Is there a God? What do YOU think???

[paultrr]

You should take another look at Calvin- tell me if I'm wrong!

 

I thought that for a long time as well (the elect and the damned thing)... I grew up near a large CRC population (Lynden, WA), so I've heard a lot of conservative calvinist points of view. I never really gave him a chance, until I looked into it again.

 

I think a lot depends on how you go into a look at Calvin. Sure, he said there are those predestined to go to heaven and those predestined to go to hell. Does that mean he didn't believe in free will? Just because you are destined to do something, again, doesn't mean you didn't choose to do so. And, if God "offers" heaven only to those predestined to accept it, that still allows for free will.

 

Anyway, look into it. I could be just reading my own opinions into his ideas, although many scholars of calvin hold similar views. That doesn't mean we're right ;) we could be predesined to be wrong, right?

 

Calvin spent a lot of time and effort defining the meaning of Predestination. Boil all he had to say on the subject down and one ends up with something like predetermined, prechosen, preloved and seperated out for such. That's basically by an act of God's own choice that people end up where they do according to that religious view. The individual actions in life do happen. But under a pure Calvinistic view its not free will, its God's will alone.

 

The different views on this is why there are different teachings on this.

[bumab]

Which goes later on to state that basically he fell because he decided his glory was better than God's. Here one has something as simple as beauty and wisdom becoming the tool of evil. But the source of evil goes way back before this. Either God formed and created everything or he did not. If he did not then simply put he is not the original Creator or the source of all. Evil is far more from a Biblical perspective than just the possibility for such where its will alone that casts the die, so to speak.

 

Many people think God created us (and anything else with free will) to be creators as well- hence, in his image. So we have the potential to create "evil."

 

I still don't think evil is a tangable, created thing. It's simply an alternative to good, which is an alternative to evil, etc etc. One "creates" the opportunity for the other, they are moral constructs to describe actions. If there was no "good" actions, there would be no evil actions either.

 

I will say, in the Bible, God created the potential for evil with free will. By giving satan the free will to make his own decisions, an opportunity to go against God was created. The "gift" of free will is a dangerous gift indeed- like the thread on the Brothers Karamozov explores.

 

Obviously, I'm not looking at this from a fundamentalist perspective ;)

[Queso]

And also, evil is just an opinion. Yeah, i killed you for your ham sandwich, but i was starving to death. if i was an arrogent killer, i would see that as not evil at all. but most witnesses and family members would say otherwise.

[tarak]

Dear all,

The concept of God is an extension of human ego.Human ego is finite and has to be bundled in between boundaries.God reminds the frailty of humanness and makes one understand the relvance of his/her position towards a reference point in a very elemental way.For people who want to break the barrier through reason and logic,their own theorizations supported by scientific facts satisfy the finiteness of the ego.

Our world is the extension of our own mind.Our boundaries are very specific,personal and relative.So even our God too is relative.Human, being a social animal, his entire anxiety of his existence has been chanelized and structured as religion and the traditional God.For me God is always there,he is the order out of disorder or disorder out of order the infinite boundary that should always exist to show humans their position and place in their realm of existence

cheers

T.Dhurjati

[paultrr]

Back on Calvin:

 

V. Predestination, by which God adopts some to the hope of life, and adjudges others to eternal death, no one, desirous of the credit of piety, dares absolutely to deny. But it is involved in many cavils, especially by those who make foreknowledge the cause of it. We maintain, that both belong to God; but it is preposterous to represent one as dependent on the other. When we attribute foreknowledge to God, we mean that all things have ever been, and perpetually remain, before His eyes, so that to His knowledge nothing in future or past, but all things are present; and present in such a manner, that He does not merely conceive of them from ideas formed in His mind, as things remembered by us appear present to our minds, but really beholds and sees them as if actually placed before Him. And this foreknowledge extends to the whole world, and to all the creatures. Predestination we call the eternal decree of God, by which He has determined in Himself what would have to become of every individual of mankind. For they are not all created with a similar destiny; but eternal life is fore-ordained for some, and eternal damnation for others. Taken from the Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin. Prior to this, Now when I assert that the will, being deprived of its liberty...and further, For those whom the Lord does not favor with the government of His Spirit, He abandons in righteous judgment to the influence of Satan. . . .

 

 

About himself and this he says, "God, at last turned my course in another direction by the secret rein of his providence." John Calvin.

 

The doctrine of Unconditional Election comes from the doctrines of Calvinism known as the "TULIP." The "TULIP" stands for: "Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, Perseverance of the Saints." The main teachings of Calvinism come from John Calvin and the Canons of Dordt which are considered official Calvinism theology. This doctrine teaches that before God created anything He chose those who would be saved and those who would be damned for all eternity. The doctrine of Unconditional Election stresses that man has no choice (no free will) at all because man has no ability to seek God, (Total Depravity) therefore it is by God's sovereign choice that anyone is saved.

 

John Calvin: "By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death." (Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 21, Section 5).

 

That's about as clear cut as one can get from the horses mouth on what Calvin meant when he spoke of Predestination. The guy believed in what's known as a limited atonement or that Christ died for only the elect.

[paultrr]

I still don't think evil is a tangable, created thing. It's simply an alternative to good, which is an alternative to evil, etc etc. One "creates" the opportunity for the other, they are moral constructs to describe actions. If there was no "good" actions, there would be no evil actions either.

 

I will say, in the Bible, God created the potential for evil with free will. By giving satan the free will to make his own decisions, an opportunity to go against God was created. The "gift" of free will is a dangerous gift indeed- like the thread on the Brothers Karamozov explores.

 

Evil has its own shifting perspective. It involves in the way its displayed as perhaps the opposite of good character through many acts that in and of themselves are not always considered moral. But it boils down to nothing less that that which is distructive versus that which is creative. How tangable things are rather does not enter in here. God, according to the Bible is spirit and I think few would argue that spirit is tangable the same as a tree, or water would be tangable. If anything perhaps the proper way to put this is God originated the ability for evil to exist. If I hand someone a gun knowing full well they will use such in a crime even though that person commits the act I am guilty of providing the means of the commission of that crime. Under even man's law I am libel.

[paultrr]

The concept of God is an extension of human ego.Human ego is finite and has to be bundled in between boundaries.

 

Yes, God is an extension of human thought. Its also true that human ego is finite and limited. Some perfer boundaries and some do not. So the last part one could argue about.

[paultrr]

And also, evil is just an opinion. Yeah, i killed you for your ham sandwich, but i was starving to death. if i was an arrogent killer, i would see that as not evil at all. but most witnesses and family members would say otherwise.

 

Interesting enough, even though this was part of Jewish law, someone who stole because they were hungrey was treated different from someone who just steals to get rich. Also, Murder in the Bible and even genecide was condoned by God in the example of cleansing the land of idolitry and pagans as we'd term them. I think the modern term today would be situation ethics. Forget Political Correctness. The way God is portrayed in the Bible basically its his way or the wide way to hell. Even the presentation of the Gospel, though taught as a story of God's love for man, basically boils down to either believe in him or suffer eternal punishment in hell. Its no wonder a lot of groups get invaded by Christians hell bent on leading others to their God. The story is they want to share what they have in their lives. But personally a lot of us could do without the whole thing. We have enough problems out there without adding stress and guilt on top of things.

 

Ever read a a christian tract? They usually start with the sweet gospel story told to children about God so loves the world and then jump right into the wages of sin are death and all have sinned with a finish about the gift of God(Some gift, considering the God of the Bible set everything up this way to begin with)being eternal life for those who believe.

 

The only religious guy who ever came up to me that I had to both laugh and have a little respect for the honest statement he made was a guy with a Kentuckey Fried Chicken bucket who said, "They gave this to me in the Church and said go collect some money for God." I actually gave that poor guy five dollars. Oh God, the movie comes to my mind, "Go tell the guy who calls himself God's Quarterback to quit preaching his words because he quit preaching mine long ago." That simple statement tends to sum up the organized christian religion very well and perhaps most of the religions out there if there is a God. Or better yet, Revelations, "They shall have a form of godliness, but deny the power therein..."

[lindagarrette]

I think a lot depends on how you go into a look at Calvin. Sure, he said there are those predestined to go to heaven and those predestined to go to hell. Does that mean he didn't believe in free will? Just because you are destined to do something, again, doesn't mean you didn't choose to do so. And, if God "offers" heaven only to those predestined to accept it, that still allows for free will.

 

It's a paradox. If you are predestined to do something and you don't do it, then how could you have been predestined to do it? If God knows everything, then he knows exactly what you are going to do so that's what you have to do.

[maddog]

Surely anyone who believes in a "higher power" believes in a personal god. Otherwise what would be the point?

What do you mean by a "personal god". Do you mean the relationship to God is personal or is it that

God is to you a person (anthropomorphizing). Let's say I can have a conversation with God. This could

be kinda' like the conversation I have with my TV set. Now for the most part the TV informs me of what

is happening in the world depending on what channel I tune to. I can talk back to my TV, does it listen ?

I change the channel, I get different stuff. For me, I do speak to God, I don't per se hear voices or

anything. I do none the less get messages. I get them in the form of parking spaces when I ask for

them, money to pay bills just in time, get things to happen in nick of time, and so forth. I suppose you

could call me "fortunate" or "lucky", I can not in any way challange this really. It just like Jung thought

about Synchronicity that unrelated events can somehow become entangled. I am also seing a similarity

to "Synergy" as being in the opposite direction of "Entropy". Maybe that is how God interacts with me.

My point is, does that make it personal ? ;)

 

Maddog

[bumab]

It's a paradox. If you are predestined to do something and you don't do it, then how could you have been predestined to do it? If God knows everything, then he knows exactly what you are going to do so that's what you have to do.

 

I don't see it as a paradox. Again- knowing what somebody is going to do is very different then that person not being able to do otherwise. I have the option to do many things. I will only do one of those things. Could I have chosen otherwise? Yes. (obviously, this all pre-supposes free will ;) as per the other discussions, haha)

 

Also, I do not think that God creating the potential for evil, and knowing that potential would be realized, still neccessarily implies God as evil. Obviously these arguments are getting far from scientific, but a CS Lewis idea is that creating independent creative beings of any value (i.e. not just chemical machines, but thinking, creating, free will acting beings) requires those beings to be able to do evil, since it requires free will.

 

Now, the real question- if that is so, is it worth the cost? Are we better off never having been, since we can do evil? I don't pretend to have an answer for that. As the Grand Inquisitor says in Brothers Karamozov- "We've fixed what you [God] did- we took away free will. Now the people are sheep, but they are happier." It also takes on clockwork orange symbolism- does taking away the capacity for evil reduce our capacity for good?

[maddog]

It's a paradox. If you are predestined to do something and you don't do it, then how could you have been predestined to do it? If God knows everything, then he knows exactly what you are going to do so that's what you have to do.

Maybe Destiny is handed to you on a platter. You choose each moment. Your choice collapse the

wave function and the outcome is known. It is always up to you. ;)

 

Maddog

[paultrr]

Good Scientific perspective and I agree. But its not the Biblical idea at all. Some Creationists, I do not know if the ID camp falls into this line, tend to not believe in either relativity or quantum theory or the BB for that matter. Yet, some do out there even if they think our measurment of the age of the Universe is off.

[paultrr]

I don't see it as a paradox. Again- knowing what somebody is going to do is very different then that person not being able to do otherwise. I have the option to do many things. I will only do one of those things. Could I have chosen otherwise? Yes. (obviously, this all pre-supposes free will ;) as per the other discussions, haha)

 

Also, I do not think that God creating the potential for evil, and knowing that potential would be realized, still neccessarily implies God as evil. Obviously these arguments are getting far from scientific, but a CS Lewis idea is that creating independent creative beings of any value (i.e. not just chemical machines, but thinking, creating, free will acting beings) requires those beings to be able to do evil, since it requires free will.

 

Now, the real question- if that is so, is it worth the cost? Are we better off never having been, since we can do evil? I don't pretend to have an answer for that. As the Grand Inquisitor says in Brothers Karamozov- "We've fixed what you [God] did- we took away free will. Now the people are sheep, but they are happier." It also takes on clockwork orange symbolism- does taking away the capacity for evil reduce our capacity for good?

 

Not that fiction is real, but Startrek had that one show that was intesting on that subject where Kirk discovered that it took both sides to make him the Commander he was. You might be surprized but I find via nature that both sides are required and actually I do not believe in any form of Calvin's type of predestination either, even when I was part of their camp. I've always sided more with Arminius, if I had to pick one side on that argument. Even went so far as to do a doctrinal paper on that very same subject back then which raised a lot of eyebrows. I was the type of student who while attending one of their Seminaries had a poster on my dorm door that read, "Welcome to the headquarters of the United Procrastination Church. 666 south Hades Way. One block south of the lake of fire." I found myself in constant argument with a lot of teachers, yet managed to pass every class I was ever in. One teacher remarked I was one of the few students who totally disagreed with them and was willing to back up every position I had with chapter, verse and even a history lesson or two.

[lindagarrette]

What do you mean by a "personal god". I do speak to God, I don't per se hear voices or

anything. I do none the less get messages.

My point is, does that make it personal ? ;)

 

Maddog

!You betcha'

[lindagarrette]

Good Scientific perspective and I agree. But its not the Biblical idea at all. Some Creationists, I do not know if the ID camp falls into this line, tend to not believe in either relativity or quantum theory or the BB for that matter. Yet, some do out there even if they think our measurment of the age of the Universe is off.

I disagree. A scientific theory is correct until it is proven otherwise. The ID concept is not a theory, therefore not comparable to science. You can't have a mix of the two. It's either science or belief in the supernatural. If there is a supernatural underpinning, then science is useless.

[bumab]

I disagree. A scientific theory is correct until it is proven otherwise. The ID concept is not a theory, therefore not comparable to science. You can't have a mix of the two. It's either science or belief in the supernatural. If there is a supernatural underpinning, then science is useless.

 

Surely you simply meant "accepted" rather then "correct." Incorrect theories are everywhere, even if they have not been proven otherwise yet.

 

I agree- you can't mix the two and have a scientific theory. It becomes something else, a non-scientific "theory of everything" ;) But, that doesn't make it incorrect. It does make it non-scientific, to a point, because obviously, there are things involved that are not testable, not provable, or something else.

 

But simply because something does not meet that critera does not mean it doesn't exist or is incorrect, it just means science is not the tool to investigate.