Creating God in one's own image.

[j]

SS, just as a personal comment, people usually don't mean any harm by pressing you.  Usually their motivation is one of two things: 1) to "earn points" toward their own afterlife reward, etc...

I've always seen this as a failing on the part of God. It doesn't give Christians a chance to be good or evil on their own, because everything a true believer does will be coloured by their beliefs. If a person helps someone else in order to gain heaven points, or whatever, then that's a selfish act. Surely only an atheist can act in a genuinely good way, untempered by expectation of reward, and so shouldn't only (good) atheists go to heaven? Of course, here I run into the question of what "good" means, so I'll refer you to Moore (not Kevin) and throw in the towel on that score.

This is an interesting observation.  But I'd add that everybody has underlying motivations for their actions (in addition to their professed ones) that they may not even be consciously aware of at all times.  Take helping an old lady across the street.  For a lot of Christians, the real motivation is "earning points with the big guy" or wanting to appear pious, when outwardly, they'd claim to be acting selflessly.  They're still acting in what they perceive to be their own best interests.  That applies to everybody.  Theirs just happens to be based on their religious beliefs.

I agree, that sort of eliminates the possibility of *true* selflessness, since the motive for righteousness is either fear of punishment or hope of earning a reward for oneself.  I don't think anybody does good deeds PURELY out of love of God.

-J

[Vivace]

Yes.  If Dawkins is militant just for being so close minded, you have to call any Christian who preaches their beliefs with conviction to be militant.  Do I believe this?  No!  There is a fine line between pronouncing one's beliefs and being aggressive against others'.  I don't think there is much argument against the notion that Christians have, in various denominations and forms, been incredibly agressive and inconsiderate towards other's beliefs.  There might have been some Atheists who were violent to Christian groups here and there, but when was the last time you heard of an organized "militant atheist" group being truly aggressive?

I just named three of them. Are you selectively categorizing today?

[Vivace]

 I don't think anybody does good deeds PURELY out of love of God.

-J

I can point out quite a few .....thousands.

[SixDegrees]

.

[j]

 I don't think anybody does good deeds PURELY out of love of God.

-J

I can point out quite a few .....thousands.

And maybe you're right, obviously I can't know for certain.  But I admit I'm skeptical that a person can *really* put aside ALL selfish tendencies toward which we're so strongly inclined.  I've thought I'd done it at times in the past, and in hindsight, I'm not so sure.  How do you know if a person gives to the food pantry with 100% pure motives of love and compassion?  Don't you think that even if that's the primary motivation, there's at least a little sliver of "...and plus, it gets me 'Heaven points'"?

-J

[SixDegrees]

.

[SixDegrees]

.

[Vivace]

But what other than faith alone makes you believe that the Bible contains the Word of God at all? There doesn't seem to be anything other than the Bible itself saying so, plus tradition.

The Word of God is found in the Bible. No human being can prove this, you have only God's Word that guides you to this faith. I'm sorry if that wasn't made clear before.

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying is irrational, sorry. Are you saying that a belief that the Bible has been changed shouldn't be reason to dismiss the whole thing? I wasn't saying that, though if I was still a Christian then I'd be troubled by the idea that the original holy word had been changed at all. How can you know what's the word of God and what has been changed by man?

How do you know what was written wasn't a mistake made by the human imperfection? Why are people so quick to judge that God Himself picked up a pen wrote the Bible and dropped it from the sky when we know the Bible was written by Man? If we know the Bible was written by Man then why do we assume that in our human condition which is imperfect that we are able to hear and understand completely and without error the Word of God? Why are people so quick to judge that God should make himself more clear when God is not the problem, it's our limitations. So know the question stands, knowing that human are imperfect, knowing that we cannot plausibly understand and come to know God 100% because of the human limitations nor are we capible of taking this Word of God and making it 100% accurate due to our limitations still inclined to force the idea of 100% accuracy or you cannot justify faith in the Bible? This is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole without adding to or taking away from the square peg and the round hole. You cannot rationally concluded that the Bible should be 100% perfectwhen we know the Bible was written by those who under no circumstances were 100% nor could have been made 100% perfect. The only person that was 100% perfect was Christ himself if you chose to believe that or not and if people want to question why He didn't write anything I state the following, "if they are not going to believe in these writers, then they wouldn't believe if Christ himself wrote it." I'd stake my life on that claim.

But the idea of First Causes, Prime Movers and so on just leads to infinite regression. The cosmological argument for God isn't terribly well-supported, in my view.

No it doesn't. It leads to a first cause and to say that this argument isn't well supported is not true at all. It is quite well supported and still is supported to this day by quite a few 10s of millions of people.

[Vivace]

 I don't think anybody does good deeds PURELY out of love of God.

-J

I can point out quite a few .....thousands.

And maybe you're right, obviously I can't know for certain.  But I admit I'm skeptical that a person can *really* put aside ALL selfish tendencies toward which we're so strongly inclined.  I've thought I'd done it at times in the past, and in hindsight, I'm not so sure.  How do you know if a person gives to the food pantry with 100% pure motives of love and compassion?  Don't you think that even if that's the primary motivation, there's at least a little sliver of "...and plus, it gets me 'Heaven points'"?

-J

What makes you the bearer of truth of what goes on in a person's mind when they are performing an act of charity? Why is it hard for you to believe that a person is capible and does frequently give to charity without a selfish motivation? What act of logic and reason has led to this conviction of the human person? The only one that knows this for certain is God, naturally. no one else knows 100% what is in a person's mind but I would rather think of the act in a positive light than follow what seems to be the norm which is see charity as done under some negative light.

Why so negative?

[Vivace]

I don't think anybody does good deeds PURELY out of love of God.

-J

I can point out quite a few .....thousands.

Could you name a couple? I'd be interested in hearing them. However, I think both of us may run up against the basic problem that we can't know what others are thinking. E.g. if someone rescues a baby from a burning building, you might argue that he does it from a Christian helping thy neighbour motive, while I might say that he does it for social approval or from motives instilled from childhood in the form of the superego (for example). But neither of us would actually know.

So if you'd be happy to post examples, I'm curious.

Every single one of the Saints, most religious people, monks, priests, friars, even laity. I can say with 100% conviction Padre Pio did all things purely out of the love of God as did every single one of the saints. We know this because of biographies written of them. Visit a monastery, a friary, a soup kitchen run by nuns. If you go to anyone one of these places I'm convinced you will human beings acting purely out of the love of God.

[eric42434224]

I don't think anybody does good deeds PURELY out of love of God.

-J

I can point out quite a few .....thousands.

Could you name a couple? I'd be interested in hearing them. However, I think both of us may run up against the basic problem that we can't know what others are thinking. E.g. if someone rescues a baby from a burning building, you might argue that he does it from a Christian helping thy neighbour motive, while I might say that he does it for social approval or from motives instilled from childhood in the form of the superego (for example). But neither of us would actually know.

So if you'd be happy to post examples, I'm curious.

Every single one of the Saints, most religious people, monks, priests, friars, even laity. I can say with 100% conviction Padre Pio did all things purely out of the love of God as did every single one of the saints. We know this because of biographies written of them. Visit a monastery, a friary, a soup kitchen run by nuns. If you go to anyone one of these places I'm convinced you will human beings acting purely out of the love of God.

Purely speculation

[Vivace]

I don't think anybody does good deeds PURELY out of love of God.

-J

I can point out quite a few .....thousands.

Could you name a couple? I'd be interested in hearing them. However, I think both of us may run up against the basic problem that we can't know what others are thinking. E.g. if someone rescues a baby from a burning building, you might argue that he does it from a Christian helping thy neighbour motive, while I might say that he does it for social approval or from motives instilled from childhood in the form of the superego (for example). But neither of us would actually know.

So if you'd be happy to post examples, I'm curious.

Every single one of the Saints, most religious people, monks, priests, friars, even laity. I can say with 100% conviction Padre Pio did all things purely out of the love of God as did every single one of the saints. We know this because of biographies written of them. Visit a monastery, a friary, a soup kitchen run by nuns. If you go to anyone one of these places I'm convinced you will human beings acting purely out of the love of God.

Purely speculation

Why so negative?

[rumborak]

I don't see why people couldn't do good deeds 100% out of the love for their god. Or bad deeds, or whatever deeds.

rumborak

[ClairvoyantCat]

I don't see why people couldn't do good deeds 100% out of the love for their god. Or bad deeds, or whatever deeds.
rumborak

First off, the concepts of Heaven and Hell mix the motives of anyone claiming to do something out of their love for god.  Then there's about a million other complications of motivation for doing "good deeds" simply because one is a human being. 

However, I do think it's silly to say that someone who actually believed that they were given everything they own by one being could not find it in them to do something out of love in return for that being. (in this case, God)  So I'm leaning towards Vivace's side here.

 

[rumborak]

Yeah, but the "there's always going to be another factor" argument is the same as the argument that there are no altruistic deeds since there's always a benefit to the person doing it. It's disingenous because it focuses on a negligible side factor and dismisses the main one.

rumborak

[ClairvoyantCat]

Yeah, but the "there's always going to be another factor" argument is the same as the argument that there are no altruistic deeds since there's always a benefit to the person doing it. It's disingenous because it focuses on a negligible side factor and dismisses the main one.

rumborak

Under normal circumstances, I would completely agree with you.  However, when discussion something as "100%" and "pure," I think it is not a completely invalid argument.

[ClairvoyantCat]

To restate, I think the presence of the "negligible side factor" is unavoidable when discussing if it's possible to do something with "pure" and "100%" motivation or love.

[j]

 I don't think anybody does good deeds PURELY out of love of God.

-J

I can point out quite a few .....thousands.

And maybe you're right, obviously I can't know for certain.  But I admit I'm skeptical that a person can *really* put aside ALL selfish tendencies toward which we're so strongly inclined.  I've thought I'd done it at times in the past, and in hindsight, I'm not so sure.  How do you know if a person gives to the food pantry with 100% pure motives of love and compassion?  Don't you think that even if that's the primary motivation, there's at least a little sliver of "...and plus, it gets me 'Heaven points'"?

-J

What makes you the bearer of truth of what goes on in a person's mind when they are performing an act of charity? Why is it hard for you to believe that a person is capible and does frequently give to charity without a selfish motivation? What act of logic and reason has led to this conviction of the human person? The only one that knows this for certain is God, naturally. no one else knows 100% what is in a person's mind but I would rather think of the act in a positive light than follow what seems to be the norm which is see charity as done under some negative light.

Why so negative?

True, neither of us know.  That was my point.  But in my experience, people's motivations for their actions are rarely "selfless" in the truest sense of the word.  And like dtismajesty said, there are a million confounding factors at play, just because we're humans.

But I don't mean to downplay the significance of such acts.  If a person does good deeds, the good is still done regardless of his motive.  And I also didn't mean to imply that it's always impossible to do things out of "pure" selflessness.  I just question it because of my experiences with others, and because of my own struggles with it, i.e. asking myself "am I really doing this good deed with absolutely no regard for myself"?

Not trying to be negative, just realistic.  What have you experienced that would lead you to assume that so many people are capable of such purely motivated action?  I'd certainly hope that it were true, but my experiences lead me to believe otherwise. *shrug*

-J

[kaelvin]

Vivace,

The only one that knows this for certain is God, naturally. no one else knows 100% what is in a person's mind but I would rather think of the act in a positive light[1] than follow what seems to be the norm which is see charity as done under some negative light.

Every single one of the Saints, most religious people, monks, priests, friars, even laity. I can say with 100% conviction[2] Padre Pio did all things purely out of the love of God as did every single one of the saints. We know this because of biographies written of them. Visit a monastery, a friary, a soup kitchen run by nuns. If you go to anyone one of these places I'm convinced you will human beings acting purely out of the love of God.

IMO one should refrain from '100% conviction'[2]. It may seem trivially obvious to you and thus absolutely correct, but as you said, only God can know for certain, rather it is your own wishful thinking[1] that causes you to conclude with 100% certainty that those people are entirely 'pure' in their actions. In the case of the soup kitchen, its entirely possible they are also doing it for themselves, such that they don't have to feel worried for the poor children. Not necessarily true at all but it is possible(it would be part of my own rationale, were I to run a soup kitchen), and thus to claim 100% is a bit much.

Edit: Oh, and hope you don't mind if I backtrack a bit? in defense of Dawkins, I don't think he said that its impossible for a God to exist. He does allow for the possibility that a God exists but maintains that he has not seen any compelling evidence for it. Hitchens as far as I've seen has been a bit more convinced but I do believe that he is open to new evidence, if any were to be found.

[Vivace]

Not trying to be negative, just realistic.  

That's a rather narcissitic view of the world

What have you experienced that would lead you to assume that so many people are capable of such purely motivated action?  I'd certainly hope that it were true, but my experiences lead me to believe otherwise. *shrug*

I've seen it. I'm not bullshiting this. People here can either believe my statement or not. I have seen people act purely out of the love of God. I cannot 100% prove it, but I don't see why that's a requirement to believe this person is acting in this way. I'll even cite examples. Those people who become "religious" for example, priests, monks, nuns, friars, etc. these people are acting completely out of love for God and no they are not doing it for "brownie points" either.

[Vivace]

Vivace,

The only one that knows this for certain is God, naturally. no one else knows 100% what is in a person's mind but I would rather think of the act in a positive light[1] than follow what seems to be the norm which is see charity as done under some negative light.

Every single one of the Saints, most religious people, monks, priests, friars, even laity. I can say with 100% conviction[2] Padre Pio did all things purely out of the love of God as did every single one of the saints. We know this because of biographies written of them. Visit a monastery, a friary, a soup kitchen run by nuns. If you go to anyone one of these places I'm convinced you will human beings acting purely out of the love of God.

IMO one should refrain from '100% conviction'[2]. It may seem trivially obvious to you and thus absolutely correct, but as you said, only God can know for certain, rather it is your own wishful thinking[1] that causes you to conclude with 100% certainty that those people are entirely 'pure' in their actions. In the case of the soup kitchen, its entirely possible they are also doing it for themselves, such that they don't have to feel worried for the poor children. Not necessarily true at all but it is possible(it would be part of my own rationale, were I to run a soup kitchen), and thus to claim 100% is a bit much.

I agree that no one is 100% certain but I will not fall into the narcisstic point of view that realistically people do things for selfish reasons. there are some people who do and there are some people who simply do not. I'm pointing at those who "realistically" would not. In my rationale these people are doing it for pure reasons and that should not be seen as unrational or unrealistic either.

[kaelvin]

I've seen it. I'm not bullshiting this. People here can either believe my statement or not. I have seen people act purely out of the love of God. I cannot 100% prove it, but I don't see why that's a requirement to believe this person is acting in this way. I'll even cite examples. Those people who become "religious" for example, priests, monks, nuns, friars, etc. these people are acting completely out of love for God and no they are not doing it for "brownie points" either.

I'm willing to believe that what I'm going to say is in the extreme minority, but there are 'priests' who wear lots of bling and hide behind the premise of working for god. For these people I find it quite hard to think he really is in this out of the pure good in his heart...

and I wasn't expecting a reply so soon ;p probably shouldn't play with the edit button here. Just gonna copy-paste this;

Edit: Oh, and hope you don't mind if I backtrack a bit? in defense of Dawkins, I don't think he said that its impossible for a God to exist. He does allow for the possibility that a God exists but maintains that he has not seen any compelling evidence for it. Hitchens as far as I've seen has been a bit more convinced but I do believe that he is open to new evidence, if any were to be found.

[eric42434224]

I don't think anybody does good deeds PURELY out of love of God.

-J

I can point out quite a few .....thousands.

Could you name a couple? I'd be interested in hearing them. However, I think both of us may run up against the basic problem that we can't know what others are thinking. E.g. if someone rescues a baby from a burning building, you might argue that he does it from a Christian helping thy neighbour motive, while I might say that he does it for social approval or from motives instilled from childhood in the form of the superego (for example). But neither of us would actually know.

So if you'd be happy to post examples, I'm curious.

Every single one of the Saints, most religious people, monks, priests, friars, even laity. I can say with 100% conviction Padre Pio did all things purely out of the love of God as did every single one of the saints. We know this because of biographies written of them. Visit a monastery, a friary, a soup kitchen run by nuns. If you go to anyone one of these places I'm convinced you will human beings acting purely out of the love of God.

Purely speculation

Why so negative?

What is negative about my statement?

[Vivace]

What is negative about my statement?

Why is it necessary to force the idea that people do things purely out of love for God into mear speculation when #1) it only served to shoot down my statement of conviction to which I will not let go of just because you think it's mear speculation and #2) you never bother to say anything more which leads me back to number #1 which makes me wonder why is it mere speculation to think that there are people out there who do things out of the love for God alone especially since friends and family make this statement in biographies written of these people. Yes, we cannot know for certain, but why side with the negative idea that it must be scrutinized rather than side with a more positive light in the idea that maybe it might be true. given the only thing you said was "pure specularization"  basically tells me you have no interest in sheding a positive light on the subject and only interested in shoot down the hope that pure love of God does in fact exist.

[eric42434224]

Sorry that you read so much into the statement.  Perhaps you should step back and not take things personally.  I merely said "knowing" someone else's true intentions is purely speculation. n One cant know another persons true intentions, even if the person says what they are....many times a person isnt even aware of some motives, or may be unwilling to acknowledge them.  Sorry you dont agree, but it is simply something you cant know for 100% certainty.  And chill out with the "stop shooting down the hope that pure love of god exists" crap.  Never said anything of the sort.  It may exist....my point was that it isnt possible for you to determine that in another person.  You can believe/have faith in whatever you want...but so can I, and I am allowed to express my view here just the same as you.  My view is no less "positive" than yours.

[Vivace]

Sorry that you read so much into the statement.  Perhaps you should step back and not take things personally.  I merely said "knowing" someone else's true intentions is purely speculation. n One cant know another persons true intentions, even if the person says what they are....many times a person isnt even aware of some motives, or may be unwilling to acknowledge them.  Sorry you dont agree, but it is simply something you cant know for 100% certainty.  And chill out with the "stop shooting down the hope that pure love of god exists" crap.  Never said anything of the sort.  It may exist....my point was that it isnt possible for you to determine that in another person.  Its called speculation.   

 

[SixDegrees]

.

[Vivace]

I wasn't absolutely sure that this was your point, so thank you for clarifying. However, as long as the Bible can only be trusted to be God's Word by those of faith, it isn't evidence of God to non-believers. Faith is only proof to those who have it.

Bingo! 

Well, I'm not arguing that the Bible is or should be considered perfect. I'm aware that it's believed to be God's word filtered through his followers. Again, I'm just dubious of the value of the Bible in the discussion we're having, because its validity is a matter of faith. It seems that you either have faith or you don't; if you have faith then the Bible is meaningful, but if you don't then it's meaningless as a method of proof.

Two for two! 

Well, so are many weak theories. For instance, there are many people who will tell you that a lack of serotonin causes depression (not the best example, but the first one off the top of my head). Logically that argument is utter crap for many reasons, but people believe it - so the fact that tens of millions of people believe in the cosmological argument doesn't come to much for me. I don't need anyone else to believe in a theory, provided that I can see for myself that it's logical. And to me, exempting the Prime Mover from causation "just because" isn't logical.

um... it's not a "just because" clause. I highly recommend you read Aristotle and Aquinas on First Principles because it's most certainly not a just because clause. An example from Aristotle. "You can only know a thing through the senses and truly understand a thing through its cause. Eventually as you being to study causes you must therefore reach a universal cause and from this universal causes branches out the effects such which are particular. You can only have one universal cause for if you have two then you are still talking about particulars for which both have a universal cause."

Remember this is a philosophical position and can be rejected for other philosophical positions but like other philosophical positions the argument of a "first principle" has just as much validity and logic behind it when it comes the rules of philosophy than does those philosophical arguments that argue for other causes. So in my mind you cannot just argue away philosophical logic and reason under the flag of "just because".

Please bear in mind that I don't intend to attack you, or to change your mind about your faith. (I doubt that would be possible anyway.) My argument is that belief is God is a leap of faith and can't be justified by logic; you either believe or you don't. Hence, no amount of faith-based argument will convince an atheist.

Three for three! Which has been my point from the very beginning. Atheists look to human beings in order to make a leap of faith to God. This is not possible for a human being alone and all the faculties that come from human beings alone which is logic, reason and the intelliect cannot bring you to faith in God. Logic and reason can present the "idea" of a God but it cannot make you have faith in that God. This has always been a pet peeve of mine from Atheists. that is, "your God is not logical and you therefore must prove God is logical before I can believe". this frustrates me because it ignores the logical and reasonable positions that have been created for thousands of years as rubbish because since you cannot prove God through the senses you therefore cannot provide a logical reason for the existance of God. Well sorry, but that's complete bullshit. If I can prove God exists through the senses in a way that will make you fully 100% believe then I have just eliminated faith from the equation completely. Faith does not need to exist anymore. But since this requirement is impossible to fulfill through the senses it becomes impossible to 1) prove the existance of God to an atheist and 2) Prove that logic and reason CAN explain the existance of God without the senses. Because of the these two issues arguing for historical accuracy in the Bible becomes a regular discourse that ignores the "purpose" of the Bible only to force feed the idea that without a 100 accuracy the Bible and everything that is contained therein and has been written must also be forthwith ignored and dismissed as errancy. If you want to believe that fine. But I find it completely irrational and I have explained my reasons for it. Honestly I don't know if I can add anything new from this point.

[ariich]

Now, onto the discussion of pre-determinism, some people seem to be struggling with the concept of it. Adami isn't necessitating that God is the one who pre-ordains everything, but if He knows everything that has happened and will happen then it has been pre-determined because there is no way that things could happen differently. In the Star Wars example, the viewer knows what is going to happen even though they had nothing to do with making the film, but it is the film's makers who pre-determine all the events throughout. Whether God is the one who determines everything that will happen or not is irrelevant, if he knows it then nothing can deviate from it, and thus it is pre-determined.

God is said to exist *outside* of time.  He doesn't know things "before" they happen per se, he just knows them.  Him knowing whether you will have a ham sandwich or a PB&J for lunch doesn't mean you still can't choose either.  He can simply see the future in which you've already chosen PB&J.  This is pretty straightforward, I'm not sure what it is about it that's so difficult to grasp.

But maybe there exists a hypothetical alternate dimension in which you make a ham sandwich instead.  That's where things get confusing, IMO.

-J

Sorry about the delay, but I'd like to respond to this.

I understand your point, but I still don't see how that negates pre-determinism. Even if God is outside of time, it still means that somewhere in the infinite stretches of existence the information on our decisions exists. Whether it is "outside of time" or not is not really relevant.

[j]

Now, onto the discussion of pre-determinism, some people seem to be struggling with the concept of it. Adami isn't necessitating that God is the one who pre-ordains everything, but if He knows everything that has happened and will happen then it has been pre-determined because there is no way that things could happen differently. In the Star Wars example, the viewer knows what is going to happen even though they had nothing to do with making the film, but it is the film's makers who pre-determine all the events throughout. Whether God is the one who determines everything that will happen or not is irrelevant, if he knows it then nothing can deviate from it, and thus it is pre-determined.

God is said to exist *outside* of time.  He doesn't know things "before" they happen per se, he just knows them.  Him knowing whether you will have a ham sandwich or a PB&J for lunch doesn't mean you still can't choose either.  He can simply see the future in which you've already chosen PB&J.  This is pretty straightforward, I'm not sure what it is about it that's so difficult to grasp.

But maybe there exists a hypothetical alternate dimension in which you make a ham sandwich instead.  That's where things get confusing, IMO.

-J

Sorry about the delay, but I'd like to respond to this.

I understand your point, but I still don't see how that negates pre-determinism. Even if God is outside of time, it still means that somewhere in the infinite stretches of existence the information on our decisions exists. Whether it is "outside of time" or not is not really relevant.

But just because that information exists (hypothetically), doesn't mean it has been *influenced* (or "determined").  That has no bearing on free will.

However, in another way, I think God's omniscience DOES affect our freedom to some degree.  Say for example ham sandwiches are objectively evil and offensive to God.  God created me, knowing that I would have a propensity to like ham sandwiches, and that I would make and eat them, and eventually be condemned to hell for it.  Even if he didn't directly influence me at any point during my life, he is still ultimately responsible for creating a being that would only be cast into hell.  In that sense, I agree with you.

-J

[ariich]

An interesting point that I pretty much agree with, and which a large part of why I don't believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing God who created us.

[ehra]

However, in another way, I think God's omniscience DOES affect our freedom to some degree.  Say for example ham sandwiches are objectively evil and offensive to God.  God created me, knowing that I would have a propensity to like ham sandwiches, and that I would make and eat them, and eventually be condemned to hell for it.  Even if he didn't directly influence me at any point during my life, he is still ultimately responsible for creating a being that would only be cast into hell.  In that sense, I agree with you.

-J

Not necessarily. If sinning at any point in your life meant you were condemned to hell no matter what then no one would ever be saved. Everyone is born with a propensity for many sinful things, it's how you act out on those urges and what you do with the rest of your life that determines what happens after life on earth.



As for the topic of God always knowing everything and what exactly will happen, I don't know. Maybe there are passages in the Blible that explicitly state that, but I've always seen it as God having his own plan. Man is free to do whatever he wants, but he'll never be able to truly defy God's will because he will make man's action (even an act of defiance) his will. For a situation like Judas I suppose you could say he was "cursed" ahead of time to be put into a situation that would challenge him (then again, who isn't?), but you can't really place all of the blame on that. He clearly decided of his own will to betray Jesus. Men are sinful creatures and if Judas hadn't filled that particular role then someone else inevitably would have.

As for what happened to him after his death, I have no idea.

[j]

However, in another way, I think God's omniscience DOES affect our freedom to some degree.  Say for example ham sandwiches are objectively evil and offensive to God.  God created me, knowing that I would have a propensity to like ham sandwiches, and that I would make and eat them, and eventually be condemned to hell for it.  Even if he didn't directly influence me at any point during my life, he is still ultimately responsible for creating a being that would only be cast into hell.  In that sense, I agree with you.

-J

Not necessarily. If sinning at any point in your life meant you were condemned to hell no matter what then no one would ever be saved. Everyone is born with a propensity for many sinful things, it's how you act out on those urges and what you do with the rest of your life that determines what happens after life on earth.

Well, it was an oversimplification on my part, but it still applies.  God knows that the sum of Man A's life/actions/choices will get him a one-way ticket to hell.  He creates Man A anyway.

-J

[ehra]

But what I said still applies, they're not destined to hell at all because they can still take the actions necessary to be saved (and as a side note I don't really believe in "hell" at all. You either get to spend all of eternity at God's side or you're gone, in which case it makes perfect sense that those who accept the gift of salvation receive that gift after death and those that didn't simply don't).

Parents know their kids are eventually going to experience pain, suffering, and sadness, and must eventually face death but there's still plenty of good reasons to still bring another person into life.

[j]

But what I said still applies, they're not destined to hell at all because they can still take the actions necessary to be saved (and as a side note I don't really believe in "hell" at all. You either get to spend all of eternity at God's side or you're gone, in which case it makes perfect sense
that those who accept the gift of salvation receive that gift after death and those that didn't simply don't).

God chooses to create a person.  He sees the end of that person's life before he ever creates them, and sees that the choices that the person will make will warrant eternal damnation.  He sees that millions upon millions of people will "choose" the same fate.  He still creates those people, knowing that they will be damned.  You can say it's because of their choices, but even if God doesn't pre-determine each of their individual choices, he knows what the end result will be before they ever come into being.

And yeah, I'm arguing from a more traditional Christian view of "hell".  Not an area of theology I was ever too well-versed in, so take that for what it's worth.

Parents know their kids are eventually going to experience pain, suffering, and sadness, and must eventually face death but there's still plenty of good reasons to still bring another person into life.

Yeah, there are reasons for us *humans* to reproduce.  Lots of reasons.  But what would be reasons for *God* (assuming he has the attributes we've been discussing) to bring people into life?

-J