Turnig Witches To Christ

[Dan56]

If I make something that I know will do something then I cannot say it has free choice. If I know that something will fail me then I cannot in fairness judge it because the fault would be mine.

The bit you did not answer was on the subject of God repenting. One cannot repent unless one acknowledges they were wrong and have a desire to be different. God is said not to change and is also said not to be wrong. So if God repents what occurs. Giving me a talking about my sin and errors and how that let down God does not answer the point I made.

Well, free-will is free-will, what God knows is irrelevant to the person who's given free choice. If you had foreknowledge that another person would decide to attend a football game, how does this interfere with their decision to go see the event? If you could foresee the final score of the game, does this negate the freedom of choice of those who decided to view or participate in the game?

God did not repent because he was wrong, what repented God is that people were wrong. God did not have a desire to be different, because he is righteous and unchanging, but it was God's desire that man would be different. Imagine if you had made/created a perfect yard and people threw trash all over your lawn. Would you repent that you had a nice yard or regret the people who ruined it?

God is perfect, so the fact that he was repentive about the ways humans behave themselves, is evidence that he allows free-will despite the grief it causes him. My point was not to lecture you about how sins let God down, but to illustrate that the works of man are not the works of God. Due to free-will, our unrighteous acts are no reflection on a righteous God.

So is free will the ability to do what God can not know?

No, its the freedom to do what we choose regardless of God knowing (just my opinion of course).

[Fawzo]

Well, free-will is free-will, what God knows is irrelevant to the person who's given free choice.

What good is free will if you are given eternal damnation and torture when you use it.

In a system where it is either God's way or the Hellway isn't that relationship rather similar to the slave and the slave owner. The slave has free will to disobey his owner and do whatever the slave so chooses to do, but if he does so he knows the beating is his reward for opting for his will over his masters.

Isn't this the exact same type of relationship that Orthodox Christianity portrays between God and man?

[Dan56]

What good is free will if you are given eternal damnation and torture when you use it.

In a system where it is either God's way or the Hellway isn't that relationship rather similar to the slave and the slave owner. The slave has free will to disobey his owner and do whatever the slave so chooses to do, but if he does so he knows the beating is his reward for opting for his will over his masters.

Isn't this the exact same type of relationship that Orthodox Christianity portrays between God and man?

I suppose your right.. We have free will, but in the end, God is a dictator and only his Will will be done. 'Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose'

[Fawzo]

I suppose your right.. We have free will, but in the end, God is a dictator and only his Will will be done. 'Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose'

There is nothing loving or compassionate about a Deity who behaves in that manner. Even when I was a Christian the story of Ananias and Sapphira bothered me.

This was just more evidence that the Death of Jesus did little to soften God's hard nature towards us, whether the married couple lied or not.

They were willing to give up their normal lives and almost all that they had and because they lied a little and kept back some for themsleves which is only reasonable for us humans they get the death penalty. I fear they did not make it into heaven or else lieing ot the Holy Spirit could be the quick way in?

I personally would think a Deity would be much more appreciative and joyful because a being uses their own free will, apart from the threat of any forms of punishment, to worship and seek out said deity.

This is the Deity I would serve joyfully and the one I seek after. This Deity is secure in his knowledge of who and what he is and fully expects that all will come to the knowledge of his splendor and loving kindness at some point in eternity.

[Pete]

Well, free-will is free-will, what God knows is irrelevant to the person who's given free choice. If you had foreknowledge that another person would decide to attend a football game, how does this interfere with their decision to go see the event? If you could foresee the final score of the game, does this negate the freedom of choice of those who decided to view or participate in the game?

God did not repent because he was wrong, what repented God is that people were wrong. God did not have a desire to be different, because he is righteous and unchanging, but it was God's desire that man would be different. Imagine if you had made/created a perfect yard and people threw trash all over your lawn. Would you repent that you had a nice yard or regret the people who ruined it?

God is perfect, so the fact that he was repentive about the ways humans behave themselves, is evidence that he allows free-will despite the grief it causes him. My point was not to lecture you about how sins let God down, but to illustrate that the works of man are not the works of God. Due to free-will, our unrighteous acts are no reflection on a righteous God.

No, its the freedom to do what we choose regardless of God knowing (just my opinion of course).

I am sorry Dan but the explanation about the football supporter does not work for me. The difference is I did not create the supporter to go to the game. God s said to have created all knowing full well what the out come was. If he has foreknowledge that what he was creating was to function in a particular way then he has no one else to blame but himself. If he then regrets what he created and also admits to knowing that what he created would let him down before he created it then he has to be full of nonsense (IMO). It is a bit like a man who digs a hole just to moan about the holes existence.

[Tsukino_Rei]

I am sorry Dan but the explanation about the football supporter does not work for me. The difference is I did not create the supporter to go to the game. God s said to have created all knowing full well what the out come was. If he has foreknowledge that what he was creating was to function in a particular way then he has no one else to blame but himself. If he then regrets what he created and also admits to knowing that what he created would let him down before he created it then he has to be full of nonsense (IMO). It is a bit like a man who digs a hole just to moan about the holes existence.

Our modern concept of Hell is certainly a fabrication that has evolved as a control mechanism within the religion but was not originally present. The whining 'believe in me or burn' deity would only have himself to blame if he could see the future and then created billions upon billions of people for the soul purpose of punishing them for doubting him. But remove hell, and the intent to do harm to mortals, from the concept of God and forknowledge of our choices no longer diminishes the goodness of the Deity. Imagine if I could use a device to watch your life before you lived it. Does my seeing what you will choose to do diminish the fact that you decided to do it?

According to the physicist John Archibald Wheeler "time is what prevents everything from happening at once."

Modern physics

In the late nineteenth century, physicists encountered problems with the classical understanding of time, in connection with the behavior of electricity and magnetism. Einstein resolved these problems by invoking a method of synchronizing clocks using the constant, finite speed of light as the maximum signal velocity. This led directly to the result that observers in motion relative to one another will measure different elapsed times for the same event.

Einstein showed in his thought experiments that people travelling at different speeds, while agreeing on cause and effect, will measure different time separations between events and can even observe different chronological orderings between non-causally related events. Though these effects are typically minute in the human experience, the effect becomes much more pronounced for objects moving at speeds approaching the speed of light. Many subatomic particles exist for only a fixed fraction of a second in a lab relatively at rest, but some that travel close to the speed of light can be measured to travel further and survive much longer than expected (a muon is one example). According to the special theory of relativity, in the high-speed particle's frame of reference, it exists, on the average, for a standard amount of time known as its mean lifetime, and the distance it travels in that time is zero, because its velocity is zero. Relative to a frame of reference at rest, time seems to "slow down" for the particle. Relative to the high-speed particle, distances seem to shorten. Even in Newtonian terms time may be considered the fourth dimension of motion; but Einstein showed how both temporal and spatial dimensions can be altered (or "warped") by high-speed motion.

Einstein (The Meaning of Relativity): "Two events taking place at the points A and B of a system K are simultaneous if they appear at the same instant when observed from the middle point, M, of the interval AB. Time is then defined as the ensemble of the indications of similar clocks, at rest relatively to K, which register the same simultaneously."

Einstein wrote in his book, Relativity, that simultaneity is also relative, i.e., two events that appear simultaneous to an observer in a particular inertial reference frame need not be judged as simultaneous by a second observer in a different inertial frame of reference.

Time as "unreal"

In 5th century BC Greece, Antiphon the Sophist, in a fragment preserved from his chief work On Truth held that: "Time is not a reality (hypostasis), but a concept (noêma) or a measure (metron)." Parmenides went further, maintaining that time, motion, and change were illusions, leading to the paradoxes of his follower Zeno.[29] Time as illusion is also a common theme in Buddhist thought,[30] and some modern philosophers have carried on with this theme. J. M. E. McTaggart's 1908 The Unreality of Time, for example, argues that time is unreal (see also The flow of time).

However, these arguments often center around what it means for something to be "real". Modern physicists generally consider time to be as "real" as space, though others such as Julian Barbour in his book The End of Time, argue that quantum equations of the universe take their true form when expressed in the timeless configuration spacerealm containing every possible "Now" or momentary configuration of the universe, which he terms 'platonia'.[31] (See also: Eternalism (philosophy of time).)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time#Time_as_.22unreal.22

Cognizant of the counter-intuitive nature of his claim, Barbour eases the reader into the topic by first endeavouring to persuade the reader that our experiences are, at the very least, consistent with a timeless universe, leaving aside the question as to why one would hold such a view.

Barbour points out that some sciences have long done away with the 'I' as a persisting identity. To take atomic theory seriously is to deny that the cat that jumps is the cat that lands, to use an illustration of Barbour's. The seething nebula of molecules of which we, cats, and all matter are made is ceaselessly rearranging at incomprehensibly fast speeds. The microcosm metamorphoses constantly, therefore one must deny there is any sense to say a cat or a person persists through time.

Early on, Barbour addresses the charge that writing with tensed verbs disproves his proposal. The next revolution in physics will undermine speaking in terms of time, he says, but there is no alternative.

If a universe is composed of timeless instants in the sense of configurations of matter that do not endure, one could nonetheless have the impression that time flows, Barbour asserts. The stream of consciousness and the sensation of the present, lasting about a second, is all in our heads, literally. In our brains is information about the recent past, but not as a result of a causal chain leading back to earlier instants. Rather, it is a property of thinking things, perhaps a necessary one to become thinking in the first place, that this information is present. In Barbour's words, brains are 'time-capsules'. He investigates configuration spaces and best-matching mathematics, fleshing out how fundamental physics might deal with different instants in a timeless scheme. He calls his universe without time and only relative positions 'Platonia' after Plato's world of eternal forms.

Plausibility

Why, then, is the instant in configuration space, not matter in space-time, the true object and frame of the universe? He marshals as evidence a non-standard analysis of relativity, many-worlds theory and the ADM formalism. Since, he believes, we should be open to physics without time, we must evaluate anew physical laws such of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation that take on radical but powerful and fruitful forms when time is left out. Barbour writes that our notion of time, and our insistence on it in physical theory, has held science back, and that a scientific revolution awaits. Barbour suspects that the wave function is somehow constrained by the 'terrain' of Platonia.

Barbour ends with a short meditation on some of the consequences of 'the end of time'. If there is no arrow of time, no becoming only being, creation is equally inherent in every instant.

There is no general agreement that the ideas expressed in the book have any predictive power and thereby constitute a scientific theory.

Immanuel Kant, in the Critique of Pure Reason, described time as an a priori intuition that allows us (together with the other a priori intuition, space) to comprehend sense experience.[27] With Kant, neither space nor time are conceived as substances, but rather both are elements of a systematic mental framework that necessarily structures the experiences of any rational agent, or observing subject. Kant thought of time as a fundamental part of an abstract conceptual framework, together with space and number, within which we sequence events, quantify their duration, and compare the motions of objects. In this view, time does not refer to any kind of entity that "flows," that objects "move through," or that is a "container" for events. Spatial measurements are used to quantify the extent of and distances between objects, and temporal measurements are used to quantify the durations of and between events.

(See also Ontology for the sake of interest)

This is a relatively simple paper - The Origin of Time Assymmetry

I've tried to find some explanations that aren't entirely built of math that uses more letters than numbers. But this should 'hopefully' be a very general overview of a concept of time which has developed through religion, philosophy, and science over time and is still developing.

[Dan56]

There is nothing loving or compassionate about a Deity who behaves in that manner. Even when I was a Christian the story of Ananias and Sapphira bothered me.

They were willing to give up their normal lives and almost all that they had and because they lied a little and kept back some for themselves which is only reasonable for us humans they get the death penalty.

Ananias and Sapphira were not killed for holding back some of the money, but for lying to God. It doesn't say why the couple wasn't offered an opportunity to repent and pay the full amount, but I suspect they were put to death for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?

I am sorry Dan but the explanation about the football supporter does not work for me. The difference is I did not create the supporter to go to the game. God s said to have created all knowing full well what the out come was. If he has foreknowledge that what he was creating was to function in a particular way then he has no one else to blame but himself. If he then regrets what he created and also admits to knowing that what he created would let him down before he created it then he has to be full of nonsense (IMO). It is a bit like a man who digs a hole just to moan about the holes existence.

What God foreknows depends on what we will ultimately do. What we will ultimately do is not dependent on what is foreknown by God. Don't confuse 'God knowing' with 'God controlling'. What God knows depends on what we will choose, not the other way around. Because God is omnipotent, he has the will and the power to change things. If the future known by God was set in stone, God could not make any new decisions or make any changes. We don't have a God who experiences nothing, but a living God who participates in the creation of our character and helps us grow. Omniscience means that God acts and intervenes in history to accomplish his ends.

"Remember how the Lord your God led you all the way in the desert these forty years, to humble you and to test you in order to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep his commands" (Deuteronomy 8:2).

God told Abraham: “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me” (Genesis 22:12).

It would appear from the verses above, that omniscience is nonexistent because not all things are knowable? As long as we have free will, God can work within each of us to change our future, he did this with Paul on the road to Damascus. God might have foreknowledge that if I were hungry, I'd eat a meal, but God being all-powerful, could elect to make me sick to my stomach and cause me to skip the meal, thereby changing what was previously foreknown.

[Pete]

Ananias and Sapphira were not killed for holding back some of the money, but for lying to God. It doesn't say why the couple wasn't offered an opportunity to repent and pay the full amount, but I suspect they were put to death for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?

What God foreknows depends on what we will ultimately do. What we will ultimately do is not dependent on what is foreknown by God. Don't confuse 'God knowing' with 'God controlling'. What God knows depends on what we will choose, not the other way around. Because God is omnipotent, he has the will and the power to change things. If the future known by God was set in stone, God could not make any new decisions or make any changes. We don't have a God who experiences nothing, but a living God who participates in the creation of our character and helps us grow. Omniscience means that God acts and intervenes in history to accomplish his ends.

"Remember how the Lord your God led you all the way in the desert these forty years, to humble you and to test you in order to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep his commands" (Deuteronomy 8:2).

God told Abraham: "Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me" (Genesis 22:12).

It would appear from the verses above, that omniscience is nonexistent because not all things are knowable? As long as we have free will, God can work within each of us to change our future, he did this with Paul on the road to Damascus. God might have foreknowledge that if I were hungry, I'd eat a meal, but God being all-powerful, could elect to make me sick to my stomach and cause me to skip the meal, thereby changing what was previously foreknown.

So you say God is limited then and not all knowing and needs to test things before he actually knows them. Yet, Jeremiah 1:5 says:- "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." All this not knowing and knowing sounds very contradictory to me Dan.

[Dan56]

So you say God is limited then and not all knowing and needs to test things before he actually knows them. Yet, Jeremiah 1:5 says:- "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." All this not knowing and knowing sounds very contradictory to me Dan.

No, I don't believe God is limited at all, but that God has complete foreknowledge. But I also believe that no one's future is set in stone as long as God intervenes or intercedes. God is in complete control and has complete knowledge of everything. God is not a God of mistakes that learns as he goes, his omniscience means that God knows all that has been, all that is, and all that will be.

As for Jeremiah, God foreordains some people of whom he foreknew. I believe God knows all souls from eternity past, and many of them are called and chosen (predestined) for a specific purpose.

"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified" (Romans 8:29,30).

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will" (Ephesians 1:4,5).

[Fawzo]

No, I don't believe God is limited at all, but that God has complete foreknowledge. But I also believe that no one's future is set in stone as long as God intervenes or intercedes. God is in complete control and has complete knowledge of everything. God is not a God of mistakes that learns as he goes, his omniscience means that God knows all that has been, all that is, and all that will be.

As for Jeremiah, God foreordains some people of whom he foreknew. I believe God knows all souls from eternity past, and many of them are called and chosen (predestined) for a specific purpose.

Now then explain the existence of evil! Doesn't Evil then exist as well as "the good will of his pleasure"

Edited June 4, 2010 by Fawzo

[Pete]

No, I don't believe God is limited at all, but that God has complete foreknowledge. But I also believe that no one's future is set in stone as long as God intervenes or intercedes. God is in complete control and has complete knowledge of everything. God is not a God of mistakes that learns as he goes, his omniscience means that God knows all that has been, all that is, and all that will be.

As for Jeremiah, God foreordains some people of whom he foreknew. I believe God knows all souls from eternity past, and many of them are called and chosen (predestined) for a specific purpose.

"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified" (Romans 8:29,30).

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will" (Ephesians 1:4,5).

I know this is getting into a circular argument but you cannot have it both ways (IMO). If God knows the outcome of all he created then God created people to fail. He has therefore no reason to complain about mankind.

[murphzlaw1]

I'm amused at how far this topic has gone. A person wants to "convert" people from Wicca, and we turn it into a 9 page topic.

That is all. Carry on.

[Dan56]

Now then explain the existence of evil! Doesn't Evil then exist as well as "the good will of his pleasure"

Evil exists because we have free will, and we are allowed to choose evil instead of the good will of his pleasure.

I know this is getting into a circular argument but you cannot have it both ways (IMO). If God knows the outcome of all he created then God created people to fail. He has therefore no reason to complain about mankind.

Gods foreknowledge does not negate our free-will. God's foreknowledge is affirmed by what we ultimately decide to do, not vice versa. Nothing complicated about it.. We weren't created to fail, God simply allows us the choice to fail.

I'm amused at how far this topic has gone. A person wants to "convert" people from Wicca, and we turn it into a 9 page topic.

I noticed that too, its amazing how a topic strays, but its all about beliefs I guess.

[Pete]

God's foreknowledge does not negate our free-will. God's foreknowledge is affirmed by what we ultimately decide to do, not vice versa. Nothing complicated about it.. We weren't created to fail, God simply allows us the choice to fail.

What free will exists if you create something that you know will fail you?

[Fawzo]

Evil exists because we have free will, and we are allowed to choose evil instead of the good will of his pleasure.

Are you saying we created evil?

And we dicussed before your free will only works within the parameters which God has allowed and programmed into the system.

Free will has nothing to do with evil, just as hot coffee has nothin to do with your choice of hot or cold coffee.

[Dan56]

What free will exists if you create something that you know will fail you?

How exactly does foreknowledge of an action preclude free will? God does not need to be in the dark in order for us to exercise free-will. God knowing the future of what someone will do, does not mean God set the future of what that person will do? There is no causal relationship between foreknowledge and events which are foreknown. Because God knows our decisions before we make them, does not mean that our decisions were made by God. Without free will there can be no judgment. Whether or not God has foreknowledge of our actions is irrelevant.

Are you saying we created evil?

And we dicussed before your free will only works within the parameters which God has allowed and programmed into the system.

Free will has nothing to do with evil, just as hot coffee has nothin to do with your choice of hot or cold coffee.

Its my opinion that we freely choose evil (sin). Freewill has everything to do with evil, evil could not exist without free-will. I agree that God sets the parameters, he allows what he allows and is in complete control.

[Bro. Hex]

Freewill has everything to do with evil, evil could not exist without free-will.

And the necessary corollary: Free-will could not exist without Evil.

That's something to ponder, isn't it?

Edited June 8, 2010 by Hexalpa

[Fawzo]

Its my opinion that we freely choose evil (sin). Freewill has everything to do with evil, evil could not exist without free-will. I agree that God sets the parameters, he allows what he allows and is in complete control.

Then I'm assuming from that statement, that you believe the existence of evil is his will then?

Its my opinion that we freely choose evil (sin). Freewill has everything to do with evil, evil could not exist without free-will. I agree that God sets the parameters, he allows what he allows and is in complete control.

Why would we freely choose sin unless we were designed by the creator with a propensity for such behaviour. Satan didn't design and program me contrary to Christian rumor lol

[Dan56]

And the necessary corollary: Free-will could not exist without Evil.

Sounds logical... Without evil, there is only good, and with only good, there is no choice.

Then I'm assuming from that statement, that you believe the existence of evil is his will then?

Nothing exist unless God allows it. I don't think God created evil, but that he allows it. If God had not allowed evil, we would be worshipping him out of obligation, not by a choice of our own will.

Why would we freely choose sin unless we were designed by the creator with a propensity for such behaviour. Satan didn't design and program me contrary to Christian rumor lol

If we could not freely choose, our behavior would be designed and programmed, making us robots of instinctual behaviour. For God to create human beings that are capable of sustaining a personal relationship with him, they must be beings that are capable of freely loving him and following his will without coercion.

[Fawzo]

Sounds logical... Without evil, there is only good, and with only good, there is no choice.

Nothing exist unless God allows it. I don't think God created evil, but that he allows it. If God had not allowed evil, we would be worshipping him out of obligation, not by a choice of our own will.

If we could not freely choose, our behavior would be designed and programmed, making us robots of instinctual behaviour. For God to create human beings that are capable of sustaining a personal relationship with him, they must be beings that are capable of freely loving him and following his will without coercion.

Now you're starting to see glimpses of why evil is an integral part of God's plan and has always been.