Hello, I have a strong faith in God but something confuses me?

Hello, I have a strong faith in God but something confuses me? Topic: Hello, I have a strong faith in God but something confuses me?
April 19, 2019 / By Yolonda
Question: He has given us free will obviously. This concept to me is very straight foward and even from a young age I believe this is the only thing he has given us. Then as I got more into Christianity a lot more people seem to believe that God has a "plan" for them. Don't get me wrong I still love and have a very strong faith with God but this idea seems to totally contradict free will. I can't help but laugh when people say God has a plan for them. The only plan that seems rational to me is all the believers that Jesus Christ was our savior will have ever lasting life in heaven. Is this right or am I missing something?
Advertisement
Best Answer

Best Answers: Hello, I have a strong faith in God but something confuses me?

Sheenagh Sheenagh | 9 days ago
Here’s an analogy that may help: If I had a plan for my kids that will help them do better in school, and that involves more quiet time to do homework, and less time with friends, it is their choice on whether or not to follow my plan because they have free will. It’s the same type of situation with God, except that He will not force His way on us, unlike a parent who would. He wants to use us all according to His plan, but not all of us listen. I sort of take your side that God really doesn’t have a “Plan” for us that involves who we’re going to marry etc. etc. If that were the case, say we married someone that God didn’t want us to. We would be doomed to be out of His plan for the rest of our lives! I tend to think that God speaks to us and tells us what He wants us to do in some situations, but not all.
👍 206 | 👎 9
Did you like the answer? Hello, I have a strong faith in God but something confuses me? Share with your friends
Sheenagh Originally Answered: What Is Faith for you?
Faith is trust or commitment to what you think is true. Why a person thinks Christianity is true may differ from individual to individual. For one person, it might be because God speaks to his heart and produces in him a conviction this is true. I certainly believe that is valid. To another person, though, it may be a more hardheaded intellectual exploration of the evidence that leads him to the same conviction this is true. When you understand faith in these categories, you can see it's entirely compatible with reason. Imagine you are in desperate need for an eye operation. Before you are willing to let anyone operate on your eyes, you do through search to find the best corneal surgeon in the country. You did research, you looked at the evidence, you contacted him, talked with him, and finally, after becoming convinced on the basis of the evidence he was best, then you placed your trust in him and let him operate on your eyes. Your faith or trust in him was based upon the good evidence that you had in his qualifications and credibility. In the same way, with respect to belief in God, many people make the act of trust or commitment after they have become convinced by the evidence that Christianity is true. Not everybody takes that route, but there are certainly people who do. And that's a logical and rational approach that uses reason rather than negates it. Only a world where faith is difficult can faith exist. I don't have faith in two plus two equal four or in the noonday sun. Those are beyond question. But Scriptures describes God as a hidden God. You have to make an effort of faith to find him. There are clues you can follow. And if that weren't so, if there were something more or less than clues, it's difficult for me to understand how we could really be free to make a choice about him. If we had absolute proof instead of clues, then you could no more deny God than you could deny the sun. If we had no evidence at all, you could never get there. God gives us just enough evidence so that those who want him can have him. Those who want to follow the clues will. The Bible says, "Seek and you shall find." It doesn't say everybody will find him; it doesn't say nobody will find him. Some will find. Who? Those who seek. Those whose hearts are set on finding him and who follow the clues. Unlike reason, which bows down faithfully to evidence, faith is prejudiced. Suppose a policeman came into Yahoo! Answers and said they just captured my mother in act of murdering thirteen neighbors by chopping off their heads, and they have witnesses. I would laugh at him. I would say, "No, this cannot be. You do know her as I do." He would say, "Where's your evidence?" I'd say, "It's of a different kind than yours. But there is evidence that this could not be." So I'm prejudiced. However, my prejudice is reasonable prejudice because it's based on the evidence I've gathered in my very real experience. So someone who knows God has evidence, and therefore prejudices based on evidence, which someone who does not know God does not have.

Pauleen Pauleen
People mean different things when they say God has a plan for them. Some people mean that everything that happens to them and everything they do was because God somehow brought it about. That sense of planning IS incompatible with libertarian free will. But other people just mean God has desires for people. Maybe he wants you to marry some person or maybe he wants you to have some job. But he doesn't FORCE you to marry that person or to have that job. That sense of planning is consistent with libertarian free will. Some people take free will in the compatibalist sense rather than the libertarian sense. In libertarian free will, an act is free as long as it was not determined by any antecedent causes and/or conditions. It's free if you could have done otherwise. In compatibalist free will, an act is free as long as they are determined by your own desires, motives, inclinations, etc. It's free if you could have done otherwise provided you wanted to. Compatibalist free will is consistent with both senses of God planning. If a free act is an act arising out of a person's own motivation, then God need simply motivate the person somehow to act.
👍 80 | 👎 1

Mariana Mariana
You have free will, meaning you can choose to accept God or deny him. No matter what there is a plan that God has no one knows what that is except God. You have free will that means you get to make your own choices but a lass you have to deal with the consequences. God could come to you and say that he has a plan for you. You must give all your belongings to the poor and just sit and read the Bible. You have free will you can accept God's plan or you could just walk away.
👍 72 | 👎 -7

Kody Kody
Don't be confused. God' plan for you and all of us is to live the very best of live, have prosperity, good health, and make it to heaven. How we travel this road is our free will choices. A lot of the valley's we go through on this road is a result of a choice we made. The times we spend on the mountain tops are also relative to our choices. god has a plan for man but He did not dictate the road map as to how to get there; except, we follow His Word and Live our Christian life accordingly.
👍 64 | 👎 -15

Jayda Jayda
This plan so many people talk about is fairly new to the Christian scene. It comes from newer translations of the bible, like the NIV. Jeremiah 29:11 says: "For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future." In the King James it's "thoughts"and not "plan". If you're a parent, you know exactly what either word means. It's what every parent wants for their child – the very best. It does not mean God has planned or mapped out our future. He leaves that up to us.
👍 56 | 👎 -23

Evangeline Evangeline
Personally, I think when people say that God has a plan, they are using the name of God to alleviate their own concerns. Unless they are referring to some plan laid out in the Bible for all people, I think it's rather arrogant to believe that God has laid out a plan for each individual. I'd be curious to know what one of these people would say if asked how they learned that God has a plan for them.
👍 48 | 👎 -31

Codie Codie
God created us for a reason. God had set a plan for our life before we enter this world. As we grow older, it is up to us to ask God what His plan for us is. What was I put on this earth to do? I have asked God this question myself. I was put on this earth to help people. I take great joy in helping people in need. But, I could have made the choice not to help people. I am so thankful I decided to do God's will in my life. I hope and pray this helps you out.
👍 40 | 👎 -39

Bellinda Bellinda
What's wrong with this statement: "God has a plan for you, you can use your free will to follow God's path or to do whatever you please". If God is so great, wouldn't you WANT to follow a plan he made for you?? Omnithought, the answerer above me has a better response for you!
👍 32 | 👎 -47

Bellinda Originally Answered: I want God, I want to have faith, I really want to?
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — A science consortium has agreed to a civil penalty of $9,000 for intruding into Alaska waters that were declared off-limits to protect endangered Steller sea lions. But an attorney for the group, which included participants from Vanderbilt, Rutgers and Pittsburgh universities, took strong exception to a federal agency linking the scientists to the killing of a sea lion by Alaska native hunters who were with the researchers. The Office of Law Enforcement for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Tuesday in a news release that it had reached a settlement with the researchers for the "unpermitted take of a Steller sea lion." Rutgers attorney Robert P. Roesener said that could be called "defamatory." "This case was a frivolous abuse of NOAA's discretionary enforcement power from the beginning," Roesener said in an email to The Associated Press. "It is yet another example of the agency's much publicized enforcement abuses, this time against eminent scientists who had been enlisted in a scientific investigation by the state and federal government and Native Alaskans to help determine whether atomic bomb testing in the 1960s had caused radioactive contamination of the Natives' subsistence foods supply." NOAA said the settlement with the Nashville, Tenn.-based Institute for Responsible Management/Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation II waived its right to a hearing on three separate counts, including the unlawful killing of a Steller sea lion by Aleut hunters hired as biological technicians for the study. Attorneys for NOAA's enforcement arm said the killing could not be considered a subsistence take because the hunters were being paid as part of the consortium research. "If they're paid and they're conducting scientific research, absolutely, it needs a permit," said Susan Auer, a senior NOAA enforcement attorney based in Juneau. NOAA's Office of Law Enforcement said the incursion occurred in 2004 by researchers looking for contamination from underground nuclear tests conducted at Amchitka Island. The island near the end of the Aleutian Island chain, about 1,400 miles southwest of Anchorage, was the site of three underground atomic tests from 1965 to 1971. The consortium included faculty and staff from Rutgers University, University of Pittsburgh, Vanderbilt University, The Maryland School of Dentistry, University of Alaska Fairbanks and the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, a nonprofit tribal organization representing Aleut people. Charles Powers, a professor of environmental engineering at Vanderbilt and co-principal investigator for CRESP, according to its website, directed the study. Joanna Burger of Rutgers, a behavioral ecologist, was lead scientist. NOAA enforcement in July 2009 issued notices of violation to the consortium, Powers, Burger and Aleutian Pribilof Island Association. One count, for an incursion into a three-mile Steller sea lion no-transit zone, said the scientists had allowed a skiff to pass within 100 yards of the island's East Cape Rookery. The Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association admitted all charges and paid a civil penalty of $7,200 in November 2009, NOAA said. According to NOAA, the consortium admitted the no-transit zone incursion but denied other charges and waived a right to a hearing. The settlement agreement, a copy of which was provided by Roesener to the AP, also notes NOAA agreed to "forgo its opportunity to pursue the charges." Roesener said the harvesting of the sea lion was a fully legal subsistence hunt under the federal Endangered Species Act. The scientists, he said, spoke with NOAA officials before the hunt to determine what were the appropriate steps for them to take when Aleuts on the expedition asserted their subsistence rights. Emails demonstrating that were ignored by the investigating agent, Roesener said. The sea lion meat was shared with the hunters' own family members and the Aleut community in Adak in compliance with federal law, he said. Aleuts under the Endangered Species Act do not need a permit for subsistence hunting, and NOAA as part of the settlement agreement explicitly agreed to abandon that point, he said. "NOAA's claim in its release that the take was unpermitted is a wild mischaracterization of the settlement and could be considered defamatory," Roesener said. Auer and Ben Friedman, an assistant general counsel for enforcement and litigation in Maryland, said it was not a true subsistence hunt. Their employer, the tribal association, acknowledged that and paid the civil penalty, Auer said. "If it were true subsistence, where they were out to take a Steller sea lion for subsistence purposes, they would not need a permit. It was our position that that was not the purpose of the take," Auer said.
Advertisement

If you have your own answer to the question Hello, I have a strong faith in God but something confuses me?, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.