to everything in life, and I think that is an erroneous viewpoint. Why would God admonish us to choose things if He doesn't give us a choice?

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Why would God admonish us to choose things if He doesn't give us a choice? Usually in matters of interpretation, one interprets the unclear in the light of the clear, and I see personal choice written and called for all throughout the Bible, mixed in with moments of God not allowing us to choose.

From our perspective, we have a choice. We have to live our lives as though we have choices. He is speaking to us on our level, so as to be comprehensible. Another author analogy: I might choose at some point to speak to my characters in my book, and if I did, I would recommend that they do what is right. Then they would respond according to their personalities. I would write their responses, but they would still be acting in accord with who they are. I love them and care about them, and also want them to know me, and that is my motive for contacting them in the first place. My speaking to them builds my relationship with them.

Here lies a key difference between real life and the author analogy: we have the breath of life and my characters don't. My characters aren't alive, so there is no point in communicating with them. They don't feel and experience what I give them to feel and experience. God wouldn't love us anywhere near as much if we weren't real.

In the final analysis and from a divine perspective, we have no choice. However, from our perspectives, we have choices and must live accordingly. From both a divine and a human perspective, we have the freedom to be who we are, and we are alive. We have as much freedom as God does, for we and God alike act according to our own natures. God loves us, for we are his living, beautiful and glorious creations, built in his image. In his love for us, God wants to communicate with us. In order to communicate with us, he must come down to our level somewhat.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I don't see how you can say He's leaving them to random chance. He's leaving them to the choice of a rational being made in His image.

Interesting point. For a moment, I'll leave random chance aside, but let's look at this.

If I don't decide what movie I'm going to watch tonight, but leave it instead to a sibling, I'm leaving it to chance, though I know my sibling and thus of course have an idea of what movie it'll be. So am I really leaving it to chance? God foreknows every decision we'll make, so if he leaves the decision to us, he knows whether we'll end up in heaven or hell. This leads to an interesting question. Is he really leaving it to chance? Not really. I decided to hand the decision of the movie over to my sibling, knowing (or having a good idea) what movie she'd choose. If I thought she'd choose something I didn't like, I could have just decided not to watch a movie! So I guess that's not really chance. But in that case, God must have willed pain, sin and hell, because he foreknew it and created anyway. Unless you argue he could not possibly have created in any way such that sin did not come to exist.

[Nurvingiel]

Nice post!

What about someone who believes in free will and not God? You couldn't say that person was trying to bring God down to their level (about modern free will philosophy).

Not wanting to give up control is probably my biggest problem with predestination.

I really started to understand your point of view in this post, even though my brain is completely mush. I stayed up all night, and I can barely read. When I am more functional, I'll respond to your post more thouroughlly.

If your exam had essay questions, I bet you got an A+!

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The first point is that most of the Jews have rejected Jesus Christ as Lord. Consistently in Old Testament scriptures, when the Jews turned away from God, they experienced judgment as a result. Eventually, the everyone will be judged according to whether or not they have accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior. However, according to the Christian Epistles, both judgment and blessing, as well as rewards, come always "first to the Jews, and then to the Gentiles," for the Jews are God's chosen people.

The Jews' rejection of the Christ is no excuse for those who persecute them. Anti-Semitism is completely wicked. However, in the Old Testament, God often used wicked people with twisted philosophies to punish Israel for its sins. Assyria and Babylon would be two good examples. The persecution of the Jews that has occurred so strongly since the time of Jesus probably is in part because of the fact that they are God's chosen people, yet according to Christian theology, also denying God. God's judgments and his rewards always come "first to the Jews, then to the Gentiles."

The second point is also based on Christian theology. It is a pretty horrible point, as well. None of this is at all nice; it's all very, very ugly and horrible. When the Jews crucified Jesus, they cried out, "may his blood be on our heads and on our children." Thus, they cursed the Jewish people. The first phase of their curse: "may his blood be on our heads," was fulfilled when Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD. I believe that the second part of the curse has pursued the Jews since.

This curse is not elaborated on in the scripture, so far as I know. It is recorded though, and the power of both curses and blessings is strongly attested in the Old Testament.

So here are two points that are consistent with the God of the Old Testament, but only make sense if one accepts Christian theology. If one denies Christian theology, I can see how all the terrible persecution the Jews have been experiencing since the time of Christ would appear to make no sense.

So you're saying the holocaust happened because of what our ancestors did? My grandfather's family was slaughtered because of what happened 2000 years ago? Does God bear grudge? Really, if that's the reason I see no reason to believe in God. To murder (and you said its his punishment) 6 millions because of not accepting Jesus, or - even - killing him? Does it mean my grandsons will be murdered by God because I don't believe in him?
Even if Jews killed Jesus: How is it ok? How is it "righteous"? How is God merciful? Loving? Mind you, we're speaking of 6 millions that their only connection to the incident 2000 years ago is by blood, (and only partly). It's like you being punished because your grand grand grand mother was a murderer.

We could not experience God's mercy or justice if we did not also experience injustice and cruelty.

So there's cruelty only to show God's good qualities?

Without sin, we would have no frame of reference from which to understand what God was talking about, when he says he judges sin.

But that wouldn't be needed without a sin.

God hates evil and loves good, but this would be incomprehensible if there were no evil.

But why is it needed for us to comrehense evil if it doesn't exist? I'm sure God will still know what evil is (even without it existing), so they will still be good.

Furthermore, the glory revealed to God's followers after the suffering far outweighs what suffering we do experience here. It is the reward of righteousness, and of righteousness in the face of suffering and darkness.

God makes us suffer as a reward to righteousness? A reward? Wouldn't that make me want to be evil as much as possible?

[Arien the Maia]

I don't mean to interupt but I have a question. What does it mean to be Jewish? Do you have to believe in God and the Torah and all or is it a cultural reference too? In which case, how did the culture and religion become separate? Thanks for anyone who wants to attempt to answer this

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

So you're saying the holocaust happened because of what our ancestors did? My grandfather's family was slaughtered because of what happened 2000 years ago? Does God bear grudge? Really, if that's the reason I see no reason to believe in God. To murder (and you said its his punishment) 6 millions because of not accepting Jesus, or - even - killing him? Does it mean my grandsons will be murdered by God because I don't believe in him?
Even if Jews killed Jesus: How is it ok? How is it "righteous"? How is God merciful? Loving? Mind you, we're speaking of 6 millions that their only connection to the incident 2000 years ago is by blood, (and only partly). It's like you being punished because your grand grand grand mother was a murderer.

In the end, everyone who rejects the Christ will die. We're talking billions in the End Times, rather than 6 million. We're talking about the Gentiles, for Israel will have already been saved by that time. In the End Times, everyone who rejects Christ will be punished by horrible divine curses and then perish, as the world is "consumed in fire," according to one of the books of Peter. The Jews experience everything early however, rewards as well as judgments, because of their special role in God's plan.

I'm still unsure, myself, whether or not the severe persecution the Jews have experienced is also a divine judgment for killing Christ. I'm unsure, still. However, I am quite sure that curses can come back to bite people, even many generations after, just as blessings also will. A curse that puts the shedding of God's blood on their heads and their offspring's heads is a horrible curse indeed. Such curses aren't just. They are demonic. They also are powerful. This one, I think, will be broken when Israel mourns for the one they have pierced (Zechariah 12:10-14).

This matter has both its human and its divine aspects. Humans cursed themselves and on their offspring. God judges them early for their sin of rejecting him, though he will judge the Gentiles also with this sin in the end.

I'm not arguing that the persecution the Jews have experienced is divine retribution for Jesus' death. I don't know if that is true. This curse was spoken by humans upon themselves and their offspring, not by God, and curses and blessings have spiritual power that does not always come from God. God is responsible, however, for the part of this that is punishment for rejecting him.

What is it to accept God into one's heart? Accepting God into one's heart is accepting goodness. When Adam sinned, all men fell with him. Accepting Jesus into our hearts restores us, for he saves men from sin. Sin cannot hold those whom Jesus has entered. Jesus begins transforming them here and finishes the work in heaven. He undoes the evil created by Adam.

One who rejects Jesus, then, rejects the mercy of God, for Jesus' suffering on the cross and his resurrection saved humanity. What is left for a just God to do with sinners who refuse his mercy? There can only be judgment. There is no other choice.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

What about someone who believes in free will and not God? You couldn't say that person was trying to bring God down to their level (about modern free will philosophy).

I'm afraid I can't see any logic in a belief that accepts free will while rejecting a God who created it. I think someone would at least have to believe in the soul to believe in free will, for otherwise what are we but a bunch of biology, experience and environment being motored around by genes in who knows what direction? Unless, of course, the atheist or agnostic in question hasn't thought his or her beliefs through at all.

I have no clue how someone would attempt to rationalize free will while rejecting God and the soul. I'm stumped by that.

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

So there's cruelty only to show God's good qualities?

I wouldn't say that cruelty is only there to show God's good qualities. However, that is one of the positive things that comes from it.

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

But that wouldn't be needed without a sin.

God wants to reveal several aspects of his nature. One can better understand his nature if one sees it contrasted against what it isn't.

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

But why is it needed for us to comrehense evil if it doesn't exist? I'm sure God will still know what evil is (even without it existing), so they will still be good.

If we comprehend evil better, we will be able more fully to understand God's nature. Those who are born of God will end up becoming the Bride of Christ, a role so astounding in its implications that it's mind-boggling. That they should be better able to understand God's nature is good.

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

God makes us suffer as a reward to righteousness? A reward? Wouldn't that make me want to be evil as much as possible?

Glory is the reward for suffering for righteousness. "Blessed are they." Suffering isn't a reward.

[Rían]

oh, xofitrwslknfg!!!!!

I'm so frustrated at not being able to respond, I"m just feeling so darn punk!

I'll pick one or two things out from the myriad that I want to respond to:

Originally Posted by Lief

I think that the modern philosophy of free will is an attempt by man to bring God down to their level, so that we can understand him better.

I totally disagree. I think it is a realization that we are made BY God, in His image.

We understand that for a human to inflict random pain on someone else, this is bad. We don't take into account that God's ways are higher than our ways. If some of his actions don't make sense to us, we assume there is no sense in them, and just as a human inflicting random pain on someone else is bad, God inflicting random pain on someone else is bad. We're making a rather drastic assumption when we say that because we can't see the sense in God's choice, there can be no sense to it.

I don't see what this has to do with free will.

Another part of what inspires the philosophy of free will is that we hate the idea that we're out of control. We love to be in control. The more control we have, the better. The idea that we have no control, therefore, is instinctively repugnant.

Yet the converse is even more scary - that BECAUSE we have (limited) free will, we are TOTALLY accountable for our actions to a holy God who sees everything.

From our perspective, we have a choice.

And from the perspective of thousands of verses in the Bible that have the word "choose" in them.

We have to live our lives as though we have choices.

Why? Now that you've filled us in that we don't have choices why should we?

He is speaking to us on our level, so as to be comprehensible.

It's not incomprehensible that we have been given free will by God.

Another author analogy: I might choose at some point to speak to my characters in my book, and if I did, I would recommend that they do what is right. Then they would respond according to their personalities. I would write their responses, but they would still be acting in accord with who they are. I love them and care about them, and also want them to know me, and that is my motive for contacting them in the first place. My speaking to them builds my relationship with them.

Your author analogy is very safe.
I don't think it's true.
I asked you this before, but I"ll ask again - what are some of the analogies that God Himself uses to illustrate the relationship between Him and us, and what's your estimate of the relative frequency of their usage?

We have as much freedom as God does, for we and God alike act according to our own natures.

But who writes for God's character?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I don't see what this has to do with free will.

Unexplained pain was one of the reasons Nurvi gave for rejecting predestination. I was showing that the fact that we don't know all the answers doesn't mean that those answers we don't know don't exist.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Yet the converse is even more scary - that BECAUSE we have (limited) free will, we are TOTALLY accountable for our actions to a holy God who sees everything.

There's not really any difference, here. Even if God created creatures with free will, he created them with the full knowledge that the vast majority of them would sin, suffer and die. Thus, he was responsible for making the choice to create a universe he foreknew would go such a route. He could have chosen to create differently, or to not create at all. Thus, even in your free will example, God does bear the responsibility for his choice as well as his creations.

My predestination views are little different. According to predestination views, God planned what he would do beforehand and created as he did with good purpose. However, at the same time he created his creatures with certain personalities and the freedom to act according to those personalities. His will and theirs was done. The free will example is the same. God created, and his will as well as his creations' was done. Otherwise, he'd have created in a different way. Since he chose to create, he bears the responsibility for all he foreknew would happen, before creating.

It really all comes to the same thing.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And from the perspective of thousands of verses in the Bible that have the word "choose" in them.

The Bible is all about God's relationship with man. Thus, it is chock full of God's interaction with man. When God interacts with man, he must do so on their level. Thus, there naturally must be thousands of verses where the word "choose" is used. If I was an author talking to my creatures, teaching them about myself, I would do the very same thing.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Why? Now that you've filled us in that we don't have choices why should we?

Because God made us in his image. We have freedom and responsibility to act according to who we are. We are as free as God. If we shirk that, refusing to make choices, we are making the choice to be lazy and irresponsible. We will be rejecting what God made us to be. Our souls will rightfully be judged unworthy. Laziness is one of the seven deadly sins, RÃ*an .

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

It's not incomprehensible that we have been given free will by God.

I never said that free will was an incomprehensible concept. Predestination is less easily comprehensible, because from our perspective we do have choices, and predestination assumes that in the final analysis we don't. So predestination is somewhat counter-intuitive. Assume for a moment that predestination is true. What should God do? Just tell us everything that's going to happen all the time? Tell us that we have no choice? He has done both, but that's not nearly all he does. He also wants to bring us who he is, to teach us right from wrong and build loving relationships with us. He tells us intellectually about predestination, but then he spends most of his time on our level so that we can come to know him, for if he talked with us on his level, we could never understand him. He knows and sees things we can't possibly comprehend. Since we can only see from the perspective of us and our choices, he reaches us on that level. He reaches down to bring us up.

The Bible is full of the word "choose" because God has to use it to communicate with us. From our perspective we have choices, and he has to reach us on our level in order to bring us closer to his. Just as a math teacher would have to start with basic addition and then move his students up. He can't talk to us all the time on a level that we only have a toehold on.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Your author analogy is very safe.

Safe for us, I suppose you mean. I don't think so at all. Some of us are created for destruction. That's not very safe. God is responsible for our decisions, but as we are the people who commit our wicked actions and those choices come from our hearts, we also are responsible.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I asked you this before, but I"ll ask again - what are some of the analogies that God Himself uses to illustrate the relationship between Him and us, and what's your estimate of the relative frequency of their usage?

There are a number of analogies. Husband and wife. Father and child. Manager and servant. Shepherd and sheep. Potter and clay . I'm not going to reread the whole Bible, or skim through it all either to find all the analogies and calculate their frequencies.

At a guess, here's how I'd order the frequency.

1# Father and child. This appears all over Psalms and pretty much every book of the Bible. It's very common.
2# Husband and wife. There's a whole book devoted to this analogy, the Song of Songs. However, I don't think that this analogy is as frequent as the Father and child one. Although Jesus called himself the Bridegroom, this was a far more uncommon name for him than the Father's, for God the Father was one of the Father's most commonly used names.
3# Shepherd and sheep. I encounter this in a number of places.
4# Manager and servant, brother, and potter and clay.

Granted, potter and clay is much less common. It also wasn't one that Jesus spoke to us, but that Paul did (though what he wrote is the Word of God). To me, this indicates that this is because predestination is not one of the most important messages God wants to drive into our psyche. More important by far is for us to be aware of how terribly important to him we are. He wants a perfect, glorious relationship with us. Love must be central. There are so many really important messages in the Bible, I just don't think predestination is one of the most important ones. It certainly isn't a point necessary for salvation. It is included in the Bible, and pointed out in many different places, though, because it is useful for us to know about to live our lives. When we see events as they really are, from the hand of God, it puts our lives and reactions in perspective. When we see that we are not responsible for our goodness, that God chose and predestined us for glory, we will not quickly say, "I chose what these nonbelievers haven't. I am superior." We won't be able to say, "I have done good works and these others haven't." Rather, all the good we have accomplished will have merely come from the hand of God. We will have only "done our duty" on Judgment Day, and will have nothing about which to boast.

Understanding of predestination helps to respond to evil times appropriately, seeing them as tests from God rather than random horrors God has permitted but has no hand in. It will help us to also behave in greater humility.

However, it is not essential to our spiritual lives. It is not a key to salvation. Awareness helps us in living our lives, but does not make our lives, like Christ in us does. So I am glad it is not one of the most central truths, and I am glad it is given a lesser place in the Bible, a lesser place to those other truths that are far more important for us to know about.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

But who writes for God's character?

God lives on a rather different level of existence than we do. He is eternal truth and love. We are made in God's image, but the very fact that we are made proves that we are not the same as God. We never will be, either. We may be glorified to an extreme level, but we never will be God. Comparing finite creation to infinite Creator seems a bit ridiculous.

It's like saying, "we have a creator. God exists though, so he must have a creator too. Are there endless creators?" The rules that apply to creation don't necessarily apply to Creator.