Parables: The Way to Heaven

Your ultimate reality is completely contingent on your beliefs. Without you your ultimate reality is meaningless, just as Gods are meaningless without humans.

Because it has been a few days with no answer I have to assume (possibly incorrectly, but I think justifiably) that you are implying that post answers your question.

It obviously doesn't...

Fourth time, then. Please tell me my relationship with the 'ultimate reality' given the information I have told you.

You would think since atheists are so much smarter and wiser then all the theists who ever lived they could understand something as simple as a parable. Guess you gotta be a dip shit theist to get it. 

How am I supposed to answer such an absurd question..

"Tell me my relationship with the ultimate reality."

What kind of answer are you even expecting? 

Answer your own question through self reflection. Do you have a knowing and active relationship with God in spirit and in truth? Or do you rest on your knowledge, too prideful to look at yourself and see the things that keep you from being truly honest about the truth? Are you swayed by your passions?

You can answer your own question better than I.

But you don't really know what I believe, and I don't truly believe you are interested. You are, after all, coming off as very hostile and cynical. This is not really a conducive attitude for learning. 

There is no right relationship with God without turning from sin.

Maybe I should strive to be more like you, the clear paragon of an ideal participator of these forums.

You are simply incapable of intelligent discussion, you can only arrogantly proselytize very poorly.

Yeah, I know, I really should do better to follow your example, right?

No you need a capacity for independent thought that you don't possess, that's why you need the indoctrination supplied by your IPSS

What is the difference between the Calvinist interpretation of the parable and Jesus' explanation of it?

This is so simple a seven year old could understand, and I have already given many examples. Here is yet another example, this one given in the form of an analogy/parable:

--------------------

A: Hey B, we are having a conversation on the topic of 'magic', but since there are so many different ideas about how magic can work in popular culture I have a question to help me understand the version of magic that you are thinking of.

B: OK then A, it is important to be on the same page about something like this. Ask your question.

A: Well, in the type of magic system I was thinking of magical wands are required to use magic and each use of magic drains energy from the wand. How does this compare with your idea of magic?

B: In the version I was thinking of energy is drained, so the ideas in our head match on that point, but in my version the energy is actually drained from the person doing magic. Also, no magical items are required but they do exist.

A: Wow, so you are saying that the idea in my head differs from the idea in your head on the point of magic items being required, but agrees on the point of energy being used?

B: Yes, that is what I said. You layed out a brief description of the idea in your head, then I compared and contrasted it with the idea in my head.

A: Wow. Now that we finally have a basic understanding of the ideas in eachothers heads we can actually have a useful conversation on the topic of magic. We can now talk about what we like and dislike about eachothers magic systems, and even go into more detail such as discussing what is possible in each of our magic systems.

B: Yes, truly such deeper conversations would have been impossible if we had not first layed out the basics. I see now that these deeper conversations and deeper understandings on the topic of magic are the reason you asked that question in the first place. I am glad that I chose to answer your question rather than say something arrogant like "you already know everything about my version of how magic is done because mine is the super-duper ultimate way of doing things"

--------------------

The rest of your post is just you being a smartass. You know that is not what I meant by the word 'relationship' based on reading the wording of the first three times I asked the question (unless you did not read it the first three times I asked, which would explain a lot).

This is me asking for a fifth time...

I believe in some natural things such as toenails and ice cream cones, I do not believe in any supernatural things such as ghosts or abstract concepts creating universes. How, given this information, would you classify how I perceive what you refer to as the 'ultimate reality'

Better to be a smart ass than a dumb ass, I have always heard. You refusing my answers is not me intentionally avoiding your questions. I would appreciate it if you showed me a little bit more charity.

I would say that you in all likelyhood have superstitious understanding of the supernatural due to your materialistic "education". In other words, how you understand the supernatural is not likely how the church understands the supernatural.

And as I said before, and this is the truth, The Ultimate Reality is not a perception. It is not a postulation. It is exactly what it means. That which is ultimately real. Reality in the truest sense of the world. Your ideas and theories about it are absolutely not it. Can't be. In fact, the Ultimate Reality is not an abstraction, more accurately, it is the total absence of abstraction, and what you yourself are working with is an abstraction. So you are understanding that which is not abstraction through the medium of an abstraction.

Created things are not only contingent on this Ultimate Reality at the very least, but even other created things. The Ultimate Reality is not contingent on anything. It is The Uncreates.

Calvinists believe in double predestination, which basically means that you are either predestined for heaven or predestined for hell.

The Church doesn't teach this, and neither does Jesus, otherwise the very idea of repenting and turning away from sin is absurd.

What the church teaches is synergism, which means that we do have something to do with our salvation. We have free will. We can choose to reject the grace of God. It isn't forced on us.

Calvinism teaches that if you are one of the elect, nothing you do is going to change this. 

Oddly enough, the church father these people cite the most, Saint Augustine.. I don't get the impression he believed in double predestination.

And truly, it is an abominable thing to teach because it could very easily lead people into spiritual apathy.

You say Jesus didn't teach predestination, but the parable you chose implies it and his description confirms it.

I agree that predestination is incompatible with the dogma of most Christian denominations - but that requires disregard of the message of that parable which is that some of us were put on earth by Satan and we will return to him when we die.

That isn't the meaning of that parable.

There is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

What does that mean?

These "denominations" are not The Church.

You don't really know the God of Abraham. If you did, you'd know what I am saying is true.

And this isn't something that is totally unknown among the heterodox. It isn't something totally unknown among what is called Judaism or Islam.

But the thing is, if God is The Ultimate Reality, as I say, and you believed it, that would drastically alter how you look at all of it. The implication here especially is that you would have to admit you are wrong.

Something that a Christian is not supposed to have shame in admitting, because ours is a life of repentance. This is not considered a virtue in worldviews heavily rooted in pride.

The seed is the truth being sown. The devil sows the weeds, which are lies.

The devil sows when we are asleep, which are the heresies and lies that creep in while we are apathetic.

The reason why we do not remove the weeds before harvest is the same reason the church does not condemn nominal members of the church or judge those outside of it. As the wheat is destroyed in the removing of the tares, so are those who might end up finding salvation be lost in the weeding out the tares.

That is what the church teaches.

So that is very different than what you are saying.

This seems to be very different than the actions of the Latin Church and many of these churches of the reformation who didn't seem to have a problem pulling out the weed whacker.

Is the secularization of society really all that surprising? To make matters even more confusing, now if a man calls themselves a woman, people consider that valid. Self identification is proof of identity!

Well, these heresies are not really Christianity. That must really be a lousy thing to hear if you have your heart set on judging Christianity by the holy wars, inquisitions, and superstitions of the heretics!

Not real Christianity. Orthodoxy is real Christianity, and blessed are those who find it.

There are passages such as "...the condemnation of those whom in His justice he has predestined to punishment." (Enchiridion c, p. 269)

and "one is predestined to reign eternally with God, and the other to suffer eternal punishment with the devil." (he City of God xv:1, p. 284).

Does your god know all, does he know whether you are in heaven or hell? If so whatever you do is predestined, you cannot change it you cannot prove your god wrong.

Thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak on this, because it will probably be edifying to an actual Calvinist.

A more full quote from that first reference is...

"These are the great works of the Lord, sought out according to all His pleasure,(6) and so wisely sought out, that when the intelligent creation, both angelic and human, sinned, doing not His will but their own, He used the very will of the creature which was working in opposition to the Creator's will as an instrument for carrying out His will, the supremely Good thus turning to good account even what is evil, to the condemnation of those whom in His justice He has predestined to punishment, and to the salvation of those whom in His mercy He has predestined to grace. For, as far as relates to their own consciousness, these creatures did what God wished not to be done: but in view of God's omnipotence, they could in no wise effect their purpose. For in the very fact that they acted in opposition to His will, His will concerning them was fulfilled. And hence it is that "the works of the Lord are great, sought out according to all His pleasure," because in a way unspeakably strange and wonderful, even what is done in opposition to His will does not defeat His will. For it would not be done did He not permit it (and of course His permission is not unwilling, but willing); nor would a Good Being permit evil to be done only that in His omnipotence He can turn evil into good."

This is not actually double predestination, because it is actually the choice that someone made through their free will that was predestined to damnation, not the one making the choice.

Besides that, Augustine actually wrote a book specifically on the subject of free will which makes it clear that he does in fact believe it.

A more full quote from the second is

"And these we also mystically call the two cities, or the two communities of men, of which the one is predestined to reign eternally with God, and the other to suffer eternal punishment with the devil."

In the context of the book, the two cities are a choice. One between the eternal truth of God and the other the pleasures of the transient world. 

This is not actually double predestination.

Calvinistic double predestination is based on the idea that there is no free will, because God's sovereignty makes it impossible.

That is not what the church has ever taught. Neither is what Augustine ever taught. 

That said, even if Augustine did teach this, he is one of many church fathers, and it isn't really altogether strange for some of them to hold views that ultimately were not accepted by. the whole church.

Also, and I think it is worth mentioning... Augustine did not know Greek, he knew Latin. The New Testament was written in Greek, not Latin. In fact, because Augustine was working with a Latin translation, he is at least known by the Church to be in error about one thing in particular, and this has had a big impact on the west. He believed that every human shares the guilt of the garden of eden. The Church doesn't teach this, but that we inherited the mess caused by it, not the guilt. This error is actually rooted in translation issues between Greek and Latin.

The understanding the church has is that even though God doesn't make us choose what we do through our freewill, God does know what we are going to choose before we do it.

Freewill is something we absolutely do have, and so we are responsible for our actions.

I'd have to be a believer to be a calvinist!  however I do understand the Calvinist stance.   I have no view on how god works, but I can take aview on what it was that Augustine taught.

In the passage you quoted:

I think Augustine believed in predestination.   I wouldn't have mentioned it if you hadn't brought him up saying he didn't!

Just more contradictions that you can't defend to a thinking person. If your god knows you in hell you cannot repent and go to heaven. If your god sees you in heaven you can't sin enough to go to hell. Your destination is already decided.

It is not predestination the church has an issue with, but double predestination!

I believe 'double predestination' refers to both the saved and the damned being predestined.  I deliberately quoted Augustine refering to both. 

What does non-double predestination refer to?