Question for Practicing Christians.

[dlbpharmd]

Just another example of ignorance.

[Lord Mhoram]

Wayfriend, you're right and I apologize because I find it very difficult to discuss these things with believers beacuse at this point I cannot find it in myself to believe. I recognize and respect the fact that many of my questions cannot be answered - I'm applying rationalism to things that cannot always be answered rationally. I just get extremely frustrated when a whole slew of huge questions about religion are in front of me and I cannot answer any of them.

[wayfriend]

No offense taken, LM; nothing is owed. Spiritualism and religion just aren't about asking those kinds of questions. It's about thinking about what kind of universe you want to live in.

I'm an engineer by trade; science is my livelihood. Do you think I never figured out that you can show the Bible is a pile of silliness if you wanted to? One day you realize it doesn't matter. Somehow, some way, two thousand odd years later, despite it's inadequacies, despite it's history, despite everyone ragging on it, it's still managed to formulate my fundamental beliefs, and .... I still believe those beliefs. Go figure.

[dlbpharmd]

Great posts, guys.

[Lord Mhoram]

You possess the faith "gene," Wayfriend. I sometimes envy those who do.

[Tjol]

How could Judas have avoided his fate if Christ had already foreseen it? If Christ and God knew Judas was going to betray Jesus (as the canonical Gospels indicate), then it will follow that Judas could not avoid his fate. That is certainly a kind of predestination.

My theology does not subscribe to predestination. Not only was the creation of the universe an act of free will, but the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a reverence to free will.

Judas could avoid his fate, but Jesus knew that he would not, as he indicated in the last supper. Peter could avoid his denials, but Jesus knew that he would not. It does not mean that either is in hell (of whichever theological version one might subscribe to), I'm just saying that their actions were not beyond their individual control, eventhough their actions were predictable by someone as wise of a person's nature as Jesus would be.

Again, I say neither. The Passion happened the way The Passion happened because that's how it had to happen. Call it divine intervention if you like, but Jesus, Judas, Pilate, and everyone else were fulfilling their roles in what had to happen.

It never ceases to amaze me how many so-called Christians hate Jews because of their betrayal of Christ. Hello....If they hadn't, He wouldn't have been crucified, His blood wouldn't have been shed, and our sins wouldn't have been forgiven.

Well, I would also say that it wasn't the Jews that killed Jesus, but the Sanhedrin. Which seems like a hairsplitting possibly, but I don't think it is. The Sanhedrin were the government of the Jews, the people who had forgotten their first love (God) and replaced it with another love (Power). I do not think the Pharisees involved in Christ' crucifixion received mercy when they faced judgement, it was their very existence that required Christ's crucifixion in the first place. Had they not misled their followers and their people in the first place, had they not become consumed with their own political power, Jesus would not have had to have been crucified. Jesus had to come in order to remind Jews and Gentiles alike why they should love God rather than power.

(I hope that makes sense, my word usage looks a bit clunky)

[Fist and Faith]

There are plenty of times I see one of my or Christy's children about to do something or other. I know, without question, that they are about to do it. They know better than to do it. They know they've been told not to. They know they'll be in trouble if they do it. But I know they will do it. And they do it.

I have not taken away their free will. It was still their choice to do it.

[SoulQuest1970]

Wayfriend, you're right and I apologize because I find it very difficult to discuss these things with believers beacuse at this point I cannot find it in myself to believe. I recognize and respect the fact that many of my questions cannot be answered - I'm applying rationalism to things that cannot always be answered rationally. I just get extremely frustrated when a whole slew of huge questions about religion are in front of me and I cannot answer any of them.

LM, I do understand. Also about your school causing you to doubt. I'm an odd person. Hmmm... how do I explain?

When I was 4 years old, my mom needed to do something in the Church office, but I didn't want to go with her. So she had me sit down in the empty church. I said I was afraid because it was dark. She pointed to the light over the alter and told me that it was not very dark and she would be back in a few minutes. She also pointed out that it was Gods' house. I sat down and decided to wait for her. While I was alone, everything suddenly made sense to me. I understood about faith... I guess. From that moment I have never doubted any of my beleifs. I have questioned facts or church rules, etc. One thing I have never questioned is God. Now I see truth and beauty in all religions and have a great deal of respect. I do not believe one religion is completely right or completely wrong. They are as flawed as the people in them. You have wonderful people in this world of all faiths. You also have people of all faiths who are not good people (example Catholic mobsters). I've been in churches where it is as if God is outside looking in wishing to be welcome. I've been in other places where you wouldn't expect it, but there is God.

[Lord Mhoram]

That does make sense to me, SQ. It has just never happened to me personally.

Tjol,

But their actions were, according to the canonical Gospels, more than predictable, like say the weather. Jesus knew Peter and Judas would do what they did. He knew they would "choose" to do it. What I'm saying is, when someone knows ahead of time exactly what you'll do and how you'll do it, then it seems to me that there's a set of stage directions that Peter and Judas were obeying. That is not free will.

[wayfriend]

What I'm saying is, when someone knows ahead of time exactly what you'll do and how you'll do it, then it seems to me that there's a set of stage directions that Peter and Judas were obeying. That is not free will.

It'd be better to say ... when someone knows ahead of time exactly what you'll do, the only explanation I can think of is that there's a set of stage directions, etc. That of course is the aspect of the dilemma that's important to remember.

(Remember Shalmaneezer from Stand on Zanzibar?) Can you hypothesize that there is a some means, unknown to you, where a person who has free will can nevertheless be predicted by an infinite being, even though you cannot imagine how that can happen? That you may spend a life of learning and pondering and 4am philosophical discussions and never discover how that can happen? But admit that it might be possible nonetheless because, after all, infinite beings know more than you do?

[iQuestor]

That does make sense to me, SQ. It has just never happened to me personally.

Tjol,

But their actions were, according to the canonical Gospels, more than predictable, like say the weather. Jesus knew Peter and Judas would do what they did. He knew they would "choose" to do it. What I'm saying is, when someone knows ahead of time exactly what you'll do and how you'll do it, then it seems to me that there's a set of stage directions that Peter and Judas were obeying. That is not free will.

The protestant movement (Calvin, Martin Luther) believed in pre-destination, meaning that it had already been decided if you were going to heaven or hell when (before) you were born. Later, the protestants decided this wasn't good for business (my opinion) and gave everybody in these offshoots a chance to get salvation by accepting christ and following his path. This is a big change, a fundamental one that i cannot resolve. There have been many such popular changes because (IMHO) religion is the drug of the masses and it serves a human purpose -- the human need to impose order and give meaning to our lives, and to answer unanswerable questions .

I dont know of any major protestant or cannonical beleifs that adhere to the determinism aspect of the old faith, but I could be wrong. I dont know much about the Catholic Faith, but I have read their version of history.

I don't think I could ever resolve the paradox of free will and God, because I think they exclude each other. And if we don't have free will, then what good is a choice to follow christ? the whole basis of the new christianity is to choose to follow christ, when the older tenant was that you were already pre-determined.

Like Tony Soprano, I think it just fades to black. I wish it were different, I wish I had the faith gene.

[SoulQuest1970]

I dont know of any major protestant or cannonical beleifs that adhere to the determinism aspect of the old faith, but I could be wrong. I dont know much about the Catholic Faith, but I have read their version of history.

Like Tony Soprano, I think it just fades to black. I wish it were different, I wish I had the faith gene.

The Catholic Church has a corrupt past. Had I lived a couple hundred years ago, I would not have been a Catholic. Now I am mostly a Catholic because if tradition. That's why I joke about being a Unicathlitarian. I am not convinced that the Catholic Church is still not corrupt in some places in the heirarchy. As I've mentioned, anything led by people is flawed. I do have priests that I like and even admire. Others, not so much. In fact an old friend and Alex's godfather is likely a priest now. He plays roleplaying games and is into scifi. I am sure he makes a way cool priest now. I'd like to get in touch with him. He was a friend of my ex from childhood, but he finally had to quit talking to my ex because he could not respect when a certain topic was offensive to him... the ex spent 7 hours trying to convince him this was funny. I'm not real sensative about blasphemy, but even I felt it was out of line.

Oh, did you know the only reason (I learned this at my Catholic school) there was fish on Fridays in Lent is because a corrupt pope had a corner on the fish market? It was all a marketing ploy to sell more fish. Now fish is optional during Lent because this was proven.

Also, our previous pope I was cool with, but this pope disses Harry Potter. No one disses Harry Potter!

Oh, and faith is not a gene.

It is a feeling, an experience. It can not be described in tangible terms.

Also there is a big difference between Religious and Spiritual and/or faithful. Many people chase religion in an attempt to find faith. That can work, but often it does not.

[Xar]

What I'm saying is, when someone knows ahead of time exactly what you'll do and how you'll do it, then it seems to me that there's a set of stage directions that Peter and Judas were obeying. That is not free will.

It'd be better to say ... when someone knows ahead of time exactly what you'll do, the only explanation I can think of is that there's a set of stage directions, etc. That of course is the aspect of the dilemma that's important to remember.

(Remember Shalmaneezer from Stand on Zanzibar?) Can you hypothesize that there is a some means, unknown to you, where a person who has free will can nevertheless be predicted by an infinite being, even though you cannot imagine how that can happen? That you may spend a life of learning and pondering and 4am philosophical discussions and never discover how that can happen? But admit that it might be possible nonetheless because, after all, infinite beings know more than you do?

But there is a fundamental difference between a general discussion about free will and God's omniscience, and the specific situation we are talking about. Generally speaking, I do not see any incompatibility between free will and omniscience; as long as God doesn't interfere with the person, then the person has free will even though God knows what he will do. If one wanted to, one could imagine that God knows every potential outcome of every potential choice the person could do at any given time; but the choice of doing X instead of Y still belongs to the person.

But, in the specific case of Judas, things are slightly different. Here we have an interference, and a specific one at that. If God knew that, in that set of circumstances, Judas would betray him, and nevertheless brought about those circumstances (by taking Judas with him, for instance), that is not the same as the general situation above. To make a simpler example, borrowing from F&F's post:

If you know with absolute certainty that your kid will break a ceramic vase if you put it on a low table (not because the kid is evil, but because he is a rather active kid), you still decide to put the vase on the low table, and the kid breaks it, who is responsible for the destruction of the vase?

Understand I'm not trying to pin the blame on Jesus, but I am trying to describe that saying "that thing HAD to happen as it did" is a dangerous path to take, because it eventually does pin at least a bit of the blame on Jesus himself (in fact, if Jesus knew that Judas would betray him in that situation and deliberately took Judas with him, placing in said situation, one could say that the responsibility should be equally divided between Judas and Jesus).

I myself prefer to believe that Judas was incidental - that he could have chosen not to betray Jesus, and something else would have happened that would lead to Jesus's capture. But Judas didn't HAVE to betray Jesus: he chose to. Judas's betrayal didn't HAVE to happen: it just happened. In fact, the Passion itself didn't HAVE to happen the way it did: that's just how it played out.

I guess I'd rather believe that God had a variety of "triggers" to ensure Jesus's capture, trial and execution, rather than believe that He knew all along what Judas would do and still deliberately ensured Judas would find himself in that situation.

[iQuestor]

OK, so the real Question I have is:

Did Jesus have a choice to Die on the Cross, or not?

I guess I'd rather believe that God had a variety of "triggers" to ensure Jesus's capture, trial and execution, rather than believe that He knew all along what Judas would do and still deliberately ensured Judas would find himself in that situation.

This implies Jesus didnt have a choice, that his crucifixion (or however he ended up being killed or sacrificed) was pre-determined and all paths God had in mind led to this one way or another. How then how can Jesus be the salvation of the world if he was a robot? How could he be anything other than a tool? How could his sacrifice have any meaning whatsoever?

Its Like TC's assertion that he had to be free to save or damn the Land, and (in the Second Chrons) worried that since he made the choice to serve foul by replacing Joan, he had become a tool and therefore was ineffective against despite.

If Jesus was God's son, then I don't think he had a choice; this is a paradox to me because if Jesus didnt have a choice his sacrifice had no real meaning. This is just my opinion -- But then again, I dont beleive in God or the divinity of Christ. So in my mind, he must have had a choice. But it was a human choosing to die for his beliefs rather than a divine sacrifce.

thats wierd -- why did my shirt just catch on fire? is that thunder I hear?

But, those of you who believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ: Did he have a choice? If he didnt choose to die on the cross, then what would have happened? God would have had a black eye, certainly, to his followers. Do you see the paradox I do if he had no choice?

thoughts?

[SoulQuest1970]

Recall that everyone around him called him the Son of God. He corrected them and said he was the Son of Man. Now, perhaps he was the Son of God in literal terms and maybe he wasn't. None of us can know for sure either way. Was he special? Absolutely! Was his coming fortold? Absolutely! Did he have to die on the cross? To save us, no. He already did that by telling us God already loved us. He gave us instructions. Did God require him to die? I do not think so. No loving father would ever require such a thing. Did he die for his beliefs and principles? Absolutely! Is his example what showed us what was right? Absolutely! I do not beleive any of it written in stone. I think there were many possible outcomes and this is how it happened. I do beleive God knew all the possible outcomes, but did not interfere other than guiding Jesus through the hardest parts.

[Cybrweez]

I believe the Bible teaches about predestination and free will. They are both in effect. Its a hard thing for us to grasp, I think mostly b/c we are not outside of time. Its not like God waits for events to happen to see how things will pan out. The Bible teaches He is in control, but we do have choices to make. My pastor loves to make this point, when someone asks, 'If only the elect are saved, how do I know if I'm elected?' 'Easy, accept Jesus' sacrifice, and you'll know you were elected.'

I feel as bad for Judas as for anyone who dies in their sins. I believe it was his choice, and I believe he certainly could have repented. Bottom line, his sin was betraying Jesus. Peter did the same thing, not to death, but denying that he even knew him b/c he thought it'd be safer for him. But, he later repents and when Jesus sees him, He restores that relationship, in the passage where He asks Peter, 'Do you love me?' three times.

LM, I haven't read through this whole thread in depth, but I noticed your comment about the 'faith' gene. Its just a matter of will, not genes or even evidence. For instance, there is actually a wealth of evidence about the reliability of the Bible, but you still hear people says things like how it was corrupted and changed.

[wayfriend]

If you know with absolute certainty that your kid will break a ceramic vase if you put it on a low table (not because the kid is evil, but because he is a rather active kid), you still decide to put the vase on the low table, and the kid breaks it, who is responsible for the destruction of the vase?

Why, both of you bear responsibility, of course! If I understand your analogy, this means that God is responsible - but he's responsible for everything that's his job - and Judas is responsible for making his choice. Works for me.

Not a great analogy - we tend to believe kids are not responsible when they don't know better. A better analogy would be leaving your keys in your car, opening the window, and parking it in a bad neighborhood, because you WANT it to be stolen. The next day, when you find it gone, was whoever stole your car a thief or not? I would say that they are yet a thief. And yet your insurance company would still find your actions culpable as well.

( And, no, Judas' case was NOT different. )

This implies Jesus didnt have a choice, that his crucifixion (or however he ended up being killed or sacrificed) was pre-determined and all paths God had in mind led to this one way or another. How then how can Jesus be the salvation of the world if he was a robot? How could he be anything other than a tool? How could his sacrifice have any meaning whatsoever?

How about: Jesus IS God, and God wanted it to happen, and so Jesus wanted it to happen.

[iQuestor]

WF wrote:

How about: Jesus IS God, and God wanted it to happen, and so Jesus wanted it to happen.

well, that would be a departure from any branch of Christianity I have heard, but if it were true, it would make sense. I dont think by any stretch the authors of the scripture beleived that Jesus was God.. Of course, I am an agnostic (a back-slidden atheist) so my vote doesnt count.

SoulQuest1970 wrote:

Recall that everyone around him called him the Son of God. He corrected them and said he was the Son of Man. Now, perhaps he was the Son of God in literal terms and maybe he wasn't. None of us can know for sure either way.

John 3:16: For God so loved the world he gave his only begotten son...

According to every version of the scripture I have read, Christians absolutely believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ; it is a basic tenant of their belief; If Jesus was not literally the Son of God, of divine birth, then Christianity has no foundation. Jesus also performed miracles and was born of a virgin, so this also supports that he was considered divine.

Now, I beleive he was just a man, not divine, but a great man nonetheless who taught peace and kindness and love for each other.

Now, if History were to show that Jesus was married to Mary Magdelene, and their descendants were the merovingian Kings, and there is a bloodline, how would this affect the faith?

[dlbpharmd]

well, that would be a departure from any branch of Christianity I have heard, but if it were true, it would make sense. I dont think by any stretch the authors of the scripture beleived that Jesus was God.. Of course, I am an agnostic (a back-slidden atheist) so my vote doesnt count.

According to fundamentalists, the doctrine of the Trinity teaches that there are 3 distinct personalities of the Godhead - Father, Son and Holy Ghost - and that these three are one.

[wayfriend]

Not just Fundamentalists.

The Trinity is the way that Catholicism squirmed around Jesus' divinity. There's only one God. So how could Jesus be divine? Answer: the Holy Trinity. God is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, all in one. Hence, Jesus is God, too.

Not that Jesus was only God. He was mortal, too. Otherwise, how could he suffer and die? Gotta have suffer and die, too.

You'd not be wrong to call it all a tower of theological cards. We have an infinite God that yet somehow suffers and dies. If you think free will is hard to rationalize, work on that one!