In answer to your question, based on the present trends and the increasing divorce rates, it seems that marriage is slowly becoming a thing of the past,
I think you are the most open minded, impartial, fairest, balanced, and respectful blogger on CS. I wish there were more like you. You are doing a great job!!!
Judging from the ongoing discussion in the recent comments in this blog, there appears to be some controversy with regard to predestination, free will, etc.
This is the reason I focused strictly on Judas's action with regard to the betrayal of Jesus and did not venture beyond that re "free choice", etc.
I stated explicitly in the blog:
I am refraining from using the terms “free will” or “free choice”
You defined the terms “Omniscience”and “Foreknowledge” as follows:
Omniscience: “the state of having total knowledge, the quality of knowing everything.” For God to be sovereign over His creation of all things, whether visible or invisible, He has to be all-knowing.
Foreknowledge:awareness of something before it happens or exists . (The second sentence in your definition of “Omniscience” is not part of the definition and is obvious with regard to God's sovereignity, so for the time being, let us focus on the first sentence in the definition.)
We now have:
Omniscience: “the state of having total knowledge, the quality of knowing everything.”
Foreknowledge:awareness of something before it happens or exists.
“before it happens or exists” refers to the future. Thus, foreknowledge is knowledge of the future
Omniscience is the state of having total knowledge. Total knowledge includes knowing everything in the past, present and future. This includes knowledge of the future which is foreknowledge.
Therefore, omniscience includes foreknowledge. In other words, foreknowledge is a part of omniscience.
You go on to state:
God being omniscience DOES NOT have one thing to do with God's foreknowledge, his omniscience is all-inclusive according to what we read in the Bible (correction noted).
If his omniscience is all-inclusive, would it not include his foreknowledge?
Please explain, based on your definition of the terms.
This is a special comment for my Christian friends: Serendipity SistaCallie XuanMai CalmHeart And Others
Thank you all for your input in this blog.
I wish to state that the position expressed in this blog is based strictly on deductive logic made from the premises that I have mentioned, and dictionary definition of the terms.
I respect your position which, I believe, is based on your faith and which may not be in agreement with the deduction I have stated.
I would like to believe that your faith provides you with a psychological security and sense of meaning in your lives, and I am happy for you all in this regard.
I have absolutely no intention of attempting to undermine your faith, which I would like to believe is sufficiently strong to withstand any such attempt.
This is true, from the standpoint of "God's omniscience."
I think we have agreement since my deductive logic is based on God's omniscience and infallibility.
However, you go on to say:
It's false, from the perspective or standpoint of "man's freedom."
Because God knows (with omniscience) that Judas "must" betray Christ, does not mean that he wasn't free.
You quoted several Bible verses to support your position.
However, I view the term “free” in accordance with the stated dictionary definition:
Free: not determined by anything beyond its own nature or being: (Merriam Webster Dictionary)
But Judas's action was predetermined by God, who is beyond his (Judas) own nature or being, so in that sense, and in keeping with the dictionary definition, he was not free.
As I stated before, my position is based on deductive logic involving the stated premises and dictionary definitions of the relevant terms, whereas yours is based on reference to Bible verses, and your faith, which I respect.
I think this is where the difference in our position lies.
In this regard, there is no conflict.
Thank you very much, my friend. I respect your faith, and enjoy our discussion as always.
All I can say is Thank you for your comment. Once again you are making your own assumptions about my spiritual condition, motives and intentions. I have invited you to let us an email discussion on the matter since according to Blog Rule 9, that is the proper medium for such discussion. I am still awaiting your response.
Thanks for your interest in wanting to know "what is in my head". However, I try to keep all comments I make in a blog in accordance with Blog Rule 4.
Blog Rule 4:
TOPICS. You must have a clear topic for your blog, and state it clearly in your blog title. All entries within a blog must address the topic described in the title. When posting a comment, you may express a dislike or disagreement for a topic, but not a dislike for the blogger.
I am quite happy to share "what is in my head" with you in keeping with your request. However, that will be a one-to-one discussion. In keeping with Blog Rule 9, the proper place for that in is an email discussion.
Blog Rule 9:
No one-to-one discussions. Use your onsite mail for this.
This is why I deleted comments from pjatheart which were seeking to engage me in a one-to-one discussion in the blog. I mentioned to him that I am willing to have such a discussion but it must be by email in keeping with Blog Rule 9. I asked him to send me an email on the matter but, to date, I have not received such an email from him.
I have written several other blogs in which I have expressed my views on belief, faith and religion. Perhaps, you can view some of those blogs before sending me an email in which you can comment on what I have written, or ask specific questions. I shall try my best to deal with your questions and comments. I look forward to receiving your email, and an email discussion with you.
I am happy that you have agreed that the premises I stated are not opposite and confirmed the validity of the deductive logic I presented in this blog.
I could not understand why you made reference to the Law of Non-Contradiction in your comment in the context of this blog.
In the blog, I simply stated what Judas had to do, and with which you finally agreed.
You wrote:
“Now point 4. is where we disagree concerning predestination...Therefore, Judas is not free.”
Judas could only act in accordance with God's omniscience and infallibility, and this was that he would betray Jesus.
To have free will means that he was free to betray or not to betray Jesus, but he chose to betray Jesus. How can one say that he chose to betray Jesus when he simply had to do it seeing that God knew he would do it? The fact is he simply had to do it. He was not free to do otherwise.
That is my final position on the matter.
Please know that I truly appreciate exchanging ideas and views with you.
With regard to your comment about my deleting, Blog Rule 9 states:
No one-to-one discussions. Use your onsite mail for this.
The person whose comments I deleted was seeking to engage me in a one-to-one discussion about my spiritual condition which goes against Rule 9. I advised him to send me an email in which we can carry on such a discussion in keeping with Rule 9. So far, I have not received any email from him.
There were no "others" (plural), just that one individual.
You can be assured that I would not delete your comment, once it is in within the blog rules.
Concerning your recent comment requesting: what comments you would like to give me,please?,
When I post a blog, I am seeking the comments of others. If and when others comment, my response to their comments reflects my views. If you want to know my view re the blog you mentioned, please look at my responses to the comments of others in that blog.
If I gave you comments as you are requesting, those comments would be mine and not yours, and that would defeat the purpose of my requesting comments from others.
“However, the law of non-contradiction states, that opposites cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense.”
Please allow me to repeat my deductive logic:
Premise 1: God is omniscient and infallible.
(i.e., God knows everything - past, present, future, and he can never be wrong).
Premise 2: Jesus (God) knew beforehand that Judas would betray him.
(as stated in the Bible)
Conclusion: Therefore, Judas could not avoid betraying Jesus.
Premise 1 states that, on the basis of his omniscience and infallibility, God knows everything – past, present, future and he can never be wrong.
Premise 2 merely gives an example of God's knowledge with regard to the future which involves Judas's action. This follows obviously from Premise 1. This indicates a clear relationship between the premises
God's omniscience spans all time – past, presence, future. This includes Judas's action, whether you want to view it from the perspective of past, present or future. On the basis of God's infallibility, that is, he can never be wrong, Judas had to do what God knew he would do, that is, that he would betray Jesus, so Judas could not avoid betraying Jesus. They are in the same sense since both premises are dealing with God's omniscience and infalliblity. The reference to Judas's action is merely a demonstration or fulfilment of God's omniscience and infallibility so they are related.
Furthermore, the law of non-contradiction applies to opposites, according to your statement.
Are you saying that the premises I have stated are opposites? I view them as complementing each other, as I have mentioned. Please explain to me how they are opposites. If they are not opposites, then the Law of Non-Contradiction is not relevant in this case.
Yes, I have honestly examined my heart, etc., based on which I have come up with this blog. No matter what I may think or feel, things can only take place, in accordance with God's foreknowledge.
With regard to "The Lost Gospel Of Judas", please note that I mentioned the link you quoted and gave an abridged version of the article in my previous blog, "Judas Iscariot and Free Will". You can view it and the blog comments if you like.
"Just because God knows what is going to happen,does not mean that He is 'making' it happen".
The blog simply states that what God knows beforehand must come to pass so it is inevitable and cannot be avoided. It says nothing about God making it happen, simply that it must happen.
“If it is that Judas was destined (predestined) to betray Jesus, then from the account and the premises you mentioned, yes.”
Thank you for supporting the conclusion in this blog, based on deductive logic.
As I mentioned in the blog:
“I welcome any relevant comments, criticisms, of the process of logical reasoning presented above which is based on the principles of deductive logic.” That is the main focus of this blog.
“I am refraining from using the terms “free will” or “free choice” in this blog”. Perhaps, those can be covered in a subsequent blog. I hope others would note this.
You wrote: "I have a problem with Premise 1. "God is omniscient and infallible."
I am merely stating what is generally accepted about God.
With regard to your statement: The problem is there exist several portions of the Old Testament which imply that God was neither all knowing, nor all powerful. Judges 1:19 for instance"
I have done a Google search on "Judges 1: 19" and it has revealed arguments for and against it. Perhaps, others can comment on it.
You asked what is my interpretation of Mark 14:18-21:
Mark 14:18-21King James Version (KJV) 18 And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with me shall betray me. 19 And they began to be sorrowful, and to say unto him one by one, Is it I? and another said, Is it I? 20 And he answered and said unto them, It is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish. 21 The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.
To me, this simply confirms that Jesus (God) knew beforehand that one of his disciples would betray him. The passage does not state which one but Jesus, being God, would have known who it was. And what God knows must come to pass. So whoever Jesus (God) knew would betray him had to betray him since God can never be wrong. Jesus (God) must have known it was Judas since God knows every thing. Therefore Judas could not have avoided betraying Jesus, that is, he was not free to do otherwise.
You wrote:
“For there is no irresolvable conflict between an event being predetermined by an all knowing God and also being freely chosen by us.”
If an event is predetermined by an all knowing God, who can never be wrong, then the event must come to pass as predetermined by an all knowing God, regardless of how we view it even though we may think it is our choice. The bottom line is that it can only come to pass in accordance with God's predetermination.
You wrote:
“For God does not force them (events) to happen against our free will, but rather He predetermines that they occur through our free will.
If God predetermines that events occur through our free will, is that really free will? Our will, whether we consider it to be free or not, is irrelevant since those events must occur as predetermined by God.
You wrote:
“infallible knowledge and free choice are not contradictory,”
I suppose you are referring to God's infallible knowledge. All events, including human actions, must take place in accordance with God's infallible knowledge; it cannot be otherwise. Human beings do not have a choice in the matter even though they may think and feel they do.
Your last comment was quite long. I responded to parts that I consider significant. If you would like me to respond to any other parts, please let me know and I shall try to do so.
This is a special comment for my Christian friends: Serendipity SistaCallie XuanMai CalmHeart
Thank you all for your input in this blog.
I wish to state that the position expressed in this blog is based on a logical deduction made from the premises that I have mentioned.
I respect your position which, I believe, is based on your faith and which may not be in agreement with the deduction I have stated.
The Bible(KJV), in Hebrews 11:1 states: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
This indicates that faith is based on hope and trust. It is not based on the evidence of things seen, which I refer to as “hard” evidence. Rather, it is based on evidence of things not seen, which I may refer to as “soft” evidence. Faith is a personal internal experience.
I would like to believe that your faith provides you with a psychological security and sense of meaning in your lives, and I am happy for you all in this regard.
online today!socrates44 Blog Comments (1,088)
Marriage and Divorce: A Rigged Game for Men, But A
MaddogBased on the legal system at present, pre-nuptials really seem to be a good idea, as you have suggested.