I'm really inconsistent with what I capitalise and what I don't. I don't think it's necessary to capitalise pronouns in the majority cases.
Anyway, wall of text:
Or rather, I would be fine with it if it didn't screw over free will again. Any way of reconciling them? To continue with the analogy, I believe that there needs to be a 'glitch' in the system, outside of God's control for free will to actually be more than just an illusion. It doesn't have to be anything that large, just something.
Free will isn't supported in this version of the game. Maybe it'll be included in some DLC later on.
In all seriousness, I've spent a fair bit of time in this thread arguing
against free will. It's not supported Biblically, and it's definitely not supported scientifically. Our decisions are a product of out environment and mental state, not some arbitrary force.
Though to be fair, we still make choices. I am consciously choosing to write this reply instead of going to bed. The distinction between "choice" and "free will" is largely irrelevant in everyday terms, I suppose.
Eh, I've always personally hated the whole 'Chosen People' thing (in all religions and really all other things as well that contain it.) It reeks to me so badly of Human arrogance that I can barely stand it.
I hate the arrogance of it as well. Jesus had a fair bit to say about it, too. I think his opinion can be summed up as "you might be chosen by God, but that doesn't make you any better than anyone else". And as well as that, the emphasis of his ministry was "go out and be kind to everyone", not "form an exclusive VIP club so you can get together on Sundays to be a dick to everyone else".
That said, the concept (and human nature) definitely lends itself to the Elite Dickbag VIP Club mentality, so I prefer not to make a big deal of it.
Things being 'glossed over' in religion has always pissed me off to quite a large extent. Interpreting it in a different way is fine, but straight-up glossing over and ignoring some things while preaching others as the ultimate truths and 'that that must be done at all costs' is just so hypocritical. I mean, I can understand it from a more human point of view, and I don't want churches to suddenly start preaching that we should sacrifice cows and eat human hearts or whatever, but it's so... Insincere. (This is for those people that claim their religion as the ultimate rule book rather than a set of guidelines for doing good things.)
Conveniently, the bloodthirsty sacrifice bits of the Bible were made obsolete by Jesus' sacrifice. He also did away with the stringent food and cultural laws. At least, according to my interpretation. Some denominations believe that Christ did away with
all of the OT laws, for example. The OT law thing is ridiculously complicated, and I don't blame anyone for wanting to avoid it. For now I go (mostly) with the interpretations I was brought up with, but that might change if I study it in more depth.
Anyway, what I was trying to say with the glossing over thing was in regard to the fact that the Bible is a very old book and some parts have been mistranslated or corrupted over the years. Personally, I believe that the core principles of the book have been preserved, even if some historical accuracy (especially in regard to OT stories) has been lost. The four Gospels have different accounts, and IIRC there's a couple of cases where they outright contradict one another. Jesus is recorded saying that one cannot enter the kingdom of God unless he hates his family.
The most egregious examples are obviously in Genesis, with stuff like Noah's Ark and the Flood completely circumventing logic and geological/archeological records.
It's stuff like this where I think it's best to just gloss over it and assume someone messed up somewhere along the line. A lot of churches (mine included, sadly) profess that the Bible is wholly accurate in every regard, which is problematic for many reasons, if not ultimately harmful (see Creationism taught in schools, or the Westboro Baptists, and so on.)
Mmh, understandable, though I'd rather it was more 'God exists at all points in our time simultaneously.'
In his own timeline he can change, but to us it appears he is standing still, since all points are actually one in the same. Something can't really properly exist outside of time, but it can exist outside of certain times, if that makes any sense.
Fair enough. I don't agree, but it's not outside the realm of possibility.
Hmm... Do you think it's possible they can't really coexist? To continue more so with the programmer metaphor, there's only one interface and God can't access it (at least not that much) while Jesus does.
That's... interesting? I'm not really sure what to make of it. There's nothing to say either way from the Bible, though.
Something to note would be that when Jesus ascended into heaven, he told the disciples that he would send the Holy Spirit into the world to guide them and so on, meaning the Holy Spirit takes over the interface after Jesus has done his thing. Then we end up with the Father, Christ, and the Spirit all taking turns controlling the game through history.
It's pure speculation, but a very interesting idea.