The doctrine of pre-destination states that....well, different things.
Since God is omnipotent, you have to say that God, from the start of all creation, knew who would live a life of virtue, and who would not. If you take away that ability, God is not much of a god. In essence, God knows all because he is God. However predestination should not be confused with predetermination, which states that your either going to hell or heaven, it doesn't matter what you do, your screwed.
I guess it's like watching someone perform an impossible stunt that you know can't be done, but you hope the person succeeds in doing it. My analogy so it's not totally perfect. Rather add that before the stunt you had psychic insight into the event, and saw that the person succeeded, or failed. You had nothing to do with the outcome, it was to happen given the factors governing the stuntmans success.
Given these points, we can start with free will. God knows who will succeed and who will not, therefore the gift of free will can do nothing to interfere with this, for God has already forseen who will succeed and who will not, most likely due to the fact that man has free will. Free will and predestination work hand in hand together. Confused yet? I am.
One thing I forgot, there is predetermination for one group of people, and they are called, "the elect". For them, they WILL go to heaven, for they have been chosen. Many christian groups today call themselves the elect(Jehovah's Witness's for example) but only God knows who they are, not even they themselves know.
Honestly though, just by writing those few paragraphs, I think I fried my brain. It's been a while since I looked at predestination but I believe what I said above is generally the catholic doctrine. There are other versions for other denominations which describe a more fatalistic thought, but I can't comment on those.
For a more detailed, yet more confusing look at the subject:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm
[xx(]
I did go through most of the material on that link but I found that it was worded rather confusingly and made no real point one way or the other. It also condradicted itself.
So in a nut shell....
(voice slightly muffled by the hard exterior casing)
Pre-destination is God's plan, but free will allows you to go against that plan. And pre-destination only works if you give up your free will and do what is mandated to you.
I argue, partially because I am still confused and partially because I like to, that pre-destination can not exist when free will is allowed.
Stick with me on this because I am truely trying to understand.
My point of view.
If God is omnipotent it is assumed that he knows everything from begining to end. So anything that he does, as far as creation, giving free will, ect. he knows the out come in the end. So how can free will truely exist if the end is already known. I mean, you could not do anything that was not already expected, so there is no free will. So there you are stuck with pre-destination, the exicution of the divine plan, in which the end and the path are known, leaving no room for deviation. That being that even this conversation was/is sappose to happen.
Now if free will is true, then God basically made every thing, set us here, gave us free will, and took a step back. In which case the divine plan is more of a divine guideline. A set of rules we can choose to follow or not. From this aspect God steps back to "see what would happen". In which case the out come or end is unknown. From this view point God would not be omnipotent because in order for free will to truely work even he would not know the out come. And that last sentance would go against the very core of the Catholic religion.
If there is a large gap between an action and the resulting effects, such as several lifetimes, it is possible to experience the results without being able to remember the causes. It will look like a sequence of events was predestined because it seemed to appear separate from the situation at the time and any other obvious cause. It is still a result of free will. It is not an easy matter to change things which we have already put in motion, but we are free to do something else to have better results in the future.
I too agree that the Catholic's take on free will and pre-destination is at odds with each other. Would be the first contradictory belief they've had either. But remember, you're meant to follow the teachings and not question them :)
My personal view on this topic can tend to swing from being totally fatalistic to "yeah whatever". My happy medium is where I believe we all have been given a path to follow, a task to achieve, or something like that, but ultimately it is up to us wether we travel that path.
Have you ever had that feeling where something just feels right, and whole series of events around you seem to fall into place? That I believe happens when we're actually on the path we're meant to be on.
Other than that I tend to ignore what the big churches have to say about it. I'm not convinced that somewhere in history their doctorines weren't tainted by some high-up church official's self interest.
James.
perhaps, to shed some light on the subject, you should not think of predestination as being EVERYTHING in your life if predetermined, but that maybe only your "destiny" is predetermined.
the road is yours to choose, the destination is inevitable, whether you are ready for it or not (or whether you'll go through with it or not) is up to you. the markers that will guide you in the right way will be there, you just have to read them and follow their instructions.
true to form (;)), my version of predestination isn't the same as that of the world's, but i have a much different understanding of life at large anyway.
and to Nerezza: "but only God knows who they are, not even they themselves know". for most i am sure this is the case, but there are a few select who God has talked to (and they KNOW who they are). I'm not talking about the insane people, although at times it can be hard to tell[B)], but about the people who really do have something important that God wants them to do. i know of at least one person who had such an "honour". but i can tell you now that it isn't as great as one might think (ever read the story of Jonah and the whale?).
the choice is always yours. but let me rewrite the situation yet again, to help clarify the issue.
when you "fall in love", would you rather fall in love with someone who was merely "predetermined" to "love" you? would that then really be love? no, because love is an ACTIVE act: one must LOVE, not merely fall in love. true love is a choice: you choose to love someone in order to really love them. if you are just "loving" someone because you are predetermined to do it, what would be the point? it would be a mere illusion.
but it strongly seems for many that there is a "certain" someone out there that is the "right" person for them. does that mean you have to find them and love them? no. you can choose to spend your life getting drunk and not remembering it. you'll probably still eventually meet that person that you felt you were supposed to love, but you could just spit in their face and leave.
those last two paragraphs didn't come out the way i wanted them to (they are making a lot less sense than i wanted them to[xx(]), so i'll just shut up now.
maybe someone else can figure it out and pretty it up for me?[:)]
~kakkarot
cainam_nazier has brought up a VERY interesting question, one that has vexed man since the beginning and one that I feel I can answer, but whether you will agree with me or not is another.
First of all, free will or FREE AGENCY as I like to call it, is a VITAL part of our existence as eternal beings. We couldn't learn the difference between right and wrong, good and evil...we couldn't be on the course we are on: the course to perfection, unless this were the case.
I also believe that at a certain level, where God is you might say...or THE Source, the ETERNAL NOW, one can see the beginning to the end (well, except for there really ISN'T a beginning or END...that's the impossible thing to comprehend, although for us in mortality it's how we perceive things so it's the language I will use). Therefore I believe that yes, at some level all is known, EXCEPT (and I may be accused of being contradictory or dogmatic here) WE ALWAYS HAVE THE CHANCE TO CHOOSE...WE CAN CONSTANTLY ALTER THE OUTCOME OF OUR LIVES.
I also believe we existed before we existed here in this life, except not with physical bodies ...and there we had different levels of spirituality and intelligence, just as we do here. Therefore that has a lot to do with who we are here and what kinds of things we are learning and doing, so in that sense were were pre-destined to be and do certain things. Some people are more drawn to love, teaching, spirituality, their higher self, to energy, and also to negative influences such as greed, money, violence, etc. But even someone who was highly advanced and good before might make a decision that would alter their eternal course AND vice-versa.
So it's sort of a dualistic thing, on the one had we are pre-destined in that a being existing in the eternal now (like our God) can see us all and know our end, but on the other hand we CAN ALWAYS change our current path (kind of like in Minority Report...that film ind of touches on this dual nature of existence).
I hope I did an ample job of explaining what I and my associates believe is the truth (except I won't tell you I believe this if we are having a heart to hear conversation, I will say I KNOW THIS is THE TRUTH).
---------------------
Here is an article that goes into a little more detail regarding this subject and diverges into what we as LDS believe about the nature of FREE WILL and why it's so vital to our existence (and before I post this I want to say thanks again "cainam" for bringing this topic up!):
------------------------
Concerning the principle of free agency, President David O. McKay has written, "Next to the bestowal of life itself, the right to direct that life is God's greatest gift to man. ... Freedom of choice is more to be treasured than any possession earth can give. It is inherent in the spirit of man. It is a divine gift to every normal being. ... Everyone has this most precious of all life's endowments—the gift of free agency—man's inherited and inalienable right." (Improvement Era, Feb. 1962, p. 86.)
Free agency in the pre-earthly existence
In reviewing this topic, I would like to begin at the beginning, but so far as I can tell there never was a beginning so far as the exercising of free agency is concerned. According to the Prophet Joseph Smith, our minds or intelligences—those parts of our being with which we think and make choices and determine actions—have always existed. Concerning this the Prophet said:
"The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal with God himself. ...
"The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end. ... There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal [that is, co-eternal] with our Father in heaven. ...
"Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation about it." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith, Deseret Book Co., 1938, pp. 353-54.)
Thus the capacity of choice, which is a most essential element in free agency, has evidently always been part of our being.
In the process of time each of our intelligences was clothed with a spiritual body by heavenly parents, and we became personages of spirit with bodies of eyes and ears and hands and feet. All of us on this earth had the same Father of our spiritual bodies, and because he lives in heaven, we have been rightfully taught to refer to him as "our Father in heaven."
Our spirit bodies were capable of tremendous accomplishments, but they also had some serious limitations. There were some laws that they could not obey, and therefore there were some blessings not available to them. Thus, our Heavenly Father called us into a grand council in heaven where he proposed a plan that would give us further opportunities of growth and development by giving us further opportunities of choice. There the importance of moral free agency and its four necessary and essential conditions were explained to us: first, we must have the opportunity of choice—that is, the operation of law; second, there must be the possibility of the existence of opposites—good and evil, virtue and vice; these two make possible the third, the freedom of choice—that is, free agency; then finally, a knowledge of the law and its consequences. All four of these conditions are necessary in order to accomplish the progression that would enable us to become as our Father in heaven, which was the main purpose of the new earth plan that he proposed.
When we lived with our Father in heaven, we did not need to exercise a fullness of faith in whether or not he existed. We knew that he lived because we saw him; we walked and talked with him. We knew he existed and were convinced of his existence, but we were not necessarily converted to him and to his great principles because our knowledge of him had come from external sources without virtually any effort on our part. So that we would come to a knowledge of him in and of ourselves, our Heavenly Father proposed that when we came into this earth life a veil of forgetfulness would be placed over our minds so that we would not remember our pre-earthly existence with him. Only then could the choices that we made here upon this earth truly come from within us. Our Father in heaven then promised us that while we were here on earth he (1) would give us law, (2) would provide the possibility of opposites, (3) would give us free agency, and (4) would send angels and prophets to teach us and give us scriptures so we could learn the laws and understand why we should keep them. Thus, he promised us the necessary conditions on this earth so that we could become morally free.
The nature of law was more than likely explained in that pre-earthly council—that each law has consequences, opposite and equal. Whenever a law is kept or obeyed, the consequence is a blessing which results in joy or happiness. Whenever a law is broken or disobeyed, the consequence is a punishment that results in misery or unhappiness. This simple and perhaps over-generalized explanation of the law of justice portrays how order is accomplished, for in the payment of the law of either obedience or disobedience, the law is brought back into a state of balance and thus order prevails. The law of justice, then, always requires a payment.
My comment(You can see this with psychic and mental energy as well...there is always a coming in and going on depending on our actions)
But another law also operates in the moral realm—the law of mercy, which in no way robs or violates the law of justice but which makes possible the vicarious payment of broken law. For example, the law of mercy permits the disobedience of a person to be atoned for or paid for by the obedience of the Savior --My comment:(a perfect being who died without having once broken any higher law...he obeyed laws from levels much higher than this), providing that the person who disobeyed the law will cease being disobedient—in other words, providing that the person repents.
The great plan of salvation and exaltation must also have been explained to us including an explanation of why the possibility of opposition must exist upon the earth and how it would occur through the fall of man, how the law of justice would require a payment for the broken law and how the law of mercy would make the Atonement possible. The explanation of these things was later revealed to the prophet Lehi, and he taught them to his family in these words:
"For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. It not so ... righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery. neither good nor bad. ...
"... there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon (my comment: this is actually a scientific law as well if you understand the laws of physics).
"And to bring about his eternal purposes ... the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other. ...
"And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law. ...
"Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great mediation of all men, or to choose captivity and death." (2 Ne. 2:11, 14-16, 26-27.)[/red]
It was no doubt explained in this great pre-earthly council that as we would come to the earth the Spirit of Christ would be placed within each of us and another member of the Godhead, the Holy Ghost, would be empowered to witness, reveal, and testify to our spirits. Then, even though we had a veil of mortality over our minds, the Holy Ghost would be able to bring all things to our remembrance if we would listen to the words of the prophets, would read the words of the scriptures, and would respond to the Spirit of Christ that is within each of us by praying to our Father in heaven. This time, however, the knowledge would come to us by an act of will on our part. We would internalize it; it would become part of our very being, and therefore no one throughout all eternity could take this knowledge away from us unless we, by an act of will, allowed this knowledge to be taken away.
Now, there were other purposes, of course, for this earth life. We came here also to receive physical bodies capable of procreation. But the God-given power to have children would not be placed in our physical bodies until we had arrived at an age of accountability and had matured in experience so we could exercise our free agency in using these powers in righteousness.
When this great plan was presented to us, it was soon evident that because of the Atonement and the principle of free agency, this earth life could become a great testing and proving period.[/red] If we proved faithful to all the laws given to us by our Heavenly Father, we would become even as he is and share with him his power and glory. Perhaps it was when we realized this that the "sons of God shouted for joy," as recorded in the book of Job. (Job 38:7.)
Lucifer's proposal to deny free agency
There were some, however, in that pre-earthly council who did not shout for joy. They either lacked faith in our Heavenly Father, in the Savior, or in the gospel plan, or they lacked faith in their own ability or willingness to keep the law that would be given to them. Thus, they actively opposed the plan of our Heavenly Father. Their leader was called Lucifer, "the son of the morning"; he is also known as the devil or Satan.
Lucifer not only opposed the plan of our Heavenly Father, but he sought to amend and change the terms of salvation by denying men their free agency and by preempting our Heavenly Father. The exact words of Lucifer's boast are contained in the book of Moses: "I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor." (Moses 4:1.)
We do not know all of the details of Lucifer's amended proposal, but we do know from revelation that he "sought to destroy the agency of man." (Moses 4:3.) This could be accomplished in many ways, including denying us either the opportunity of choice or the freedom of choice. In either case, not "one soul" would have been lost. It is sin that causes a soul to be lost, but how can a person sin if he does not have the opportunity to sin? That is, how can a person disobey a law if he does not have a law?
Lucifer's proposed amendment appealed to some, but it did not appeal to any of us in this audience. We saw that under his plan we would lose the challenge of growth and progression. We did not want to live in a world where we would be on the same plane forever. We had enough faith in our Heavenly Father and in his plan, in Jesus Christ, and in ourselves that we wanted to live in a world where there would be opportunities for further development. At the same time I am sure we realized that if we were not faithful to these laws and opportunities we might even be worse off than we had been before.
Thus there was a great war in heaven, and a key issue in that war was whether or not man was to be a morally free agent while upon the earth. A vote was taken. (By the way, that in itself indicates that we had our free agency there; in a sense Lucifer exercised his free agency in an attempt to deny us the right to exercise our free agency.) Two-thirds of those present voted for the plan of our Heavenly Father; one-third voted against the plan and did not participate in it. (my comment: the 1/3 that did not accept it were cast down and they constitute a great majority of the negs/ evil spirits that torment us and try to impede our progression for they have lost their ability to progress because they never came to this world to get physical bodies...)
Freedom in the Garden of Eden
So the plan was put into operation. A physical earth was created. Physical bodies were prepared for Adam and Eve. Their spiritual bodies were placed in those physical bodies, and they became living souls. Then our Heavenly Father started to keep the promises that he had made to us by giving them the opportunity of choice. He did this by giving them law, by telling them what they should do and what they should not do: "Partake of the fruit of the tree of life." "Multiply." "Do not partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil." Through his selection of the laws, he also gave them the possibility of opposites. Next he explained the consequences of those laws: "Partake of the fruit of the tree of life, and ye shall live forever." "Multiply, and you shall have joy and rejoicing in your posterity." "Partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and you shall surely die." Then our Heavenly Father did one other thing: after explaining the consequences of their choices, he also explained that they would have the freedom to choose under this great earth plan. Notice how all three of these elements are present in one verse in the book of Moses:
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (Moses 3:17.)
Well, you know the rest of that story. Lucifer and his followers were cast out of heaven. In order for Lucifer to make all of us subject to him, thus enabling him to put his throne above the throne of God, he needed to accomplish two things: first of all, he needed to get sin into the world, and then he needed to keep Jesus Christ from atoning for that sin.
Therefore, Lucifer tried to get Adam to disobey one of the laws. When he was unsuccessful in this he concentrated on Eve and finally enticed her to partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Eve then persuaded Adam to partake of that same fruit. Although Adam and Eve had great intellect and powers of reason in the Garden of Eden, they were without experience; although they had the opportunity of choice and the freedom of choice in the Garden of Eden, yet they were not morally free because they did not fully understand the consequences of their choice. Oh, they heard the words of our Heavenly Father, "In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die," but what was death to Adam and Eve? They had never seen death nor experienced it; they could not understand it. And because they did not fully comprehend the consequences, their disobedience of the law is referred to as a "transgression," not as a "sin," and consequently comes under the unconditional part of the atonement of Jesus Christ.
As a result of their transgression, two deaths were introduced into this earth: physical death, which resulted from their partaking of that particular fruit; and spiritual death, which resulted from their disobeying our Heavenly Father. Thus misery and suffering, which are the consequences of broken law, entered into the world.
The atonement of Christ
Now let us skip four thousand years of history and come down to the birth of Christ—a very important period so far as all mankind are concerned. Indeed, the Prophet Jacob in the Book of Mormon said that if Jesus Christ did not atone then all mankind must unavoidably perish, and we would all "become devils, angels to a devil, to be shut out from the presence of our God, and to remain with the father of lies, in misery, like unto himself." (2 Ne. 9:9.) The plan was that Jesus Christ would be born into this earth as the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh and would have power over the physical death. The plan also required that Jesus Christ would be sinless while he lived upon the earth so that he would have power over all the laws and would be able to atone for the spiritual death introduced by the fall of Adam and Eve.
Lucifer knew that Christ must possess these two essential and necessary characteristics. He may have known this because of his pre-earthly experience; if not, then surely he knew it because of the words of the prophets of God here upon the earth. Therefore, when the Savior was born, Lucifer tried in every way that he could think of to keep Jesus Christ from achieving his great, divine destiny. He tried to get Jesus Christ to deny his divine Sonship, but the Savior replied, "I came into the world to do the will of my Father." He tried to get Jesus Christ to break one of the laws, for he knew that if he could get the Savior to break only one law—to commit only one sin—then the Savior would not have power over all of the laws and therefore could not atone for the sins of all mankind.
But Jesus completely resisted the enticements of Lucifer; Jesus did not disobey any laws, and so he is referred to in the scriptures as the Sinless One. Jesus Christ was thus able to atone for both the physical death and the spiritual death. He was able to atone for the physical death because of the power that he had inherited from the Father as the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh; he was able to atone for the spiritual death because he was sinless.
The next crucial question was "Would he be willing to atone for those deaths? Would he be willing to endure the intense suffering and pain that would be required to pay for the sins of all mankind? Would he be willing to submit to the chains of physical death and thereby voluntarily break the bands or the chains of physical death for all mankind?" The New Testament records the drama of the experiences of the Savior in Gethsemane, at Golgotha, and at the tomb, where he fully atoned for the two deaths, conquering both the grave and hell and thus becoming the great Savior and Redeemer of all mankind. In remembrance of the two aspects of his atonement, we have been commanded that when we partake of the sacrament we partake of two emblems—bread in remembrance of the body of Christ, which he gave as a ransom for all; and a liquid in remembrance of the blood of Christ, which he shed for the remission of our sins. (See JST, Matt. 26:22-25.)
As a result of the atonement of Jesus Christ, we are all freed from the bondage of the original transgression of Adam and Eve, as well as being freed from all those transgressions we committed before we arrived at the age of accountability. As the Savior himself has said, "I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free." (D&C 98:8.) Therefore, because of the Atonement, the extent of our individual free agency today is in direct proportion to the number and kind of laws we disobey. Perfect freedom is made possible to us through the Atonement, but it can come only through perfect obedience to the law.
The atonement of Jesus Christ also meant that Lucifer could not attain his goal. He cannot win all of us. He cannot win Christ; Christ is already beyond his power. He cannot win those who have already lived on the earth obedient to the laws of our Heavenly Father and who have now been resurrected.
Efforts to limit human freedom
But Lucifer is trying to run up as high a score as possible, and he does this by trying to keep us individually from achieving the great divine purposes for which we came here upon this earth, including the exercise of our free agency. He can do it by denying us any one of the four essential qualities of moral free agency. He can do it by denying us the opportunity of choice, and he tries to do this through certain types of governments (dictatorships), through the lack of governments (anarchy), and so on. He tries to do this by destroying, in our minds at least, the idea that there is a necessity of opposition, and therefore he tries to teach us "there is no sin. It mattereth not what a man does; whatsoever a man doeth is not sin. Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die." Thus he destroys the role of opposition in our lives, or at least he attempts to do so.
He can also do it by destroying our freedom of choice, and he does this by enticing us to give up our right of free agency to other persons or to other institutions and allow them to make our choices for us, resulting in the evil that presidents of the Church have repeatedly warned against in communism and socialism and other orders of this type.
He also does it by trying to encourage us not to come to a knowledge of our Heavenly Father by not listening to the prophets, by not studying the scriptures, and therefore by not knowing the consequences of our choices: "The scriptures are irrelevant today. They were written a long time ago. Don't pay any attention to them," he says. "There are no such things as prophets upon the earth; they ceased at the time of Christ." Or he says that the heavens are sealed; there is no revelation today. He even says that God is dead!
Thus in one way or another he tries to entice us to become like him and to become subject to the misery and unhappiness that he now experiences. To achieve his devilish aims, Lucifer can and does work through many means: business combines, governments on all levels, military forces, educational institutions, secret combinations of all kinds, and even families, teachers, and churches. Wherever and whenever you find a person or an institution that seeks to destroy the free agency of man, there you will find the influence of Lucifer.
President Henry D. Moyle talked on this subject in these words:
"All we have to do is ... examine any movement that may be brought into our midst ... and if it ... attempt to deprive us in the slightest respect of our free agency, we should avoid it as we would avoid immorality or anything else that is vicious. ... Free agency is as necessary for our eternal salvation as is our virtue. And ... as we guard our virtue with our lives, so should we guard our free agency." (Conference Report, Oct. 1947, p. 46.)
President Marion G. Romney, when he was a member of the Council of the Twelve, gave this advice:
"One of the fundamental doctrines of revealed truth is that ... God endowed men with free agency (see Moses 7:32). The preservation of this free agency is more important than the preservation of life itself. ... Everything which militates against man's enjoyment of this endowment persuades not to believe in Christ, for he is the author of free agency.
"Now the world today is in the throes of a great social and political revolution. In almost every department of society laws and practices are being daily proposed and adopted which greatly alter the course of our lives. Indeed, some of them are literally shaking the foundations of our political and social institutions. If you would know truth from error in this bitterly contested arena, apply Mormon's test to these innovations [as recorded in Moro. 7:16-18]. Do they facilitate or restrict the exercise of man's divine endowment of free agency? Tested by this standard, most of them will fall quickly into their proper category as between good and evil." (Speeches of the Year, Brigham Young University Press, 1957, pp. 10-11.)
As an example of how sin can put us into bondage, let us consider for a moment the Word of Wisdom, because this is a physical law that we can see and understand rather readily. The Lord has said tobacco is not good for man—that is the law. We have our free agency either to obey or to disobey the law. Also, by keeping the law we still have our free agency as to whether or not we will continue to keep the law. However, as soon as we disobey the law—in this case, when we become addicted to nicotine—we not only suffer the penalty of poorer health, but we also practically lose our free agency in that matter. The broken law has a claim over us, we have become slaves to the drug, and the broken law will continue to have a claim over us until we stop breaking the law—that is, until we repent. And essentially the same principle is involved in all of the laws given to us by our Heavenly Father.
Scriptural references to freedom
Following are a few scriptural quotations pertaining to these principles:
"If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:31-32.)
"Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
"And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him." (Heb. 5:8-9.)
"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." (Gal. 5:1.)
"Men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;
"For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward." (D&C 58:27-28.)
"And it must needs be that the devil should tempt the children of men, or they could not be agents unto themselves; for if they never should have bitter they could not know the sweet." (D&C 29:39. Italics added.)
"Whosoever perisheth, perisheth unto himself; and whosoever doeth iniquity, doeth it unto himself; for behold, ye are free; ye are permitted to act for yourselves; for behold, God hath given unto you a knowledge and he hath made you free.
"He hath given unto you that ye might know good from evil, and he hath given unto you that ye might choose life or death; and ye can do good and be restored unto that which is good, or have that which is good restored unto you; or ye can do evil, and have that which is evil restored unto you." (Hel. 14:30-31. Italics added.)
"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." (Gal. 6:7.)
"To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." (James 4:17.)
"The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Rom. 6:23.)
"This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." (John 17:3.)
Freedom necessary for the gospel to flourish
An atmosphere of freedom is necessary for the teaching and accepting of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The missionaries and the message of the restored gospel have been received by the nations of the earth in almost the same proportion as those nations have accepted the principles of freedom. So intertwined are the principles of the gospel and the principles of free agency that they have become almost as one. This characteristic has been pointed out by President John Taylor in these words:
"Besides the preaching of the Gospel, we have another mission, namely, the perpetuation of the free agency of man and the maintenance of liberty, freedom, and the rights of man. ... We have a right to liberty—that was a right that God gave to all men; and if there has been oppression, fraud or tyranny in the earth, it has been the result of the wickedness and corruptions of men and has always been opposed to God and the principles of truth. (Journal of Discourses, 23:63.)
I bear witness and testimony of these things.
By:
Daniel H. Ludlow
Edited (without permission) by Daniel Todd---1-'03
Adapted from Speeches of the Year, Brigham Young University Press, 1974, pp. 173-88.
http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm
One more try.
Below is the clearest view of the topic I could find:
"The Church following Holy Scripture teaches that there is Election by God of the chosen to be saved as a free will grace on His part Who has the initiative in salvation and so is the First Cause of their salvation; the Church also teaches that man has free will to accept this grace or not. It is traditionally summarized in four statements:
God wills all men to be saved and so gives sufficient grace to all to be saved;
But not all men are saved; those who are not saved are damned by their own free will (cf. Council of Orange);
Those whom He chooses to be saved will infallibly be saved in a way that respects their freedom, and this is called Predestination;
Those who are not saved are not chosen by God in view of their foreseen free will rejection of grace which will be given and without which no one can be saved.
Anyone who denies the four propositions is a heretic. How to understand the four propositions is where different theologies come in. Anyone who denies that God knows our future free actions denies God's infallible choice of the Elect and God's infallible knowledge of the Damned and so is a heretic.
The main thing to understand is that God's thoughts are not man's thoughts, i.e., He does not think as we do one step at a time, nor does He love as we do (gradually), but He both thinks and loves limitlessly all at once in an Eternal moment in which He knows Himself completely and actually as most intelligible in Himself and most loveable in Himself, and everything else in that one perfect act of knowing Himself. He therefore cannot learn anything, but when He decides to create knows the creature by making it to be, not by receiving information from the creature and so coming to learn something new.
In other words, His knowledge is creative. Any change or development is on the side of the creature, for He is neither better nor worse, greater nor smaller, no less after creating than before.
Historically there are two orthodox theologies of grace that explained the Revealed Truth of Grace and Predestination in the Western Church: St. Thomas Aquinas', and in the 16th century the Jesuit school of theology (though St. Robert Bellarmine, a Jesuit and Doctor of the Church who followed St. Thomas). St. Thomas' explanation approached the subject from man's point of view. The Church has not picked one explanation over the other. Both approaches rest on the Church's Faith that God has (infallible, of course!) knowledge of the destiny of the Elect and the Damned.
Basically the Jesuit school says God knows how those who are going to be saved will accept His initiative of Grace and how the damned will refuse His Grace.
St. Thomas following St. Augustine, though improving on him, stresses that God causes (as well as knows) the Chosen to get infallibly to Heaven, persuading them with many graces freely to accept (so that if they do not accept some grace He gives other graces that they will accept freely); while He gives sufficient grace for the Damned to be saved, but foreseeing they will reject His ordinary graces, He does not choose them and so does not give extraordinary graces to assure their salvation and respects their choice to reject Him.
This means no one can presume he will be saved and so reject a grace to avoid serious sin banking on a future grace, since God is not obligated to give another grace of repentance. This can be especially surmised in the particular sin of rejecting the Faith; many of these never return to it and it seems God lets them go their way.
The Church, however, never tires of preaching the merciful love of God available to sinners and unbelievers alike.
WE do not know if we are chosen or not and so pray for the grace of final perseverence: "Count us among those You have chosen," from the Roman canon right before the Consecration of the Mass."
OK, PeacefulWarrior and Nerezza,
I want each of you to now summarize your last posts in 5 sentences or less [:D][:D]
James
well, i guess i'm a heretic ("Anyone who denies the four propositions is a heretic").
personally, i really hate the catholic church because they try to tell themselves and everyone else that the catholic church is infallible (and we all know that it isn't). they write laws that God never did, and force their laws upon people in a way the God never intended. their entire religion is based upon laws when the New Covenant that God made with Man is based upon grace and love. anyone who goes back to "rule-mongering" just hasn't gotten it yet.
~kakkarot
kakkarot,
Im a heretic considering I disagree with vatican II, the current pope, and alot of other doctrines passed through the years.
And I too hate the catholic church. At least the current form of it.
And im a catholic. The church will fall, and it's coming soon.
You are a heretic kakkarot, but your in good company, because when you think about it, Jesus was too.
I have some thoughts on predestination, the elect, infallability, and some others as well. However I am far too tired right now. I mean geese, it's almost 7am, I should go to bed.
Ok, here is that summary...but before I say this I want everyone who reads this to know that I am not a Catholic and the following beliefs are not Catholic (I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and a seeker of all truth)
-Agency is the ability we all have to choose good or evil.
-Because we lived before this life, the decisions we made before this life have a bearing on who we are here and what we are.
The word "infallible" is a joke, that would only apply to someone who is perfect...and is one of the many absurdities of the Catholic faith.
-DT
this is how i always thought of the idea of predestination or 'fate' and free will...
Everything you do is your choice (broad statement i know but you know what i mean)
And whatever you choose is what was going to happen (because im sure predestination takes into consideration whatever choices you were going to make)
Whether you change your mind at the last minute 'to throw a spanner in the works' for the fate idea or not, you were always going to change your mind. Even a double change (what you were originally going to do) doesnt work, because we were going to do that anyway.
hmm dont think that clears things up any but let me know if you know what i know im getting at [:P]
peace&love
lief michael
Things are predetermined to the extent that we have made our choices in the past. Not all of the results of those decisions have been completed. We have free will to evaluate the choices we made and to choose a different path for the future.
Why make this more complicated?
I have been finding myself, over the last couple of days, flipping around the few religous stations we have here in town. Sorry if I ofend, but I would really like to smack a couple of them people, Not the people in the religion itself but just the ones on TV.
As a furture note some of the following my come across as rather un-nice. But I am just ranting, and venting, and remember in the long run this is just my opinion and I do not knock any one for thier faith.
Sinners.
How many of the God/Jesus religions say that you are a sinner from the get go?
Now me personally I find this offensive. To say that I am a sinner simply because I am here! That's just not right! To me this kind of thinking perpetuates many of the worlds problems. That being the constant "you need to pay now, for what happened 100's or even 1000's of years ago because it was your ancestors." It's just like that guy in California who tried to sue for punative damages because his great grandfather was a slave and he managed to track down the info on who own him and where the offspring of that one idiot live now. To me this thinking and ideaology is backwards and wrong.
Could some one tell me why I sould suffer and/or repent for sins that were not comitted by me?
God's love and the Elect and predestination.
Okay, another topic. God is sappose to love every one correct? God's love is sappose to unconditional correct? So why wouldn't every single person be saved?
From what I gleen from the way God's love works is this. You do what ever you want during life, you die, you go to heavan. God looks at you and asks "Why did you do all those things?" You respond with "Oops." He then turns and goes, "Oh hell, I can't stay mad at you. Come on in." Idealy this is how "unconditional love" works. There is no sin that could not be forgiven, dare I say it, even when one says that God doesn't exist. Perhaps the greatest offense against the creator of life would be to say that it never happened. Even this would be forgiven with "unconditional love". So in essance with "unconditional love" there would be no sin, just moral obliations. So every one goes to heaven and there would be no hell.
Now if some are just meant to go to heaven and some are just meant to hell then there really isn't "unconditional love" is there? It would for the most part be an unbias rule. You are either in or out, and no matter what you do you can't change in so why worry about it.
But all I really ever hear preached is this. God loves every one. Unless your a sinner, then he doesn't love you as much. And unless you follow his word he won't change his mind and you won't be going to heaven. This does not sound like "unconditional love", this sounds like "conditional love". If you sin, and don't repent, if you follow another faith, or your not one of the Elect you're screwed. How is this "unconditional"?
Again sorry if I offend. Perhaps if some of the views from other religions could clear this up.
Okay it's 10:30am...Time for bed.
Tom,
That was very nicely put! Indeed, why make it any more complicated?
The trouble that we are dealing with here is church doctorine. The christian churches all claim to follow the teachings of Jesus. If you look at his words as detailed in the bible, they are all clear, easily understood and to the point - e.g. "Love one another as you would love yourself." Simple! What amazes me is the ability of religious organisations to turn these simple ideas it to complex legalistic arguments and statements.
It's like that small piece of shareware that you download from the web that is only about 80k in size - 10k of actual program and 70k of "Terms and Conditions" doco.
James.
If we were to arrange to have a room full of Christians from the various branches, I could not even determined who is Catholic from who is Protestant. Separating Baptists, Lutherans, and Methodists would be too difficult to imagine. Considering that this is supposed to be worth killing over, how do Christians who love God and follow Jesus decide whom to shoot?
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHH I LOVE ANSWERING THIS QUESTION!!!!!! OK, the quote is, "God knows everything, but permission is granted." I believe in POSSIBLE pre-destiny; see, I have his "psychic" thing going on (read my post "I think I have ESP-->help!" I'm really new to it and kind of scared, so bear with me), and I saw AND changed the future. Whe I saw that my crush was trying to commit suicide, I stopped him. So, there is POSSIBLE predestiny. We had a three hour discussion of this is religious classes. I ended up thinking that WE write our OWN destinies! Like, we take out a really big piece of paper before we reincarnate, and then we write down our life. Why it isn't perfect: we wouldn't learn anything! That way, we have free-will to choose our destiny, just not while we're here on earth. ;) Hope that helped. I know it was short but, well, you know. And it's just my opinion. I know that Orthodox Jews tend to believe strictly free-will, but I know that a form of christianity believes strictly in pre-destiny. It's a huge religious thing, but that's just my opinion. Many after-life books will agree. I've read some but I forgot their names, I just know that they led me to that answer :)
~*Lauren*~
Tom,
Considering that this is supposed to be worth killing over, how do Christians who love God and follow Jesus decide whom to shoot?
That is why any one who kills has no business calling themselves a follower of christ. Besides, there were popes who outright didn't believe in God, religion is very useful in consoladating power and eliminating ones enemies.
It's funny, I was involved on a christian website for two years until they found out I was a catholic, then I found out catholics were hated by protestants(those protestants of course). I couldn't stay since apparently all my knowledge of the bible was, "polluted by the beast". Funny, they didn't mind before they knew I was a catholic.
James,
What amazes me is the ability of religious organisations to turn these simple ideas it to complex legalistic arguments and statements.
Thats what happens when the minds of men(anyone) contemplate on God's nature. Sort of like someone with an IQ of 70 understanding quantum physics, and doing something with it.
The early christian world(very early) was not full of the intellectuals. Rather it contained the average persons, seeking more but being given less. After christianity became the state religion, the academics moved in the establish schools the determine things like the nature of grace, the divinity of Jesus, and our old friend free will and predestination. After that, add the fall of the Roman empire and the need for a solid structure for kings to hold onto, and you have the might of the catholic church(as we know it today).
It's as i've always suspected, we have the smart people to blame. }:)
The beauty of the christian faith lies not only with the sacrafice of one man, but with the sacrafice of the martyrs that died to spread his message of love, understanding, and hope. All but 2 of the apostles were executed. John was exiled to Patmos where he later wrote the book of revelations. The other was Judas who committed suicide after betraying Jesus.
cainam_nazier,
As a furture note some of the following my come across as rather un-nice. But I am just ranting, and venting, and remember in the long run this is just my opinion and I do not knock any one for thier faith.
We're all here on a search for the truth. I frequented enough atheist messageboards to understand the value of another persons opinion, whether I believe it or not. I still respect it.
From what I gleen from the way God's love works is this. You do what ever you want during life, you die, you go to heavan. God looks at you and asks "Why did you do all those things?" You respond with "Oops." He then turns and goes, "Oh hell, I can't stay mad at you. Come on in." Idealy this is how "unconditional love" works.
Imho, unconditional love shouldn't mean we can terrorize the neighborhood and expect to come home like nothings happened. Keeping with the belief that, "we're here to learn", I think this makes sense. Of course im probably wrong, I used to watch Tom Green.
There is no sin that could not be forgiven, dare I say it, even when one says that God doesn't exist. Perhaps the greatest offense against the creator of life would be to say that it never happened.
Actually there is a sin. If one denies the holy spirit, one cannot be forgiven. Why? Because he has denied God outright. One who decides not to know God and who is not truly sorry for their sins, cannot be forgiven. Not because God won't forgive them, but because they chose not be forgiven. According to the bible of course.
Tom may be able to draw parallels to buddhism but I really have too small a knowledge of that religion. I think it has something to do with how long samsara(sp?) continues for.
Now if some are just meant to go to heaven and some are just meant to hell then there really isn't "unconditional love" is there? It would for the most part be an unbias rule. You are either in or out, and no matter what you do you can't change in so why worry about it.
Enter the sacrafice of Jesus to provide those not of the elect(but not necessarily doomed), to get into heaven. He provided the grace needed so that everyone has an equal chance. Sidenote, when I said elect before, it wasn't meant to mean that only those people will get into heaven. The elect are the saints, martyrs, specially chosen, etc. Part of Gods divine plan and necessary in the divine course of events to be played out.
But all I really ever hear preached is this. God loves every one. Unless your a sinner, then he doesn't love you as much. And unless you follow his word he won't change his mind and you won't be going to heaven.
If you sin, and don't repent, if you follow another faith, or your not one of the Elect you're screwed.
Can't help you there, im one of the people that believe that not everyone can hear the message of Jesus, but it's likely they heard some message that bears something similar.(im not going in to the belief of platonism, I can't write anymore please don't make me!).
According to christianity, we are all sinners. Link below explains.
Again sorry if I offend.
See? Your more christian than you think. ;)
Sinners.
How many of the God/Jesus religions say that you are a sinner from the get go?
Now me personally I find this offensive. To say that I am a sinner simply because I am here! That's just not right! To me this kind of thinking perpetuates many of the worlds problems. That being the constant "you need to pay now, for what happened 100's or even 1000's of years ago because it was your ancestors." It's just like that guy in California who tried to sue for punative damages because his great grandfather was a slave and he managed to track down the info on who own him and where the offspring of that one idiot live now. To me this thinking and ideaology is backwards and wrong.
Could some one tell me why I sould suffer and/or repent for sins that were not comitted by me?
This is actually the reason I considered leaving christianity a few years back over. Then I thought about it for a while and to me, the answer is actually, dare I say it, beautiful.
Of course writing the whole thing down would blow my mind, especially after writing Java programs all day.
So i'll let the catachism(Stop screaming please) do the talking.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm
Within that link lies the answer(according to the catholic theology) of why we are to pay for another man's crime. It's somewhat long, and im not sure if it's the same version I have(I have a newer catachism) but it essentially defines mans fall, and his redemption.
Plus it's easy to understand, I promise. Or else let lightning bolts strike me down.
*dies from lightning bolt*
*thanks God for ending his posting pain*
wow, good posts by all. [applaudes].
cainam: don't worry, we all want to smack the fools one time or another. (actually, i'm not allowed to[:(]. i've already asked}:)).
first off, where does it say in the bible that we are sinners from the get go? we are born into this world pure. sin, after all, is merely going against the Will of God and therefore even goodly acts COULD be sin, in theory. but you can't possibly act against the Will of God if you can't discern what you are doing (ie, when you are a baby), therefore no sin for the newborns.
as for God's unconditional love and everyone therefore going to heaven: please remember that the God described in the bible isn't ONLY a God of love, but is also a God with unmatched wrath. He also is a Judge. He is not just a cliche with only one "side" to Him; He is a being at least as complex in His personality as a human, and what human can't love and judge at the same time?
unconditional love just means that when you screw up, you can always ask for forgiveness. but what would that love mean, really, if we all went to heaven anyways? that love would be a mere show. there really would be no point to having free-will if we couldn't screw up, now would there? sure the idea of only getting one shot at life before being sent to eternal hell might be harsh, but i just think of it this way: "Who am i to tell God he's wrong?" (actually i've tried it a few times in some very specific situations, and it kinda worked. kinda).
as for church doctrine all i have to quote is this: "Somebody finally figured it out. We have ten millions laws trying to uphold the ten commandments." -i don't remember
"But all I really ever hear preached is this. God loves every one. Unless your a sinner, then he doesn't love you as much. And unless you follow his word he won't change his mind and you won't be going to heaven. If you sin, and don't repent, if you follow another faith, or your not one of the Elect you're screwed." you've only heard that preached? that's pretty scary. well, here let me preach a quick one for ya [:D].
[Preaching] God loves everyone. You, you, you, and you. Yes, even me. We all sin eventually. Why? Because we don't know better the first time around. Does that make God not love us anymore? No. He still loves us, and He still wants us to love Him too. We are all sinners here. If God were to only love the perfect, He would be lonely indeed. So remember, "So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love." 1 Corinthian 13:13
~kakkarot
Well said kakkarot,
God is tough but fair. How could we expect less from a parent?
I guess I need to stop watching this Andrew Wommack dude. He just really gets me going.
Who's Andrew Wommack?
Just a fanatic that is on the TV. I think it is the DayStar Network. I could be wrong. He is on one of the religous stations we get here in town. He's on at like 6am.
He has spent the last 3 days talking about how we are all "born of sin" and that the only way we can have "relations with God/Father" as he puts, it is to accept Jesus as our savior. One of the hings that really set me off was that he made a very strong comment about how all other religions were wrong and that his faith was the best becase it was the only one with a savior. Also stating that if you follow any other religion that you will be going to hell in a hand basket because all other religions are wrong and sinfull.
I just got done watching a movie. "Tadpole", it does not talk about religion but it quotes this guy named Voltair alot. There was one line in it that pretty much sums up my thoughts on religion in general.
"If God didn't exist he would have been made up."
Voltaire alsos said:
All sects are different, because they come from men; morality is everywhere the same, because it comes from God.
and let's not forget Jesus, who blows that andrew wommack guy out of the water: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets." (Matthew 22:37-40) Nothing in there about religion.
ya know, in all my time learning the will of God, i have gone through various stages that were rather enlightening; each more enlightening than the last. in the beginning the truth was simple: the bible is right. but then i began to understand all of the things that were being said in the bible and the truth became a bit more complex: the bible is based on rules that must be studied to be understood. then i understood something different: it's not the bible that matters, it is the truth, and that truth is merely recorded in the bible. after more time learning and understanding i came to my next stage: the bible speaks of universal truths that any blind man could see, love, grace, mercy, and other such good characteristics, so it is almost useless. but then i came to realize something else: the whole will of God is for us to love. simply that.
amazing that an entire journey could go from simple to complex to simple again, isn't it? [|)]
~kakkarot
I was baptized Roman Catholic; confirmed Espicopalian; went to Jesuit scools for year; spent 1500 hours studying esoteric Christianity for the past few years (recently).
Circa 879 The Roman Catholic Church stade that mankind was comprised only of Body and soul. Now, what's wrong with this picture? Those who understand the Bible should certainly reply, "Where's the spirit?" more precisely, mankind is comprised of body, soul, and spirit. In fact, the Spiritual World is what this site is about (i.e. Astral, Spiritual Beings, etc...). FYI: those who challenged this were deemed heretics and killed.
In my esoteric studies, I am constantly reading about the Roman Catholic Church destrying any/all evidence of literally any and every spiritual fact(s) that comes into this world. Did you know that almost every Catholic church is physically placed according to stars? (That's astrology, folks; you're not supposed to do it, but they will...how perfect!)
I have been asking people for years why they are Roman Catholic. Do you know what the major majority of responses is? Most people are Roman Catholic because they believe the Bible claims it is the one true religion. More precisely, they point to the fact that the Bible uses the term "catholic" churh. Now, there's a difference between the word, "catholic" and "Catholic." The former means "universal church" and the latter means Roman Catholic. You do not have to be a Roman Catholic to be in sync with the Bible.
The Bible itself didn't start coming into the public's hand, until (circa) 1749. The RC church kept it under lock and key. Apparently, the readers back around 300 A.D. believed that the Pope was the Anti-Christ and they felt threatened, so they locked it up. It wasn't until the printing press came out, that the Bible got into circulation. Hence, all the new religions around that period.
Fact: you must read the Old Testament in Hebrew to understand it. FYI: how a word is pronounced in Hebrew dictates its meaning(s). Gee- you'd think that they's speak Latin AND Hebrew! Most people don't know this. What a curiousity? (Passive learning does not work in these matters.)
The Bible is a spiritual (i.e. occult) book. Therefore, it must be read with spiritual senses. Most people have a problem with the word "occult" becasue they don't know what it means and assume that they know (i.e. passive learning; kinda like watching a movie). Moses, Abraham, Jesus, Paul...all had occult training and experiences (e.g. Paul's vision was an occult experience). (The word "occult" means beyond the 5 senses). Jesus belonged to the Essenes, which was one of the reasons why the Jews did not accept Him.
The book of Revelation is about the Christian Mysteries. It was written by an initiate (i.e. John the Baptist) who also wrote the book of John- same writer. It is not about doom, gloom, and the end of times! We've got another 1700 years or so on this planet.
Jesus of Nazareth (before the Baptism) studdied the Mysteries and the Sacred Writings since age 12. He was the world's greatest initiate. He (and He alone) was able to supress the ego component of His being to enable the Christ to dwell within Him (i.e. the Baptism. All of the teachings of Christianity exist in other religions! There's nothing new! Jesus Christ was a master at making these teachings understandable for the current times (i.e. chop down the fig tree that wasn't bearing fruit). For example, the Lord's Prayer condenses 42 laws from the Sacred Writings. We are expected to be able to understand the same wisdom and make it understandable for our time without changing the meanings- that's called being a follower of Christ. Morality comes ONLY at the culmination of a long striving for wisdom. Unfortunately, most religions ONLY teach their supporters to "speak a few syllables and utter a few adjectives" (all about the ritual- that's it)
The significance of Christ is NOT the teachings! Although, they (i.e. teachings) were the spiritual food that Christ provided while he was here. In addition, He showed how to get the job (i.e. maintaining the wisdom for the sake of mankind) done!
The significance of Jesus Christ was His death- period. One must understand the Mystery of Gogotha in order to know who Christ was?
(I will make another post explaining this incredible Mystery)
Greetings DJM!
Another excellent post indeed! Thank you for your contributions!
Yes, the bible and indeed the presence of Master Jesus on Earth has been massively misinterpreted and misrepresented by the dogmatic religions over the ages. Why? Because they interpreted the teachings and writings purely in material terms rather then in the Spiritual terms they represent, in order to control the people through "fear of God", almost as if it was politics. This great Master came from the Cosmic spheres, the very highest next to "The One and All", and pre-dates the creation of the planet Earth itself, such is his state of evolution.
As you pointed put, Master Jesus came into incarnation to teach Spiritual truths and realities to mankind, and in terms that they could hopefully understand, at a time when mankind was at a very low point. Unfortunately, over the aeons, the creed and dogma of the churches has caused these teachings to be lost to mankind generally, and turned them in to the "heaven and hell" concepts we see today, the penalty for not believing being "hell" according to the churches.
If only the church clergy realised that one of the worst crimes against Divine Providence and Universal laws is to lead people away from the truth, and thereby compromising their ascent and progression.
The bible symbolically contains much esoteric knowldege if only people did but know it, and did not interpret the words materially. The same with the prayer:
"Thy shall be done on Earth as it is in heaven" is "As above, so Below" , and refers to one of the most fundamental of all of the sacred Laws.
With best regards,
Adrian.
Adrian,
YOU AGAIN? (just joking) Kindred spirits? Methinks.
If one goes back into history, one eventually loses all historical records of the concept of Hell. In fact, the Atlanteans knew nothing of it and there were no records of it! I believe that it was the Hindu religions that first introduced the concept by adding to what had been passed to them from the Atlanteans after the great Atlantean flood (i.e. Genesis). By adding this "concept," people were controlled and exploited (i.e. monetarily; services). Everyone else coppied this "formula." There are no records of "Hell" in any civilization before this.
The Roman Empire had to do something after the death of Christ so they formed a HIERARCHY to control it- and did they ever!
The only ones that Jesus showed disfavor with was the Priests who were intentionally misrepresenting the truth- biblical fact. These same priests began persecuting Him right after He performed the raising of Lazuruth which was a revelation of the Mysteries. It was for THIS reason His persecutions began. Ultimately, His death was an even greater revelation of the Mysteries! His death is not explained in accordance with the Mysteries. Instead, his teachings were highlighted. Once again, it was His death that was significant, not the teachings! This is why Christ mentions that people will claim to know him and He will turn them away. This line is unsettling to those who only coin historical references. (by design?)
If anyone out there wants to know WHO CHRIST IS, read my post entitled, "The Mystery of Golgotha." I posted it up there so that you may know...because I love you all.
no DjM, the significance of Christ was not ONLY his death. for without his life, his death would mean nothing. and without his teachings what would even his death have been worth? most people think that his death was merely to give people a way of being forgiven of their sins before God. those people don't see the full picture. Jesus gave us a means of forgiveness for ourselves not just so that we could be forgiven, but so that WE COULD KNOW GOD! and if we don't ever come to know God than even Jesus' death was worth less than it truly was.
God desires a relationship with each person, with everyone individually. even He couldn't do that as long as we wallowed in our sins, so He gave us and Himself a means of reconcilation so that we could establish a relationship with God based not on master and slave, creator and created, but on love and grace on the behalf of both sides, us and Him.
~kakkarot
kakkarot- I am pointing at esoteric Christianity (i.e. the higher mysteries). These mysteries are not well known, particularly in regular Christian circles.
Christ came to earth so that his being would be one with humanity for eternity- that was the mission. All of the teachings are found in EVERY major religion. Have you checked this out for yourself? For example, Buddha and Jesus do NOT disagree with one another- they work in concert. Buddha prepared mankind for the UNDERSTANDING of compassion and love. Jesus Christ was the POWER of compassion and love. Mission complete...
Sin is handled through the laws of Karma. Unless one understands esoteric Christianity, one would not be aware of this. Jesus of Nazareth studied this with the Essenes since age 12, preparing his vessel via inner development in order to supress the eog/I (i.e. the I AM) enabling the Christ to dwell within him from the time of the Baptism, until His death.
The entire book of Revelation describes the Christian initiation that one must go through via inner spiritual development.
The event at Golgotha cannot be lessened, however, it can be (and often is) misunderstood.
You will not see God with your physical eyes, but with your SPIRITUAL eyes. We MUST be careful not to materialze that which is spirit. To understand a Spiritual book, one must open one's Spiritual eyes and ears.
I understand exactly where your arguement is coming from...been there, done that...then, I became a follower.
I hope that you are able to "reconcile" your differences.
Greetings DJM,
quote:
Originally posted by DjM
Adrian,
YOU AGAIN? (just joking) Kindred spirits? Methinks.
If one goes back into history, one eventually loses all historical records of the concept of Hell. In fact, the Atlanteans knew nothing of it and there were no records of it!
Yes - me again [:)] I can't keep away from this forum with so much truth and wisdom being discussed!
I would just like to mention this concept of "hell". It is my understanding that until around the year 350AD, the christian church taught reincarnation and there was no mention of hell. They then came to realise that they could control their congregations much more effectively if they removed reincarnation, and inserted the concept of "hell" in its place. Thus they could cause people to believe that this life if the one and only chance they get, and unless they "believe" in the teachings of the dogmatic church anf fall into line, the alternative is to damnation for all eternity in hell.
If only would they buy know that to lead people away from the Light in this manner is a serious offence against Divine Providence ("God") and Universal laws, and with great karmic consequences to pay.
The Atlanteans, like many of the South American races - Mayans, Incas etc. as well as the seat of the Ancient wisdom and mysteries after Atlantis,i.e. Egypt - had no concept of "hell" because they knew the true nature of the spheres (in Kaballistic terms, the Tree of Life).
With best regards,
Adrian.
DjM, you seem to speak as though you believe that the Christ merely "possessed" a normal human boy.
the Christ knew who he was from the time he was born. at age twelve he began "studying" the old law, because that was the age that boys became men in the hebrew culture, but he already knew all the old law and more (hence the reason he amazed the people at the synagouge with what he knew, even when he was twelve).
i have not read anything about these "higher mysteries" of which you speak, but i have had many things revealed to me in my life time which could be considered "higher mysteries".
but the greatest understanding i was given was the entire practicality of God's plan and what He is doing on Earth, and i completely fail to see how any of what you have said even comes close to being spoken for the benefit of normal people.
so my first question is, who was this written for? the normal person wouldn't even begin to comprehend any of it, and the faithful believer wouldn't care. is this then written for those who are seeking just general enlightenment, hoping to get them to understand something they hadn't before?
please don't misunderstand me, i am not saying anything bad about what you have written, i have just failed to see the point in your having written it.
~kakkarot
I think DJM is coming from a gnostic/rosicrucian viewpoint. It's been awhile since I read gnostic views so im not sure if thats where "higher mysteries" or "mystery of golgatha" come from.
quote:
Originally posted by kakkarot
DjM,
i have not read anything about these "higher mysteries" of which you speak, but i have had many things revealed to me in my life time which could be considered "higher mysteries".
but the greatest understanding i was given was the entire practicality of God's plan and what He is doing on Earth, and i completely fail to see how any of what you have said even comes close to being spoken for the benefit of normal people.
so my first question is, who was this written for? the normal person wouldn't even begin to comprehend any of it, and the faithful believer wouldn't care. is this then written for those who are seeking just general enlightenment, hoping to get them to understand something they hadn't before?
~kakkarot
Kakkarot-
I appreciate all questions...a wonderful opportunity to shed even more light on the world via reflection.
Just because somebody had a vision, does not mean they understood it correctly. This is truth. My assumption is that you have been well schooled and often pursue such subjects as geometry (i.e. sacred geometry); astronomy/astrology; harmony of the spheres; the 7 vowels; etc... If my assumption is incorrect, it's almost a sure bet that your interpretation of your own vision is incorrect. It's a wonderful thing to have a vision and/or receive information intuitively. However, it's an entirely separate matter to parse and interpret it in the light it was given with the reverence it deserves.
All those who are aware know that the bar has been raised- human beings must turn to the spiritual world with spiritual eyes and ears.
WE MUST NOT MATERIALZE THAT WHICH IS SPIRIT!!! If a materialistic individual has a vision, the individual will explain that which is spiritual in materialistic terms and the meaning will be lost. If we are unprepared to receive a vision, we will try to speak of it from the five physical senses and our materialistic understanding. For example, if a child sees something, which it does not recognize, the child will attempt to explain it from its own frame of reference. Although this explanation will be unbiased, it will also render foolishness and lack of substance. Enter inconsistency, which is the root of confusion. Herein lies the root of misunderstandings that have been propagated since the beginning of time. It is simply not enough to claim a vision; one MUST bring that vision to life.
What's the sense in my postings? "Greater love hath no man than this, to teach the Holy Law to one another, and to love each other as oneself. " FYI: one is rewarded with knowledge and wisdom when one gives selflessly in the same direction. This is truth. Exchanging sentiment for opinion is a fool's game, unless, of course, the greater good can be achieved.
All I know is what I don't know, so I will continue to learn more. It is only in the most recent epoch that we possess the power of intellect! It is imperative that we employ this gift (i.e. intellect) in an UPWARD direction with our gaze at the stars and the heavenly bodies above. What a curiosity?
One can understand all that which is required to bring an increase of wealth to the physical body, but not that which brings life itself to the bodies. Personally, I approach people unbiased and assume that they are up to the challenge of improving their current life and the ones to come. The choice is their own, of course, as freedom is a necessary ingredient for the understanding and cultivation of love itself.
quote:
Originally posted by Nerezza
I think DJM is coming from a gnostic/rosicrucian viewpoint. It's been awhile since I read gnostic views so im not sure if thats where "higher mysteries" or "mystery of golgatha" come from.
Nerezza,
I certainly appreciate your clarification. Thank you!
You are right on! However, pertaining to Rosicrucianism- Yes, I belong to the Order. I just
recently joined. The order is non-denominational, so it would be inconsistent to point in that direction as a source of my postings. In addition, we don't divulge that which must be earned in the sense of worthiness (i.e. degrees)- that stuff stays inside as matter of integrity.
Truth be know...the true meanings of Christianity are gradually becoming known to mankind, as these were hidden from us for specific reasons.
I AM trying to let people know that they don't have to throw everything that they might know out the door- just learn the greater meanings thereof...this is the way.
All the best!
"Even the foolishness of God is greater than the wisdom of man." Solomon.
I had five actual visions in my life. none of them had to do with learning or understanding. they were a vision of what might be.
the understanding and wisdom that i gained were given to me by God as gifts for asking. The things revealed to me were meant for me only, but their subject was about everything. Don't look down on me as though I were some sort of simple fool. You are still a few steps below me in the understanding of all that is. I hope for your sake that the rest is revealed to you, for what you know now is merely parts and pieces of the entire matter.
You may think that it is the complete picture, but i gaurantee, after having read your posts, that you still have a few steps to walk up just to get near to where i have gotten. Hopefully, you will even pass that in time. Don't do it with your own mind, as small as a human's mind is, ask for guidance and understanding from God and He will give it to you.
"To make right a building that was built incorrectly, I'll have to destroy everything, won't I?" -Soujiro
~kakkarot
quote:
Originally posted by kakkarot
[br
I had five actual visions in my life. none of them had to do with learning or understanding.
the understanding and wisdom that i gained
~kakkarot
Once again, inconsistency is the root of confusion. It is stated that none of your "visions" had anything to do with learning or understanding...then you skip to understanding and wisdom. One should express oneself clearly and correctly on these matters (i.e. reverence)! One can only gain
insights through "visions". Knowledge and wisdom must be earned- that's the whole point of development.
quote:
Originally posted by kakkarot
[br
Don't look down on me as though I were some sort of simple fool.
~kakkarot
It would be my folly to look down on anyone. I am nothing without the least amongst us (including ALL living beings)...simply put.
quote:
Originally posted by kakkarot
[br
You are still a few steps below me in the understanding of all that is. I hope for your sake that the rest is revealed to you, for what you know now is merely parts and pieces of the entire matter.
~kakkarot
When one releases judgement of another, they really release judgement of themsleves. All I know is what I don't know. Only a fool would claim to know it all.
quote:
Originally posted by kakkarot
[br
You may think that it is the complete picture, but i gaurantee, after having read your posts, that you still have a few steps to walk up just to get near to where i have gotten.
~kakkarot
I don't posses the intellectuall capacity to condense thousands of hours of work, study, meditation into a few posts. However, I can set the table for one who seeks the truth...the details are up to them. I am very aware of the number of steps that are required and the level(s) of development associated with them. Pertaining to development, the rule is: Know thyself. (not they neighbor)
And just tyo throw in some humor.
DMJ, "Only a fool would claim to know it all."
Well, I am a fool and know it. So does that mean I know it all?
quote:
Originally posted by cainam_nazier
And just tyo throw in some humor.
DMJ, "Only a fool would claim to know it all."
Well, I am a fool and know it. So does that mean I know it all?
David,
I believe in the context in which you chose, it means that you have a big heart and see humor as a harmonizing force...which is cool! Right on!!
All the best!
P.S. THIS is not here...
I remember arguing as a teenager with the religion teacher over the impossibility of predestination if we had free will. Must have driven that poor nun batty! After class my friend cleared it up nicely for me when she explained that my problem was in equating my-time with God-time.
When it comes to time (and many other things), humans think linearly. God doesn't. I face a decision (point A on the time line). I "move ahead" and make a decision at point B. The effects of that decision are felt later at point C. We figure God is moving along that line with us at the same "time," so S/He must be "forcing" the decision on us to get to a particular point C.
However, if we think of God as standing outside that time line--though actually encompassing it--God exists in present, past, future, so S/He experiences points A, B, and C simultaneously. No matter which decision I make God is aware of it as it is made--and it "fits" no matter what it is, simply because all possibilities are possible in God's time frame.
Those inclined toward parodoxical thinking like my friend Sue see it easily. Those who think linearly, as I did, have a bit of trouble with the concept, that's all.
For the record, I'm no longer a practicing Catholic. But not because I dislike or am angry at the Church. I left out of respect for it when my Christological views changed and I came to believe that all religions are man-made constructs mean to control society. I probably wouldn't have mentioned that except for the disparagement of Roman Catholicism I noticed in this thread. Surprised me in a forum which seems so respectful of other non-traditional spiritual paths. Logical to assume that respect should be "catholic" or universal :)
Anyone who studies various religions in a personal search for truth can always find that faith system's particular beauty and truth if they look for it. Catholicism is no exception. When what they actually teach is understood, it's easy to see much truth in that spiritual path.
Like kakkarot, I believe that the spiritual journey moves from the simplicity of childhood, through complexity as an adult seeker, and back to simplicity as we mature. The amazing thing, though, is that the latter simplicity--love--can paradoxically encompass that previous multitude of complex things. It doesn't eliminate them, imo, it explains and unifies them. And, once you've experiened that simplicity, it's hard to hate any person, religion, or spiritual path because you see them as part of that unified whole.
Greetings Assia!
Welcome to the forums, and thank you very much for an excellent opening contribution.
You are correct, we do not condone any pointed discussions against specific named religions here. We are very tolerant however in general terms however, because freedom of thought and speech is very important. What you will find is alot of comments vis a vis religion in general terms - many of which comments originate from myself [:)]
Your observations regarding God are correct - He/She is Spirit in the "Eternal Now" beyond space or time. Everything in the Universe is therefore also Spirit. These are concepts that most people do not think about, much less comprehend. The other factor is that most people ascribe petty human characteristics like vengeance, jealousy, need to be worshipped etc. to God. "The All" (God) is perfection, and everything in His/Her Universe works in accordance with immutable Universal Laws "The Law", which nothing and no one exist outside of.
Thanks again - I look forward to your further contributions.
With best regards,
Adrian.
Thank you for such a warm welcome, Adrian.
I understand your tolerance of passing remarks, but the "I hate Roman Catholicism" ones were a bit more than a generalized comment about organzied religion; they were very specfic, as a matter of fact. Kind of threw me a bit on a forum dedicated to finding the higher consciousness.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not asking to eliminate such statements. In fact, I'm all for letting any such comments ride. They can be a pretty good litmus test of how well a person can "walk their own talk." Which, of course, makes it easier for me to decide how much weight to place on the rest of their talk :)
I've been browsing the rest of the topics--lots here, just in this one area of the forum. Will take some time to read them, but it should be enjoyable.
Thanks again for the welcome!
assia,
Im a cradle catholic, i've gone through the whole routine. I even still go to church on sundays. And that being said, I hate what the church(meaning those in charge ie vatican) has become. It's corrupted and falling apart.
I not not hate roman catholicism, it's a totally different thing. I pray the rosary, study the cathechism, recieve communion.
Why do I still go to church? It's the most peaceful place i've ever been. Im even considering becoming a priest once I get my degree.
Hi, Nerezza. I've appreciated your posts and saw a lot of similarities between us through them so far. Years back I majored in RC theology, but withdrew in my last semester when I realized my other studies, feminism among them, had altered my view on some of the very basic concepts a Defender of the Faith is supposed to defend. I've never lost my faith, my relationship to God, but as I stayed on the path meant to deepen that relationship, I seemed to draw further away from organized religion itself.
When I switched classes (and majors) to the state college one of my professors made the comment to me that most religious studies majors were closet agnostics . . . I've come to agree with her :)
I miss the community very much. Always have and I don't believe I will ever stop feeling that loss, but I was not able to take part in the sacraments without a sense of hypocrisy, so I finally withdrew. Over time, I came to see I can't honestly call myself Christian anymore because I don't accept basic tenets of Christianity such as original sin and the need it created for redemption through Christ. Jesus is my brother; I try to live the way of life he preached and the Sermon on the Mount is probably the guiding force in my life. In fact the name I choose on spirituality boards, Assia, refers to the name of one of his sisters found in the Coptic History of Joseph the Carpenter--and is the main charactrer in a novel I'm almost finished writing, Xe Mapia ("Hail, Mary" a Greek graffitti found at primitive church burial sites).
I look forward to sharing with you. I honor and respect women who remain within the church in order to change it from within by their lives and loves. Unfortunaely, that wasn't my path, but I have a feeling we have a lot in common.
Since the Vatican hasn't shifted it's position on women in the priesthood, you'll have a difficult path ahead of you and I admire your courage. I'm aware of several ordained women, such as Ludmila Javorová, but I don't think those ordinations will be recognized in the near future.
Greetings Assia!
Thank you very much indeed for your perspective.
I was wondering however - why is it that the "popular churches" notably Christian (and in particular RC) and of course Moslim (not sure about Jewish) are so anti female in their organisations?
Is it because they view their deity as male, and accordingly consider only males are fit to serve their deity?
Interestingly, Wicca, which seems to be gaining popularity fast around the world, is very much a backlash against this, with their worship of the "goddess".
With best regards,
Adrian.
assia,
Im afraid im not female. Although if thats what the word Nerezza invokes,im glad. The word is italian for shadow and I used it for a story I wrote about a demon named Nerezza, which was female. I like the word so I kept it.
Other than that, im sure we're alot alike.[;)]
adrian: i don't know about denominations, but Christianity isn't anti feminine. the biggest reason that most "christian" religions and denominations don't allow females to serve as much in the church-proper as they allow the males is probably because 1) the cultures that each religion was established in were patriarchal (spelling?), 2) the old religious texts declare that men are to do certain things and women other things, and it just happens that women don't do things that are as recognized as the jobs the males do, or 3) a mix of 1 and 2.
christianity for sure isn't anti-feminine (i don't know about other religions). according to the bible, only men are supposed to speak out to the assembly, and only men are supposed to minister, but that doesn't mean women can do nothing. there are dozens of things that need to be done "behind the stage" in christian services, and both men and women help with those. also, the bible is quite explicit that only men who have ONE wife ("are the husband of but one wife") and have children can serve in the church; how else could they keep the family of the church together if they can't even keep their own family together?
also, just as wives are to submit to their husbands in their lives, so to husbands are to submit to their wives, as christ submitted to his bride the church, loving her without condition.
i may have just complicated this a bit, but i hope i've shed some light on something.
oh. and the one lame excuse i've heard for why men are supposed to be the "rulers" of the church and why women "aren't allowed" to serve (in) the church is because "eve caused adam to sin, so if not for eve humans would still be doing ok". or something like that. it is stupid none-the-less.
~kakkarot
LOL! Well, Nerreza, you know what they say happens when we assume . . . and I did. Hee Haw!
I'm not sure what it was that put a feminine picture in my head for you, but I tend to "assume" that people who express positive attitudes toward female values are women. I'm sure that tucked into your posts were many such little snippet-clues, but I should know by now that many men have explored and accepted that part of themselves. I'd apologize--but I happen to think it's a compliment to you that I came to an incorrect conclusion :)
Doesn't change the fact that I enjoy your take on spirituality and life in general and I look forward to our friendship . . . with a clearer mind picture of you now.
Adrian:
I believe that the four pillars of society (education, law, religion and economics) are all hierarchically structured with men at top, women inhabiting, for the most part, along with other minorities, the base levels of the social structure. While some women are being acomodated at higher levels, they are the exception to the rule in most places, and they frequently must use the the traditional "male" concept of power-over to maintain that position or rise further. Most institutions operate on principles created by men over the last 4000 years or so, and emphasize "male" values for that reason as well.
I don't view this as bad intent on the individuals within those social structures, mostly just ignorance of the power structure behind the systems (churches, colleges, corporate board rooms, courtrooms) they live and work in operates. It's so pervasive that people are usually blind to it.
Wiccans have created their own structure based on feminine values and social organization. Rather than trying to change a church from within (which I'm not sure can be done since the basic structure remains powered by male values), they created something of their own.
I'm not sure it makes a difference whether a God or Goddess is worshipped. Had women created Wicca with a male God as the central figure, they still would have valued the intuitive over the rational, emotion over reason, power-to instead of power-over, bonding over individual achievement etc. The result would have been the same.
Truth is, I don't think organized religions are so much anti-female as they are pro-male. Makes sense; they're institutions created to serve masculine goals and ideals of how the world should operate.
Doesn't make me mad any more. Women, too, have allowed this to continue, taken part by their reluctance to pay the cost of change and their mistaken ideas that we must "ask" men to change what is natural for them, instead of assuming our own power, as Wiccans did, to create something new for ourselves. Can't blame men and their male gods. They're doing what comes natural to them, imo, and serving their own purposes as humans are inclined to do.
quote:
Originally posted by Kakkarot
also, just as wives are to submit to their husbands in their lives, so to husbands are to submit to their wives, as christ submitted to his bride the church, loving her without condition.
During my time in church I heard it said many times that if we are to accept part of the bible as being the truth we must accept all of it. This is where I start running into problems here. The above quote sounds a bit more balanced than most translations such as this from the King James Bible -
quote:
Ephesians 5
22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
I used the King James because it is supposed to be the original english translation from the hebrew texts, and I grabbed enough of a slice of this chapter to try and keep things in context, but am I the only one here that thinks this is a little one sided? Sure, the man loving his wife as himself is a good thing, but the whole submission bit?? I've seen a lot of really screwed up marriges in churches where this point tends to get forced down the wife's throat. Ok, it says to love the wife as Christ loved the church. This sounds great in principal, but in practice it just doesn't happen that way.
My wife doesn't submit to me. She never will, and I don't ever want her to. I want her love, not submission. Submission is tantamount to slavery.
It seems to me that this was one of those things put into the bible that wasn't really the word of God, but the word of men who were seeking to gain order and control over the lives of others. In this case I think the women definitely come off second best.
Ok, I'll get off my soap box now.
James.
james, the king james version is NOT the best translation, but what you posted is more accurate than what i posted from memory.[;)]
as for submitting, it doesn't mean be submissive always, and it doesn't mean that the husband always gets his way. to submit to someone, you serve them. this one part of the bible is a bit hard to understand properly, and it is better phrased somewhere else (i don't remember where, though). basically, husbands love their wives, and part of love is serving. wives are to submit to their husbands, ie serve, in the same manner.
as for the man being the head of the wive as christ is the head of the church, i'm sure that this was more of a cultural issue than an actual spiritual one. but it's fairly hard to be certain since there are so many possible things to take into account on that. in the end though, if you and your wive love each other and your relationship, then i'm sure God is pleased as well.
~kakkarot
I believe in most middle eastern cultures it is still the way of the wife to be submissive to the husband, and for the husband to be the head of the house.
This is one major consideration to be taken into account when translating such passages of the bible - they were written for a culture that for thousands of years had a totally male dominated society - much as Assia pointed out. Not much has changed in the reigion since. The women still must assume a submissive role, and it still looks to be very one sided wehter the husband really loves them or not.
This is something that I don't think translates well into our western culture, which, if you look at it back far enough, the brittish / european ways were mostly based on pagan religions and traditions, which looked more to the earth goddess rather than a god. I'm also told my celtic ascestors had more of a matriarchal society.
When you consider that the christian teachings are based on middle-eastern society principals, is it any wonder so many issues developed when it forced itself on a predominantly pagan society.
You are right though that loving each other is the one key element, and far more important that rules and traditions.
James.
Greetings kakkarot!
Love and Service are two of the most important Spiritual Truths, and which are fundamental to Spiritual growth in ascension to the Great Spirit (God).
But "Love" does not merely mean that between a man and his wife and family, but towards all of mankind and aspects of Spirit equally, and accompanied by an equal desire to serve.
We are all Sons and Daughters of "God", are all equal regardless of gender or race, and all have the equal right to evolve and to assist every member of humanity to do likewise.
That is the true definition of these fundamental aspects of Spirit.
With best regards,
Adrian.
true true adrian, but when a man and woman come together, they become one before the Lord (according to the bible), so the love they give each other is going to be (or rather should be) different than the love they show to their neighbors. but the love the spouses show for one another should also encompass the love they feel for a neighbor.
beyond themself, all mankind should be loved and served equally.
~kakkarot
Maybe some one can sort this out to me.
I was talking to some one the other day and during the conversation the individual in question managed to bring up "Free Will" and "Pre-destination" in the same sentance.
Now to me this make no sence what so ever. How can "pre-destination" and "free will" co-exist?
In my mind they kinda cancel each other out.
If I understand this correctly "free will" gives us the ability to choose weather or not we want to believe, do good, and so on. Correct? And "pre-destination" says that every thing really doesn't matter anyway because what ever is going to happpen to you in life has already happened or is going to happen no matter what. Well it's kinda the short, bias version but you get my meaning. Is that correct?
So if I am right on both counts then how can they co-exist? If I am wrong then please explain.