What is freewill?

[BBAS 64]

Bill, that hymn glories God.

I have unearthed scathing passages written by Calvin and posted about them, here. In all of my postings, I have insisted that Calvinist's and Calvin need the same Love that God showed to Omnis Creation when He died for Omnis Creation. I have specified that it is not wise to condemn a single soul, based on their doctrine, but that we Love Omnis Creation as Jesus commanded us to do.

Now, I will be clear to you, my Loving Brother in Jesus.

If you're here to exalt Men that follow a Man, then so be it. Ask me Who I am here to exalt.

Good day,

I agree as it is based solely on the Biblical Doctrines of Grace.

and if I am not... I have to ask you have you assumed I might be exalting men?

In Him,

Bill

 

[Grip Docility]

Good day,

I agree as it is based solely on the Biblical Doctrines of Grace.

and if I am not... I have to ask you have you assumed I might be exalting men?

In Him,

Bill

I understand that you believe that the systematic interpretation of the Gospel as presented 1500 years after Jesus Christ, is actually what Jesus Christ was meaning to say and Paul should have said, when they preached and revealed the "one true gospel"... as it now stands named after a French man Jehan Cauvin, a high authority within the Rebellion against the Holy Universal Church which was for some good reasons and some bad reasons....

However, when the doctrines of this idea are challenged, it becomes excitingly purposeful to defend these doctrines, which is absolutely okay.

However, I prefer to stick with only Cannon, where the one invisible Body of Christ which has MANY different views, two thousand years after Christ, yet is still knit together by Jesus Christ in Love.

Yes, I am aware of a Teaching that is seen as important called "Total Depravity" which says that Man is incapable of responding to God of his own volition, because God designated some lumps for glory and some for destruction, which is to eternal burning suffering to Glory God.

Yes, I am aware that this system says that only the "elect" are saved and All doesn't mean Omnis, thus saying that the damned are Reprobates and must be hated and despised as the Carnal Sinners that they are based on their fruit of visible sin of specific sorts, be it whatever the doctrine states per a churches preferences. Yes, I am aware of what the "limited" means in the LA.

Yes, I understand that the beautiful "Conditional to some", yet "Unconditional Election" to others that win the "Divine Lottery" is wonderful to those that adhere to this teaching.

Yes, I understand that the "Grace" is irresistible to the Elect and fully inaccessible to the Reprobate.

Yes, I get that the Saints go on to persevere and prove through their fruits that they are saved and glory bound, while some fall away from this system and are thus said to have never been anything but Reprobates who thought they were elect according to the "Lower Workings" of the Holy Spirit.

You are impressed to share this system of salvation as the One True Gospel. Well, I disagree with it. Does that mean I am a Reprobate? Fortunately, I don't need the reassurance of men! I BELIEVE in the ONE TRUE SAVIOR. I am Saved by the Unconditional Love of Jesus Christ, not because I trust knowledge or doctrine or any of the sort, but because I believe He truly is GOOD WILL TOWARDS Omnis Men.

I'm not sure what this all means to you. I believe that WE are Brothers IN HIM, together. Not based on what you believe or what I believe, but WHO You, Bill and I Phil, Believe in! I believe He is GOOD and LOVE! I believe that He Alone is worthy of exaltation because He Alone is sincerely Humble and capable of TRUE SERVENT LEADERSHIP... and not the kind that Human politicians promise from generation to generation!

Do we see God differently. YES! Do we preach different Gospels? In truth... We do! Do I think that people who believe differently than me are Hell Bound? NO Because when I say that it depends on HIS Perfect Being and Not ours, I am saying something different than you.

Name a trillion isms in Christianity... and it all goes back to the Acts 11:26 of the matter. CHRIST;

Are you and I brothers. Yes. In my heart, do I believe Bill is lost? NO Do I know if in your heart, you believe I am lost? I'm not you! I look to God because I am a tragic man who has to hold to the direct conduit from which all Good things Mankindward flows..... and anything that is a name in-between that conduit upsets and disturbs me! This isn't your fault or doing. I am me and you are you.

I appreciate your desire to help people. I appreciate your Loving nature. I obviously don't like the L in the LA or the inference that God would abandon one single Child born of His creation. What one man may consider a Reprobate, I consider an Orphan. What one man may consider a lost Tribe of people, I consider a Widow.

Does this mean that I, Phil, don't get the picture that Calvinist's desire to paint of God? No. I get it. Believe me I get it. It simply means that I believe that AGAPE, Unconditional Love, comes in a different form than you think it comes... yet...

Bill, I Love you as, exactly you so faithfully and rightfully write...... as my Brother Bill that is "In" Him who dwells within each of us.

I may be a bit zealous and passionate. It is a possibility. All Love in our blessed Savior to you who rests in the Arms of Infinite, unfathomable Love, my Brother In Jesus Christ, named Bill.

Your Brother, who rests in IN Him as you rest IN Him, Phil

 

[childeye 2]

I am assuming that you are suggesting that manmade stipulations prevent a person from saying this thing that isn't true, on this Forum.​

The Gospel that is sown in the good soil of a heart is not a manmade stipulation.

So no, in thankfulness to God, I'm simply stating the fact that YOU, presently/right now/today, can NOT honestly say that You have the God given free will/desire to believe and say that Jesus IS NOT the True Image of God sent by God on this forum. And subsequently that YOU DO have the God given free will/desire to believe and say on this forum that Jesus IS the True Image of God sent by God.

Remember that the will includes the desire of the heart, not just the reasoning of the mind.

I don't like those words, as I see them written, even though I know that you are making a point. However, it is a point that just isn't true.​

My words trouble you. Why? My point is the will is subject to higher powers of Light/Dark, to knowledge and ignorance of God. Since you misconstrued what I was saying through an assumption, your claim that "it is a point that just isn't true", is already compromised being that the claim was based on a false assumption.

Allow me to propose a way to make your point for you. I think what you're trying to express should be articulated as God made mankind a living soul that was corruptible. Which implies God did not give us a corrupt soul. He didn't give us a soul darkened with the disability to rebel against God.

An equivalent point was that our Lord, God, WHO IS the ONLY ONE TRUE IMAGE, of God, was presented with the CHAINS or CONSTRAINTS of Satan and Men that God cannot be a Man... and He indeed DID REBEL against that Idea, when He said;​

Beginning at Luke 21:25 "Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near. Look at the fig tree, and all the trees. When they are already budding, you see and know for yourselves that summer is now near. So you also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near".​

That's my KING! He didn't fear DEATH! The kingdom of Satan and Man that PERPETUALLY seeks to control the man made in the very image of God to satiate it's pathetic controls and assumptions about man and God, utterly CANNOT do so! They can Crucify, Kill, Torture, Censor, attempt to eradicate but just as HE the first SEED to burst forth of the Father's Resurrection of HE, was the First fruit, we the First Fruits have no answer to this Power Hungry, Controlling,, Limited Freedom Kingdom of Man. We are ABOVE IT in our very Souls! We are Lambs that eagerly would walk into slaughter to say that Satan and Man seek to Control, yet the God We Serve is the True "Lady Liberty" in Whom all true Liberty flows FREELY. If I continued to go on, it might spark "Rebellion". Thus, I will stop here.​

It doesn't spark rebellion in me. I'm not saying anything different.

I'm saying that the qualification for the term "free", as presented in post #95, is an equivocation. To be clear, it is doubleminded since it articulates as a God given freedom, a mindset with two contrary wills; A will/desire to rebel against God and a will/desire to rebel against those who rebel against God. And I quote:

"God Freely Gave us an individual Will, that is Free to Rebel! Rebel against what? Him or those that Rebel against Him."

​

I indeed could say whatever I please and if cast asunder I would wipe my sandals as He commands. It is He that values FREE WILL, not Man and Satan.​

God values a truly free will not a deceived will. God does not value rebellion against Him, manifesting from false corrupt images of god, nor is sinfulness a value, nor death. Therefore, He does not value rebellion against Him Whose Word is our Light and Life.

You said, this---> "our Lord, God, WHO IS the ONLY ONE TRUE IMAGE, of God".... <---This is a definitive statement. You didn't say it because it pleased you. You said it because The Holy Spirit revealed this truth to you.

Which verifies the following statements as true statements ---> YOU DO have the God given free will to believe and say on this forum that Jesus IS the True Image of God sent by God. Therefore, YOU DO NOT have the God given free will to believe and say on this forum that Jesus IS NOT the True Image of God sent by God.

Notice that God would not give us a will qualified as, free to rebel against Who He IS. ---> Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. I would not have you ignorant. Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led. Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

 

[Grip Docility]

The Gospel that is sown in the good soil of a heart is not a manmade stipulation.

So no, I'm stating the fact that YOU, presently/right now/today, can NOT honestly say that You have the God given free will to believe and say that Jesus IS NOT the True Image of God sent by God on this forum. And subsequently that YOU DO NOT have the free will to believe and say on this forum that Jesus is not the True Image of God sent by God.

Since you misconstrued what I was saying through an assumption, your claim that "it is a point that just isn't true", is already compromised being that the claim was based on a false assumption.


It doesn't spark rebellion in me. I'm not saying anything different.

Because I stopped writing.... where I stopped writing. *Overly Serious Face intended to make a point.... of humor*

I do understand what you are saying by the way... and I have to say, having read through your post, it is just plain wonderful to have conviction of the Holy Spirit written directly back to me. Before I go line by line and answer... this is well written, chalked full of Holy Spirit conviction meant to strengthen faith and reinforce it. I'm smiling because this is a ROCK solid reply, built on the ROCK! No humor. I am edified by this response, or, as I should say the Holy Spirit behind this response.

I'm saying that the qualification for the term "free", as presented in post #95, is an equivocation. To be clear, it is doubleminded since it articulates a God given freedom as both free to rebel against God and free to rebel against those who rebel against God. And I quote:

Is it, though?

"God Freely Gave us an individual Will, that is Free to Rebel! Rebel against what? Him or those that Rebel against Him."

I stand behind this, because Adam and Eve were created in the Image of God. They needed the prodding of a power hungry angel, and Eve, a mere infant, naïve and only familiar with her loving husband and their Loving Creator who did not lie... was deceived. Now it comes to it.

Ezekiel 28:12 “‘You were the seal of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
13 You were in Eden, the garden of God, ........ on the day you were created .......
14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. .......

(Hebrews 1:14 Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve).... mankind (Pre-Gospel Revelation)​

15 You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you.
16 Through your widespread trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned.

Satan on the other hand... who was CREATED PERFECT... within Himself, took it upon himself to REBEL against God and Man. He abandoned his rightful station, just as Jude writes.

Where did Satan get that "ABILITY" to Rebel against the Very IMAGE of God, which he had seen? God had clearly made part of PERFECTION, the ability to Freely Choose to reject that incomprehensible Image. Theologically, ONLY GOD CHOOSES GOOD 100% of the time, without question. I'll just say it. God is constrained by LOVE... BY His Choosing. It is the very mechanism that He, within us teaches us to choose, upon our TURNING to Him, instead of Creation. Back to Satan... He CHOSE a supreme wickedness. He not only destroyed the innocence of Adam and Eve through the use of Malicious deceit, but He did it under the personal idea that it was the Righteous thing to do, just like the Pharisees that Jesus identified as son's of their "father" who when their father lies, speaks in his own native tongue... and are MURDERERS to boot.

Could Satan Repent? HE COULD! What's stopping him? He is! He is too Proud, Malicious, Self Righteous etc etc etc to admit his wrong. Those under his power, does he give choice to? NO! He mercilessly lies to them and does everything he can to keep them within his Kingdom of darkness. He would literally rather Rule in Sheol and on this earth that he FELLED than say... "Um, God, I made a boo boo and need You". Could He, though? Yes! He could divide against himself and his kingdom, but he clearly is just too enamored with himself and all of his work within this kingdom of DUST which is indeed Ephemeral, Ironically due to his WORK.

God does not value false images of god, nor is sinfulness a value, nor death. Therefore, He does not value rebellion against Him Whose Word is our Light.

He rejects and rebukes it. Yet, he values the Freedom of Will over the act of Controlling the individual Will. God values Sincerity above Perfection and Humility above Authority. He is the very face of Righteous Authority, after all.

You said, this---> "our Lord, God, WHO IS the ONLY ONE TRUE IMAGE, of God".... <---This is a definitive statement. You didn't say it because it pleased you. You said it because The Holy Spirit revealed this truth to you.

It pleases me to say! I worship Him! Like Omnis Creation that He Created and first Loved, I, of a broken state, turned to Him when in a moment of need born of the Wickedness of my ways, from the darkest belly of consequences and He Immediately showed His very Being to me! (Spiritually Speaking, not Physically Speaking or Audibly Speaking) He didn't deny me sight, but drew me to Him, tears, snot blowing from literal wrenching sobs, as He held me close. I surrendered.

I know that this world will kick me, see me laying down and kick me some more. I'm not letting go of Our King that won't Let Go of me, unless I asked Him to let go. I won't, obviously, because I did test Him, beyond what was Righteous and every lesson of conscience that He taught me with, which broke this stubborn clay, smashed it to dust, spit on it, and then went to shaping it into something I couldn't even comprehend. drew me closer to Him. Why? Because He is Good, Love, Compassion, Correction, Guidance, Warning, Faithful, True, Indescribable!

Which verifies the following statements as a true statement---> YOU DO have the God given free will to believe and say on this forum that Jesus IS the True Image of God sent by God. Therefore, YOU DO NOT have the God given free will to believe and say on this forum that Jesus IS NOT the True Image of God sent by God.

Adam and Eve had that exact Free Will, as did Satan. They fell away. Adam and Eve have MUCH HOPE and may very well be with Him in Heaven.

Satan? He prefers self to God. He prefers lies to truth. He exalts his work over God's and though that breaks God's heart, (Grieves God's Very Spirit) How do I know this? God shows us in scripture with a Shadow of this Heavenly matter. (2 Samuel 14:25 describes him as the handsomest man in the kingdom. Absalom eventually rebelled against his father and was killed during the Battle of Ephraim's Wood.)

God is allowing him to attempt to overthrow Him. He's allowing him to Rebel. I'm not a fool. I know that God could immediately rectify EVERYTHING.

Does that make Him Sovereign? NO! Does the fact that He is the source of All make Him Sovereign? NO! Does He lead and Purvey freedom in a manner that is beyond comprehension? YES! What is His motivation? Sincerity that is beyond comprehension! God's very Face is Jesus! What did God do to demonstrate His Majesty? He Exemplified Self Sacrifice! Does that make Him SOVERIGN? It does! He is the Authority on how to use Authority and when to use Authority! He allows for Sincerity to reveal itself, despite the trouble that brings. Why? Out of Love and the true Majesty that is GOD, as He has revealed to those of us who are blessed enough to have NOT SEEN, Yet Believe.

Notice that God would not give us a will qualified as, free to rebel against Who He IS. ---> Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. I would not have you ignorant. Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led. Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

These people that you speak of are people that Apostatize. The Pharisees were the initial exemplification of them so clearly. However, people that burned babies alive, sacrificed Humans to their perception of god and such were the proto apostates. Satan is the head of all apostasy.

This is why it is written that it is "Better to have never known Him, than to have KNOWN HIM the Blessed Way, then turn away from Him" in apostasy. The unsaved are yet to be sorted at the final day. The saints are home or homeward bound when their seeds are finally "dead", that they spring forth from the seed that was sewn. I almost forgot those to be snatched, like Lot.

Now, do I profess that anything I say is of me? If it is trash, its me getting in the way of THE WAY. If it seems wise in a Holy Spirit way, that's Him. He knows me better than I know me! All good that is "me", isn't me at all, but HIM. I know my place! I'm not Him. I don't exalt me. You don't exalt you for the exact same reason. It is odd to me that anyone would exalt creation of any form, other than the Creator who created it and proofed Himself worthy of it's Love! Yet, I'm not Satan or those that would genuinely rather serve self, than the source of all worth anything good!

Incidentally, I don't really see us as disagreeing. I see you as blessing me with words that I needed to hear, else, the Holy Spirit wouldn't have you say them! I hope I'm no different. I have to sheath this sword! It's so sharp that it could cut a mountain in half! Gratitude! It needed a bit of fine work.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I edited the OP to clarify. Please take another look.


God is omniscient and omnipotent. In that sense, he is the first cause of everything. However, I would not detail all human events as logical consequences like that. There are probabilities and even the scientific Uncertainty Principle involved in any sequential process.

Can you prove that there are indeed probabilities? I admit that even Scripture talks as though it were so, but I think it is God acceding to our self-deterministic ways of thought.

As you have probably heard me pick at people before, I should think empirical evidence demonstrates to us that the only thing that can ever happen is whatever happens, and no other. We're just not good at thinking that way.

I have a certain mistrust of the so-called scientific uncertainty principle. It seems to me to assume substance to mere chance, in a description of what has been observed —that is, what I have read of it only demonstrates an attempt to calculate probability. It seems to me to assume that WE are the purveyors of fact. If we cannot predict, then it is indeed unpredictable; and, in the mind of some, it is even uncaused and absolutely random.

As I have read, some, at least, of the best particle physicists and quantum theorists, only hold their theories as ways to consider or ways to think about things that don't fit our thinking well.

 

[tonychanyt]

Can you prove that there are indeed probabilities?

What do you mean? Probabilities as a math concept exist. Can you be more precise? If you can phrase it as a proposition, it would be best

 

[Mark Quayle]

Whatever image we hold to be true will determine how we think God will judge.

Of course. But that is not God's judgement. It is only how we think God will judge.

I believe there's an entity that can speak in our thoughts or through the words of others, and thereby deceive people by introducing false premises wherein the recipients are consciously unaware they have accepted a lie. They then reason upon these falsehoods as true which affects the course of their deliberations and the seat of emotions in a negative way.

You may be right, though the specifics of how that entity intrudes or influences are not well described (as far as I know) in Scripture. I think you would agree, though, that we (believers, even) also do that to ourselves without sometimes even realizing we do so, to ease conscience or to be able to talk ourselves into doing what we would not otherwise do.

With that in mind, I want to ask you if you can understand why I believe that to suggest we choose whether God is trustworthy or not trustworthy is introducing a false image of god?

Of course! I agree completely with that statement. We (believers) do that even intermittently when we "take over the reins" from God, supposing that we are not submitting ourselves to enslavement to sin, when we do so. We like to pretend we can always repent and no harm done.

In fact, in a sense, any disobedience is, or demonstrates, Idolatry.

 

[Mark Quayle]

What do you mean? Probabilities as a math concept exist. Can you be more precise? If you can phrase it as a proposition, it would be best

We have built a math around the notion of probability. But the fact we can get pretty close with predicting what we do not actually know, and even assume a validity to "chance" in our discourse, does not validate the "uncertainty principle" as more than also an aid to thinking about how to guess.

Consider what I think to be foolishness —Schrodinger's Cat. To me, it is simply ludicrous to suppose that it is actually neither dead nor alive until we look to see which. Same with the double slit. It is not our perspective that makes the difference as to what is what.

I play games where rolling dice can be guessed based on what has been already rolled, but logic insists that each throw (if indeed random) is its own; logic also says that it is not likely that a roll will be the same as any particular one recently rolled, but on the other hand, it is also not likely to be the same as any one long since rolled. I can calculate to my heart's desire, and sometimes, it seems, my desires drive the outcome! But, as we know, its every outcome is determined by God.

Chance, by definition, cannot determine anything. And in the end, I have to conclude, there is no reason to believe that more than one option can be chosen. The fact it seems otherwise is irrelevant. We do choose, but that does not mean that what we did not choose could have been chosen. That it SHOULD HAVE been chosen is also no indicator that it could have. Where God says, "if you had chosen...", it is only descriptive of what would have happened, had it been chosen, but it did not happen. It was not chosen. Is-Ought 'dilemma"! Morality is based on God, and not on some parameter external to him, available for us to accede to.

Anyhow, I am asserting more than I actually know, concerning quantum theory. But the things I hear along these lines just don't make sense to me. Every time I try to delve into it, I start running into assumptions that I can't justify. Particularly, among them, are the assumptions based on "WE SAY" or "WE THINK" as though perspective was substantive, and what is empirically observed (yes, I know that is redundant) by humans is indeed all that is valid. Consider the old (and stupid) question, "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, did it make a sound?"

Thanks for the opportunity to rant my ignorance.

—Who do we think we are, anyway?!!

 

[Grip Docility]

The Gospel that is sown in the good soil of a heart is not a manmade stipulation.

So no, in thankfulness to God, I'm simply stating the fact that YOU, presently/right now/today, can NOT honestly say that You have the God given free will/desire to believe and say that Jesus IS NOT the True Image of God sent by God on this forum. And subsequently that YOU DO have the God given free will/desire to believe and say on this forum that Jesus IS the True Image of God sent by God.

Remember that the will includes the desire of the heart, not just the reasoning of the mind.

My words trouble you. Why? My point is the will is subject to higher powers of Light/Dark, to knowledge and ignorance of God. Since you misconstrued what I was saying through an assumption, your claim that "it is a point that just isn't true", is already compromised being that the claim was based on a false assumption.

Allow me to propose a way to make your point for you. I think what you're trying to express should be articulated as God made mankind a living soul that was corruptible. Which implies God did not give us a corrupt soul. He didn't give us a soul darkened with the disability to rebel against God.


It doesn't spark rebellion in me. I'm not saying anything different.

I'm saying that the qualification for the term "free", as presented in post #95, is an equivocation. To be clear, it is doubleminded since it articulates as a God given freedom, a mindset with two contrary wills; A will/desire to rebel against God and a will/desire to rebel against those who rebel against God. And I quote:

"God Freely Gave us an individual Will, that is Free to Rebel! Rebel against what? Him or those that Rebel against Him."

God values a truly free will not a deceived will. God does not value rebellion against Him, manifesting from false corrupt images of god, nor is sinfulness a value, nor death. Therefore, He does not value rebellion against Him Whose Word is our Light and Life.

You said, this---> "our Lord, God, WHO IS the ONLY ONE TRUE IMAGE, of God".... <---This is a definitive statement. You didn't say it because it pleased you. You said it because The Holy Spirit revealed this truth to you.

Which verifies the following statements as true statements ---> YOU DO have the God given free will to believe and say on this forum that Jesus IS the True Image of God sent by God. Therefore, YOU DO NOT have the God given free will to believe and say on this forum that Jesus IS NOT the True Image of God sent by God.

Notice that God would not give us a will qualified as, free to rebel against Who He IS. ---> Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. I would not have you ignorant. Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led. Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

I know what you are looking for.

Yes, By Jesus Christ, Alone… I know we will meet, face to face in Heaven, before His very face.

Not the meeting me in heaven part… but meeting Him.

Yes… I’m now Slave to Him! Yes, I put my ear to His doorpost, begged Him to get the Awl out and drive it through my ear lobe, so that though I am FREE, beyond compare to any kind of free… I may serve Him as His Bond Servant!

Yes! Your earring is probably cooler than mine! I’m okay with it.

Exodus 21:1-6 “When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing… But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.”

All Love in our Loving beyond compare Lord, God, Savior, Best Friend, Hope to the Hopeless… Jesus Christ, to you, childeye 2

 

[Grip Docility]

—Who do we think we are, anyway?!!

Mark, I know one thing you and I theologically have in common for sure! Neither you nor I understood the answer to that question until we lost ourselves IN HIM, as the Potter went to work within us with the very clay of our souls.

 

[tonychanyt]

Schrodinger's Cat. To me, it is simply ludicrous to suppose that it is actually neither dead nor alive until we look to see which.

Quantum superposition cannot be applied to macroscopic objects. Schrödinger himself agreed with you. Wiki:

According to Schrödinger, the Copenhagen interpretation implies that the cat remains both alive and dead until the state has been observed. Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-live cats as a serious possibility; on the contrary, he intended the example to illustrate the absurdity of the existing view of quantum mechanics,[1] and thus he was employing reductio ad absurdum.

Since Schrödinger's time, various interpretations of the mathematics of quantum mechanics have been advanced by physicists, some of which regard the "alive and dead" cat superposition as quite real, others do not.[6][7]

I understand the situation through probability. There is a certain probability that the cat is alive, but we don't know for sure until we observe it. The actual probability can be calculated. The longer the cat stays in the box, the higher the probability it is dead. It is related to the quantum superposition of the radioactive atom decaying inside the box. Only upon observation does the wave function collapse, and the cat's state becomes determined with a certain probability. In fact, it is all about probability, which is my point.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Quantum superposition cannot be applied to macroscopic objects. Schrödinger himself agreed with you. Wiki:


I understand the situation through probability. There is a certain probability that the cat is alive, but we don't know for sure until we observe it. The actual probability can be calculated. The longer the cat stays in the box, the higher the probability it is dead. It is related to the quantum superposition of the radioactive atom decaying inside the box. Only upon observation does the wave function collapse, and the cat's state becomes determined with a certain probability. In fact, it is all about probability, which is my point.

Yes, I get that. I just am very skeptical when I hear various things that to me sound like man's viewpoint is solid reality. Probability is 100% whatever happens, as it turns out. Empirical evidence (i.e. past experience that nothing else (as far as we know) ever happens) extrapolates to nothing else being possible, besides what will happen, so why assume it is possible? Probability is us guessing. The fact we don't know something is irrelevant to the facts. Ha! no, this is not madness, quite.

This consideration of mine might not be helpful in making guesses, but skepticism of 'science's' methods is prudent.

 

[tonychanyt]

Probability is 100% whatever happens, as it turns out.

What do you mean? Can you give an example?

 

[childeye 2]

Of course. But that is not God's judgement. It is only how we think God will judge.

Yes, my point exactly. If philosophically free will = responsible/culpable, the image of God we hold to be true will predetermine fundamental meanings of right and wrong in deliberations of accuse/excuse, grace and cynicism. The higher the bar could be interpreted in opposing terms of both mercy and wrath, the more strict or quick to condemn, the greater the chance of hypocritical judgment. Hence the philosophical meaning of free will is utterly lost in semantics.

A defiled conscience could find fault where there actually isn't any and think of it as a meticulous high standard of justice. A person could be easily offended mistaking the exposing of their pride as offending their honor. The omission of a more righteous act that could have been done in lieu of the righteous act that was performed, could be counted as sin, etc...

You may be right, though the specifics of how that entity intrudes or influences are not well described (as far as I know) in Scripture.

It looks like the spirit of Satan is a vain image of god projected by the creature. After all, it was through subtlety that the serpent both manifested a doubt in God's intentions towards mankind and also caused the desire to improve upon one's station. Cain felt put down when his offering was not respected as much as Abels. He took it personally and God said it was sin at the door of his heart, apparently manipulating his emotions. Satan spoke to God as if God was naive about Job.

I see a tempter, accuser, slanderer.

I think you would agree, though, that we (believers, even) also do that to ourselves without sometimes even realizing we do so, to ease conscience or to be able to talk ourselves into doing what we would not otherwise do.

NO! Not me.
Sounds to me like you're describing the difference between rationalizing immoral actions and learning from one's mistakes. Jesus said wisdom is justified/vindicated by her children.

Of course! I agree completely with that statement. We (believers) do that even intermittently when we "take over the reins" from God, supposing that we are not submitting ourselves to enslavement to sin, when we do so. We like to pretend we can always repent and no harm done.

In fact, in a sense, any disobedience is, or demonstrates, Idolatry.

I think the will of the flesh is appeased by squandering virtue.

 

[childeye 2]

What do you mean? Can you give an example?

PI = Que sera sera

 

[Mark Quayle]

What do you mean? Can you give an example?

When one chooses between door #1, #2 or #3, they only make a single choice, whichever that is. That is what always happens, 100% of the time. There was no probability that anything else could have been chosen. The probability was only in our minds, since we did not know which would be chosen.

 

[childeye 2]

When one chooses between door #1, #2 or #3, they only make a single choice, whichever that is. That is what always happens, 100% of the time. There was no probability that anything else could have been chosen. The probability was only in our minds, since we did not know which would be chosen.

Determinism is like seeing that at the beginning of the race, the fastest to the slowest are already at the starting line. A definition of free will in this scenario is like assuming they're all equally capable and whoever tries the hardest will win. Free will theology poses the question, "If there is no free will, then why is there judgment?"... In deterministic theology, judgment is a formality.

 

[Mark Quayle]

PI = Que sera sera

God's decree is a long ways from 'fate', but yeah, if the notion of 'fate' helps to understand what I mean, ok. By the way, what is PI?

 

[Grip Docility]

Yes, my point exactly. If philosophically free will = responsible/culpable, the image of God we hold to be true will predetermine fundamental meanings of right and wrong in deliberations of accuse/excuse, grace and cynicism. The higher the bar could be interpreted in both terms of both mercy and wrath, the more strict or quick to condemn, the greater the chance of hypocritical judgment. Hence the philosophical meaning of free will is utterly lost in semantics.

A defiled conscience could find fault where there actually isn't any and think of it as a meticulous high standard of justice. A person could be easily offended mistaking the exposing of their pride as offending their honor. The omission of a more righteous act that could have been done in lieu of the righteous act that was performed, could be counted as sin, etc...

It looks like the spirit of Satan is a vain image of god projected by the creature. After all, it was through subtlety that the serpent both manifested a doubt in God's intentions towards mankind and also caused the desire to improve upon one's station. Cain felt put down when his offering was not respected as much as Abels. He took it personally and God said it was sin at the door of his heart, apparently manipulating his emotions. Satan spoke to God as if God was naive about Job.

I see a tempter, accuser, slanderer.

This is profound and hinges on the very phrase… “He who is forgiven much, Loves much”… which many believe is Jesus quoting the deuterocanonical book of Wisdom of Solomon.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Determinism is like seeing that at the beginning of the race, the fastest to the slowest are already at the starting line. Free will is like saying they're all equally capable and whoever tries the hardest will win.

I like that picture, though the stasis of the moment, and the purpose of the race are only incidental to the example— not descriptive of clinical determinism.