A phone conversation with a muslim missionary

[rodgertutt]

Again, I respect your opinion, and I think yes, all will stand in the "hall". But a question put to us each, will determine which "door" we will eventually pass through.

The Bible says "God is not willing that any will perish."
God's will always trumps man's will every time.

Of course, if you don't believe in the Bible you are free to believe whatever the strongest sets of influnces on your mind cause you to conclude the truth is.

 

[Quahom1]

The Bible says "God is not willing that any will perish."
God's will always trumps man's will every time.

Neither the Bible nor the Q'uran, nor the Torah states this, in the context you are conveying.

 

[rodgertutt]

Neither the Bible nor the Q'uran, nor the Torah states this, in the context you are conveying.

If God is really not willing that any perish, then why will they perish? "No man can come to Me," Jesus said, "except the Father draw him" (John 6:44). Salvation is a gift from God, sovereignly given, to whomever God chooses, when He chooses, and He will indeed grant it to all mankind, in due time (Titus 2:11, 1 Tim 2:6).

It does not depend on man's acceptance. Left to themselves,
no man would ever choose God (Rom. 3:10-12)

Sooner, or later everyone will reach out for the salvation that God has in store for them.

 

[Quahom1]

If God is really not willing that any perish, then why will they perish? "No man can come to Me," Jesus said, "except the Father draw him" (John 6:44). Salvation is indeed a gift from God, sovereignly given, to whomever God chooses, when He chooses, and He will indeed grant it to all mankind, in due time (Titus 2:11, 1 Tim 2:6).

It does not depend on man's acceptance. Left to themselves,
no man would ever choose God (Rom. 3:10-12)

Indeed, at the end we will all be asked a question...

 

[rodgertutt]

Indeed, at the end we will all be asked a question...

At the consummation of God's plans for the ages of time, instead of asking a question, God will have become "All in all," or as the Amplified version puts it, "everything to everyone." 1Cor. 15:28

By that point in time everyone will have been saved.

 

[rodgertutt]

Again, I respect your opinion, and I think yes, all will stand in the "hall". But a question put to us each, will determine which "door" we will eventually pass through.

The salvation of no one will depend on man's so called "free will."
It will depend on God's ability, and intention to SUPERCEED the strongest will and make being saved "choice" in our hearts. Consequently, He will successfully ellicit any cooperation required to achieve that salvation for everyone.

The will and pleasure of God is the salvation of everyone who needs it.
And, like it says in Isaiah 46:10 "I will accomplish all my pleasure, saith the Lord"

For any Christian reading this post, Martin Luther's BONDAGE OF THE WILL is excellent on this subject.
It can be read online.
Quahom doesn't like links, but it can be Googled up.

 

[Quahom1]

The salvation of no one will depend on man's so called "free will."
It will depend on God's ability, and intention to SUPERCEED the strongest will and make being saved "choice" in our hearts. Consequently, He will successfully ellicit any cooperation required to achieve that salvation for everyone.

The will and pleasure of God is the salvation of everyone who needs it.
And, like it says in Isaiah 46:10 "I will accomplish all my pleasure, saith the Lord"

For any Christian reading this post, Martin Luther's BONDAGE OF THE WILL is excellent on this subject.
It can be read online.
Quahom doesn't like links, but it can be Googled up.

Actually, Q doesn't worry about it...just asking that multiple links elsewhere be kept to a minimum when the actual discussions could be held right here...

 

[rodgertutt]

Actually, Q doesn't worry about it...

In that case the link is
BONAGE OF THE WILL
The Bondage of the Will

In particular, read the portion called CONCLUSION
It sums up the case that Luther made (at great length) earlier.

 

[citizenzen]

The word is "preceptive" not perceptive.
It refers to God's teaching and is neither strong nor weak. It just is.

All decisions are CAUSED by the strongest influences that have been brought to bear upon the chooser, whether or not the influences were internal or external, or a combination of both.

Thank you for correcting the confusion between "preceptive" and "perceptive".

Rodger, could you describe the difference between "external" and "internal" influences and give me examples of each?

 

[rodgertutt]

Thank you for correcting the confusion between "preceptive" and "perceptive".

Rodger, could you describe the difference between "external" and "internal" influences and give me examples of each?

External influence: The preaching of an eloquent and persuasive TV evangelist with a strong convincing personality.

Internal influence: The knowledge that many such TV evangelists are secretly just money grabbing hucksters using fear to fill their bank account.

BTW I realize I misspelled BONDAGE in my prevous post.

 

[citizenzen]

Internal influence: The knowledge that many such TV evangelists are secretly just money grabbing hucksters using fear to fill their bank account.

So here is the crux of my problem with your theory. You admit that knowledge is a component to the influences that determine a decision. So there must be a deliberative act on the part of the individual.

It isn't so simple to say, "Some TV evangelists are money grubbing hucksters." as one could easily counter that "Some TV evangelists are sincerely serving their faith." One must deliberate based upon the knowledge they possess and the external influences that surround them.

As long as there is a component of internal influence based upon that individuals own mind to weigh the circumstances, THAT is free will. I know you won't acknowledge that to be true. But I don't see how else you can describe it.

 

[rodgertutt]

So here is the crux of my problem with your theory. You admit that knowledge is a component to the influences that determine a decision. So there must be a deliberative act on the part of the individual.

It isn't so simple to say, "Some TV evangelists are money grubbing hucksters." as one could easily counter that "Some TV evangelists are sincerely serving their faith." One must deliberate based upon the knowledge they possess and the external influences that surround them.

As long as there is a component of internal influence based upon that individuals own mind to weigh the circumstances, THAT is free will. I know you won't acknowledge that to be true. But I don't see how else you can describe it.

Yes I do disagree. All influences contribute to the decisions we make.
Because this is so, we cannot make any other decision except the one we have concluded is the one we want to make based on the contributing influences. Therefore the will is "free" to choose in one direction only. It is not free to choose something else instead.

Another example.

External influence: Being selected by the coach to play on the first line of the hockey team for the first time. I choose to accept that placement and be at the game.

Internal influence: Getting the flu the same day and being unable to follow up on that choice.

 

[citizenzen]

Because this is so, we cannot make any other decision except the one we have concluded is the one we want to make based on the contributing influences. Therefore the will is "free" to choose in one direction only. It is not free to choose something else instead.

Roger, free will doesn't mean you get to go in two directions at once.

Any time we make a decision we can only go in the direction of the decision made. Free will means we choose the one direction to go in.

From dictionary.com...

free will 

1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will.

2. Philosophy. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.​

You seem to agree with that, since in your response you said the words, "is the one we want to make". The fact that we "want" something and base our choice on that "want" is free will.

I know you "want" to call it something else, but as they say, "A rose by any other name..."

 

[rodgertutt]

Roger, free will doesn't mean you get to go in two directions at once. Any time we make a decision we can only go in the direction of the decision made. Free will means we chose the one direction to go in.

You seem to agree with that since in your response you said the words, "is the one we want to make". The fact that we "want" something and base our choice on that "want" is free will.

I know you "want" to call it something else, but as they say, "A rose by any other name..."

No one has the power of contrary choice.
They MUST choose whatever the combined influences dictate they choose. They cannot choose anything else.
Every choice we have ever made was the only one we could have made at the time.
I cannot perceive that as "free will."

 

[citizenzen]

No one has the power of contrary choice.

I agree. Once you chosen to turn right, you cannot simultaneously choose to turn left. Once you chosen to move forward, you cannot simultaneously choose to move back.

The physical world does not allow for contrary choice. I doubt you'll find anyone here that disagrees with that statement.

But we are not talking about making "contrary" choices, we are talking about making choices. You said that knowledge was a part of that choice. But knowledge is rarely, if ever 100% certain.

In your example you cited evangelists who abuse the trust of their followers, as if that knowledge should compel all people to choose not to donate money. But choice is never "dictated" so simply. You overlooked the fact that there are evangelists who use donations in good faith and do good works with it. Any rational person weighs both possibilities and based upon the preponderance of evidence, the existing conditions of their life and their own intuition, decides whether to give their money or not.

This is how our mind works rodger. Do internal and external conditions "influence" our choices? Absolutely. Do they "dictate" them? Absolutely not. People may sometimes act like robots, but contrary to your assumptions it isn't because they aren't capable of considered and rational decisions... they just choose to make the easy ones.

It may give you comfort to feel as if you have no choice in life. It probably makes the bad choices that you've made easier to bear. But for those of us who want to progress spiritually, we have to embrace the fact that our lives are the result of the choices that we've made, and that any progress in our search to improve ourselves is in our hands and requires us to make better ones.

You're driving down the highway with your hands off the wheel hoping that internal and external influences dictate that the car stay on the road. I know that in order to get where I want to go, I have to do the steering.

 

[rodgertutt]

But for those of us who want to progress spiritually, we have to embrace the fact that our lives are the result of the choices that we've made, and that any progress in our search to improve ourselves is in our hands and requires us to make better ones.

I certainly agree with that.

The point I am trying to make is that all of the choices that we made in the past were the only choices that we could have made at the time, all influences considered.

Therefore, IMO, we do not have a "free" will.

Even "the search to improve ourselves," although it is in our hands, is an influenced product of the lessons we learned from our bad choices.

But even those "improved choices" HAVE to occur, because the combined influences of what we have learned cause us to choose the way we do.
It is not possible that we can avoid our choices the second time around any more than it was the first time around.

Choices are due to causality. A combination of influences CAUSE us to choose the way we do all of the time. Therefore, there is no such a thing as "free" will.

 

[OAT]

"Sems nyid" or "mind-ness" is the essential characteristic, the sine qua non, the trait without which "sems" would not be "sems" at all; like "humanity" is the sets of traits which make human beings "humans" rather than some other kind of being. You are arguing that "sems" lacks the characteristic of "sems nyid": this is utter confusion. And yes, Samsara and dependent arising are just two phrasings for the exact same thing. To escape from Samsara is, precisely, to escape from dependent arising.

Choosings are independent of the influences. The essence of mind is spontaneous and unconditioned.

Bob x: See the bold parts above. They seemed to contradict each other don't you think? Unconditioned carries the meaning of not depending on any factors, conditions or things. But sems (mind) cannot be unconditioned.

 

[OAT]

And yes, Samsara and dependent arising are just two phrasings for the exact same thing. To escape from Samsara is, precisely, to escape from dependent arising.

I don't think it is quite correct to state that "to escape from samsara is, precisely, to escape from dependent arising." As I've stated before, samsara is dependently arisen but it is possible for something dependently arisen to NOT be samsaric.

Also, liberation in Buddhism is based on cessation of Ignorance. With that, involuntary dependent arising (e.g taking birth) ceases, but it does not prevent voluntary taking birth.

So back to my point: as mind is dependently arisen, so are the choices made by the mind. Therefore, free will is an illusion.

Btw, I don't agree with Rodgertutt that it is the strongest influence that determines a choice. With dependent arising, it is the combination of factors, conditions and whatever influences there may be that result in a particular choice. This would make more sense as it allows for even subconscious or unconscious factors and conditions to come into play in a choice.

 

[citizenzen]

The point I am trying to make is that all of the choices that we made in the past were the only choices that we could have made at the time, all influences considered.

You must have made some really bad choices in your life that you just can't face being responsible for. Instead of admitting your mistakes and owning up to them, you've created a coping mechanism which absolves yourself of responsibility because "they were the only choices you could have made".

No. They weren't.

You could have made the right choices. You could have done the right things. You just chose not to. And today, instead of admitting to yourself your fallibility and culpability for your past discretions you cling to a childish worldview that only serves to protect your ego, when you should be progressing forward.

Failure is a precious gift. If you constantly run away from it you'll miss the opportunity to see into your nature and to improve your mind, body and spirit. It's time to stop running rodgertutt.

It's your choice. It's your chance. I hope you take it.

 

[citizenzen]

So back to my point: as mind is dependently arisen, so are the choices made by the mind. Therefore, free will is an illusion.

Please cite where the Buddha taught this. I am certainly unfamiliar with this concept. It is not one that I have ever been taught as a Buddhist.