Jacinth Visor
Ungrouped
"I am not just a man vastly lost in this world, lost in a sea of faces." Credits: 8,500
Posts: 789
|
Post by Jacinth Visor on May 27, 2007 22:01:07 GMT -8
God has a plan for everyone but it's every individual's choice to follow that plan. God doesn't know the choices we make before we make them because we haven't made them yet. While we are predictable, yes, we're still not pre-programed or anything like that. To know what's going to happen before it does is just like humans being pre-programed. It hasn't happened yet.
Also, God living outside of time wouldn't quite work, just as I said, our choices in the future haven't happened yet so there's nothing for Him to see.
|
|
|
Post by jmcmatt on May 28, 2007 8:49:57 GMT -8
Also, God living outside of time wouldn't quite work, just as I said, our choices in the future haven't happened yet so there's nothing for Him to see. I think you're missing the whole point of what Naters was trying to say. If God lived outside of time, time would have no relevance to him. He could operate independant to our laws of time. A lot of created-evolutionists believe that. They say that evolution happened, but was initiated by God. His 7 days were our millions of years. I'm not sure I believe that, but it does make sense. Back to the origional topic, God created the universe, meaning he created time as we know it. If He exsisted before time as we know it, and He'll exsist after time as we know it, and He created time as we know it, is it too far of a stretch to think that He's master of time as we know it? Omnipresent means everywere at once, my best guess would be that refers not only to space, but time as well.
|
|
|
Post by TFE on May 28, 2007 20:45:47 GMT -8
About God operating according to time: if God had to operate in time, that would mean that God was limited by the contrainsts of time, therefore time > God. Now, I doubt that any of you believe that. Also, I agree with Ulan, he had to create time, and something that is created by someone is less powerful than the creator (well, in most senses: a giant mech created by a person is obviously a lot more "powerful" than the person, but if a person controls it, that makes them more powerful).
Well, what if time is like a filmstrip? We only see the current frame, but it doesn't mean the future frames haven't been finished. When watching a movie- you only see the current frame, but the end is already finished. Now, you may instantly think that if it's that way, we have no say over our choices, and it would seem right, but who says those future choices haven't already been decided by us? When we get to a crossroad, we obviously have a choice, but if what we choose has already been "written," doesn't that mean that we have no choice. Not necessarily: what decided it in the first place? Some outside source? Perhaps, but perhaps we did. Do you always feel like you have a choice? Well, unless someone is pressuring you, then yeah, you should. If every moment of your life was lived the same way, you'd make the same choice again. Why couldn't God know the future? I mean, it's pretty much scientifically possible to distort time (well, maybe not yet, but theoretically, yeah), and if we could do it, God could, easily. It's high science, but just because we didn't have automobiles in the 1300s didn't mean it was unatainable.
*ramble ramble*
Edit: If my second paragraph didn't make sense, sorry, I had a terrific time writing it. >_<
|
|
Jacinth Visor
Ungrouped
"I am not just a man vastly lost in this world, lost in a sea of faces." Credits: 8,500
Posts: 789
|
Post by Jacinth Visor on May 29, 2007 15:16:59 GMT -8
I very well know the concept of the forknowledge of God, Tefe, I used to believe that and also had it all down pat in my mind. I used to go over it in my mind time and time again telling myself the things you've told me. But it doesn't line up.
Living inside of time does not limit God. Just think about it, our choices are not final, the future is very unstable, it's changing every second of the day. Nothing about the future is certain until it is no longer the future but the present. If you think about it hard enough, the only kind of time is present and past the future really doesn't exist. Just what God- as well as mankind- plans on doing in the future. Still doesn't mean it's happened yet. Have you noticed that whenever God told the people something that would happen in the future that He was talking about what He would do? He is God and can bring things to pass, He has not told anyone what they are going to do and if He has it was because He knew their behavior and how they act.
The film strip idea, that's ok for a human perspective but think about God's. It would be like a big tangle of junk all freaking out on one end and on the other nice and straight, in the middle is where it's being sorted out, in the present is when all of our choices are made, it's not putting a leash on God's abilities/powers, it's just how things are.
If anything the future already being set does put a leash on God's abilities because He isn't able to change it. He wouldn't really be in control. And if you say that He can change stuff now in order to change the future that would mean we really don't have free will. (setting aside the fact that God does use people to bring about His will, but also it's our choice to follow Him or not)
You may say people can't understand this concept but that's not the case with me. I've understood very well but if you just stop and think, ask God about it, it'll all be clear.
|
|
|
Post by Nathan Jey'Daan on May 29, 2007 16:28:27 GMT -8
I think you still aren't actually understanding, since you're using "future" as an arguement. The very nature of "future" is relative to time, so if we're operating on the assumption that God is in fact the master of and can operate outside time, "future" would have no bearing on Him. In that case, theoretically, He could actually exist in the "future" ("present" and "past", too), as well as know it and affect it, while we are still traveling our one-way path through time, restricted to the present.
|
|
|
Post by jmcmatt on May 29, 2007 17:01:47 GMT -8
If you think about it hard enough, the only kind of time is present and past the future really doesn't exist. The future doesn't exsist from human perspective, that's true. Taking a look at the film analogy again, let's say we're watching the movie. As far as we know, anything could happen. The future of the movie has an infinant amount of endings from our perspective, we can just guess where it's going from the events going on. I think that's the position you're putting God in, as a spectator. But if you were the filmmaker, you would know exactly what was going to happen, and how it would end. You don't see events unfolding, you see everything as it is. The larger picture. It's a lot easier to see God through human terms, because they're the only terms we're comfortable with. Time is most definately a set human term. Especially if you're a physicist. But to equate God to human terms would be limiting the things he could do to the things you think he could do.
|
|
Safiya
New Republic
Rhi's ray of sunshine and baby sis
(110,200 credits)
Posts: 21,533
|
Post by Safiya on May 29, 2007 17:18:19 GMT -8
Living inside of time does not limit God. Just think about it, our choices are not final, the future is very unstable, it's changing every second of the day. Nothing about the future is certain until it is no longer the future but the present. If you think about it hard enough, the only kind of time is present and past the future really doesn't exist. Just what God- as well as mankind- plans on doing in the future. Still doesn't mean it's happened yet. Have you noticed that whenever God told the people something that would happen in the future that He was talking about what He would do? He is God and can bring things to pass, He has not told anyone what they are going to do and if He has it was because He knew their behavior and how they act. What about Peter? Jesus told Peter "I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me" (Luke 22:34) And that's what Peter did. But he could have made a different choice, right? So how could Jesus say that, knowing for sure the choice Peter was going to make? ((Note: I'm certainly not trying to oppose or agree with anyone here, just asking a question.))
|
|
|
Post by Soleia Reiss on May 29, 2007 19:15:11 GMT -8
Ok, this debate has come up before... but I was reading through the Bible just a moment ago and read in 1 Peter verse 1 & 2: "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the forknowledge of God the Father, through sanctifacation of the Spirit unto obedience and sprinkling of your blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied." Now... unless the word for "forknowledge" has changed, I beleive that means knowing beforehand... Ok, the question. Is it possible for the Creator, God almighty to know things before they happen? The verse above seems to concur with that logic... Yes, when we read over 1 Peter 2 the word "foreknowledge" does stand out, and I've got no arguement with that word being used in the Bible; but what is it's meaning here? In what context is it being used? What is this verse saying about God's foreknowledge? We'll start with the meaning:- The word "foreknwledge" is used only twice in the entire bible (in addition, "foreknew" and "foreknow" are each used once). In both places where "foreknowledge" is used (once here, and once in Acts) it has the same meaning; The Greek word is "proginosko" which means forethought. So, the verse isn't saying that God foreknew any of these people as individuals, in fact this letter is not written to any individual, but to the entire body of believers; in Peter's greeting he says "...to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Glatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia." These, the believers, are the elect. How are they elect? "According to the foreknowledge of God the Father". As we learned above "foreknowledge" means "forethought"; the English definition of forethought is "thought for the future: careful thought in order to be prepared for the future". So they are elect according to God's forethought, or plans He made for the future. What was God's plan? To send Christ to die for the world; we read in verses 19-21 of the same chapter, "But with the precious blood of Christ, as of the lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you. Who by him do believe in God, that raisd him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God." Are those verses saying, then, that God know beforehand that man would definately choose to sin and therefore made the plan to send Christ? Not quite, but God chose to create man with a free-will (for scrpiture says we are made in His own image, and He has a free-will), and therefore knew that they could choose to sin; thus He had the redemption plan to send Christ, should man choose to do so. Again, God had created man with a free-will, so in His plans He determined that, just as man had chosen to sin, they would have to choose to repent and believe on Christ in order for His plan to become effective in their lives. So the "election" is through Jesus Christ. It was the plan that God foreknew, not the individuals (like Jace said, the "how" not the "who"). We are "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God (His plan), THROUGH sanctification of the spirit, unto OBEDIENCE and sprinkling of the BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST..." God made the plan in advance to redeem the world, but He left the door open to everyone and did not foreknow WHO individually would become a part of that redeemed body. So, what I just said in many words can be summed up in a few: the only thing God knew before hand was His plan to send Christ. This verse does not say that He foreknew any of the individuals to which the letter was written. So, you're correct in the word's meaning, however mistaken in it's application. Now, you might argue with the idea that God didn't know that man would choose to sin, but consider that if God had known definately that man would choose to sin, He becomes directly responsible for the evil of the world. If I knew before I got pregnant that my son was going to be a terrible mass-murderer when he grew up and still chose to have a baby would not I be the one responsible for the murders of hudrends of people, seeing as it was already foreknown he would murder, so he had no choice in the matter, but I, who knew he would, chose to have a child anyway? It's something to think about, and most importantly, search out in God's word. In Christ, Sol
|
|
|
Post by TFE on May 29, 2007 19:20:26 GMT -8
Just out of pure curiosity, in the Bible, does it ever say we have free will? O_< I imagine it does, but for the life of me I can't remember an example.
Edit: About the last part of your last post, Sol, you said that the mass-murderer in said scenario would have no choice; I think this may be where I differ from your view. Even if the future is written in stone, we all still have a say in the matter. Now, it may seem like an impossibility, wrapping your head around that, but it's really not.
|
|
|
Post by Soleia Reiss on May 29, 2007 19:54:03 GMT -8
Living inside of time does not limit God. Just think about it, our choices are not final, the future is very unstable, it's changing every second of the day. Nothing about the future is certain until it is no longer the future but the present. If you think about it hard enough, the only kind of time is present and past the future really doesn't exist. Just what God- as well as mankind- plans on doing in the future. Still doesn't mean it's happened yet. Have you noticed that whenever God told the people something that would happen in the future that He was talking about what He would do? He is God and can bring things to pass, He has not told anyone what they are going to do and if He has it was because He knew their behavior and how they act. What about Peter? Jesus told Peter "I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me" (Luke 22:34) And that's what Peter did. But he could have made a different choice, right? So how could Jesus say that, knowing for sure the choice Peter was going to make? ((Note: I'm certainly not trying to oppose or agree with anyone here, just asking a question.)) That's a good thing to bring up. Let's take some things into consideration: (1) God knew Peter better than Peter knew himself, and could've easily revealed Peter's heart to Jesus. (2) Jesus knew satan was battling for Peter (see Luke 22:31). (3) God, who knew Peter's strengths and weaknesses, and personality traits, could have easily applied simple cause and effect, putting it into the people's hearts to ask Peter about Jesus, knowing Peter well enough to determine how he would respond to it. I think in the denial of Peter there was something Jesus wanted to teach him through it, perhaps to humble him as we see him eagerly declare in Luke 22:33 "And he said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death." And of course, "pride comes before the fall".
|
|
|
Post by Soleia Reiss on May 29, 2007 19:59:13 GMT -8
Just out of pure curiosity, in the Bible, does it ever say we have free will? O_< I imagine it does, but for the life of me I can't remember an example. Yep. Freewill is evident in God presenting man with choices, such as Deuteronomy 30:19- "I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:" And the Psalmist writes in Psalm 119:108 "Accept, I beseech thee, the freewill offerings of my mouth, O Lord, and teach me thy judgments."
|
|
|
Post by jmcmatt on May 29, 2007 20:56:27 GMT -8
What about Peter? Jesus told Peter "I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me" (Luke 22:34) And that's what Peter did. But he could have made a different choice, right? So how could Jesus say that, knowing for sure the choice Peter was going to make? ((Note: I'm certainly not trying to oppose or agree with anyone here, just asking a question.)) That's a good thing to bring up. Let's take some things into consideration: (1) God knew Peter better than Peter knew himself, and could've easily revealed Peter's heart to Jesus. (2) Jesus knew satan was battling for Peter (see Luke 22:31). (3) God, who knew Peter's strengths and weaknesses, and personality traits, could have easily applied simple cause and effect, putting it into the people's hearts to ask Peter about Jesus, knowing Peter well enough to determine how he would respond to it. I think in the denial of Peter there was something Jesus wanted to teach him through it, perhaps to humble him as we see him eagerly declare in Luke 22:33 "And he said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death." And of course, "pride comes before the fall". Those are pretty good reasons, and I can see how Jesus would know that Peter would deny him. The only problem with your reasoning is how Jesus knew how many times he would do it, and when. Edit: About the last part of your last post, Sol, you said that the mass-murderer in said scenario would have no choice; I think this may be where I differ from your view. Even if the future is written in stone, we all still have a say in the matter. Now, it may seem like an impossibility, wrapping your head around that, but it's really not. Indeed, just because what we'll do is already written in stone doesn't me we don't have to do it.
|
|
|
Post by jmcmatt on May 29, 2007 21:08:45 GMT -8
Those are pretty good reasons, and I can see how Jesus would know that Peter would deny him. The only problem with your reasoning is how Jesus knew how many times he would do it, and when. Now, I'm a moron and didn't realize you did answer this. Although, if God did put it in their hearts to ask it, wouldn't this be affecting free will? Not Peter's but the ones that went to ask. We can assume they weren't choosing to follow His will because if they were open to his will they probably wouldn't be asking that question of him.
|
|
|
Post by Soleia Reiss on May 29, 2007 22:06:59 GMT -8
TFE: Hmm, well, I have thought it doesn't seem too weird for God to just know what's going to happen, but when I really ponder it it just doesn't fit together. But more important than any human reasoning is looking to the bible and seeing what it says about God and foreknowledge. God regretted creating mankind because of their evil ways- "And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." Gen. 6:6. It doesn't make sense for God to regret creating mankind here if He lives out of time and had seen this great falling away approaching since before the world began. God doesn't take pleasure in death (see Ezek. 18:32) and I think He might've thought better of creating man if He knew He was going to end up killing an estemated two billion of them and saving only eight a ways down the road. Ulan: It wouldn't be effecting their will to or not to live for God (in other words, they won't be sent to heaven or hell as a result of what God is using them for), it was just a matter of God finding people he could work with and using them for a short time in the given situation to fulfill his purpose, I guess you'd call it devine intervention.
|
|
|
Post by jmcmatt on May 30, 2007 9:36:18 GMT -8
Ulan: It wouldn't be effecting their will to or not to live for God (in other words, they won't be sent to heaven or hell as a result of what God is using them for), it was just a matter of God finding people he could work with and using them for a short time in the given situation to fulfill his purpose, I guess you'd call it devine intervention. Free will isn't only refering to eventualities, free will is refering to every choice you make. I would assume that God wouldn't force you to make choices that would send you to hell, but even making you ask a single question of someone that you wouldn't have asked otherwise is still affecting your free will.
|
|