Fate

[Fluffy]

1. Actually, it is fate that gives us purpose. I hope I'm not stepping on toes by stating that the general definition of 'fate' amongst most people here, is a predetermined blueprint for our lives, most likely formulated by a higher being/ oversoul/ supernatural idea. By having a pre-planned itinerary for our lives, we have purpose because there are things that we are supposed to accomplish, though we may not know what they are...yet. By rejecting this idea of fate, you are also rejecting purpose, because you are saying that there is nothing specific that you have to do in your lifetime.

2. I think I kind of understand what you're saying here. What happens to you, and the decisions you make, are affected and influenced by your environment and other people around you. I agree with this, however I disagree that your input is 'zero'. The way that your brain functions and processes information, influences all of those outside affects that enter it making them your own. Also, if other people affect you, you can be sure that you affect them. You have just as much input as everyone else, whether you realize it or not.

3. Is this why you like fate? Because you can rely on it by saying, 'everything happens for a reason--its all part of the plan,' during hard times, and because it does, technically, erase guilt?

1. Ill just go over again why I think that this form of fate does not give anything purpose because its very difficult to explain and I dont think I have done so clearly yet. If I were to flip a coin, as in the example earlier, the outcome is said to have a, roughly, 50% chance of happening (if we ignore freak incidences for a second); either heads or tails. This appears to show that fate doesnt happen since this clearly shows 2 possible outcomes. However, when that coin is flipped, all of the factors affecting that coin will cause that coin to land in a certain way. This is to the extent that if I were to go back in time and flip the coin again, I would get the exact same result if I flipped in under the exact same conditions. This totally crushes chance, showing it to be nothing more than a human concept so that we can deal with future events. The coin is "fated" to turn up whatever side it does turn up. Is there any purpose in the coin doing this though? Well purpose implies some kind of will behind it... or at least some kind of intelligence. Does the air resistance affecting the coin WANT the coin to turn up heads? The factors effecting the outcome are totally impartial meaning that the outcome is without purpose. It simply is.

2. You are right in that we do not have zero imput. My reason for saying this would be because any imput that we do have is still based on something that came before it. Nothing happens without some kind of cause. I have no control over any of these inputs. They control me but not in the sense that they are maneouvering me to do something. Just that I am totally subjected to them. And yes everyone else is totally subjected to anything I do. But then my actions are affected by them... and so on and so on. It is a vicious circle which leaves nobody in control.

3. No this is why I dislike fate completely. I think you can have a reason for life without fate and so I'd rather not rely on fate to give me a reason. If fate were to give me a reason then it would have to come in a very different form than I am describing at the moment. I can see the erasing of guilt as enormously costly to society and a very sad thing indeed. Without guilt people would lose their inhibitions and just harm everyone all the time.

 

[Ceridwen018]

1. I agree with what you say here--chance is totally thrown out the window. However, I would not call this idea, 'fate'. In my mind, and generally speaking I should think, 'fate' is something which is caused by a greater intelligence.

2. And you think that someone should be in control? For someone or something to have more control than something else would throw our whole life cycle out of whack. We were meant to interact with each other, because we depend on each other to survive and develop.

 

[Fluffy]

1. I use fate here for lack of a better word but I do know what you mean, fate does normally imply some sort of purpose and/or an intelligent design.
2. I suppose you are right This is certainly a more desirable position that too much concentrated power. I guess I just don't like being dependent on other people... feels like I am burdening them. If I could go it alone I would and I guess thats just one of my dreams that is gonna go unfulfilled.

 

[may]

I


What do you think of these verses:

John 15:16
”Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.”

The idea that the choice of coming to Christ is in our hands alone runs contrary to this verse. However, in all fairness, these words were directed specifically at the twelve apostles, so it may be a bit of a stretch to apply it to all Christians. Of course, by saying so, we then run into a problem concerning the fairness of Jesus’ actions. For him to choose these twelve would imply that they were allowed to circumvent the process of making the decision for themselves. Regardless, there are other verses that work along the same principle:

John 6:44
”No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Ephesians 1:5
”Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,”

To me, the message appears to be very explicit - no one can come to Jesus unless Yahweh draws him. Those who become the children of Christ have been predestined for this fate. To say that man has a choice in this matter seems to be in conflict with these verses.

I suppose that most people do not like to consider these verses in this way, seeing as how they ultimately destroys Yahweh’s sense of moral justice. Basically:

Those who accept Christ do so because Yahweh drew them to him.
Those who reject Christ do so because Yahweh did not draw them.

Clearly, for Yahweh to sentence anyone to eternal damnation for rejecting his son would be inexcusable. There are additional verses that are less straightforward concerning this; however, they still imply this concept of lack of choice:

Romans 12:3
”For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.”

Yahweh has given every man the measure - being the determined extent - of his faith. If one lacks the ability to have faith in the Gospel message, should it not be considered the fault of Yahweh for not giving them ability to do so? If so, their actions in no way warrant eternal condemnation.

Romans 3:11
”There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.”

It is apparent that, by default, humans are incapable of understanding and seeking the things of Yahweh. The only way they would be capable of doing so is if Yahweh imparts his knowledge to them. If he does not do so, the individual will never have the ability to grasp them.

Jeremiah 10:23
”O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.”

To say that Yahweh does not even allow men the trivial task of taking the steps that they walk, and yet places on our shoulders the incredibly important decision of choosing Christ seems rather odd to me. If I am not in control of my steps, then all the less I am in control of my decision to trust the Gospel. If Yahweh is to take control of my steps, he must surely take control of my faith.

"Rom 8:20-21
”For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.”

We have been forced into our sin nature against our own will - the reason being that I never even had the will to choose to have a sin nature at my conception. Yet Yahweh imposes it upon us all, and with it, the consequence of eternal damnation. To say that Yahweh would then only distribute redemption from this fate to only a select few is quite disturbing. This is to say that he has willfully chosen to allow billions of humans to suffer a fate they could have escaped had God only drew them to him, as John 6:44 states.

Foreordination​

​

of the ‘called and chosen.’ There remain those texts that deal with the Christian "called ones," or "chosen ones." (Jude 1; Mt 24:24) They are described as "chosen according to the foreknowledge of God" (1Pe 1:1, 2), ‘chosen before the founding of the world,’ ‘foreordained to the adoption as sons of God’ (Eph 1:3-5, 11), ‘selected from the beginning for salvation and called to this very destiny’ (2Th 2:13, 14). The understanding of these texts depends upon whether they refer to the foreordination of certain individual persons or whether they describe the foreordination of a class of persons, namely, the Christian congregation, the "one body" (1Co 10:17) of those who will be joint heirs with Christ Jesus in his heavenly Kingdom.—Eph 1:22, 23; 2:19-22; Heb 3:1, 5, 6.




​

If these words apply to specific individuals as foreordained to eternal salvation, then it follows that those individuals could never prove unfaithful or fail in their calling, for God’s foreknowledge of them could not prove inaccurate and his foreordination of them to a certain destiny could never miscarry or be thwarted. Yet the same apostles who were inspired to write the foregoing words showed that some who were "bought" and "sanctified" by the blood of Christ’s ransom sacrifice and who had "tasted the heavenly free gift" and "become partakers of holy spirit . . . and powers of the coming system of things" would fall away beyond repentance and bring destruction upon themselves. (2Pe 2:1, 2, 20-22; Heb 6:4-6; 10:26-29) The apostles unitedly urged those to whom they wrote: "Do your utmost to make the calling and choosing of you sure for yourselves; for if you keep on doing these things you will by no means ever fail"; also, "Keep working out your own salvation with fear and trembling." (2Pe 1:10, 11; Php 2:12-16) Paul, who was "called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ" (1Co 1:1), obviously did not consider himself individually predestinated to eternal salvation, since he speaks of his strenuous efforts in striving to attain "the goal for the prize of the upward call of God" (Php 3:8-15) and his concern lest he himself should "become disapproved somehow."—1Co 9:27.​

Similarly, "the crown of life" offered such ones is granted subject to their faithfulness under trial until death. (Re 2:10, 23; Jas 1:12) Their crowns of kingship with God’s Son can be lost. (Re 3:11) The apostle Paul expressed confidence that "the crown of righteousness" was "reserved" for him, but he only did so when he was certain that he was nearing the end of his course, having "run [it] to the finish."—2Ti 4:6-8.​

On the other hand, viewed as applying to a class, to the Christian congregation, or "holy nation" of called ones as a whole (1Pe 2:9), the texts previously cited would mean that God foreknew and foreordained that such a class (but not the specific individuals forming it) would be produced. Also, these scriptures would mean that he prescribed, or foreordained, the ‘pattern’ to which all those in due time called to be members thereof would have to conform, all of this according to his purpose. (Ro 8:28-30; Eph 1:3-12; 2Ti 1:9, 10) He also foreordained the works such ones would be expected to carry out and their being tested because of the sufferings the world would bring upon them.—Eph 2:10; 1Th 3:3, 4.​

Fatalism​

and Predestinarianism. Among the pagan peoples of ancient times, including the Greeks and Romans, one’s fate, particularly the length of the individual’s life, was often considered to be determined beforehand for all individuals by the gods. Grecian mythology represented the control of men’s destiny by three goddesses: Clotho (spinner), who spun the thread of life; Lachesis (disposer of lots), who determined the length of life; and Atropos (inflexible), who cut life off when the time expired. A similar triad was found among the Roman deities.




​

According to Jewish historian Josephus (first century C.E.), the Pharisees endeavored to harmonize the idea of fate with their belief in God and with the free moral agency granted to man. (The Jewish War, II, 162, 163 [viii, 14]; Jewish Antiquities, XVIII, 13, 14 [i, 3]) The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge says: "Previous to Augustine [of the fourth and fifth centuries C.E.] there was no serious development in Christianity of a theory of predestination." Before Augustine, earlier so-called "Church Fathers" such as Justin, Origen, and Irenaeus "know nothing of unconditional predestination; they teach free will." (Hastings’ Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, 1919, Vol. X, p. 231) In their refutation of Gnosticism, they are described as regularly expressing their belief in the free moral agency of man as "the distinguishing characteristic of human personality, the basis of moral responsibility, a divine gift whereby man might choose that which was well-pleasing to God," and as speaking of "the autonomy of man and the counsel of God who constraineth not."—The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, edited by S. Jackson, 1957, Vol. IX, pp. 192, 193.