How do Christians comprehend the iconic duo of free will and predestination?

[popsthebuilder]

We all well know how apologetics turn a blind eye to "gods" atrocities. I can almost slightly find a somewhat kind of smarmy excuse for a god to kill off "his" creations on some kind of mumbo jitsu you have to twirl too, but it is not so easy when your god demands that "innocent" men go off and kill babies and rape little girls. Put that next to his proclamation that man shall not kill....why, its just another example of god mimicking man who mimics god who is merely the rightful alter ego of man. Not so much reality as wishful thinking. But hey...delude away.

The misdirection of man is just that, and not directly the work of GOD, or the Will of GOD. GOD is merciful, giving, and long-suffering. Our freedom and potential allow for evil, yet even that is a lesson to be learned from and a thing to grow from.

The greed of man has in times past, and to this day, contorted the truth. This is spoken about repeatedly by Jesus the Christ of GOD Himself. It is my personal belief that some of this misdirection is still within the OT; for good reason. Basically I am saying that GOD would not have ordered the slaughter and pillaging that took place; just as GOD didn't find the sacrifices and burnt offerings pleasing. Manipulation of the truth took place at some point; and it is obvious, spoken against repeatedly, and shown.

As far as GOD being an alternate perspective or ego;  ones ego,  nor a change of perspective is capable of what we find ourselves encompassed within, not can they produce themselves.

[popsthebuilder]

G-d is a verb, not a noun.  G-d is becoming, not being.  Dynamic, not static.  Europeans have a grammatical prejudice, that bends their philosophies.  We are what we do ... if G-d creates evil ... then G-d creates evil.  I can't conclude what G-d is, or even what I am.  This is part of the theological joke about "I am" that even Jesus plays with.  In fact, in Semitic languages, there is no "to be" ... just "was" or "will be" ... translation to European languages destroys the very fabric of the Bible.  Hence Muslims are correct, the Quran can't be translated and still be the Quran.  Neither can the Bible, because of all the subtle mistakes that are made.

Who said anything about misunderstanding the Bible, or the Quran, of other sacred texts? The Fire, the Spirit, the light, the Image.....

to understand such is one thing; to speak of them openly with respect to self is the opposite. I would think that you understand what I mean.

Saying that such knowledge negatively affects the fact that all GOD inspired texts are synonymous in core nature and purpose is faulty in my opinion.

[popsthebuilder]

Sympathy for your technical problems.  The scriptures are similar, because the authors are similar.  They are all humans of the last 10,000 years.  A totally different sentient would produce much more interesting scripture, if they wrote at all, as opposed to use hive mind telepathy.

The fact that such is our very nature from any and all recorded history even attests to there being a CREATOR.

[popsthebuilder]

Some deny that G-d is free ... Mutazilite.  Others say G-d is free ... Ash'arite.  So this leaves the question of "Evil" and "G-d" up in the air.  Ash'arite theology is like Klingons, Mutazilite theology is like Vulcans.  I suspect neither are from Terra ;-)

You're asking if I find GOD to be benevolent though you perceive things differently from me; I think....

I find that man has potential for evil, and GOD is omniscient, knowing what could happen surely, even exactly what would happen. But under careful consideration I do conclude that the suffering of man is for the eventual repentance of man. Even so; I do believe that ultimately GOD will be merciful to all; how can one rightly be condemned to eternal destruction for doing what they had the GOD given potential to do? Of course,  this is not the case for those who knowingly and actively go against what they know(believe) to be good and right. I don't put too much thought into an afterlife really, but I guess I think some will be punished or afflicted somehow, for some extent prior to eventually reuniting with the Spirit of life.

If this happens here or after death still eludes me.

I do believe GOD to be benevolent, but not without merciful judgement.

[popsthebuilder]

Then what you mean by "Just a truthful statement" is "What [you] believe to be true."

To me this is not a small difference. 

Writers do have an obligation to be clear to the reader.  This is pretty basic communication.  Not being understood can't be blamed entirely on the reader.  The writers have to put some effort into the process too.

It is admittedly subjective truth; but I believe it to apply to all existence with standard functioning capacities (cognitive(human)).

Do you follow your conscience? Is it twisted by greed or want of personal attainment?

[popsthebuilder]

Are you saying that omniscience doesn't apply to what is logically incoherent or paradoxal in nature?
Like, God not being able create a square circle is not a sign of him being omnipotent because its a logical inconsistency embodying two traits that cancel eachother out?

You speak with eloquence;  and yes.

Someone in an actual theology sight tried such with a five sided triangle after I had already explained that shapes, among other things, are represented by or at the perspective of the observer, and as such; can change. Needless to say; he was, and still is pretty speechless about the whole thing.

[Blackleaf]

The misdirection of man is just that, and not directly the work of GOD, or the Will of GOD. GOD is merciful, giving, and long-suffering. Our freedom and potential allow for evil, yet even that is a lesson to be learned from and a thing to grow from.

The greed of man has in times past, and to this day, contorted the truth. This is spoken about repeatedly by Jesus the Christ of GOD Himself. It is my personal belief that some of this misdirection is still within the OT; for good reason. Basically I am saying that GOD would not have ordered the slaughter and pillaging that took place; just as GOD didn't find the sacrifices and burnt offerings pleasing. Manipulation of the truth took place at some point; and it is obvious, spoken against repeatedly, and shown.

As far as GOD being an alternate perspective or ego;  ones ego,  nor a change of perspective is capable of what we find ourselves encompassed within, not can they produce themselves.

OT slaughters weren't always done by man, you know. God killed the first born children of Egypt, not Moses.

[Baruch]

You're asking if I find GOD to be benevolent though you perceive things differently from me; I think....

I find that man has potential for evil, and GOD is omniscient, knowing what could happen surely, even exactly what would happen. But under careful consideration I do conclude that the suffering of man is for the eventual repentance of man. Even so; I do believe that ultimately GOD will be merciful to all; how can one rightly be condemned to eternal destruction for doing what they had the GOD given potential to do? Of course,  this is not the case for those who knowingly and actively go against what they know(believe) to be good and right. I don't put too much thought into an afterlife really, but I guess I think some will be punished or afflicted somehow, for some extent prior to eventually reuniting with the Spirit of life.

If this happens here or after death still eludes me.

I do believe GOD to be benevolent, but not without merciful judgement.

No, I was raising the abstract question of G-d's freedom, nothing more.  Using Islam as an example.

Separately no, I don't experience G-d as benevolent, except in a way that destroys the meaning of that word.  My beliefs are irrelevant ... my experience belies any beliefs.

[popsthebuilder]

No, I was raising the abstract question of G-d's freedom, nothing more.  Using Islam as an example.

Separately no, I don't experience G-d as benevolent, except in a way that destroys the meaning of that word.  My beliefs are irrelevant ... my experience belies any beliefs.

It is when experience is verified by "sacred" texts that one's beliefs based on experience are found to be truthful beyond the subjective personal perspective. Things can be reiterated, verified, and established in seemingly limitless degrees and natures.

I find mercy to be the only just thing from the perspective of man. Though to say mercy must be without limit to be mercy or just, is not accurate.

[Unbeliever]

Are you saying that omniscience doesn't apply to what is logically incoherent or paradoxal in nature?
Like, God not being able create a square circle is not a sign of him being omnipotent because its a logical inconsistency embodying two traits that cancel eachother out?

Which is greater, I wonder - logic or God?

[Mr.Obvious]

You speak with eloquence;  and yes.

Someone in an actual theology sight tried such with a five sided triangle after I had already explained that shapes, among other things, are represented by or at the perspective of the observer, and as such; can change. Needless to say; he was, and still is pretty speechless about the whole thing.

Would a similar paradox not be formed though, when God tried to give its subjects free will?
If, and only if, one conciders God omnipotent, omniscient and the creator of everything, isn't it impossible for him to give his subjects free will?
If it can create its creation in any way it would like, due to its omnipotence, and would simultaneously know how each possible way would turn out, into every detail due to his omniscience, does that not mean that by the act of creating his creation in the way he chooses predetermines all other choices made by his subjects, i.e. everyone and everything chooses what he chose for them to choose?

[popsthebuilder]

Would a similar paradox not be formed though, when God tried to give its subjects free will?
If, and only if, one conciders God omnipotent, omniscient and the creator of everything, isn't it impossible for him to give his subjects free will?
If it can create its creation in any way it would like, due to its omnipotence, and would simultaneously know how each possible way would turn out, into every detail due to his omniscience, does that not mean that by the act of creating his creation in the way he chooses predetermines all other choices made by his subjects, i.e. everyone and everything chooses what he chose for them to choose?

I do not think that GOD knowing what creation will choose takes away from that freedom from creations perspective.

[Mr.Obvious]

I do not think that GOD knowing what creation will choose takes away from that freedom from creations perspective.

So is this illusion of free will the same as actual free will?
And its not just knowing, its choosing what the created will choose.
Because if he didn't want them to choose it, he could have created the creation differently.

[Unbeliever]

How much omniscience could God have? If he knows too much, such as everything he'll ever do for all future eternity, then he's got problems. Can he change his mind and do something other than what he's always known he would do? If not, then he can't be free. He'd be a slave to his own omniscience. So God's omniscience can't be absolute. If not, then exactly what are the limits to God's omniscience?

[popsthebuilder]

So is this illusion of free will the same as actual free will?
And its not just knowing, its choosing what the created will choose.
Because if he didn't want them to choose it, he could have created the creation differently.

Agreed