Dangers of "The Plan"

[_Ray A]

Senna could hold the former belief, and still stay true to this thread. If he thought that God had a plan for him, it wouldn't matter what he did. Instead of dying in the first crash, God had planned for him to die in the 2nd crash.

And who's to say this was not "part of God's plan"? Do we know? Senna died at 34, Jesus at 33. Is there something wrong with believing in fate, or destiny? You ain't gonna live forever you know. Of course we can be cynical about anything in life. Some believe, others don't, and to those who don't it all seems silly. But I don't think too many doubt the impact Senna's faith had on his very positive and inspiring short life.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

[quote="Nephi]Some say that the idea of Omnipotence just means that God knows all and therefore plans for all outcomes. Our free agency stays in tack. For instance, if I put steak down of the floor and let my dog in, my "omnipotence" allows me to know that my dog is going to eat it or not eat it. Does that negate his free agency? Nope. I can plan for the two outcomes as well. One, he eats it, thereby I punish him, or two, he doesn't eat, whereby I reward him.

You can call that free agency, but it sounds like entrapment to me.

[_Nephi]

Some say that the idea of Omnipotence just means that God knows all and therefore plans for all outcomes. Our free agency stays in tack. For instance, if I put steak down of the floor and let my dog in, my "omnipotence" allows me to know that my dog is going to eat it or not eat it. Does that negate his free agency? Nope. I can plan for the two outcomes as well. One, he eats it, thereby I punish him, or two, he doesn't eat, whereby I reward him.

You can call that free agency, but it sounds like entrapment to me.

What's to discuss here? You added so much to go with. I truly appreciate your opinion, though, just wish you would have added more so I could better understand why you think as such.

[_Jason Bourne]

When I was in Mormonism, I was under the delusion of "The Great Plan". In this plan, God has predestined what will happen to us. No matter what horrible thing happened to a member, it was always viewed as a blessing from God to make them stronger. It was widely believed that God had planned for this to happen, and that it was all part of our individual test. There is no escaping this. If it is in the plan, whatever this bad thing is, it WILL happen to you. Whether it be an accident or disease, it didn't matter. This ailment was inevitable.

Why is this a danger, you may ask?

In my TBM thinking, it caused extreme recklessness. I would think to myself, "If it is in God's plan that I become paralyzed, it will happen and nothing I do to prevent it will matter. If it is not in His plan, well, then what do I have to worry about?"

The second problem, perhaps limited only to myself, was in my patriarchal blessing. In it, it claimed, "You will live a long happy life of service and joy." I honestly believed that. God had a plan for me, and that I absolutely would not die until I had lived a "long life". This further increased my carelessness.

In my early 20's, I owned a bullet bike (a CBR 600F2, for any of you that know bikes). It wasn't uncommon for me to go 120mph. All because I believed 1) that if I were going to be injured, it would happen no matter what, and 2) I was destined to live to a ripe old age, therefore, nothing bad could possibly happen to me.

It is a dangerous way to live life. Since I no longer believe in God, I have now taken responsibility for what may or may not happen to me. I won't buy a motorcycle because the danger is all too real. There is no guardian angel watching over me. I am on my own. I must take every precaution to make sure nothing bad happens to me.

Not sure what LDS Church you attended but the LDS Church does not believe in predestination and in fact many LDS theologians view the LDS God as less then perfectly omniscient. LDS do believe in forordination but our agency can come into play and mess that up quite a bit.

[_Nephi]

Not sure what LDS Church you attended but the LDS Church does not believe in predestination and in fact many LDS theologians view the LDS God as less then perfectly omniscient. LDS do believe in forordination but our agency can come into play and mess that up quite a bit.

What he was pointing out (and I agree) is that no matter what a person did, the result was "of God" regardless. It gives the impression that you were predestined to do that regardless, and God was going to be there. However, I explained Omnipotent could mean that God knows all possible choices you have at any given situation, and so it can seem as though you were predestined. Your free agency is still intact, though, as God does not exactly know what choices you will make, only what choices you have at any given time.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Some say that the idea of Omnipotence just means that God knows all and therefore plans for all outcomes. Our free agency stays in tack. For instance, if I put steak down of the floor and let my dog in, my "omnipotence" allows me to know that my dog is going to eat it or not eat it. Does that negate his free agency? Nope. I can plan for the two outcomes as well. One, he eats it, thereby I punish him, or two, he doesn't eat, whereby I reward him.

You can call that free agency, but it sounds like entrapment to me.

What's to discuss here? You added so much to go with. I truly appreciate your opinion, though, just wish you would have added more so I could better understand why you think as such.

You put a steak on the floor (setting the trap), he eats it, you punish him. I'm sorry for your dog, and I'm sorry for anyone who thinks this sort of "free agency" is anything like the relationship between God and man. It's the dog's nature to eat the steak. You can train him not to eat the steak, you've trained his nature out of him, you've taken away his free agency. What
sort of reward to propose will compensate him for losing his true nature? A can of Friskies? A pat on the head? What?

Before you ask me what I have against training dogs, I have nothing against it, but I don't draw comparisons between dog training and God's relationship with man.

[_Nephi]

Some say that the idea of Omnipotence just means that God knows all and therefore plans for all outcomes. Our free agency stays in tack. For instance, if I put steak down of the floor and let my dog in, my "omnipotence" allows me to know that my dog is going to eat it or not eat it. Does that negate his free agency? Nope. I can plan for the two outcomes as well. One, he eats it, thereby I punish him, or two, he doesn't eat, whereby I reward him.

You can call that free agency, but it sounds like entrapment to me.

What's to discuss here? You added so much to go with. I truly appreciate your opinion, though, just wish you would have added more so I could better understand why you think as such.

You put a steak on the floor (setting the trap), he eats it, you punish him. I'm sorry for your dog, and I'm sorry for anyone who thinks this sort of "free agency" is anything like the relationship between God and man. It's the dog's nature to eat the steak. You can train him not to eat the steak, you've trained his nature out of him, you've taken away his free agency. What
sort of reward to propose will compensate him for losing his true nature? A can of Friskies? A pat on the head? What?

Before you ask me what I have against training dogs, I have nothing against it, but I don't draw comparisons between dog training and God's relationship with man.

The dog story is just an analogy. I am not omnipotent, and have no such situations that I can compare God's omnipotents, but my whole point of the story was that God has the ability to know all the possible choices you can make at any given point, and (from that point) all the choices you have at your disposal at that given point, and so forth and so on. He also has setup rewards and punishments at each choice you choose based upon the outcome of that choice. God DOES NOT KNOW what choice you will make at each of these situations (Omnipotent does not imply knowing the actions of free agency). This is hard to explain properly, so I used the dog analogy as a weak example of the idea. Omnipotent just implies knowing all possible choices and plotting all possible outcomes.

[_Maxrep]

A problem with "The Plan" that has puzzled me has to do with children and the age of accountability. God knew us well enough in the pre existance to send the spirits who were worthy of celestial glory to physical bodies that would expire before the age of 8. How does this fit with free agency? For a test to be universal and fair, doesn't everyone need to participate? If God can know the outcome, why the test? Why the need for the act of birth for one of these valiant spirits to have a body after this probationary state? Really, if God can waive the test for some, then its just as plausible that these same individuals can receive a body at the drop of the hat down the road.

If you think about all of mankind through the ages, a fair portion of children did not make it to the age of 8. I guess the celestial kingdom will be represented in part by a large group who skipped the probationary state.

Those of you who have had children that reached the ripe old age of 8, know that there is not a whole lot that they can be expected to be accountable for(like choosing membership in a religion). In the church, you would be hard pressed to find a more nonsensical term than the "Age of Accountability".

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

[quote="Nephi[/quote]The dog story is just an analogy. I am not omnipotent, and have no such situations that I can compare God's omnipotents, but my whole point of the story was that God has the ability to know all the possible choices you can make at any given point, and (from that point) all the choices you have at your disposal at that given point, and so forth and so on. He also has setup rewards and punishments at each choice you choose based upon the outcome of that choice. God DOES NOT KNOW what choice you will make at each of these situations (Omnipotent does not imply knowing the actions of free agency). This is hard to explain properly, so I used the dog analogy as a weak example of the idea. Omnipotent just implies knowing all possible choices and plotting all possible outcomes.[/quote]

Well, duh. I got your point perfectly. I was a Mormon too, you know, and I've been hearing this stuff since before you were born. I'm trying to point out the lameness of it all.

[_Nephi]

Well, duh. I got your point perfectly. I was a Mormon too, you know, and I've been hearing this stuff since before you were born. I'm trying to point out the lameness of it all.

I am sorry, but when I saw this:

It's the dog's nature to eat the steak. You can train him not to eat the steak, you've trained his nature out of him, you've taken away his free agency.

I thought you didn't understand my analogy. I can train my dog to not eat the steak, but he is still choosing not to eat the steak because he knows the consequences of doing as such. Regardless, there is free agency still there... If there was no free agency, then there would be no choosing to do the right, and there would be lack of free agency.

To put this in human perspective, it is human nature to go and procreate with as many mates as possible. It increases the chances of species survival, but just because I don't do that doesn't mean I can't choose to do that. I choose not to. Besides, it is in the nature of an individual do go have sex when it is not socially or economically viable. Knowing that this is not a good course of action and there is bad consequences including hardships that would not be experienced if social and economic circumstances were different, isn't this the same God that programmed me to desire sex in these situations? Same thing as putting the steak on the floor for the dog, isn't it?