Denominator

What is the common denominator? What is the uncommon divisor? Is there only one correct result?

Of denominations of Christianity, I would say the common denominator is God of Christ, the uncommon divisor is belief of details and details of belief in regards to God, and the expanse of correct results is the question.

I think most denominations have the (uncommon divisor) detailed belief that there is only one correct result. Which does seem to be common, but the uncommonality is which divisor causes the correct result, since each denomination believes their own divising details of belief –regarding God and Jesus- are the correct divisor to come to the correct result. The correct result in life and belief, would be assumitively, living how God would want and ultimately ending up in heaven. So, each denomination theoretically believes only their detailed beliefs of Gods preferred methods of lifestyle will lead them to heaven. Most denominations are detailed enough on specific lifestyle, to restrict only that detailed method as the appropriate method. Based on this belief system, the majority of people, would not be living correctly (and therein, not reach the result of heaven), only because of a few detailed differences in lifestyle. These detailed differences of lifestyle are majoritively based on life circumstance. The effecting circumstances of life –being either fluke or intent of God-, would be basically every element of life which a person is born into. The elements would include general surrounding influences of culture and family. These would play the profound role of influencing a person in method and temperament of general ways of thinking, as well as more specific available -and degree of push of- information and knowledge.

It could be argued that natural acquirement of capabilities of determining the (hypothetically) correct details of lifestyle, overpower circumstance of upbringing, allowing the possibility of finding the correct details of lifestyle regardless of circumstances. This would be the argument that nature is overpowering of nurture, but even if this were the case 100% of the time, a vast amount of circumstances would land people in scenarios with the complete lack of availability of information required to come to the determination of the hypothetical correct lifestyle, therefore a significant amount of situations would happen that the person cannot come to the correct result no matter their potential capabilities of nature.

Basically, most people don’t have the available resources in their life to come to a specified detailed determination of lifestyle based on most denominational beliefs of required detailed lifestyle. In less technical terms; according to most denominations, God wants people to live their specific way, which you would need to learn from that denomination. This doesn’t seem likely to me, that God would require a specific lifestyle method, which can only be known by circumstantially being born into an environment which will press upon the person that specific lifestyle method. There doesn’t seem to be any reason to think God would have a specific detailed way of life of which only some people might happen to be born into the potential to know of, and out of those people, only the ones who choose to follow those specific rules (including the possible obedience based on fear) are the ones reaching the correct result.

 In contrast, if the divisor belief is that there is not only one correct result –but a range of correct results-, based on the prospect that the correct result is not so specific because the divising detail is not so specific. Without such a specific detailed lifestyle required, this allows the possibility that many lifestyles (which may happen to be detailed based on any circumstances) still end in a correct result. This allows the possibility of reaching the correct result, with any plausible circumstances whether nature or nurture takes the forefront. Again, in less technical terms; if the belief is that a more general way of life is the only requirement to achieve the correct result, many other denominations would also be a correct way of life –as they would also fit the general correct lifestyle-, and any person born into any life-stance has the potential to be correct.

In the end, it seems to me that the specificity of lifestyle to reach the correct result is quite general, and a plausible description of lifestyle might simply be; be considerate of others. Or in other terms, as I think most denominations would agree, love one another as you love yourself, also as Jesus tried to infer –happening to be one of the main commonalities of belief between denominations, to follow Jesus-. Perhaps the specifity of divisors –being denominations details- aren’t so important, but more so the simple, more general range of divisors. After all, regarding the divisors, that which is in common, is God as the denominator.  

Principles, Preached or Practical

How do practical, logical, objective, calculated decisions compare to preached, religious moral, principles?

I’ve come to the perceived idea that they are almost equivalent in result and effect from a general point of view. The general principles of religion tend to be aligned with rational and logical decision making from my experience. It depends on your interpretation of religious principles, but I’m basing this theory on a lot of what I’ve learned about general Christian principles formed by following the Bible.

The basic general principles based off of the Bible could be summarised as treat others kindly –as you would want to be treated. From this, many scenarios with many variables can be handled. The same scenarios and factors of variables would be handled the same way if the method of action was led by logical calculation. A Christian would tell the truth despite the chance to gain something, just as a robot programmed to make logical calculated decisions likely would. It would theoretically calculate the requirements of a presumably equivalent being, to be equivalent, and therefore no reason to alter the possession of a positive element, from 1 being to another of equivalent value. This general perspective of equation evaluation can be applied to many scenarios and circumstances of variables, just like the basic moral of Christianity. This equationalistic view is the extreme of objective decision making, and therefore likely a good comparison –as comparing the most extreme of 2 terms is likely to show the most extreme differences. Taking either of these basic generalised principles, the result will theoretically be the same when applied to many life discrepancies. Examples which I have analysed would be; contribution, judgement, pride and honesty.

In any case, it seems principles of logical practicality are in essence, the same as principles of religious preaching.

Morally Religious

Do you believe in your religion because you know it’s what is right, or is it just because you were born and raised to believe it?

Whatever childhood you were born into and raised from was by chance in my opinion. If you believe it’s fate or specifically predetermined, then why would some people be born into such horrible situations as some are? But assuming it’s chance, there is a significant chance that you would have been born and raised to believe a different, and therefore contradicting religion. Therefore it would be blind luck that you now believe and live in the way that your religion portrays is the specific way that you believe is correct. How is that fair for the significant and majorative percentage of people born outside of your religion, without the privileges of the opportunity of being informed of the specifications of your religion? In that case, the eternal judgement of your very existence is based on blind chance.

It’s my belief that rather, the case is that all those specifications of regulations in life -attempted to have been translated and interpreted multiple times over from ancient text- are only a specific example or sample of a beneficial lifestyle, relayed to a group of people in a specific culture and time, in their situation, under those circumstances. All of the examples of portrayed decent methods and rules of living are a sample of what should be derived from the more general basic principles, under those circumstances. The more general principals could be adaptable to any situation, but the specific application of regulations would vary depending on specific variables and any situation. These general principles are what I would consider morals.

It would be generically opportunistically equal, if these principles were the simple, naturally and instinctively known or understood methods of living (and loving -as I happened to have initially mistakenly typed) to follow in order to be what we would consider a good individual. AKA Morals. A basic summarization of the application of morals, I think would be to, consider others as you would consider yourself.

By applying these standards to any possible outcome of situational upbringing of any individual capable of understanding basic morals, all potential circumstances would have equal opportunity. So, in lamens terms (or applying the term on itself (since I seem to have ironically spelt it wrong), in a more simple basic description), the main rules in life that are necessary to follow, are basic morals.

IQ: Intelligence Questionability

            Attempt something new. Once it’s been practiced, and variables and aspects have been analyzed, positive and negative attributes are deducted and applied for next attempt. Each minor improvement is remembered from there on and continuously accumulated, to eventually filter out all negatives and have all most beneficial aspects remaining in the end. This describes both; slow, long term evolution, and fast, short term logic.

Evolution; meaning subconscious, instinctual, inherent (biologically, generationally adapted) actions. And, alternatively, logic; meaning conscious, current time analytical, adaptable consideration. Both can be understood as trial and error, or process of elimination. The general idea being; probability of beneficial results, which is portrayed fairly distinctly- as an example- by natural selection. Basically, if many options are attempted repeatedly, chances are, a beneficial option will be attempted at some point, and the positive outcome of that option will make it more likely to reoccur. Method of determinant with logic would be conscious reasoning, whereas each individual choice of option is analysed and processed, and therein more probable to be the beneficial one. This would increase the chances of the result of each trial being the one with a positive effect, rather than the chances being random, with natural selection.

Using the newly acquired, unique capability humans have been privileged with (whether you believe, as a result of Gods intention, or lack of Gods circumstantial fluke), Inherent mindsets are moved aside by logical unbiased methods of thinking as a reconstructed, initial perspective. Conscious thinking is a much more adaptable to current situation, fast-rate, time efficient method of analysing a situation and determining an effective course of action to effect the outcome of the situation.

 Therefore, conscious consideration has a distinct timely-efficient advantage from the capability of imagining theoretically the potential outcomes, rather than taking the time to play out and test each potential outcome. In turn, conscious consideration is evidently the most relevantly profound aspect of intelligence. Assuming that is correct, logic suggests, the most generally advantageous method of action, is; decision based on conscious consideration and determination.

Questioning seems to be the essence of intelligence as a rapid method of hypothetical scenario test. Using this advantage of conscious pondering, and in turn analysis of various options, upon confrontation of a required action, effective beneficial determination can be applied. Rather than acting based on regularity, commonality and or instinct with a lengthy process of trial and error, making a decision based on questioning and hypothetically analysing the potentials is likely to make that process of elimination far more efficient and effective.
Is intelligence questionability questioning intelligence, or the ability to intelligently question?

Conditional

Your reaction to an effect is conditional. It’s conditional in terms of being dependent on the external surrounding conditions, sure! But your reaction is also conditional in terms of; capable of being conditioned to your benefit. In order to intentionally condition your reaction to an effect, in your benefit, an understanding of your subconscious influence on your reactions is necessary. You need to be conscious of your subconscious!

Your subconscious is in effect every time you are not alertfully, awarefullly, and consciously paying attention to your actions. If you are not paying attention, you will react to effects without conscious, intellectual consideration and decision. This allows that primitive, instinctual part of your brain to take over what reaction will be made to any circumstance. The subconscious chooses a reaction based on past experiences, with a significant lack of distinguishing specific differences in circumstances and situations, in comparison to direct conscious decision. This lack of differential distinguishment, theoretically signifies subconscious reaction as being relevantly inferior in effectivity to conscious decision. Subconscious reaction will go with a specific reaction over alternate optional reactions, based on valuated degrees as well as perceived, accumulated, repetition of positive past experiential outcomes, over negatively perceived past outcomes. Therefore, in order to condition subconscious; attempting to cause a higher degree, or repetition, of positive outcome is required. This is the necessary element of subconscious reaction to understand, in order to learn the capability of controlling and manipulating, and therein conditioning, your subconscious.

Taking the concept of subconscious reaction in understood conscious control, you can theoretically manipulate your own subconscious in any way you see fit. If you first understand that concept, then you need to next, apply conscious decision to scenarios which will likely be influenced by subconscious interpretation of past (but at the time present) results of positive versus negative outcomes of that similar scenario. So, try to consciously analyze a scenario –which will likely recur, and be affected by subconscious reaction- and distinguish the detailed differences of the scenario, to determine the most beneficial decision to result in a positive outcome.  This concept –with its notable distinct advantage of distinguishing specific differences, and more accurately determining the most probable beneficial reaction to any effect- is obviously a preferable option to subconscious reaction, regardless of subconscious manipulation. But, why even bother taking into consideration, conditioning your subconscious?

The more advanced benefit, of application of subconscious conditioning, comes into play with the consideration that in potential –and realistically probable- futuristic circumstances, you may not be making a conscious decision (whether by unintended, probable, common happening, or by advanced, intentional, subconscious reaction allowance (in the theoretical advantageous prospect of time efficiency)), where subconscious reaction will determine the result of whatever effect is in occurrence. More simply, assume you will not be making a conscious decision in the future, and your subconscious will be choosing the outcome. So condition your subconscious for the time being, while you come across the opportunity of being conscious of any circumstances which are likely to recur. This will create an implementation to more likely and more accurately cause positive, preferred, and beneficial results from potential subconscious reaction.

So if you want to be a super advanced, manipulative, intellectually superior, mindfully, expertly, mentalist genius, just be conditional. 

Control to Free, Allowance Degree

If God knows the future, can we still have free will?

Upfront, the answer seems simple; yes, we have free will to choose what we want, and God is aware of the future and the choices we will make before we make them, but doesn’t force us to change decisions or actions. But digging deeper, if God has control of everything outside of humans choices, but knows exactly what we will choose to do based on every possible circumstance, does that mean he set our surroundings and circumstances as they are, knowing it would result in making the precise decisions which we do? If God created every circumstance as it is, knowingly causing every person to choose to do as they do under those circumstances, is there a point to free will when it will always result the exact way God caused it to?

Life and the entire universe seems like it would be sort of redundant, meaningless, and pointless if God simply forced everything to occur precisely as it does. It seems unlikely that God would orient the world in this way. But, the only way God would be controlling the outcome of all decisions, would be if he manually caused every variable of every circumstance –which is what influences someone to make a specific decision over another. So if God simply chooses not to manipulate or change circumstances based on his knowledge of what is to come, then he is not forcing circumstances to be a certain way, or influence decisions made by humans. With this set of parameters, God can allow free will and allow circumstances to occur naturally –without his incision of implementation - despite of knowledge that his incision would alter the result.

Does this mean God does not alter any naturally occurring circumstances, in order to allow all situations (including chances for human decisions) from that point on –which would have otherwise been influenced by his alteration- to occur freely? I think God could still alter a circumstance, in order to cause a specific result –but simultaneously allowing freedom of occurrence for all future influenced situations-, if he chose not to cause his alteration based on the knowledge of the occurring influences. Basically, the same principle applies; he would have to choose to retain current circumstances despite knowledge of potential changes with the capability to cause preferred results. In this way, God could still make alterations to otherwise naturally occurring circumstances with precision, and without theoretically forcing alterations to all side-effects –including free will- of the alteration.

It might be like playing a card game, and seeing your opponents’ cards mistakenly, but choosing to refrain from playing your hand any differently despite the potential to take advantage of the information.

If Gods will is to allow maximum freedom of occurrences and choice, it would seem logical that he would minimize alterations based on his own preference. Does this mean God rarely intercedes in the world? Not necessarily, as there is an additional allowance for God to force changes in the world. This allowance would be a request as a product of human free will. If the decision is made by someone using their gift of free will, to request Gods alteration of circumstances, then it is not God forcing the change based on exclusively his own will, and is not stopping or reducing freedom of occurrence of situations influenced by the alteration. Basically prayer seems to be the main allowance for God to alter and implement changes in the world.

For God to make a change, all it might take is you asking. And even though God knows the results of all changes as well as what you will choose, doesn’t take away from your freedom TO choose.

Intercedal implementation

God has a plan! Assumingly, but how specific, far-going, and widespread is his plan, and to what extents does God intercede with regularly occurring circumstances?

I think its generally accepted from anyone who believes in God, that he influences this world, and life. I want to try to understand more accurately, to what degree. To understand the degree, first of all, it seems practical to understand the intent, or reasoning (which seems to be a logical way of understanding almost anything in life). To understand the intent (ie. Purpose/ function) of something, I find it useful to compare the scenario of the presence of the constant, in comparison to the scenario of a void of the constant.

In the scenario of the inexistence of God, everything that ever happens or ever has happened in this world and in this universe, is complete fluke and has no over-reigning force causing any occurrence to be so. In this scenario, –hypothetically- in the past, there is the high probability that nothing significant or relevant ever occurred. This includes, life being sustained to the point it’s at now, life adapting in any method or form to have the capability of consciousness as humans do (ie. evolution), life being sparked initially in whatever unknown, rare circumstances are necessary, or even the elements existing required for everything in the universe to behave in the way it does (which is overall -in general- my understanding of the mathematical probability supportive evidence that God does exist). This can be compared to the scenario of the constant (God) existing.

In the scenario of God existing in current day life, he implements an influence on circumstances within this world to allow it to be at least to the point it is today. God would have implemented the specific elements of the universe to exist initially, caused life to begin (in whichever method you may believe), caused life to be adaptable (whether by evolution, or in more short term relevance; developing in societal, technological, and manufactural methods) and allowed life to be sustained to this day in age.

The difference between the 2 scenarios, being that current day life exists as an absolute, rather than a coincidental possibility.  If life exists as a result of the existence of God, rather than the result of chance, this means the intent of God is to at least allow life to exist to its point of consciousness (allowing free will). This would likely be the minimum possibility of the purpose of God, which seems understandable and confirmatory from typical religious perspectives in general, as God creating humans in his image with consciousness, decisive capabilities, and free will.

Now that the general reasoning of Gods implementation of specific circumstances occurring seems graspable, as well as the minimum plausible degree (being allowing humans to have free will), theorising the maximum degree of Gods influence, seems like a productive next step in understanding the more realistic degree of Gods intercedal influence on everyday life. If God was to maximize his potential influence on the circumstances of the world, he could cause everything to happen exactly as he wants, causing every single minor detail in the vast expanse of the universe, throughout the vast expanse of time, to happen exactly as is does. If that was the case, everything would occur precisely to his preference, with absolutely no chance of any alternate occurrences. This seems quite unlikely to be the situation, as under such conditions, God could force nothing to ever go wrong (which seems contrary to reality), and this would void the allowance of free will and option of choice, with which comes the possibility of making the wrong choice and causing something -in turn- to go wrong. Therefore, it seems the maximum influence of God would be; causing everything to occur other than any circumstances involving the allowance of free will.

With this allowance of free will, comes a lot of circumstantial possibilities. In every individuals life there is a profound number of situations where they had the opportunity of choice (inherently free will), which could possibly drastically affect the forgoing situations and what options there may be from that point on. Therefore it seems likely that God actually plays a minor influence on every individuals life in general, since the grander of happenings in life would be so extensively influenced by the option of free will. The maximum specificity of Gods potential plan or intent for any individuals life, therefore would have to be largely adaptable to all potential scenarios occurring as a result of alternate choices of the individual.

So, if God does have a specific plan or purpose for you individually, it is likely not such a specific plan as commonly assumed, but more like an adaptable plan, with potential outcomes changing with your decisions and actions. The specific, ultimate purpose of your life -intended by God- at the current time (having been affected by past decisions), is probably most accurately, estimatedly distinguished, by you, based on observation and consideration of past, impactful, reoccurring circumstances.

But, like a conclusion of this topic, unlikely to be distinctly determined!