Christianity... Destiny

Fair enough. Before we start, what is it that frustrates you in regards to the " religion vs science boxing gloves"? You claim to be agnostic...which means that you dont yet know or cant know but that out of respect for your family and your upbringing you cling to the idea that God exists. Which is fine. I do also. I suppose that a fair question to start this out is this:
"Why bother with going through the motions in life if our destiny is already written in stone?" My opinion is that we become the decisions that we make. Judas may have been foreknown to be the betrayer, but he chose to do the action. In my belief it is irrelevant if God foreknew what Judas would do. God no more created that destiny than did reality. I believe that Judas created his own destiny through his actions. Why does foreknowledge of our actions place them out of our control? It seems that what critics want is actions that God cant know (assuming God exists) they want to be able to freely choose something without having it known in advance. For me personally, I see it as not a problem. I could care less what God knows I will someday do. I wake up each day and live my life and make my choices. It is irrelevant whether I am actually playing out a part and "unable to do otherwise". From my perspective, I'm just living life.

Why feel useless? Live La Vida Loca! Don't trip on religion so much...I never did until I was about 30, and only because I had an experience at a charismatic church that intrigued my curiosity. Yes, I fell for the kool-aid early on, but tossed the organized aspect of religion and kept my basic belief in communion with God through Jesus. As for Adam & Eve, I don't know and don't really care.

I still don't understand why specifically that foreknowledge is a problem. Let's assume that Jesus is eternal past, present, and future. Thus God(Jesus, in this example) is present at every moment that a human makes a decision. This does not mean that God creates the decision...He is only aware of it. The critic would say that its a problem in that the subject must choose only that destiny...but I say this argument holds no water since at the moment that the choice was made, the subject didn't choose any other way anyhow.So explain why ultimate foreknowledge is a problem?

As a believer, I would add that I don't think anyone can fully understand God---though tangle cuts me off in another thread...where he states: If I were to accept this premise, it would basically mean game over for believers--atheists would have a slam dunk regarding the existance of the Christian God and of Jesus Christ--His character. I will continually argue against this. I agree. To be honest, I can't accept the way that creationists try and contort science to fit their preconceived religious beliefs---it is in my opinion dishonest on so many levels. To take the question further...I don't think anyone can fully understand why some people are so fully convinced of what is seen as unevidenced beliefs. For many of them, the beliefs at some point of their internal formation were most definitely evidential. I have my reasons why I don't simply toss my beliefs away...though some would argue that emotional insecurity lies at the core of my stubbornness.

Out of curiosity, have you ever heard of the RPG game, Far Cry 5?

Oh ok. I see how you see it. God could not know certain things in time if the things were caused by human decisions within time. Got it. I always saw it as God knowing everything that would happen simply because He was at every moment in time when a decision was being made. But I see your point.
It would also explain why Jesus,being forced to live in time, could not and did not know everything that the Father knew.My point was that since the Father was at every point in time, He essentially would have access to ultimate foreknowledge, but perhaps this was not part of His judgment, which was based on either knowing or not knowing Jesus at a given point in the life of a human. We would maintain that such an option was available to everyone ever living, but I'm not sure how that would play out.As far as ringos insistence that only the message was important and that obedience to the message was evidence of belief through works, this would mean that even an atheist would essentially accept Jesus by doing the message. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

I have a question for you. As an agnostic, do you believe in sin? If no God existed, would there still be a subjective judgment of what sin was and was not by humanity? (In your opinion, of course)

That's an interesting analogy. Let's play with it a moment. Using the analogy, let's talk about forgiveness of sins. Let's say for example that the specific sin being considered was pride and partiality---thinking of myself (or my country or my political party or my religion) as better than others. Let's say that I knew that this was a sin and repented and prayed about it often. Upon my death, God may look at all of the data and see whether my overall intention was to renounce it or preserve it...making a judgment at that point of examining all of the data.Just a thought.

Think of it as a form of spiritual autophagy. In our bodies, the mitochondria automatically eliminate the ones among them that are inefficient. Sin and judgment are simply the way that the human species is ensured of becoming stronger as we grow and expand within the universe. A person who gives in to sins is too weak to teach, encourage, and help others nevermind his own species.Perhaps thats how Hitler justified killing the Jews, though...I'm not suggesting that this whole argument is so simplistic. It may help to hypothesize the need for, limitations of, and philosophical relationship with God as understood. What would be the specific function of such a leader? (not that we humans can define or make up such a concept, but hypothetically to foster this discussion)

Sorry for the lack of communication. I often make the basic mistake of assuming that if God exists, He is as I have been taught to imagine Him as. Same with the rulebook.