Posts by LittleToe

63

Predestination?

by Zico in

predestination is something ive been thinking a bit about of late, mainly due to a wt article on the subject printed in the may awake, which i read after skimming through the magazine at the weekend.

i believe the wt reasoning on the subject is that god has the ability to see into the future, but that he chooses not to look into the future, as it would negate our free will, although the recent may article was more a criticism of predestination, and although they didnt assert their own position, what struck me from reading the article, and contemplating the wt article in general is that they seem to focus on time a lot, and its this part where the wt idea of predestination seems to fall down to me.

if god created the universe and everything in it, as a jw would assert, this would also mean he would have had to have created time (which is a product of our universe) and so before god created time, it, obviously, wouldnt have existed, and without time, there cant be a past, present and future.

LittleToe

Dawn:
Sorry if my comments were a little terse. Sometimes I forget that most folks here don't have a grasp on orthodox theology, nor would they likely want to.

You'll note that I'm expressing what I believe to be the most logical view if you restrict yourself to the canon of 66 books of the Bible. Thus I have to quote people like Paul. My own personal conviction might be quite different, but that's another story and one with little consistent textual support.

Your argument rests on the supposition that we are all God's chilldren in a human sense. Paul's argument is clearly that we become His children when He adopts us. We are not naturally born as God's children.

For my personal opinion, I'm currently undergoing another bout of reconsideration involving the purgative affects of reincarnation in bringing a universal salvation, so I'm afraid I cannot be plainer than I have already expressed.

Ok. I perhaps didn't ask the question clearly enough. You indicated that he was slain somehow prior to it happening in the real world. That was the part I wanted to ask about. Where is that particular idea from? How can you say it happened somewhere other than the real world and then happened in the real world. Does the bible indicate this timeline for events?

Rev.13:8, as I posted.

The chain of logic is as follows:

He is the lamb that was slain before the founding of the world Rev.13:8
Since this is likely attempting to describe a point prior to the [world / universe / time] being created, it appears that its an attempt at describing something that [happened / was lined up] in "eternity"
God mysteriously lives in eternity, knowing the end from the beginning, etc, thus either He or His dwelling place possesses some attribute that makes time [as we know it] meaningless Isa.46:10
The "Son of God" enters into our world, into time, as attested in Phil.2:6-8
The crucifixion at Calvary is described as a literal event with spiritual significance
The event allegedly involves a victory over death Isa.25:8
This victory is then able to be distributed to others after his return to "eternity", thus working backwards and forwards from the point of the actual physical events 1Cor.15:54, 55

I suspect that "eternity" has to have its own rules regarding time, since things are expressed as a logical sequence of events, though that might be anthropomorphising. The Akashic record certainly appears to be in some kind of order and relevance.

I hope that helps. I'd be glad to discuss it more on the weekend, if you'd like.

54

My Spiritual Awakening has turned to........

by AK - Jeff in

general apathy about religion.. i don't know precisely when it happened.

but at some point i began to stop needing anything 'organized' in my life religiously.

not too long ago - as attested to by multiple threads i started here - i was still wishing to replace the ritual of religion at the kingdom hall with some other church.

LittleToe

False religion is a bit of a misnomer, don't you think, in that is presupposes that there's a "true" religion?

What if religion is just an organised means of people expressing their spirituality? Maybe some "groups" that call themselves a religion are merely using that guise and are hurting others in the process?

I enjoy a range of religious practises that include church attendance for its communal aspect. I never lose sight of the fact that religion for its own sake is often detestable, and that my focus is spirituality. As has been rightly stated, it doesn't require a building or company for that, but sometimes it can be nice

63

Predestination?

by Zico in

predestination is something ive been thinking a bit about of late, mainly due to a wt article on the subject printed in the may awake, which i read after skimming through the magazine at the weekend.

i believe the wt reasoning on the subject is that god has the ability to see into the future, but that he chooses not to look into the future, as it would negate our free will, although the recent may article was more a criticism of predestination, and although they didnt assert their own position, what struck me from reading the article, and contemplating the wt article in general is that they seem to focus on time a lot, and its this part where the wt idea of predestination seems to fall down to me.

if god created the universe and everything in it, as a jw would assert, this would also mean he would have had to have created time (which is a product of our universe) and so before god created time, it, obviously, wouldnt have existed, and without time, there cant be a past, present and future.

LittleToe

Gumby:We grow through adversity. Maybe "survival of the fittest" is the best method to get us where we eventually need to be...

Like you, I think the idea that God somehow limits His own foresight is a pretty wierd WTS belief.

63

Predestination?

by Zico in

predestination is something ive been thinking a bit about of late, mainly due to a wt article on the subject printed in the may awake, which i read after skimming through the magazine at the weekend.

i believe the wt reasoning on the subject is that god has the ability to see into the future, but that he chooses not to look into the future, as it would negate our free will, although the recent may article was more a criticism of predestination, and although they didnt assert their own position, what struck me from reading the article, and contemplating the wt article in general is that they seem to focus on time a lot, and its this part where the wt idea of predestination seems to fall down to me.

if god created the universe and everything in it, as a jw would assert, this would also mean he would have had to have created time (which is a product of our universe) and so before god created time, it, obviously, wouldnt have existed, and without time, there cant be a past, present and future.

LittleToe

DDog:

Forget Calvin, What does it mean to be a vessel "fitted out for destruction"?

You allude to Rom.9:22, wherein God is described as enduring such "folks" that He might make known the glory of those whom He would be merciful to. We've gone the rounds on this chapter before, having to agree to disagree.

To reinterate my own opinion, we are the authors of our own evil and decay, thus we "fit out" ourselves. Thus that which was originally dishonourable may be given the greater glory by how it is adorned (or fitted out) 1Cor.12:23, 24.

When do babies get to make their choice or a chance to choose?

They don't. Their parents make those choices for them. Your point?

Dawn:
Ah the joys of discussing a theology based on just 66 short books. This would be why I prefer to extend the scope to something that seems a little more reasonable.

If you don't mind, please could you provide the source for this belief:

Usually I'm not that keen on basing my beliefs on The Apocalypse, however: Rev.5:12; 13:8 and others.

Are you suggesting that God chooses those who will be "born again" and leaves everyone else to their own devices?

Paul was of that opinion.

Is that loving?

Sure. We love whom we love, and don't love whom we don't love. Isn't that our choice to make? Would we therefore permit God less freedom than we allow ourselves?

As you know, I do not accept our need for atonement, however assuming we do need it, why isn't it offered to all?

Allegedly it is. Thus the argument starts over whether or not it is limited to a few or universal in scope.

27

God could NEVER convince me he exists. Weird...

by AlmostAtheist in

jw
friends

it just dawned on me, and i'm really a little put out over it.

i was reading alanf's comments about vinny and his willingness to sacrifice children if god told him to.

alan suggested any fundamentalist christian should agree he would, and vinny did in fact agree.

LittleToe

That's a slippery-slope fallacy. What are the odds that if God manifested Himself He would instantly command you to go murder someone? That aint exactly the kind of subject for first introductions, now, is it?

63

Predestination?

by Zico in

predestination is something ive been thinking a bit about of late, mainly due to a wt article on the subject printed in the may awake, which i read after skimming through the magazine at the weekend.

i believe the wt reasoning on the subject is that god has the ability to see into the future, but that he chooses not to look into the future, as it would negate our free will, although the recent may article was more a criticism of predestination, and although they didnt assert their own position, what struck me from reading the article, and contemplating the wt article in general is that they seem to focus on time a lot, and its this part where the wt idea of predestination seems to fall down to me.

if god created the universe and everything in it, as a jw would assert, this would also mean he would have had to have created time (which is a product of our universe) and so before god created time, it, obviously, wouldnt have existed, and without time, there cant be a past, present and future.

LittleToe

Didier:
I wouldn't say that one branch of Calvinist holds all the answers, nor claim to the title "genuine" or "orthodox". My view is simply that He predestines those whom He choses (which is easily extended to a universalist position), thus it is a positive predestination.

As for those left over, he simply permits them to remain as they are, without extending any special grace to them. Since its about showing mercy to whomever He wills, it has little to do with what is and isn't fair. Showing mercy circumvents absolute justice, IMHO, and by very definition isn't fair.

Gumby:
Are you sure you aren't again anthropomorphising God in your image of what a "father" should or shouldn't be? Do you take similar issue with a scientist who "plays god" with a few petre dishes of bacteria? As an evolutionist it would be a bit rich of me to do so, believing that the battle for survival has led to the diversity and equilibrium that we now experience on this planet. Why does that process suddenly have to stop with Homo Sapien Sapien, when it could well be that there are a few more adaptations to go before we rise above the stage of bacteria? Or are you telling me that it must be so because some ancient goat-herd got above his station?

63

Predestination?

by Zico in

predestination is something ive been thinking a bit about of late, mainly due to a wt article on the subject printed in the may awake, which i read after skimming through the magazine at the weekend.

i believe the wt reasoning on the subject is that god has the ability to see into the future, but that he chooses not to look into the future, as it would negate our free will, although the recent may article was more a criticism of predestination, and although they didnt assert their own position, what struck me from reading the article, and contemplating the wt article in general is that they seem to focus on time a lot, and its this part where the wt idea of predestination seems to fall down to me.

if god created the universe and everything in it, as a jw would assert, this would also mean he would have had to have created time (which is a product of our universe) and so before god created time, it, obviously, wouldnt have existed, and without time, there cant be a past, present and future.

LittleToe

Didier:
Of course, not all Calvinists believe in double-predestination. This is often the debate that I and DeputyDog have, wherein he believes in it, while I do not. Hence I describe myself as a moderate, rather than a high- or hyper- Calvinist.

Sirona:
As you note, many of these things are not mutually exclusive. It is quite possible to be a monotheist / polytheist / deist and also a panentheist. It is also quite possible to believe in reincarnation and predestination with no contradiction.

The freewill debate is approached from the view of there being two sides to the coin - God's view and Man's. From our perspective we have complete freewill. From God's perspective He allegedly can see the end from the beginning and nothing happens that He doesn't know about. It is all predestined. The two sides appear contradictory if you attempt to view them from the same vantage point, but once you realise its merely a matter of perspective it seems rational enough.

The issue of sin is little different. Sins have been paid for by a lamb that was slain before the founding of the world, and yet it was also an event that was carried out "in" time. If you're a universalist (believing in a universal salvation for all mankind) then there's no unfairness to account for, aside from the crappy providence that many experience in this "hell on earth". If you're not then you have a little explaining to do, but can still come up witha fairly plausible explanation for the diverse opinions found in the canon of 66 books.

Following on from the "lamb" comment, and to fuirther address your other comment: An eternal "Son of God" threw himself at "death" and allegedly triumphed, but not without repercussions.

27

Parthogenesis: How do creationists explain this?

by Crumpet in

i read this article in the paper on the train to work this morning (helped to keep me eyes of ladies feet and ankles) and was amazed as i never knew this before.. http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=50123&in_page_id=34.

certain species can actually get pregnant and give birth without any make interaction.

if this doesnt support evolution as the most scientifically accountable theory of our existence what does?!.

LittleToe

There were hammer-head sharks in the ark??? OMG!!!

Another amazing species is the cuckoo wrasse, where the dominant female will turn into a male if there's no male around to fertilise the shoal.

450

Isn't God Awesome?

by Perry in

http://wonderofitall.com/

LittleToe

Nvr:
I'd be dismayed if you seriously take the actions of a few to represent the whole. Sadly I have to confess that there are many poor examples of Christians, but most of the ones I've met are quiet and get on with their lives without casting wide aspersions and creating havoc.

Vinny:

Little Toe, I did not know you were a believer based on your earlier comments. I was going to ask you to stop worrying about how I deal with atheists since you only comment on just that and the bwaaahaha thing... ...But now that I see you are an Intelligent Design proponent, my only question is, what took you so long? Fire up your engines and hold on tight. Trouncing over atheists silly teachings is a real blast and easy as 1-2-3...

You need to stop for a moment and consider the effects of your actions. Folks are telling you loud and clear, but you just don't seem to be getting it. You really aren't providing a good advert for Christianity. Please don't tell me you have a degree in advertising!?!!

And for your information not all atheists believe in evolution and not all Christians don't. I belong in the latter category.

450

Isn't God Awesome?

by Perry in

http://wonderofitall.com/

LittleToe

Hillary:I might take you up on this, though it won't be imminent as you astutely note that I'm currently going through another transitionary phase.

As you will be aware, from my regular statements about it, I have never permitted myself to grow stagnant in my beliefs. I allow them to evolve and regularly sift them and strip out all that is redundant. I'm acutely aware that I have sprung from the WTS cooking pot and this adds an element of caution to what I verbalise. I believe it is process, and hopefully one that I will continue to enjoy until my dying day.

My difficulty with relinquishing "Christ" would be especially down to some of my more personal earlier experiences. However I would still sharply divide religion from spirituality. While I enjoy a variety of religious practices, though not with the previous relish, I deplore religion for its own sake.

The Celtic pilgrimage is a journey, not a destination