How Do You Distinguish Biblical History vs Parable?

[humblehumility]

How is "God outside of time knows my choice" different in impact in that regard from "a person the future knows my choice"?

Because God (also being a father) has the ability to intervene, he is not just a mere fortune teller.

As much as God knows that a murderer will commit a murder on any given night, he allows this to happen. This isn't due to free will (because as I explained, it's not truly free) but due to God's seeming indifference. Could he not tip off a faithful cop to help prevent the murder? This would help save not only the innocent child of his that is about to be murdered, but also the child that's about to commit a sinful act.

Why intervene for thousands of years in the past (evidence: see the Bible), but not once in the past 1,000 years at least?

 

[ebia]

Because God (also being a father) has the ability to intervene, he is not just a mere fortune teller.

As much as God knows that a murderer will commit a murder on any given night, he allows this to happen. This isn't due to free will (because as I explained, it's not truly free) but due to God's seeming indifference. Could he not tip off a faithful cop to help prevent the murder? This would help save not only the innocent child of his that is about to be murdered, but also the child that's about to commit a sinful act.

Why intervene for thousands of years in the past (evidence: see the Bible), but not once in the past 1,000 years at least?

What you are saying doesn't make sense - God choosing to allow us to make genuine choices is not, in principle, any different to us allowing each other to make choices. "free will" does not mean "without any external influence whatsoever" or it reduces to meaninglessness long before we start thinking about God.

 

[razeontherock]

This is wrong. If God has knowledge of all actions we will commit, those actions are not free. They are predetermined, and we are following his script (in millions of cases, the script to do evil...this is what makes atheists "angry").

You would say we are "free" because we have the ability to choose, but the only thing we are able to choose is what God knows we will choose. For instance:

Someone holds a red ball and a blue ball out in front of you, and tells you to pick one. God knows you will pick the red ball, but he doesn't intervene and let's you use your free will to make a choice. You of course choose the red ball, just like God knew. Would you agree with this logic?

Not at all.

Now let's think about this from a different angle. Since God knows with 100% certainty which ball you will choose, you have already picked the red ball before you were even given the free will option to choose between red and blue. You just believe you have a choice in the matter, but the reality is that it has been predetermined by God. You cannot fool God and at the last second choose the blue ball, you will -with absolute certainty- pick the red ball. I'll rephrase: you cannot pick the blue ball. Now, are you really free to choose?

Test your theory. Drive down the highway. Around here 75 mph is normal. Let go of the steering wheel. What will happen is death and not life, which is not G-d's will.

We really have free will, and there really is such a thing as sin. Philosophising does not change reality. G-d predetermines no one to sin; that's on us. And it's the point of the first story in the bible, and the incredibly main thrust of the entire collection of books.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

So even though Israel was destroyed as a nation they remained the 'covenant people'. Jesus said 'I am sent ONLY to the lost sheep of 'the house of Israel', a reference to the ten-tribed northern kingdom destroyed by the Assyrians in 720 BC. Christ was the mediator of a new covenant, but the people of that covenant remain the physical descendants of Israel.

No.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[razeontherock]

Why intervene for thousands of years in the past (evidence: see the Bible), but not once in the past 1,000 years at least?

This is a silly question. He has intervened in my life alone more than I can count, and I'm not nearly 1000 years old

 

[humblehumility]

"free will" does not mean "without any external influence whatsoever" or it reduces to meaninglessness long before we start thinking about God.

As someone who was formerly a faithful Christian, I can honestly say I completely understand why my statement wouldn't make sense to you. The statement I quoted is false though.

How do you define freedom? One way I would define it is "The ability to do something without any external influence". For example: in the United States we have the freedom of religion. That means we are free to believe in any religion we choose without fear of any external influence (government in this case) suppressing or altering our freedom. The government can't do anything to force or change what you individually believe in.

I guess to best explain your side, you can first define freedom and then give me an example of how the pure definition of freedom can be influenced externally, but still be free (according to your definition of the word).

 

[humblehumility]

Not at all.

Can you elaborate? Simply stating you disagree does no good to anybody in this thread.

You can best state your case by telling me how in a scenario where God knows you are going to pick the red ball, that you can pick the blue ball instead.

Test your theory. Drive down the highway. Around here 75 mph is normal. Let go of the steering wheel. What will happen is death and not life, which is not G-d's will.

That won't test the theory in any way. God knows if I'll die or if I'll crash and by some "miracle" survive. The choice is still predetermined and not mine.

We really have free will, and there really is such a thing as sin. Philosophising does not change reality. G-d predetermines no one to sin; that's on us. And it's the point of the first story in the bible, and the incredibly main thrust of the entire collection of books.

Well yes, it is philosophy only because it relates to religion (which is purely philosophy).

In the context of religion, it's not philosophy; it's actuality. If God knows everything, then everything is predetermined. If everything is predetermined, then your choices are predetermined. If your choices are predetermined, they are not free.

 

[razeontherock]

Here are a few places where your logic breaks down:

Well yes, it is philosophy only because it relates to religion (which is purely philosophy).

Can and Abel were not having a philosophical discussion. There was a REAL difference between them!

If God knows everything, then everything is predetermined.

That does not logically follow. You are presuming G-d to be trapped in time, as we are. He is not, by definition. IF he truly knows everything, (which is not so clearly established in Scripture as so many like to think) that has no bearing on Him making things happen a certain way, as you assume.

And the proof of this is sin, which by definition is against His will.

So your logic cannot get past this barrier. Meaning we really do have responsibility! Which was given to us by G-d; i.e., dominion. Which is why doing 85 in a 65 will make you forfeit your license, instead of using G-d as an excuse. (If your scenario were true, cops would accept that as an excuse)

 

[ebia]

As someone who was formerly a faithful Christian, I can honestly say I completely understand why my statement wouldn't make sense to you. The statement I quoted is false though.

How do you define freedom? One way I would define it is "The ability to do something without any external influence". For example: in the United States we have the freedom of religion. That means we are free to believe in any religion we choose without fear of any external influence (government in this case) suppressing or altering our freedom. The government can't do anything to force or change what you individually believe in.

I guess to best explain your side, you can first define freedom and then give me an example of how the pure definition of freedom can be influenced externally, but still be free (according to your definition of the word).

Your definition does not work. There are a mass of external influences on your choice of religion. You treat influence as though it were all or nothing.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No.

-CryptoLutheran

So Jesus didn't say this: 'But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.' (Matthew 15:24)

 

[razeontherock]

Omnipotence is hemmed in by the fact He gave mankind dominion.

 

[humblehumility]

Omnipotence is hemmed in by the fact He gave mankind dominion.

Dominion...over the Earth correct? Not over consciousness, thoughts, and will.

I'll admit I'm not too well-versed on whether or not the Bible says God is omnipotent, so he may not be. My argument is only assuming that he is, something many people believe in.

 

[razeontherock]

God is omnipotent means that God created (caused) us knowing what actions we'd take even before we take them.

Your Freudian slip here reveals the source of this particular error in your logic. You are confusing omnipotence with omniscience. And since it is reasonable to anticipate your response, yes the 2 are distinct, and no, they don't have the relationship you choose to assert.

My argument essentially is that God isn't omnipotent, or else our choices are not free.

Nowhere does the Bible say G-d is omnipotent. What it does say is He is MOST powerful, more powerful than any other. Several things limit His ability:

He gave us dominion. (Meaning we can pick red or blue balls, among other things)

He does not change
He can not lie
He will not fail
He has exalted His Word above His Name (and Name in this sense means what one is like)

 

[razeontherock]

Dominion...over the Earth correct? Not over consciousness, thoughts, and will.

Most assuredly over thoughts:

(2 Cor 10:5) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ"

Most assuredly will:

(Proverbs 25:28) He that [hath] no rule over his own spirit [is like] a city [that is] broken down, [and] without walls."

Both abilities are esteemed in the Bible as Spiritual, and Christian virtues. The interesting part is how this is available to anyone, regardless of profession of Faith (or not)

(Matthew 11:12) And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force."

How often do you hear someone preach on violence?

Now the consciousness you mention, that seems to be a different category. I'm not prepared to speak much about that, but I have encountered the idea that our conscience is the aspect of us that is in the image of G-d, which is an idea I cannot dismiss. What I do understand is that we are a soul, as a by-product of our body being in contact with a (s)Spirit outside of ourselves. This includes all that we are aware of, which might be synonymous with our consciousness?

We can certainly rule over that!

 

[CryptoLutheran]

So Jesus didn't say this: 'But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.' (Matthew 15:24)

He did.

My "No" was in your interpretation of it. It would seem that you're implying the fiction that the ten northern tribes were lost and--maybe I'm wrong on this part, but it was what I was and am still anticipating--these became disseminated into Europe and what not thereby making traditionally European Christian nations the "House of Israel". Thus in my Anglo/Germanic/etc heritage I'd be an Israelite.

I'm not an Israelite, my ancestors weren't from the twelve tribes of Israel descended from Jacob; my ancestors were druids and worshipers of Odin and Thor, who received the Gospel from the missionary activity of men like St. Patrick and St. Boniface, apostles to the Irish and Germans respectively.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Hentenza]

This is wrong. If God has knowledge of all actions we will commit, those actions are not free. They are predetermined, and we are following his script (in millions of cases, the script to do evil...this is what makes atheists "angry").

You would say we are "free" because we have the ability to choose, but the only thing we are able to choose is what God knows we will choose. For instance:

Someone holds a red ball and a blue ball out in front of you, and tells you to pick one. God knows you will pick the red ball, but he doesn't intervene and let's you use your free will to make a choice. You of course choose the red ball, just like God knew. Would you agree with this logic?

Now let's think about this from a different angle. Since God knows with 100% certainty which ball you will choose, you have already picked the red ball before you were even given the free will option to choose between red and blue. You just believe you have a choice in the matter, but the reality is that it has been predetermined by God. You cannot fool God and at the last second choose the blue ball, you will -with absolute certainty- pick the red ball. I'll rephrase: you cannot pick the blue ball. Now, are you really free to choose?

You only responded and quoted the first sentence in my post. The rest of my post explains it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

He did.

My "No" was in your interpretation of it. It would seem that you're implying the fiction that the ten northern tribes were lost and--maybe I'm wrong on this part, but it was what I was and am still anticipating--these became disseminated into Europe and what not thereby making traditionally European Christian nations the "House of Israel". Thus in my Anglo/Germanic/etc heritage I'd be an Israelite.

I'm not an Israelite, my ancestors weren't from the twelve tribes of Israel descended from Jacob; my ancestors were druids and worshipers of Odin and Thor, who received the Gospel from the missionary activity of men like St. Patrick and St. Boniface, apostles to the Irish and Germans respectively.

-CryptoLutheran

The tribe of Dan seems to be connected with Denmark and Ireland, and 'Odin' as well by some biblical historians.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

The tribe of Dan seems to be connected with Denmark and Ireland, and 'Odin' as well by some biblical historians.

No. The tribe of Dan does not have any connection with Denmark, Ireland or Odin. The "din" or "dan" in Odin/Wodan isn't a functional division of the word; etymologically we're dealing with the meaning of óðr/wōþ (or wōd), the appropriate suffix is -an/-in.

Denmark and Ireland have no more connection with Dan than Odin does.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No. The tribe of Dan does not have any connection with Denmark, Ireland or Odin. The "din" or "dan" in Odin/Wodan isn't a functional division of the word; etymologically we're dealing with the meaning of óðr/wōþ (or wōd), the appropriate suffix is -an/-in.

Denmark and Ireland have no more connection with Dan than Odin does.

-CryptoLutheran

Wow. Tell that to that Irish band that calls themselves "The Tribe of Dan".

 

[twob4me]

~~~~~~~~~~~~MOD HAT ON!!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This thread has gone through a clean up. If you notice a post of yours missing it was removed in the clean up. Please remember this EC SOP rule:

We recognize that real seekers are looking for real answers, and the first reply given may be insufficient to achieve this. It is acceptable for the Original Poster (OP) to probe the answers given, and to continue the discussion on lines which help to clarify their understanding of the Christian faith. If another non-Christian seeker wishes to ask questions about the Christian faith, they may start their own thread. No more than one non-Christian (the OP) may post in a thread.

You can find that listed within the Exploring Christianity FSG's

Documentation of thread clean up is HERE for staff only!

~~~~~~~~~~~~MOD HAT OFF!!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~