Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
What If There Is No Plan?
I know a lot of people are convinced that G-d Has A Plan. For many people, this is a core part of their faith, and it is a comforting thought: no matter what happens, somehow it will all work out in the end. Because, G-d.
But what if there is no plan? After all, the Torah tells us that G-d acts — and reacts — in response to what we do and say. The text is full of examples: Adam and Eve, by eating the fruit, force G-d to react. Cain is only branded after he chooses to kill Abel. The Flood only happens because people choose violence; if they had not done so, then the Flood surely would have been averted. Avraham argues with G-d and changes His mind. So does Moshe.
G-d acting and reacting to mankind is not consistent with some divine plan. Instead, the Torah is telling me that G-d created this world, He put himself in human beings (but not in nature), and then He limited Himself (in both time and space) to allow mankind to have free will, to give us the opportunity to independently create and grow and love and – above all – choose.
The ability to choose means that we are free agents. G-d, admittedly, only gives us a few short years on this earth, so our potential is limited. But that hardly makes it any less potent: if anything, mortality makes us much more likely to take risks. And since our choices matter, He gave us the great power along with the great responsibility.
If G-d does not actually Have A Plan, then being religious is fraught with challenges and responsibilities. This kind of religious faith is no opiate; it drives us to action, not passivity. After all, if we can change G-d’s mind, then don’t we have an obligation to try to do so, on behalf of ourselves and our loved ones? Isn’t this an aspect of prayer, as well as good deeds of all kinds?
Am I wrong? If you think G-d has a plan, how do you know?
Published in General
Huh. Well, I prefer it my way.
I see this in Psalm 81, but hold the hope (God’s Spirit at work) that some will perceive the end to which their unguided free will is carrying them (what they are becoming) and turn around (Psalm 51).
In olden days, we had “ye.” But “y’all” is good too.
So G-d announces that the seed of the woman will crush the head of the serpent, and that’s not a plan because it happens to be a curse?
So G-d announces that he will bless all the nations through Avraham, promises events beginning maybe 50 years later and ending maybe 500 years later, warns the people through Moshe of the Exile and Return many hundreds of years later, . . . and none of these events are “plans”?
You really need to define your terms.
Intentions on both sides and a wish for growth don’t mean there’s no plan. It means there’s no absolute plan made by one side with all details permanently fixed.
The word “plan” doesn’t entail anything like that–in military, government, marriage, family, education, business, or theology.
Yet you still haven’t clearly defined your terms. See, e.g., my last comment.
Also, Mama Toad is correct in # 44: A and B are consistent. See also the chess analogy in # 9, and Mordecai in # 3.
Dost thou have a problem with the English second person pronoun?
Actually, “you” is the plural, which is now used for both the plural and singular.
In the olde days, you was the subject and ye was the object case of the plural second person, and thou was the subjective singular with thee as the objective and thy and thine as the possessive.
Now we only use the plural second person.
“Doth Mother know you weareth her drapes?” Even Iron Man didn’t use “thou.”
Auggie –
The OP was:
This is my definition, right here. The comforting idea that no matter what happens, it will all work out because G-d has a plan, and despite whatever we see, we never deviate from that plan.
This, in practise, often becomes an excuse for inaction.
So when you say “plan” you don’t just mean the English word “plan,” but a plan with the following characteristics: we can never deviate from it, and G-d makes sure it leads to the right outcome in the end.
A step in the right direction, thanks! But this is still very unclear.
What about “all the good and bad stuff along the way” being a part of the plan (# 43)? Is that part of your definition of “plan”?
What about G-d not willing growth on our part (# 41)? Is that part of your definition of “plan”?
What about us not being able to have our own intentions (# 41)? Is that part of your definition of “plan”?
And when you include “we never deviate from that plan” as part of your definition, do you mean that our actions don’t derail the plan, or do you mean that we don’t have a choice whether to cooperate with the plan?
God knows the end from the beginning. The things that happen in this life are for learning and growth. The plan is over all, Adam and Eve chose, but that was part of the plan, because God knew the choice they would make, in fact we would not be here if they had not made the choice. That is why he provided a Savior from before the world was made. It is planned. This life is a school. In the end we will be satisfied that it has been fair and just, we choose for our own growth. We see through a glass darkly as Paul said. And that is by design, because if we could remember the plan, remember God, it would not test us, it would not teach us.
Speaking as an agnostic (albeit one with a religious upbringing and enduring cultural ties to the same), God having a plan for my life was never really an inspiring idea for me-if anything, the exact opposite. What appealed to me were notions of free will, eternal life after death (for oneself and loved ones), and later, peace for those who suffer throughout their short time on this earth. Basically, messages of hope, unconditional love, and validation for the human condition (not to be confused with ‘purpose’ or ‘meaning’-more along the lines of existentialism on earth, followed by mercy in the hereafter), things that are impossible to attain through a secular worldview.
I don’t really have a point, just giving my perspective.
If you want to make Him laugh, tell Him your plans.
Y’all is never singular for this life-long Texan.
Too much of a Hyakean to accept the human idea of plan. It’s all emergent, but we were told what would work for us, or it emerged and we figured it out. Simple rules and laws create order out of chaos for the physical, organic, and the human worlds. That should be good enough and is the way we get freedom.
Or: If there is a meticulously engineered plan, then such horrors as world wars were “planned,” making God a pretty horrible entity. And God “letting us” get into such situations without intervening is about as horrible.
I have heard people insist that every minute thing, even an infant’s loss to SIDS, was “His will,” because it surely wasn’t all due to some human will, and people would rather have God in baffling control than to imagine that He abandoned the creation completely. Most of us come up with something along the lines of attributing suffering to human failings (even if not by the victim, by somebody human) that grieve God as well. And some suffering is just baked into the design of the world’s molecules and conflicting life agendas without true evil required (death by frightened or hungry wild animal). In time, we may find some scientific cure for much of it, as we have segments of it in the past.
The problem with how a merciful and loving God could either pre-plan to include pain and injustice, or allow improvised forms to afflict the innocent, has always been a huge problem for holding on to faith. But then the obvious undeserved blessings (sometimes called “grace”) and the hope for possible future progress also call for equal recognition.
Maybe God just cannot violate all the intricate workings of the universe as set up, in order to curb our shortcomings, without erasing our creative potential.