Back to Spirituality

@secondson said
Ok, I accept that definition. Or at least I can work with it.

Would you say that Merriam-Webster has a handle on that?

"the doctrine that God in consequence of his foreknowledge of all events infallibly guides those who are destined for salvation".

I think that says the same thing, which for me is summarised as:

Being Predestined by God; is God deciding what happens to you, setting your destiny.

Being for known of God: is God knowing what your destiny is, God knowing you in eternity

There is clear, and very important difference.

@secondson said
God does change people. That's what God does. It's called sanctification. Ever read that word in the Bible?

If you think an individual can enter the kingdom of God "on their own accord", then what you're really saying is that Jesus Christ is obsolete.

Do you even remotely understand the heretical and unbiblical nonsense coming out of you?

God can and do change people but it is not as how you mistakenly believe.

Sanctification is the act of making something holy. When you say grace before meals, that is the sanctification of the food. An atheist is made holy [sanctified] by his Christian wife. When a Christian is baptized and accepts Christ, he is made holy [sanctified] by the Spirit of God. None of this changes the food, or the atheist and neither the Christian. The food can become contaminated, the atheist can still continue to live sinfully and so can the Christian causing all to end up in damnation.

Clearly you do not know why Christ died. It is not so that Christians get a free pass into the Kingdom of God.

Read your bible.

@petewxyz said
Perhaps there is no point and it just happens because your brain chemicals were all set up for it to go that way. If you think you chose otherwise that was again just what was always going to happen anyway and a total illusion. There becomes no point, but you are just a forced spectator anyway. Horrible stuff with a completely external locus of control that is somehow not re ...[text shortened]... rocess of verbal deliberation within the mind that in fact was experienced later albeit minutely so.

This is good stuff, thanks. I'm just postulating, but are there 'passive' and 'reactive' situations? For example there's a pen on my desk, I have the choice (or do I? ) as to whether to pick up the pen or not, which will affect everything I do thereafter, (since at some point if I pick it up I'll have to put it down again, then wonder why I picked it up in the first place, which will make me not think about something else, and so on forever) it's just me and the pen, which plays no active part in the process.
On the other hand if someone walked into the room, I would be forced into a reaction. Is there any difference between a pen and a person?

@petewxyz said
Perhaps there is no point and it just happens because your brain chemicals were all set up for it to go that way. If you think you chose otherwise that was again just what was always going to happen anyway and a total illusion. There becomes no point, but you are just a forced spectator anyway. Horrible stuff with a completely external locus of control that is somehow not re ...[text shortened]... rocess of verbal deliberation within the mind that in fact was experienced later albeit minutely so.

Are you assuming that the ability to make decisions must be contained in the language centres of the brain?
Is there a reason for this assumption?
We are taught to fear the subconscious as something beyond our control but that is obviously ridiculous, everything we do is based on our unitary decision making process and we are responsible for every decision we make.
It’s obviously open to debate but predestined fate seems the most pointless model but even if we believe it to be the case that shouldn’t prevent us from enjoying the ride.

@kevcvs57 said
Are you assuming that the ability to make decisions must be contained in the language centres of the brain?
Is there a reason for this assumption?
We are taught to fear the subconscious as something beyond our control but that is obviously ridiculous, everything we do is based on our unitary decision making process and we are responsible for every decision we make.
It’s o ...[text shortened]... ess model but even if we believe it to be the case that shouldn’t prevent us from enjoying the ride.

I'm saying the opposite really. The evidence appears to be that the decision took place in an area of brain that doesn't use language. So by the time the apparent debate is going on in language in one part of our brain the decision already got made elsewhere.

So if Phil hears a sort of internal dialogue in spoken English going on his mind about whether or not to pick up the pen that is not actually happening in the area of the brain that took the decision. It's seemingly fractionally after the fact. This comes out of legitimate mainstream functional neuroanatomy, but it does my head in.

My current personal view is that hopefully the representation of Phil's decision making process as a conversation isn't all of Phil. It's just his place for knowing about what he was up to, but he was also going on (and hopefully taking part with free will) in the other brain areas, but just without the verbal language that would later be used as he experiences what he has been up to, but only with the illusion it is happening in real time. If any of that makes sense??

Maybe something like the way we seem to just have the dreams that are remembered, but it was us dreaming and presumably trying to have personal agency within the dream even though we only experience that in the remembering of the dream.

Maybe God having invented time for us has something to do with it.

If there's no time for God, then all things happen at once and so He already sees the decisions you made, are making and will make, all simultaneously.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Firstly I would act in a way that you probably wouldn't understand. (This is not intended as a slight, but laying out the actions of an infinite being are unlikely to be comprehended by a finite being). - This is where the Bible frequently breaks down and betrays the human authorship behind the words. The reasoning is clearly that of finite beings who lack divine attr ...[text shortened]... e cats. I would, for example, intervene more, and not care one jot if this infringed their freewill.

This issue about intervention on Gods part, or lack of it, is what appears to be the main reason for the rise of atheism in these times. That plus the failure of the Christian church which is supposed to represent God to convince people that God actually exist. What I think is Gods mo, is to leave things for times and seasons and eras. Each period has certain features, creation to Moses, then the period to Christ, then the period of the Apostles preaching and then this period now. This period is the one where the actual presence and powers of God is absent hence the problem of disbelief. In a subsequent era there is the coming of the destruction of evil and Satan.

Your mangy cat, with my expanded evil qualities, is like Satan. God has appointed a time for his punishment. God does not continually appear and show himself to people so that they will believe. Here is one explanation for that

The universe is teeming with intelligent life, all created by God. There are billions of galaxies, and in each one there are hundreds of millions of inhabitable planets like earth. Its hard to fathom that in terms of how many beings live in this universe, all controlled by God and his heavenly host of angels. Maybe our turn to see and meet God is a few thousand yrs away, or is just around the corner.

Just my 2 cents. Christians hate that kind of talk because it makes them feel small and insignificant in the overall scheme of things in the universe.

@rajk999 said
This issue about intervention on Gods part, or lack of it, is what appears to be the main reason for the rise of atheism in these times. That plus the failure of the Christian church which is supposed to represent God to convince people that God actually exist. What I think is Gods mo, is to leave things for times and seasons and eras. Each period has certain features, creat ...[text shortened]... because it makes them feel small and insignificant in the overall scheme of things in the universe.

I concur that life proliferates across the universe, though reject the comparison of the mangy cat to Satan.

I have seen the cat eat sardines on many occasions. Satan would never do that.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I concur that life proliferates across the universe, though reject the comparison of the mangy cat to Satan.

I have seen the cat eat sardines on many occasions. Satan would never do that.

😀

@petewxyz said
I'm saying the opposite really. The evidence appears to be that the decision took place in an area of brain that doesn't use language. So by the time the apparent debate is going on in language in one part of our brain the decision already got made elsewhere.

So if Phil hears a sort of internal dialogue in spoken English going on his mind about whether or not to pick up t ...[text shortened]... ersonal agency within the dream even though we only experience that in the remembering of the dream.

Ahh yes I think that debate concerning the initial decision is an excellent way for the brain to operate a checks and balances system. I suppose it could be related to psychological theories concerning layers of consciousness and decision making such as the ID, Ego and Super-Ego model.
Deja vu could also be explained by a related flow of information process.

@rajk999 said
This issue about intervention on Gods part, or lack of it, is what appears to be the main reason for the rise of atheism in these times. That plus the failure of the Christian church which is supposed to represent God to convince people that God actually exist. What I think is Gods mo, is to leave things for times and seasons and eras. Each period has certain features, creat ...[text shortened]... because it makes them feel small and insignificant in the overall scheme of things in the universe.

"Christians hate that kind of talk because it makes them feel small and insignificant in the overall scheme of things in the universe."

And it makes you feel big and important.

Next thing you'll be telling us is that you've been to other galaxies and met some of these intelligent beings you claim exist.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I concur that life proliferates across the universe,

Did you take a tour of the universe with Rajk?

Perhaps you and Rajk can provide the names of some of these alleged civilizations, and maybe a recorded message from their leaders?

😁

@secondson said
"Christians hate that kind of talk because it makes them feel small and insignificant in the overall scheme of things in the universe."

And it makes you feel big and important.

Next thing you'll be telling us is that you've been to other galaxies and met some of these intelligent beings you claim exist.

Actually the realization that the universe is teeming with life and that God has most probably created millions of other civilizations is what makes one feel small. Then again, you get most doctrines in the bible wrong so that explains it.

@secondson said
Did you take a tour of the universe with Rajk?

Perhaps you and Rajk can provide the names of some of these alleged civilizations, and maybe a recorded message from their leaders?

😁

Take a tour of the bible and you will see there is evidence of life out there.

@rajk999 said
Take a tour of the bible and you will see there is evidence of life out there.

Tell me more. Are you a Christian? Quote the bible.