juantoo3
Well-Known Member
Ahhhh but!! He loves you too!!
That was a wonderful soundbite advert for atheism Mr Dog![]()
Aww gee, Tao, it's good to see you, but is that the best you have to offer? Surely you can do better than that?
Ahhhh but!! He loves you too!!
That was a wonderful soundbite advert for atheism Mr Dog![]()
Would this include non-Christians? Would this include sinners?
(These are actually trick questions,)
I agree Jesus showed the way. I cannot help but believe after all I have experienced that he put "us" back on a track, a track that others too tried to help still others get back on. I see many paths up the mountain, paths that are culturally and ethnically significant. So there is no confusion, I also see false paths, and sometimes it can be difficult to sort through it all unless one is constantly vigilant. I also see each valid path as complete in its own, that paths rightly cannot be mixed and matched willy nilly and picked over for the more esthetically pleasing scenarios and bypassing the less pleasing parts...it is *all* there for a reason, even if we do not understand why.
And if G-d is quite happy with His creation just as He created it? Are these people "saved" without Jesus?
Good point. Be careful though, or you'll end up thinking like me.
That's fine, if "race" seems politically incorrect, how about "ethnicities?" Not every person of every ethnicity in every period of time has access to the teachings of Jesus, and even some who have have come away with a bad taste in their mouths not because of the teachings, but because of the people who *forced* the teachings on them against their will.
Yes, however the Will of the Father is untraceble, no one can know this truly but the Father, many will say, I gave more so where's my payback and the Father will say I loved this one more than the others, and he will be first while others will be last. He is the owner of the vineyard and knows each one of His.
You've talked about the clear and confusing paths but I haven't seen any references to the defender, which is the spirit of the Father, which can turn any light on and turn the must humble person into knowledge of life and guide him to a place where the water of life flows day and night and the existance of the one who drinks from it will have no end.
About ethnicities, Jesus existed after the prophets, who were killed and persecuted, in order that many could see the will of the Father and remove the law and turn it into only one commandment "Love your Father with all your heart, with all soul and all your spirit".
"If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And when I am for myself, what am 'I'? And if not now, when?"[2] and the expression of the ethic of reciprocity, or "Golden Rule": "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."[3]
Hillel lived in Jerusalem during the time of King Herod and the Roman Emperor Augustus. In the Midrash compilation Sifre (Deut. 357) the periods of Hillel's life are made parallel to those in the life of Moses. Both lived 120 years; at the age of forty Hillel went to the Land of Israel; forty years he spent in study; and the last third of his life he was the spiritual head of the Jewish people. A biographical sketch can be constructed; that Hillel went to Jerusalem in the prime of his life and attained a great age. His activity of forty years likely covered the period of 30 BCE to 10 CE.
For anyone else, including "ethnicities", if they do what is correct in their heart and loves his brother as himself then that person will see the Father since the will of the Father is within him, he will receive a higher reward than the one who had to learn the path by the Word.
The Father knows the number of hairs of each one of us, no matter when or where all things are plainly visible to Him.
About the people who don't get the message because they dont like the way they're teached, they are like rocks where the message cannot grow, each rock will be judged by the will of the Father whose justice and commandment is perfect and whose kingdom will have no end.
I will add another comment, if I act as a righteous person but the spirit of the Father doesn't dwell within me, then I've done nothing, since my behaviour was intended to honor myself, but if the spirit of the Father lies within and I do as He wills then all will be complete, since I have done nothing for myself but for the one who deserves all honor and glory.
It seems we do indeed share a lot of the same thought on the matter.
As Solomon observed, the same sun shines and the same rain falls on both the righteous and the unrighteous. And while yes I can agree that *on occasion* the Father may choose to set aside particular persons for specific reasons, the vast majority of us are not so privileged. As I am but a common nondescript person seeking wisdom and salvation, it is to those like myself that I direct my comments. What need of medicine do the well have? Stated another way although not directly at you; physician, heal thyself. I am a poor wretch in need of spiritual medicine, so I study as though to become a doctor to cure myself. If I am able to assist others along the way, then it is good, but my primary objective is selfish; getting me to heaven and return to my Father.
Touche, and good catch! I agree, and this is true, regardless of the particular *correct* path one is on. I believe if I were born a Jew, and placed on the path of Jews, and followed with the same contrite and determined spirit, I would eventually arrive at the same destination. Same if I were born Hindu. Same if I were born Buddhist. Same if I were born Native American. Etc. You are correct, G-d knows His own, *all* of them, as He created them, and where He placed them. He knows all of their hearts. He knows those who seek Him, and He knows those who would distance themselves from Him.
Except that Jesus gave us two commandments, that if observed fulfill the ten.
I think if you happen to look, you will find a famous Jewish Rabbi (Hillel?) said something very similar to the Golden Rule around the same period of time:
Hillel the Elder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Amen. Paul tells us as much in Romans chapter 2.
Sure, but He cannot force us to love Him. He made us with the capacity to love, but He cannot make us love Him or the whole shebang falls apart, all the way back to Eden. If, and this is a huge if, if G-d could force Adam and Eve to love Him, they could not have suffered the fall for partaking of the forbidden fruit. If they were always in G-d's will, then there was nothing to be forbidden, and they never would have suffered the fall from grace, be cast out of Eden, or be barred from the Tree of Life.
Ah! Now is your turn to misunderstand! Who is the more faithful and obedient; the Conquering Spaniard carrying the Bible and a sword and disease murdering and enslaving as they go in the name of G-d and King, or the Indigenous Natives living as G-d made them to and minding their own business? As you said earlier, "the Will of the Father is untraceble, no one can know this truly but the Father." But this much should seem evident; if G-d created all peoples as He intended and placed them where He intended to live essentially as He intended (with allowance of course for love and will which demand a degree of self-direction), then it seems to me that forcing the political will upon a people in the name of G-d with the ulterior motive of enslaving the people to rape the land of the silver and gold to enhance the coffers of the Kingdom is not Righteous no matter what banner is flown or what book is carried.
It is a sad truth, but great harm has been done to many, many peoples in the name of G-d and Christianity. I cannot help but feel G-d cannot help but cringe at seeing His creation done so cruelly, and by misguided humans acting in His name no less.
Agreed. Yet unless one has clear convincing evidence that they are indeed select of G-d, then like myself they must proceed to *seek* the spirit and it's guidance. G-d's will is not a destination, it is a journey. To return to the Father's bosom, *that* is the destination.![]()
Perhaps within the objective reality you see you do not exercise voluntary control. Within the objective reality I see I do exercise voluntary control.
If voluntary control proves illusory, then all of life is illusion...pointless, without reason and ephemeral. Why bother? Just sit back, get high, and enjoy the pretty colors while they last...
It was a rather crude, but to my mind poignant example, that woke me out of the philosophical illusion game:...life seems like an illusion until it punches you in the nose and breaks it. Nothing like a shot of adrenaline to shake one out of an illusory dream. Nothing like the car crash and waking up in a hospital to realize the dream does end, and one must make a seriously conscious effort to overcome obstacles. Life isn't a fantasy to me. Life is a reality to be lived.
I am pressed for time, I will try to get back to the rest later.
A person does not need to rewrite every parental program in order to exercise self-direction…they only need to have the *option* to rewrite even just one of those parental programs. Just one rewrite undoes the concept of absolute inviolable determinism. And it is frequent that a person will rebel against some of their parental programming at a later date once more input from other valued sources comes into play. I believe you mentioned teenage rebellion? That is one cultural expression of the self-directed challenge to the inviolability of the parental programming. By the time we are mature adults we have a library from which to draw and compare…and decide from and choose which to use to filter our character and personality (or ego and superego, if you prefer).
While emotions in general *are* philosophically challenging…such as your assertions about hate and war…nevertheless emotions exist and there is a distinct chemical process that occurs in the brain, and not just human brains. The philosophical quandary though in this matter is; which came first? The chemical or the emotion? Does the sun rise because the rooster crows? I can reference logical fallacies if need be.
Ah yes! I remember now...love cannot exist in a deterministic environment, it must be able to be freely given and freely received, otherwise it is not love. And since love exists, as indicated by the circumstantial evidence above, a deterministic environment must not. How's that for a logical sylligism?
I wonder if you may be pulling my leg? Have you read the entire *thread* in which others and myself explored the development of morality in evolution? The thread is called, strange enough, “Morality in Evolution.”
Free will has been demonstrated by the ability of any given individual to change the course they find themselves on.
But again I come back to my crude but definitive example to wake one from the reality as illusion dream; all it takes is a punch in the nose. If that punch is illusory, then the nose won’t bleed, will it?
That is another problem with the absolutist position; One doesn’t need to experience all 6 billion other people on the planet to realize there are other egoistic entities objectively walking the planet. One *only* needs to experience one other ego…mom...to realize that other egos exist. Most of us have the benefit of a dad and / or siblings. And then we experience the egos of our mates, and then our own children…and the infinite thread of humanity carries on…egos touching egos.
Dunno, seems pretty objective to me.
But you *do* have that freedom. The evidence is all around, it is historic, it is cultural, it is physics, it is metaphysical.
What is more, a person is free “to do something else” at any time they so choose.
With determinism, such is not possible.
The first major flaw I see with the analogy is that we are not marbles.
Then it is not so abstract.
I’m afraid I don’t understand what you are trying to say. Evidence…does not prove? Either something is…or it is not, unless we are speaking of Shroedinger’s cat. But I see no need to get into quantum mechanics.
The implication that morality is an invented byproduct of imagination is a bit of a stretch.
The implication that “G-d” is strictly a product of imagination is simply not tenable when held to the archeological evidence…it is too widespread and too endemic to be a chance development. We still do not understand what G-d is…but we see the circumstantial evidence of “G-d” all around (and across time and culture), even if there are those who find ways to dismiss that circumstantial evidence by whatever mental acrobatics suit their fancy.
What purpose would a deterministic environment serve without a G-d to make the determination?
In a determinist environment there is nothing to repent of and no wrong to make right.
There are *some* things beyond a person’s control. Yeah, so?
First, I am of the opinion that we cannot fully know objective reality…so the truth of the matter is that this is all your (and my) *subjective* POV on the matter.
And while I tentatively agree we cannot *fully* control who we are at a given moment, the fact that we *can* control *some* of what we are at a given moment is being overlooked. And since we do have some control over certain aspects of some situations, particularly those aspects that impinge upon our character and personality; the conclusion “one is making a choice over which ones does not exercise voluntary control” is not accurate and does not support a determinist argument.
Are you co-equal with Jesus? I'm not, and I wouldn't dare risk the blasphemy of suggesting I was..
A. It is not blasphemy if it is true.
If people were in the Father's will, there would be no need to be saved, nothing to repent from, no evil, nothing immoral, every behavior would be acceptable.
A. I'm sorry I don't understand what you mean if people were in the Father's Will.
It is precisely because we *can* make choices that are not the Father's will, that Jesus and other religious leaders have reminded us of what is right and wrong, good and evil, given us a conscience and reminded us with guilt. These things are not automatic, a person isn't born to sin. Sin is a deliberate (definition: mindful thought, premeditation) choice and behavior.
A. Right I never said we don't make choices. I said that those choice are not free. Free form uncaused causes.l
You can change the name "free will" if you insist; the concept remains inviolable and the common nomenclature understood by the vast majority of English speakers is free will, which will only result in confusion among your readers. Sometimes concessions from absolute literality are necessary to promote understanding. I've known many people in my life with red hair. Literally, their hair looks orange to me; but we call it red anyway, and that is the commonly accepted term among English speakers.
If it helps you to think of "free will" as a figure of speech, so be it. In point of fact there is an element of self-direction irrespective of and regardless of any outside or internal influences, and it is that element of self-direction that makes a person's will "free." Free to choose right, or to choose wrong. Free to choose wisely, or to choose foolishly. Free to choose skillful or unskillful actions. Free to seek inclusion with the will of G-d, as well as free to dissociate from the will of G-d.
Oh, to answer your challenge, I just ate a piece of candy. I didn't need it, I wasn't hungry, nothing in my little pea brain told me I had to have it, no little spook riding on my shoulder whispered in my ear. I simply chose to eat it...I could have just as easily chosen not to eat it.
A You ate that peice of candy because you desiered to. something in you brain (pea brain your words) proabable because of a sweet tooth. A craving. I don';t know. I do know that it is impossibe to make a choice without a ;cause. Impossible. It is a law of the universe, cause and effect. Law. just as gravity, a law there's no way around it. Do you think for one min. that mans so call free can be free if God's will is Always done. Always.
As for the rest, it is unimportant just now, we can save it for another day. I think it would derail this thread. Of course, you are welcome to begin a new thread to address those matters if you wish.
Hi All, it's been a while. I'm not one to go back on past threads (if anyone remembers this one), but I'd like to know what other religions think about this. Is free will an illusion? A clarification when I say free will I do not mean choice (e.g. we don't make our own choices / predetermined) but I mean, does life (or God) set out a certain path for us in life that we must follow guided to us by life experiences? In other words does certain situations influence our decisions.
Here's an example:
Your in your car driving somewhere, suddenly your realise you low on petrol. You tell yourself you're going to stop at the next petrol/gas station you see (as you do). Eventually you see one and decide to stop there. As you get out to fill your car, you happen to see a large billboard advertisement of the Eiffel Tower. The next day you enter yourself in a raffle which you win and the prize is ...guess what... a trip to any major European City of your choice. You choose... Paris... of course because of the large billboard you saw the other day. You can say it had... influenced...Your descision, which was after all completely your own choice... but... realising you were low on petrol at that moment, arriving at that petrol/gas station first, putting the billboard of the eiffel Tower in that particular place, even the winning prize for the raffle being a trip to any Major European City...Was not your choice.
Ok, that was probably a bad example, but hopefully you know what I mean...
Our choices (Our control) are influenced by situations (not in our control).
But, just ask yourself "who is in control of the situation then?"
"What? So murderers, rapists etc are what they are because of situations beyond their control?" I here you say? Well...Not exactly. Here's the confusing part. Personally, I believe life is about self development, we're all here to learn from life's experiences (not matter how bad). Some (or most) of life's experiences are beyond our control: e.g. Which family we are born into, the people we meet, where and when we are born and so on. But what we decide to take from these experiences are up to us, which then leads to our choices.
Here's an example:
In England some years ago a young black man was murdered in a racial attack. His attackers were not jailed (or found) due to a lack of police effort it was believed (perhaps something again racial). The Mother in this situation decided to...instead of taking revenge or taking the law into her own hands since the law (police) obviously seemed to not care. She decided to attempt to build relationships between police and all members of community to work together for a better future. Where as someone else in the same situation would do the opposite.
I believe throughout every persons life there is an experience that can make that person do things for the better. But more often that not it is either, misinterpreted making people do things for the worst or ignored.
Can a person ever make an completely imdependant choice?
since your will can easily be stopped by another in a more powerful situation (physical or otherwise) one can't really suggest that free will is really free absolutely, just subjectively.
...by telling someone what they wish to hear is that not subjecting your will for however the brief moment regardless of the truth (carrying out said will eventually). It can be argued that your will is broken however temporary it is.
Example;
Say your having intercourse with whomever you please. I don't know about you but i don't like to be interupted... say that a telephone call/knock at the door/child requires you to stop. You can argue that it was your will that caused the ceasation of said events, but chances are you didn't want to stop what you were doing. Is it your will to stop said act in light of the circumstances? Or is it the circumstances affecting your will? Is it truly your will to override your will thus giving a looser concept to will as something less prominant then i think to attribute to it... or is it the nature of the circumstances imposing altered behavior being attributed to a new will? Was it really your will to quit is the question... it can be argued it was because your the one who made the decision to stop ultimately thus it was your will, however it can also be viewed as circumstances affecting behavior, curtailing the original will.