cabezadecaballo
Well-known member
I don't think it is that simple. Not sure about a God's Plan, but if there is one it isn't linear, as we are.
Do you believe that people can see the future?
- Thread starter Yappi
- Start date
I don't think it is that simple. Not sure about a God's Plan, but if there is one it isn't linear, as we are.
Crusaders
Moderator
It doesn’t really matter if God is linear or 5th dimension. Either free will exists, which opens up issues of multiverses and infinite timelines, which again causes issues for God’s judgement unless we’re to believe God is judging infinite realities, which again sort of renders things pointless. Or it doesn’t and God is just having a laugh
I kind of land on free will not existing.
I kind of land on free will not existing.
ronnie mund
Well-known member
I lean this way also. I've read about experiments conducted in which a subjects' "decision" to push a certain button was correctly predicted before the subject thought they made the "decision". That seems fairly clear to me. And the fact that we can't explain where our thoughts come from, they just magically appear in our minds. It's probably just a culmination of life experiences that dictate our next moves, starting from birth. The ego is an illusion and has obscured what we really are.
cabezadecaballo
Well-known member
I believe that free will is extant but highly predictable, given the circumstances of one's life.
To me, if the Judeo-Christian God exists as described, it is obvious that the description of God that we have been given is limited and that we operate on a "need-to-know" basis in a manner within ego that can make faith a real thing for us. Therefore, the Trinity doctrine of Christianity is how God has chosen to have Himself decribed to us, in the course of appealling to Biblical writers in their spirits. As I've said often in these threads, the Bible was never intended to be a science textbook, right ? What would it serve for Attila the Hun to have the Bomb and nuke Rome ?
It is maybe often true that a rare "stepping out in faith" in something is what causes us to deviate from our predictable potential paths, trumping a more predictable fate. Again, if God is as described, and accurate in the limited details and cultural context known to us, "I am" could easily mean that He is the only being surmounting time and seeing all forever at once - our choices included. It can't be forgotten that the Bible is written from human perspective.
In other words, we can't comprehend God's bandwidth and speed is irrelevant to Him. All, forever, is His now.
To me, if the Judeo-Christian God exists as described, it is obvious that the description of God that we have been given is limited and that we operate on a "need-to-know" basis in a manner within ego that can make faith a real thing for us. Therefore, the Trinity doctrine of Christianity is how God has chosen to have Himself decribed to us, in the course of appealling to Biblical writers in their spirits. As I've said often in these threads, the Bible was never intended to be a science textbook, right ? What would it serve for Attila the Hun to have the Bomb and nuke Rome ?
It is maybe often true that a rare "stepping out in faith" in something is what causes us to deviate from our predictable potential paths, trumping a more predictable fate. Again, if God is as described, and accurate in the limited details and cultural context known to us, "I am" could easily mean that He is the only being surmounting time and seeing all forever at once - our choices included. It can't be forgotten that the Bible is written from human perspective.
In other words, we can't comprehend God's bandwidth and speed is irrelevant to Him. All, forever, is His now.
Last edited:
MoeDude
LIVE FREE OR DIE!
? I used to get in arguments with the nuns all the time in grade school. They would say we have free will but then say that God already knew what we were going to do. I would always ask then how is it free will if God already konws what we're oing to do. I still struggle with this but boy did those nuns get pissed when you challenged them. ?
Crusaders
Moderator
The answers lie in the fact that Christianity is a combination of Judaism/Levantine mythology, Ancient Egyptian mythology, and European paganism (especially Roman Catholicism). God is likely no more real than Ra or Zeus. However, like ancient mythology, the lessons in the teachings are real and valuable, as well as extremely valuable encoded information about the distant past, such as Noah’s flood.
Worrying about fate is likely an unproductive pursuit.
Thavoice
Well-known member
What was his name?
No name, event. The most vivid one was in Beruit around 1966. May have saved my life.
FootballFan1795
Well-known member
Funny how people had no problem accepting invisible atoms existed long before scientists figured out to just reflect a laser light on a strontium atom in order to make it visible … or, believed Higgs-like field theories before the Higgs-Boson particle was finally observed at Geneva’s Large Hadron Collider facilities … or, accepted that antimatter existed long before Carl Anderson accidentally discovered (while studying cloud-chamber photos of cosmic rays) a number of tracks whose orientation suggested they were caused by positrons … or, acknowledge that roughly 80% of the mass of the universe is made up of material that scientists can’t directly observe (dark matter) that’s existence is detected through its gravitational attraction rather than its luminosity …
… but no, they just can’t accept that God exists.
Perhaps someone will write an essay entitled, “If scientists can prove that positrons (through the study of how they behave, because they can’t be seen) can still exist, why can’t theologians prove the existence of God through the study of how God behaves (since He can’t be seen either)?”
Title might need work, but hopefully, it will convey that you don’t have to see something to know it is real.
Crusaders
Moderator
A lot of things scientists hypothesize to exist have turned out not to exist. A lot of those things were based on mathematical formulation and observation of other similar things. As far as I know, the existence of God hasn’t been hinted at in any way. And archaeology tells us the Hebrew God was once part of a larger pantheon. Even the Bible has traces of this with mentions of other gods, such as El, Baal, and Moloch.
FootballFan1795
Well-known member
Likewise, “Science does not produce any evidence against God.” – Harvard professor of Mathematics and Evolutionary Biology, Martin Nowak
FootballFan1795
Well-known member
And, didn’t Moses then straighten us all out on this? “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall not have other gods beside me.” (Exodus 20:2-3)
cabezadecaballo
Well-known member
For sure. Do the right thing, and be kind.
Also agreed, regarding history. The Israelite Moses was raised and educated as Egyptian royalty. If we believe that God appealed to him in his heart or spirit to write the basis of the Bible, God used an Egyptian/Hebrew hybridized palette.
God may be the revolutionary one god of Akhenaten. He and Moses are pretty close on the timeline. Akhenaten caused a bit of an uproar, culturally, in breaking away from the Egyptian pantheistic religion and worshipping one god in his state religion. Also a relative contemporary with the Egyptian captivity of the Jews, so cultural overlap is to be expected. Muslims worship the Hebrew God, they just think God decided he was done with the Hebrews around 600 AD, and he gave Muhammad their New Deal.
cabezadecaballo
Well-known member
too cool
cabezadecaballo
Well-known member
The atheist somehow proves a thing in the negative, and imagines himself to be "scientific".
In their heart of hearts, those who "worship" science are as children, standing out in the yard, shaking their little fists at the sky, and singing the song from Malcom in the Middle.
Crusaders
Moderator
Point being, the Hebrews were just a big cult of Yahweh followers. No different than cults of Baal or Athena in Greece. For whatever reason, the Hebrews managed to cling to it and pass it down for millennia where other religions from that time had died out. It’s suspected that years of war, capture, diaspora, and slavery caused them to abandon idols, creating the omnipresent God we think of today, and that had sweeping effects on worship and created more staying power.
Crusaders
Moderator
Science doesn’t extrapolate from zero. It’s not a sound way to think of the issue.
cabezadecaballo
Well-known member
Yes, the backward-looking reconstructionist may be deceived, though.
Just as correlation is not causation, similarity or misidentification is not exclusive sourcing. As I have said itt, a person of faith is willing to operate on a need-to-know basis, right ? The Bible says there will be many trying to deceive, but it never said Nephilim were not part of someone else's pantheon, or that a fallen angel was not a Philistine god. The Bible has some do's and don'ts, but doesn't often touch on "why" until Paul's letters. "In the Beginning...." may just mean the beginning of the story we are shown at the behest of God to Moses, for the edification of his people. Moses didn't "spill his guts" on stone, papyrus, or linen.
The easiest way to remain on a narrow path is with a tight focus.
cabezadecaballo
Well-known member
Science can be "perfect", no doubt, but it can just as obviously be incomplete, ill-informed, or un-informed.
cabezadecaballo
Well-known member
You say. Did some pile of rocks prove this^ ?
"For whatever reason", only Christianity seems to have been spread by Roman Rule and by the Greek language to the cultural extent of Alexander's campaigns, even though every other contemporary Western and middle eastern religion was also translated into Greek and Latin.
Maybe just luck ? Maybe it's egalitarian nature/accessibility ?
FootballFan1795
Well-known member
Of course not. But, you’re the one looking for proof of God’s existence through Science (Archaeology is a scientific discipline) and referring to the Bible as if it’s a science textbook.
No, it's not.
“Religion and science are separate and mutually exclusive realms of human thought whose presentation in the same context leads to a misunderstanding of both scientific theory and religious belief.” (National Academy of Science, 1981)
cabezadecaballo
Well-known member
Great quote
Crusaders
Moderator
The Bible, especially the OT, reveals a lot when read with an archeological lens as opposed to religious. Especially when put into its proper historical context. There are many versions of the same stories found in the Bible. Many come from other cultures. Some are extremely ancient. And still many books that were written aren’t included at all. All help paint a pretty clear picture, to me at least.
I don’t know if I 100% buy into that quote. Mostly because religion almost always leads to science and engineering advancement, just for different reasons. Exceptions exist, of course: deliberately troglodyte (ex. Amish) and deconstructionist (Marxism, post-modernism, etc.) belief systems. Interestingly, religion can also impede science when it ventures into realms where questions aren’t welcome; biology being a big one.
FootballFan1795
Well-known member
Maybe some religions, but not the Catholics! ?
"The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man." (Catechism of the Catholic Church)
Crusaders
Moderator
The Bible itself paints a pretty clear picture of this. In the timeline of the ancient Canaanite religion, the Bible seems to pick up at a time where it's splintering into multiple, competing cults of different gods. And/or, being that Yahweh was a god of war, the Hebrews were causing all kinds of problems with other people in an attempt to (re)create their own nation-state, something that is talked about in the Bible, albeit from the perspective of the Hebrews themselves.
Your timeline is all over the place. Rome didn't officially adopt Christianity until the 300s AD. Alexander the Great's conquests were roughly 600 years prior to that. Christianity spread through the Levant and Mediterranean naturally, then throughout the rest of the world through missions and outright conquest. I don't think this lends it any kind of unique quality to Christianity, though it was/is certainly more aggressive than the Roman/Greek religion.
wolves82
Well-known member
Wow. The most intelligent discussion I've seen on Yappi. Nice!
I've seen just enough odd stuff in my nearly 60 years to never say never. Perhaps there are some prescient people that can glimpse the future. I myself have not seen it. If I could, lottery numbers would be my focus.
As far as the religious / philosophical discussion goes, I land on the side of believing in God as a higher power. That higher power is the creator, and perhaps the final arbiter, but does not plan the day-to-day goings-on for us mere mortals. I believe in free will versus a pre-determined future.
I've seen just enough odd stuff in my nearly 60 years to never say never. Perhaps there are some prescient people that can glimpse the future. I myself have not seen it. If I could, lottery numbers would be my focus.
As far as the religious / philosophical discussion goes, I land on the side of believing in God as a higher power. That higher power is the creator, and perhaps the final arbiter, but does not plan the day-to-day goings-on for us mere mortals. I believe in free will versus a pre-determined future.
cabezadecaballo
Well-known member
I was not attempting to present a timeline at all, but it would appear that you are trying very hard to create as much separation there in my two references as possible.
The official adoption of Christianity by the Roman Empire was merely the eventual end of a movement that began centuries earlier. The New Testament letters were widely written and distributed in Greek and Latin. Alexander’s conquests eastward had spread the Greek language very far east, and the Roman empire had spread Latin westward. This dynamic of having two languages covering so much of the globe could have spread any number of religions. Yet this facilitated the spread of Christianity.
That was all I intended to point out. I wasn’t claiming Alexander the Great spread anything other than the use of his native tongue.