God's Plan

[Razare]

I don't think his tests are orchestrated too much. I think they're natural occurrences in life. Just by living you determine what kind of person you are; and no matter how things unfold, there will be many tests to reveal your character.

When I think there's a reason for everything, it's not God pulling the strings all that much. It's more the natural outcomes of being humans on Earth. There is a reason for everything, it's called causality. Things happen for reasons and your future is unknown; just a multitude of possibilities. As for God directly intervening, I think he just makes a tweak here and there, maybe once in your entire life.

I suppose my view is historical rather than forward looking. Things happen for reasons because that's a physical property of the universe. The universe is God's plan and we are a part of it. Just because something happens, it doesn't reveal much about your future. Like now that I've maturely handled a relationship ending, I don't believe it means anything specific about my future, other than I bring that improved me into every situation going forward.

I think you're opposed to the terminology I use to describe what I believe.

-------

Edit: I just like to *hope* that my future is bright because I guess that's how humans who are always concerned about their future have to be. I'm always concerned about what lay ahead of me in life; when it's really just an unknown quantity. I realize it's just hope, though, and I wouldn't hold it against God if things turn out poorly because it would be my doing.

 

[Morgain]

I think you're opposed to the terminology I use to describe what I believe.

yes the two of you are saying the same things!:becky:

 

[Satya]

As for God directly intervening, I think he just makes a tweak here and there, maybe once in your entire life.

I think you just have a completely different conception of God. It sounds like you have an externalized view of God as some sort of separate entity. I view God as a state of being, not some separate entity that can tweak the universe, but as an awareness and mindfulness of myself and my place in the universe. To me, God is the countless connections in this world, not the separations that our minds create. The separations are merely illusions perpetrated by our egos.

 

[Jack]

The concept of tests for humans has only been around for a few hundred years.

You sound like you have never read any of the Old Testament section of the Bible. Based on that I would say the concept has been around for quite a while.

When a seed is planted, it is not tested by the soil. It isn't tested by the weather. All it does it what it can do with what it has available. Even if it does that perfectly, it still may not survive. The plant has no control over its destiny. It can't even change what kind of plant it is, because that is already ordained by its genes. All it can really do is fulfill its biological imperative to the best of its ability and maybe, just maybe, things will turn out for the best. The only difference between humans and plants is that we can pretend that when things don't work out, that they were suppose to turn out that way.

I for one think we have free will, radical freedom, holy spite, whatever you want to call it. We can choose to defy everything we are told or conditioned to or 'supposed' be, to change not only ourselves, but the way others respond to us, and our influence in the world as a result of it. Sure it sounds great to free one's self from the responsibility for his or her actions and perpetual life situation by pointing to genetic predisposition, and/or the environment as causative factors of behavior, and I agree that there are some very powerful points to be made there, but on the account of Austrian psychiatrist, neurologist, (and holocaust survivor) Victor Frankl, I think volition can be a very powerful thing granted we do not chose our genetics, nor the environment we are born into, but we have a choice as to how we respond. If our responses become incongruous with what is expected, and continue to be so, people will change in response to us, be it slightly or drastically (also possibly depending on the type of difference in our response). Now granted there are things beyond our control, but notwithstanding things that result in our deaths, our responses are a choice.

 

[Satya]

You sound like you have never read any of the Old Testament section of the Bible. Based on that I would say the concept has been around for quite a while.

You have fallen under one of the classic fallacies of interpreting the Bible. Translations are funny things. For example, the concept of "homosexuality" has only been around for a little over a hundred years, and yet many Bibles have no problem using the word, "homosexual". However, that word has a very different meaning than what was intended centuries ago. The word homosexual means "attracted to members of the same sex" and is an identity word, whereas the original word used in the Old Testament refers to only sexual behaviors, not of all of which are homosexual acts. "He would lay with a man as he would with a women is an abomination" can even be translated differently, because the word for "abomination" can be translated into a word meaning a simple violation of a cultural norm.

As far as "testing" Job and Abraham, and other such notable people, that is largely based on our modern conception. Was the Judaic God testing them or providing them an opportunity to prove their love? Either way, I still find the concept ridiculous.

I for one think we have free will, radical freedom, holy spite, whatever you want to call it. We can choose to defy everything we are told or conditioned to or 'supposed' be, to change not only ourselves, but the way others respond to us, and our influence in the world as a result of it. Sure it sounds great to free one's self from the responsibility for his or her actions and perpetual life situation by pointing to genetic predisposition, and/or the environment as causative factors of behavior, and I agree that there are some very powerful points to be made there, but on the account of Austrian psychiatrist, neurologist, (and holocaust survivor) Victor Frankl, I think volition can be a very powerful thing granted we do not chose our genetics, nor the environment we are born into, but we have a choice as to how we respond. If our responses become incongruous with what is expected, and continue to be so, people will change in response to us, be it slightly or drastically (also possibly depending on the type of difference in our response). Now granted there are things beyond our control, but notwithstanding things that result in our deaths, our responses are a choice.

Ultimately the only choice we have is to make the best of the situation we are born into, or not to do so. How we make the best of our respective situations is ultimately the realm of what we consider "choice."

 

[Morgain]

I think you just have a completely different conception of God. It sounds like you have an externalized view of God as some sort of separate entity. I view God as a state of being, not some separate entity that can tweak the universe, but as an awareness and mindfulness of myself and my place in the universe. To me, God is the countless connections in this world, not the separations that our minds create. The separations are merely illusions perpetrated by our egos.

you are getting better and better!

 

[Jack]

You have fallen under one of the classic fallacies of interpreting the Bible. Translations are funny things. For example, the concept of "homosexuality" has only been around for a little over a hundred years, and yet many Bibles have no problem using the word, "homosexual". However, that word has a very different meaning than what was intended centuries ago. The word homosexual means "attracted to members of the same sex" and is an identity word, whereas the original word used in the Old Testament refers to only sexual behaviors, not of all of which are homosexual acts. "He would lay with a man as he would with a women is an abomination" can even be translated differently, because the word for "abomination" can be translated into a word meaning a simple violation of a cultural norm.

According to PBS the story of the fall may have been more about trust in particular than love, eg Was God withholding something good from them?

PBS also had a very in depth analysis of The Abraham story, (it has essentially all of Genesis as literature) which seemed much more in depth and connected to what we know of Ancient near eastern literature than the abusive father version of the story.

Lets say for the sake of argument it was all about "proving your love" after I do all this shiz to you. That still strikes me as "testing" notwithstanding that you think it's stupid.

How we make the best of our respective situations is ultimately the realm of what we consider "choice.

So not allowing one's future to be solely determined by heredity, and environment can be making the best of it? Are you thereby renouncing a deterministic outlook?

 

[Satya]

So not allowing one's future to be solely determined by heredity, and environment can be making the best of it? Are you thereby renouncing a deterministic outlook?

Huh? I never claimed determinism. Determinism is just another one of those false absolutes that humans imagine, like free will. The fact is that you never chose where you were born, or who were your parents, or under what circumstances you were born, or how you were raised, or what opportunities you had growing up, and so forth. You also have no control over what may happen in the future. An asteroid could come incinerate all life on this planet tomorrow. But that isn't to say that your life is "determined". You have choice over how you make the best of the cards you have been dealt. That is pretty much all the choice you really have.

The fact of the matter is that your future isn't determined and it isn't free will. It is that wonderful, ambiguous gray area, like everything else.

 

[Barnabas]

You have fallen under one of the classic fallacies of interpreting the Bible. Translations are funny things. For example, the concept of "homosexuality" has only been around for a little over a hundred years, and yet many Bibles have no problem using the word, "homosexual". However, that word has a very different meaning than what was intended centuries ago. The word homosexual means "attracted to members of the same sex" and is an identity word, whereas the original word used in the Old Testament refers to only sexual behaviors, not of all of which are homosexual acts. "He would lay with a man as he would with a women is an abomination" can even be translated differently, because the word for "abomination" can be translated into a word meaning a simple violation of a cultural norm.

As far as "testing" Job and Abraham, and other such notable people, that is largely based on our modern conception. Was the Judaic God testing them or providing them an opportunity to prove their love? Either way, I still find the concept ridiculous.

So your saying that you know how to translate and interpret ancient Hebrew better the modern biblical translators.

For you, O God, tested us; you refined us like silver (Psa. 66:10).


On the contrary, we speak as men approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel. We are not trying to please men but God, who tests our hearts
(1 Th. 2:4).



Then the LORD said to Moses, "I will rain down bread from heaven for you. The people are to go out each day and gather enough for that day. In this way I will test them and see whether they will follow my instructions ...." (Exo. 16:4).


Moses said to the people, "Do not be afraid. God has come to test you, so that the fear of God will be with you to keep you from sinning" (Exo. 20:20).


Remember how the LORD your God led you all the way in the desert these forty years, to humble you and to test you in order to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep his commands (Deut. 8:2).


He gave you manna to eat in the desert, something your fathers had never known, to humble and to test you so that in the end it might go well with you (Deut. 8:16).


In your distress you called and I rescued you, I answered you out of a thundercloud; I tested you at the waters of Meribah. Selah. (Psa. 81:7).


Do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion, during the time of testing in the desert (Heb. 3:8).


so what does test, tested and testing mean in these verses?

what about these

 

[Satya]

So your saying that you know how to translate and interpret ancient Hebrew better the modern biblical translators.

Yes.

I'm saying that applying modern words and concepts to Ancient Hebrew, Greek, and Arahmaic, is a ridiculous practice and even many well educated Biblical scholars will often concede that they choose modern words to represent ancient concepts rather arbitrarily given how far the meanings can be apart from one another.

Biblical translation is not a science, it is an art, and one that is open to an incredible amount of subjective interpretation. Why on earth would you, a minister, pretend that Biblical translation is anything but skewed by our modern perceptions of ancient concepts?

And if you are going to bring up the verses, why not bring up the original language? Why not show us for yourself that the word does translate perfectly to "test"? Or are you simply assuming that since that was the word the translators used that that is the best word that fits? That is an interesting assumption to make, given the weight the book holds in your life.

But this thread has nothing to do with discussing Biblical translation and interpretation, so I welcome you to start a new thread on that if you feel it is important. As you already know, I consider the Bible to be rather ridiculous in and of itself.

 

[Morgain]

a perfect example of this is the translation of Elohim to god in the book of Genesis. Elohim is in fact a plural word and should have been translated to "gods" or something. But that doesn't fit in the religion does it? There can only be one God so the writers must have made a mistake.

but I don't think this is what the topic was about

 

[frozen_water]

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H974&t=KJV (Ps. 66, 81)
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5254&t=KJV (Ex. 16, 20, Deut 8)
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1381&t=KJV (1 Thess 2)
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3986&t=KJV (Heb. 3)

^^go nuts. To be fair, you both have good points. Those are 4 different words that all get translated "test" (granted, the two Hebrew ones are different forms of the same root... but the same cannot be said for the Greek ones, so the English translators obviously made some judgment calls & interpretaton in there)... so like Satya said, translating is an art, not a science.

...but at the same time, it does appear like the concept of "testing," in the modern sense, existed back then too. See the subsection titled "Lexicon" for examples where these words are used, to get the shades of meaning, but some of them certainly seem like the same modern concept to me.

 

[Jack]

The fact of the matter is that your future isn't determined and it isn't free will. It is that wonderful, ambiguous gray area, like everything else.

So we simultaneously lack free will, but possess it? Could you expand on this?

 

[just me]

I think maybe I am not a plant that cannot change my situational circumstances unless the bad guys give me a pair of cement shoes......then I can only think and not act. I feel that is where people want me at times for some reason.

 

[Satya]

So we simultaneously lack free will, but possess it? Could you expand on this?

We don't have free will.

Free will: the power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies.

There is no possible way that our choices are not constrained to some degree by external forces outside our control.

But just because we don't have free will doesn't mean that our destiny is determined. We have choice that is limited but can usually change the course of how our futures turn out. That choice is in how we make the best of the cards we are dealt in life.

For example, you could take a guy who had a really crappy childhood. He has lots of choices in how he could deal with those circumstances which were outside his control. He could kill himself. He could become a serial killer and wreak havoc on a small town in the Midwest. He could find a good counselor and work to overcome the psychological trauma of his childhood and then find a job working with people who had crappy childhoods. Now all those choices don't really mean much in the grand scheme of things if an asteroid comes and crushes the planet, and none of them will change what has happened to him in the past, but they mean something to him and they give him some control over his life in the present.

So as I said before, it isn't free will or determinism.

 

[Jack]

We don't have free will.

Free will: the power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies.
Now all those choices don't really mean much in the grand scheme of things if an asteroid comes and crushes the planet,

So as I said before, it isn't free will or determinism.

Riiiight.

 

[Satya]

Riiiight.

Edit: I got my point across.

 

[Billy]

There is no plan.

 

[Satya]

...but at the same time, it does appear like the concept of "testing," in the modern sense, existed back then too. See the subsection titled "Lexicon" for examples where these words are used, to get the shades of meaning, but some of them certainly seem like the same modern concept to me.

Agreed. I was assuming a bit much.

 

[just me]

Free will: the power to choose without restraint of physical or divine necessity or causal law

Big difference between restraint and constraint, even though our dictionary uses their interpretation to paint a similar picture. I have free will, so please speak for yourself regarding the lack of it. (made me think of "Free Willie") heh..sorry I got sidetracked a moment

Interpretation does have a lot to do with this conversation. When we cite the Old Testament and a meaning of a word without the proof, it becomes a little less useful.

"Oligopistoi", from the interlinear Greek translations, was translated as "Oh, ye of little faith". Using a Lexicon we find the true translation to be a bit difficult to understand in proper English, so it was written for a better understanding. Many scholars worked with this. We do not say, for example, "ones of little faith". There are always language barriers and difficulties. What became important to me was knowing He was speaking to more than one person. "Ye" could mean one or more than one; "ones" could not mean one. Oligopistoi is plural and not singular, so I have now a better understanding. Citing thoughts regarding self translations of scriptures may very well be off subject, but it again is a choice some make.

This whole idea of testing was given many scriptures as proof, but translations was used as an excuse to wipe them all away. When we test the waters, is it so different from seeing which way a person will choose?
A parent wishes their children to make good choices in life; how much more does our Father wish us to make good and proper decisions. If we choose to love God, does not that make Him happy as a Father and Mother's happiness to see their children make good choices?

We take personality tests, choosing how we feel or think regarding specific actions we use in our decision-making thoughts. Is it wrong to call that a test? It is testing to stay up this late with a full slate tomorrow. I must get some rest. The day is spent here and the morning has started.
What parent would want to test their children?...just a thought and not a question, btw