What is freewill?

[Fervent]

It's a spiritual terminology of male/female denoting that the male precedes the female in existence, which in turn explains male and female points of view. So that the woman who has a child is actually now the male and the child the female.

Ok, but that doesn't resolve my question. How does a biologically male child come to know the experience of the spiritual male? Who is the spiritual female that proceeds from the biologically male child?

 

[Grip Docility]

Ok, but that doesn't resolve my question. How does a biologically male child come to know the experience of the spiritual male? Who is the spiritual female that proceeds from the biologically male child?

Would it be irritating if I was to say that the answer to this comes in God's timing, not ours?

 

[Fervent]

Would it be irritating if I was to say that the answer to this comes in God's timing, not ours?

No, though it seems an answer is necessary for child eye's theory to work since the cycle of feelings of unfairness terminates with the first generation, at least among biological males.

 

[Grip Docility]

No, though it seems an answer is necessary for child eye's theory to work since the cycle of feelings of unfairness terminates with the first generation, at least among biological males.

It's the long reaching analogy that God reveals through scripture. God creates creation out of Love. Unlike infantile humanity and angels (Even now... compared to the experience of "Infinity" that is God's) God knew that provision of Unfettered Volition within Creation could yield issues. No problem, God had plans within plans within plans for that, too.

Satan was the one that broke ranks and brought issues into creation. Creation makes a lousy god, to say the least.

It is a picture of How God, though doing what He did out of Love, has seen many millennia that was full of a lack of understanding of Who He Is or how magnificent His Love is. It was cleared up at the Cross, but mankind has a gift of botching up simple understanding.

It's the Spiritual Metaphor for God being misunderstood and unappreciated through generational observance.

 

[childeye 2]

Some of the other things your were writing... they didn't add up.

Point out how and perhaps I can clear up any misunderstandings.

This is 1000% True! This is now nipping at the Bud! Free Will must be full on true and real... or EXPERIENCE is impossible to accrue.

It depends on how you define free will. Some people say we must have a free will, otherwise God is to blame for sin. But if the devil is finding fault where there isn't any, then using free will to cast blame would serve the accuser as a means to accuse.

IE... God is facilitating experience in the Name of Love. He literally DIED to proof the pudding!

Child Eye.... Well said!

P.s. I'm feeling more and more inclined to do a full on study on "Zoe". What say you, is it worth the Stones that might come out?

My dear brother, your zeal lifts my heart. The seed that is sown is The Word made flesh that dies and has risen unto our justification.

 

[Grip Docility]

Point out how and perhaps I can clear up any misunderstandings.

You don't have to. I can sense your spiritual heart. When we get beaten down over and over in discussion with siblings who look to doctrines of men, we begin to develop ways of wording things that prevent strife. Your take on the "Good Samaritan" said some things, but intentionally left parts out. What part was left out? The part that usually brings fighting and squabbling. This, I understand.

It depends on how you define free will. Some people say we must have a free will, otherwise God is to blame for sin. But if the devil is finding fault where there isn't any, then using free will to cast blame would serve the accuser as a means to accuse.

Satan isn't God, isn't doing God's will, isn't anything within the bounds of God's hopes for him when He (God) created him (satan). Satan is not only an accuser but a MURDERER... and I'm safe saying it because I'm just quoting Jesus, Who actually didn't just blast Satan, but blasted him third person through the Teachers of Torah. What ever divides God from Satan... That's a hardline definition of free will. You understand this. I understand it. People that don't understand it have placed doctrines of men over God and Scripture. This isn't your or my fault, any more than Satan or the Teachers of Torah that spit in Jesus' literal FACE is our fault.

My dear brother, your zeal lifts my heart. The seed that is sown is The Word made flesh that dies and has risen unto our justification.

AMEN! And... Good, because I'm going to need the favor returned sooner or later!

All Love in Jesus Christ to you Childeye 2. I won't be leaving the forum this time. I'll be around. I was absent for far too long. Glad to be in communication again!

 

[childeye 2]

Ok, but that doesn't resolve my question. How does a biologically male child come to know the experience of the spiritual male?

By being taken for granted as a husband.

Who is the spiritual female that proceeds from the biologically male child?

I'd say the son who takes the mother's love for granted.


an·i·ma
[ˈanəmə]
noun
anima (noun) · animas (plural noun)

1. psychoanalysis
   (in Jungian psychology) the feminine part of a man's personality. Often contrasted with animus
   • the part of the psyche that is directed inward, in touch with the subconscious. Often contrasted with persona.
     "persona and anima switch roles and merge in slow, smooth ways"
2. philosophy
   historical
   the soul, especially the irrational part of the soul as distinguished from the rational mind. Contrasted with animus

 

[Grip Docility]

By being taken for granted as a husband.

I'd say the son who takes the mother's love for granted.


an·i·ma
[ˈanəmə]
noun
anima (noun) · animas (plural noun)

1. psychoanalysis
   (in Jungian psychology) the feminine part of a man's personality. Often contrasted with animus
   • the part of the psyche that is directed inward, in touch with the subconscious. Often contrasted with persona.
     "persona and anima switch roles and merge in slow, smooth ways"
2. philosophy
   historical
   the soul, especially the irrational part of the soul as distinguished from the rational mind. Contrasted with animus

To be direct... God gives of Himself to create creation. Motivation? Love and Relationship.

God gives power to created angels that were given the specific station of serving mankind. (Hebrews 1)
Creation is actually betrayed by one of the very powerful servants of man, who fancied himself to be a god.

How do we know? His first act was to incite mankind to desire to be like god. (The mouth speaks the heart)

Did Eve want that? NO! She was deceived into wanting that. The cycle of misunderstanding began, because creation turned away from the Perfect Love of the Creator.

The only one equipped to patiently deal with all of the rejection is God, Himself, though He writes all throughout scripture that it hurts Him.

We are still reaching to even comprehend one single drop of the very Love that is God.

 

[Fervent]

By being taken for granted as a husband.

I suppose if we don't press the analogy that works, though then what of men who don't get married?

I don't know if I'm pressing the details too finely.

 

[Grip Docility]

I suppose if we don't press the analogy that works, though then what of men who don't get married?

I don't know if I'm pressing the details too finely.

What human being doesn't know the sting of being taken for granted? It comes with the territory of dwelling within a world governed by Mankind. It won't ever be GOOD until the King of King's takes His rightful throne. I honestly can't wait to Bow down to the rightful King. The only King that genuinely rules from the seat of Love and Humility that all Righteous justice flows from.

 

[childeye 2]

I suppose if we don't press the analogy that works, though then what of men who don't get married?

Dogs or cats.

 

[childeye 2]

To be direct... God gives of Himself to create creation. Motivation? Love and Relationship.

The only one equipped to patiently deal with all of the rejection is God, Himself, though He writes all throughout scripture that it hurts Him.

This brings a sadness I find comfort in.

 

[Grip Docility]

This brings a sadness I find comfort in.

Isaiah 53:3 He was despised and rejected by men, a man of suffering (Sorrows) who knew what sickness was. He was like someone people turned away from; He was despised, and we didn’t value Him.

 

[childeye 2]

Isaiah 53:3 He was despised and rejected by men, a man of suffering (Sorrows) who knew what sickness was. He was like someone people turned away from; He was despised, and we didn’t value Him.

Sweet Jesus.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Two small questions.

Does God have Individual Autonomous Free Moral Agency?

Is God capable of gifting this very genuine aspect of being to Humanity and Angels?

I'm sorry to be such a pain, but I have to ask, what is your use of the term, "autonomous", here? Is it the same as you are going to assert concerning the ability of the creature to decide?

But either way, I will open a whole 'nuther diet of worms here: Absolute autonomy, that is, the ability to cause uncaused, belongs to God alone. But it is, in fact, only our silly way to describe his name, "Omnipotent God". There is no other. The fact of it gets its being from him, and hardly even describes him, though we can only attribute it to him.

Following that discussion, you can be sure that I will press the fact that "moral agency" is also a silly term when applied to God. It is not because
God is morally good that he does what is morally good, but rather, morality and goodness come from him, and are defined exactly and in their complete meaning only in him.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I think knowledge and ignorance is the ultimate determiner of my mental deliberations. But in the moral/immoral decision it's the image of God one holds to be true that defines the terms.

Only, I think, as pertains to conscience.

But God is greater than our conscience, and in the end, HE is the judge over our decisions. There is a way that seems right to a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

 

[Mark Quayle]

l would not try to define freewill ontologically. A tight and practical definition is to define it concretely as the faculty of volition located in our brain.

I like that. I just wish that it didn't imply to some the notion that in fact THEY are the only cause of their own decisions, denying the pervasiveness of cause-and-effect. I believe in self-determination —don't get me wrong— we DO decide, with real, even eternal consequences. But the notion that we are not caused to decide as we do is, to my mind, at least, void of both logic and of common sense, and certainly rails against experience. But I can see why they might go that way, since to their mind it is illogical and unjust for God to hold us responsible for choices we are caused (in any way or to any degree) to make. (And I disagree with that, as you probably know.)

But I can't defeat the logic that first cause determines all things, to every tiniest detail. Furthermore, I find that to be consistent with Scripture.

Today, my general and base inclinations are to do the will of God

You might be, (though I happily admit that I in fact expect to be), surprised how God sees that. The 'old man' is still at work in us, and will be until death. I, at least, find myself continually doing what I can to fool myself.

See also There is no one righteous, not even one. Really? and follow up there.

In your op there, at first course I see no distinction in your treatment between the will and deeds of the saved vs those of the unsaved.

 

[childeye 2]

Only, I think, as pertains to conscience.

But God is greater than our conscience, and in the end, HE is the judge over our decisions. There is a way that seems right to a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Whatever image we hold to be true will determine 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.

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?

 

[Grip Docility]

Whatever image we hold to be true will determine 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.

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?

Psalm 37:3 Trust in the Lord, and do good; dwell in the land and befriend faithfulness.

Paul is God's very voice, who communed with God in the Third Heaven.... He wasn't bashful about expressing this.

He makes it clear that BLIND faith is SUPER BAD! He introduces the concept of Faith requiring Evidence and cites the Resurrections (oh how fast people forget that Jesus was the first, then other Graves literally broke open to reveal Resurrected saints) and Crucifixion as such evidence! He further reveals that Trust is founded on Relationship, by perpetually paralleling our relationship with God to a marriage.

Trust requires experience and rational Testing to become sincere! It has to be relationally forged. The one passage in scripture that tells us to TEST God is read in the flesh over and over to fill church coffers... when it is really about giving God 10% of our very Hearts, to which He will come dwell within us, outdo us so abundantly... that we essentially get Swept off our feet and lose the total 100% of our hearts to Him.

Was Jesus talking about physical coin when He referred to His Flesh and Blood? He most certainly said render unto Caesar. Is Caesar our King?

Malachi 3:10 Bring the full tenth into the storehouse so that there may be food in My house. Test Me in this way,” says the Lord of Hosts. “See if I will not open the floodgates of heaven and pour out a blessing for you without measure.

To the dismay of the Prosperity gospel, this isn't about multiplying money. God ain't got no time for that. ​

 

[tonychanyt]

I like that. I just wish that it didn't imply to some the notion that in fact THEY are the only cause of their own decisions, denying the pervasiveness of cause-and-effect.

What are THEY?

But I can't defeat the logic that first cause determines all things,

What is the first cause?