Christianity and the End Times

That's exactly the point.If God can't NOT be in control of everything... then it's impossible for anyone to ever freely (apart from God's control) choose to want to be with God simply because they (individually and totally apart from God) want to.
-Here, God misses out on an extremely powerful concept - the concept of an intelligent being deciding to love another when there is absolutely no control over them in any way to do so.And if God could create a being that is completely apart from His own control... then He could see whether or not such a being might choose to want to be with God of their own decisions.
-Here, God can partake in the powerful concept of an intelligent being deciding to love another when there is no other control over them.
-However, here, God MUST NOT be in control of everything... otherwise the meaning of another-intelligent-being-with-no-control-over-them-choosing-to-be-with-God is lost.I'm not saying reality is one way or the other.
I'm simply saying that reality cannot be both. And if you're claiming that God "can't NOT be in control of everything..." then you have to accept that God cannot experience the powerful meaning of having some other intelligent being choose to love Him without any control occurring over that other intelligent being.

I recently read a very good book on this subject. The writer holds a PHD in philosophy and religious studies from McGill, (Montreal) and, as well masters degrees in humanities, social sciences from the University of Toronto and a math degree as well. He has written a book called Freedom All the Way Up in which he talks about God creating a world using randomness with enough possible outcomes that allows for a sufficiently high degree of probability that given sufficient times it would produce creatures capable of choosing agapic love.I found his argument quite compelling.Here is a quote from this web site. Randomness in Creration and God's Plan for Agape Love

quote:

---

The physical-chemical processes of this Creation, which employ a continuous interplay between randomness, order, and emergent complexity, do not permit total predictability, such as predicting every specific neural pathway for every type of agape-capable being that will ever emerge on every possible eco-niche in the universe. Only a system without randomness could provide such deterministic predictability, but such predictability and control is not God’s objective. Rather, God has created the physical-chemical system we experience in our universe, with its particular balance of randomness, order, emergent complexity, laws, regularities, and probabilities, because it provides just what God desires, namely, a process by which beings with neurophysiological agape-capabilities and meaning-making capabilities would emerge through convergence and multiple realizability. This process provided God with a degree of predictive resolution such that God foreknew, from God’s design of the initial conditions of the universe(s), that many possible routes could come about to provide agapic neurophysiological capabilities, and that one or more of these would actually come about (through asymptotic probability over sufficient time), without needing to predict which actual routes would come about. This is the heart of the probability component of the agape/probability account.

---

It doesn't matter how many ologies people have, they have no more knowledge of God than you or I. Once upon a time you got literate people making wordy stuff up, these days you get sciency sounding stuff made up too. It's all of a piece; not a shred of actual evidence for any of it - just different kinds of people making stuff up to suit their worlds.btw - we already know that there is enough randomness and time to create us, because here we are. Whether a god set it up is still an unanswered question. And whether it was *your* god is yet another.

There are a lot of unanswered questions, Tangle. One thing that I disagree that you predict is that religion is dying. You will find that it will never die as future problems and challenges occur. You may well argue that it is a crutch and that rationale and reason are in fact our anchors, but when times get extremely tough and the solutions get scarce people will always turn to belief.A couple of questions for you:

Hypothetically if you were to entertain a theistic argument, does Open Theism sound more rational than Calvinism? Note that I say hypothetically were you to argue from a theistic perspective...I realize that you think its all bollocks.

​

Why specifically do you think that faith and belief are not at all good for people to entertain?

​

Assuming God does not exist, do you still see the threat of a possible global war/endtime scenario due to the foibles of humans themselves? What is a good course to take to avoid such a disaster?

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

The facts, as usual are against you. Need I produce the data yet again? Times are getting better Phat. And the fact that some people might turn to religion as a last resort should give you the clue that we invented it because of need, not fact. Calvanism is preposterous. Theism is at least internally consistent. It's such a waste of time and resource. I don't know what the global turnover of organised religion is but it's a collossal figure and the time you guys spend on your knees begging is enormous. Time and miney better spent doing something actually useful.Quite apart from people needing to growup and think for themselves, stop creating warring tribes and get in with leading useful lives. That's a confused question. Wars will occur whether there's a god or not. We know what the best chance of avoiding them is - increased trade, more equal sharing of wealth, democracy and solid institutions defending it, education, health systems, treaties etc etc

Except that it was us who sent the policeman and the boat and the helicopter.

Yes yes, I know. God uses humans to help each other. But surely God does not use you simply to give a man change for an afternoon drink. God would more likely give the man the ability to fish rather than simply handing over the spare change to keep him in bondage. Same with end times needs. Of course people need each other. In a perfect world, we would share what we have to those in need. But in an end times scenario, nobody in the Western world is going to share their own diminishing resources simply so that others can come up to the diminished level the West is adjusting to.You and I have argued this before regarding unionism. You always advocate ignoring the rich and urging the middle to help the bottom. My observation is that in an end times scenario, the middle is already being crushed, the bottom sees an opportunity to move up, and the rich still hold all the guns and gold (and military and legal) at their disposal. Try preaching to a newly homeless guy that he still has it better than 1/2 the world!

Fyi

Humans help each other. Ants help each other. The equation works out the same without God in it. Why didn't your God teach that man to fish yesterday? Why do I still have to help him today? Again, the term "God" doesn't seem to be in the equation at all. Yes we are. I can see that you will oppose it but we will still do it. Maybe you should throw that "end times" scenario away and give reality a chance. I don't preach to the homeless at all. If he asks me for a sermon, I can direct him to one. So far, I've never met a homeless person who wanted one.

I have met such people. I have directed and have driven them to hear a sermon when they have that desire. Yes, such requests are the exception rather than the rule, as are requests to be taken a laundry mat, to see a basketball game, or to do some work for pay, or to get some Popeye's chicken. But those are all things that homeless folk do indeed ask for.They probably won't ask a total stranger for those things.

When the conversation gets to this point I fervently wish it had never come up. Although I consider it false I'd rather everybody thought like an Arminian than ended up with this sort of weird thinking that isn't Calvinism but is always provoked by it.

• God is God, He can't not be in control of everything.
• That fact does not affect our ability to live and act as if He isn't there.
• What Calvinism identifies, based on the Bible, is our inability to choose salvation because of the Fall, not any other kind of free choice. this is really the doctrine of "total depravity" which means our loss of the ability to choose the things of God because of the Fall. God has to regenerate us, or "quicken" our spirits that were lost at the Fall in order for us to be saved. This is what it means to be "born again." And this gift from God would not have been possible if the Son of God had not become a man and died in our place on the cross to pay for our sins. Thanks to His sacrifice those who believe on Him can be regenerated and look forward to a happy eternity without sin or disease or any of the infirmities we suffer on earth.
• As scripture says, we can't take credit for our salvation, it is entirely a gift of God "lest any man should boast."
• We are incapable of "choosing to love Him" Hypothesizing some other possible way God could have done things is just futile. God is God, He can't be something other than God.
• Trying to understand life in general in these terms only ties our heads up in knots.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I recently heard the story of a local Christian woman who felt called by God to take food to the many people she had just discovered are living on the edge in this community, most in motels. She takes them food and usually also prepares a meal to share with them to get to know them. She encourages them to take advantage of many available services. Over the last ten or so years many others have joined with her and donations have been coming in to help with the project. Many of those who have been helped have found jobs, moved up in the world and joined this growing movement to help others. And some have become Christians. This is how the church should work.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Like you can tell God what he cannot do. You can do what you want. Does not stop what you are doing from being a complete farce. You seem to think that it is either Calvinism or boasting. That is a false dichotomy.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Oh well. I'm simply trying to describe what I understand to be the correct biblical theology and I believe Calvinism to be the correct biblical theology. Sigh.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's fine. I am pointing to what I see as weak points in your arguments (or in the arguments you accept) for what you believe to be correct.