Christianity, really?

ok, so you believe in a creator - someone or something that created the universe.

do you believe that the creator knows the future?

 

I don't know about that, but I believe it's in control of whatever is going on, and therefore controls the future

 

would a creator that knows the future be possible?

 

I guess, but I don't think it's likely. But like I said, he could control it, so in a sense he would know.

But if it's part of your deal, then sure, he knows the future

 

Why don't you think that it's likely?

By the way, thanks for answering my questions. I'm just trying to see where your coming from so I can share only that which I feel will bring our conversation somewhere that's beneficial for both of us.

 

Like I said, he could, he's god. But if he knew every detail that just confirms the whole "desteny" thing, which I don't believe in. But he could, I have no way of knowing

 

In short, could you fill me in on the "destiny" thing that you don't believe in that you say would be confirmed if the creator knows every little detail of the future? Thanks...

 

Well if he knows every detail, then our future has been set and there's nothing we can do to change it. It takes away the whole "free will" thing.

 

When you said "our future", were you primarily speaking of an eternal "future" or destiny, like "heaven and hell" etc?

 

I honastly don't know if I believe in heaven or hell, but if they exist, that makes it all the worse. I was just talking about life, but it could easily apply to the afterlife if it exists

Edit: so yeah, if god did know the future, and there is a hell, then some people are destined to go there. However, if there is no hell, god knowing the future still means everything we do on earth is mapped out and we have no real free will.

 

That is such a common mistake, your looking at it to one bloindly. I dont claim to be Baptist, Iv stated that. Nor does my dad, that just happens to be the church my family goes to. Im a follower of God and the Bible. True those religions may have been before Jesus walked the earth but they werent there before God and his wroks and the Bible etc. so your statement really proved nothing on that im sorry. And I honestly dont think your looking for answers like you say, and if you are your probably not gonna find anything that you feel fit I guess. You remind me of the "McDonalds Church" type of people. You will take this and that from here and there and throw together something you seem to feel alright with that makes no sense.

 

I wouldn't chose the bible as the one and lonely. It is one among many of helpful religious texts, it is not my favorite. Just like most people chose their favorite path to the same exact fucking point of being. I don't even have a favorite.

And he's allowed to ask those questions in desire for what would seem like a rational response, I really haven't seen that, I've seen the same block we always come to with monotheistics, denial of other perspectives. I can't really be angry about that, and I can't really be angry with certain religions, because that is a lot of what this religion game is about, finding one accepted true way to the TRUTH. Not for me, and I found mine in being that way. Why would I want to stop learning, and viewing the many perspectives. Maybe it's just a consciousness explorer (a expanded mind seeker of truth) thing to see through many eyes.

What I think may be better maybe than what the Christians think and most monotheistics(IMO), I learned in the Bhagavad gita. It is written in that hindu religious text there are various paths to the being of self-realization, known as the 5 yogas. The Deity poet of this work, Vyasa recognizes the bhakti yoga (the path of love) as the superior path. (Which is strikingly familar sounding to the Chrstian claim that Jesus is Love and Christ is the one true savior and way to god) However as it is more clearly written by this explaination of the Bhagavad Gita:

"The poet is aware that for people of different constitutions and affinities, different paths are appropriate. When he says one particular path is superior, his statement doesn't come at the expense of the other paths. All paths and all people are included."

That is a very beautiful connection I have recently made, and I prefer to think this perspective is the most loving one of all. This clearly does NOT indicate my allegiance to hinduism. Instead my allegiance to encompassing all truths.

However, it is in free will, that maybe still the ego(we want to rid) prefers to believe in allegiance to one school of practices (moral and spiritual) over another. It is their belief and it is RIGHT for them. The Gita recognizes this, and accepts this, mostly likely he believes lack of acceptance offsets the balance and flow so necessary to supremebeing.

I would just take into consideration that moral views of right and wrong are very subjective to certain self man made institutions of behaviors and living. One that is as free as god would break down these boundaries. People are so scared of what is right or wrong, they start making lists, like they forget how simple the idea of living a life of love towards others really is.

Because I have chosen what I believe to be an expanded and righteous perspective and path, I do not claim to have reached Moksha before any one. There are many struggles one goes through in order to reach such a state (if at even all possible). I even recognize entheogenic substances as tools for looking into THIS VERY MATTER. In many institutions this is considered wrong. I almost completely disagree except I would caution that there is ritual use of mind altering substances and then ABUSE. Abuse may bite you in the ass, but even the strongest drugs can't beat someone's shitty attitude of denial. It depends on the level of the person to begin with.

Also.....

Jesus may be the son of god, I am not fully convinced even though I've seen some magical and mystifying occurences of "Jesus", but love is the son of god. A VERY important aspect of being. Have it for all that you can.

 

I've heard that very argument against those of us that like to learn about and encompass other perspectives, that such behavior doesn't make sense. I dislike that very much and what you said was insulting (may you repent as a Christian Haha) in a way that doesn't make sense. It is close minded to think such. If he really finds a struggle in relating to the perspectives of religions then that is his own positive or negative for him. It's good you found one perspective that will help you the most. That was a major defilement of the hippies in the 1960s by the conservative class though. That it was a moral mistake to be borrowing aspects of foreign culture and religion for your own.

I think the major difference between open perspective and singular perspective is the point (perhaps necessary for egoless being) where one expands beyond singularity. I am entitled, as the monotheistics are about other beliefs, to consider singularity a weakness. However that is against a path of acceptance. So I will leave it at Closemindedness is a weakness.

 

I agree with you here, if God knows every detail of the future then we can not have "free will". So to me, although God can know every detail of the future, he has perfect control over what he knows and thus when he gave "free will" to some of his creatures, he chose not to look into their choices and thus allow them the freedom of choice. So God does not know the future of individuals but can know the future of mankind in general. Much like the "Psycho-history" from Assimov's "Empire & Foundation" series.

 

I'm just going to ignore those first few senteces, I don't really know what you were trying to say.

Yes, those religions existed long before the new testement was written, and if you look at Christianity as a religion (it is... You can call it what you want, but it's a religion) then you totaly stole from them.

And yeah, i think I'm done looking for answers from you.

I don't see how you could have a problem with the mcdonalds thing, think about this.
The original church is the catholic church, then the prodistents changed a few things to fit what they think Christianity should be, then the baptists branched out from them and changed the bible to say what they wanted it to say.

You are a mcdonalds christian, the beliefs have just been around for a while.

 

You need me to tell you that the tree was "the tree of knowledge of good and evil"? That they only learned of good and evil after they ate from the tree, so obviously couldn't know that it wasn't good to disobey God until then?

Now I need to be your dictionary, too? A sociopath is one who lacks emphathy. If god allows suffering, when the scripture says he is "all-knowing and almighty" and therefor can stop it, that shows a clear lack of caring... and makes him fit the definition.

Nnnnoooo... What we're talking about here is you saying God couldn't help throwing all of mankind out of paradise because of Adam and Eve's original sin. Your analogy about gravity would only work if every time someone jumped off a cliff, all mankind got smooshed.

LE. VIT. I. CUS. Maybe you've heard of it.

Because he's almighty. You don't deny that he's almighty. Why are we still going over this?

You're really not taking this seriously at all... I really think I'm being fair, and not merely abusive, when I say you're a complete JACKASS. You know full fucking well that the tree is the tree of knowledge of good and evill, and that God said that if they eat from it they will die.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+2:17&version=NIV

Translations are one thing. The canon is the same. Powerful men, mortals who have interests, picked and chose which writings went into the Bible. Faith in the Bible is faith in powerful men. Men of an age that we now consider rather savage. You really think such men wouldn't protect their authority? For example, they left out the Gospel of Mary, which could have destroyed the patriarchy.

As far as I know, the Bible does not get that meta. It has no introduction, or anything. Can you find for me that verse, maybe on the site I got my verse from? Biblegateway.com

 

God didn't throw us out of paradise. It was our choice, because we have free will, the ability to dissociate with the universe. I also really don't think "God" dictates how the future will play out. What he may have the ability to do is put in his good word for your fate, and maybe try teaching you righteous life. There is free will that is disenchantment with the forces beyond you that may guide you, then there is real free will which is letting the forces that guide you lead you to happiness.

There is only one real way things go down in the long run though. "God" probably knows it.

 

I will say this: man on earth shall never obtain the full answer of free will versus predestination. I believe that we're not supposed to know right now. For what reason, I'm not sure but I believe whatever the reason and purpose, it will work out for our betterment in the end.

There's more than one interpretation of heaven and hell, as you probably know. The more literal translation of the bible, the more clarity one shall receive on the matter. For example, Young's Literal never uses the word "Hell". It doesn't translate the hebrew and greek words. It leaves them alone for the reader to see the meaning of the words by the usage of the words in the context of the passages in which the words were being used. Much like many english words that appear in the King James version, many words change meaning over time. For example: KJV "Suffer" the little children to come to me." If one approached this verse with a modern day definition of the word "suffer", then one wouldn't comprehend the true meaning of the verse. Today, "suffer" means to experience pain etc. "Suffer" at the time the KJV was written didn't mean the same as today. The USAGE of the word defines the true meaning of the word at the time it was written. "Suffer" was being used then as the word "allow" is being used today. Young's leaves the words, that have been mistranslated "Hell" in the common versions, alone - untranslated, so the the words are defined by their usage at the time the verses were written. Many of the teachings that you were taught as a child of the church are error do to faulty translations of the bible that those that taught you were using. Here's a link to some books that will explain in more detail, if you're still interested. www.tentmaker.org/ScholarsCorner.html A good place to begin is Louis Abbot's "An Analytical Study Of Words". Here's a direct link http://www.tentmaker.org/books/asw/index.html Abbott was a baptist minister for many years before he started to analyze many of the words in the bible. His book opened my eyes up a little bit 12 years ago. I was pretty much a baptist in doctrine at the time.

 

If you believe there are abilities God doesn't have, you don't believe he's all-knowing and almighty, which is clearly stated in the Bible, and you're a heretic.

If it was our "choice" to be kicked out of paradise (when it clearly states that we didn't have the ability to know right from wrong until we ate from the tree), then what about God's free will? I mean... he had to kick us out because we learned morality (good and evil)? Who made him? This requirement was not his choice? Of course it was, scripture doesn't provide any reason to think he wasn't making the rules. And to establish a religion to manage our morality is a very strange choice for someone who didn't want us to have morals in the first place. Which I suppose doesn't make any less sense than the fact that he provided the means to learn morality (the tree) along with a moral instruction to the moral-less people to not take the opportunity... Genesis makes zero sense.

 

When God told Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit it was because the fruit was unhealthy. Kinda like when a parent warns their child not to drink Drano under the kitchen sink. It was about life or death not morality. If he allowed Adam and Eve to eat of tree of life then there would be never ending suffering and separatness from God. That's why he guarded it from them. Now we have the anidote that leads back to paradise with God.