posted August 07, 2006 01:25 AM         

I count myself lucky to be on YOUR frequency!!

Steve ~

Just had a thought before I *must* get myself to bed…..
How do we arrive at, or discern, “right” and “wrong”?? Do we not make a value judgment?? A decision that comes from our innate feelings about what is true and positive and what is false and negative (for our individual self)?? And who should we allow to judge us as being “right” or “wrong” excepting ourselves?? I will most certainly argue with someone who tells me (or others) that I/they are wrong, whereas I will rationally discuss and converse with someone who tells me that their opinion differs from mine…..

PS: I love your beard!! Was just using a ridiculous example as an illustration…..

posted August 07, 2006 02:10 AM         

Your first paragraph gives me food for thought. I cannot respond to it right now. I will sleep on it, and let it ferment in my deeper parts, before I subject it to analysis.

Your second paragraph misunderstands my point. Just because all is one doesnt mean that all opinions are correct. For instance, to say "all is not one" would not accord with a belief which states that "all is one".

Children indeed have much to teach us, but, as you said, discernment must be learned. Otherwise, just like children, we are bound to be taken-in by any old pseudo-philosophy, the more convoluted and "mysterious", the better.

"Science without faith is doubt.
Religion without reason is superstition."
- I forget who said that,
and I'm too tired to google it.

Humility balances judgement. What is your mindset as you judge? Are you condemning in your judgement? Or simply discerning with openness and non-judgement as well in mind?

Good question. That is my point.
I am discerning, and doing my best
not to identify myself with my beliefs,
so as to stay centered in humility.
That has been my position all along.
Yet everyone seems to think they know
my personal attitude towards the things I am saying.
I wish they would focus on the points i try to make,
and stop questioning and speculating about
my alleged personal interests in making them.

What I said was in response to 'Zala, not Mirandee. I realize that, to question and revise our cherished ideas of God, formed or inherited over the course of a lifetime, is a scary thing, and not something that comes easily to any of us. However, I do not thing it is out of line, or judgemental, for me to suggest to a person that they ought to do just that. I do not think I am being sardonic, sanctimonious, judgmental, or whatever other unflattering labels you can think of saddling me with, just because I am threatening someone's established belief-structures. I am not suggesting that their whole life is meaningless. You may say that their whole life has culminated in their present beliefs, but what about the journey, Lia? Is the journey already at an end? Come, you have travelled very far, but suffer me to lead you up this high mountain, and I will show you the path you have traveled from a great height, and in a new and brilliant light, which will not discredit, but will tranfigure, and lend new meaning to, all which you have seen so far.

I am not judging fayte or her struggles.
I am venturing, from the heart,
to diagnose a potential cause,
and prescribe a potential cure.
It is her choice to consider or ignore my amateur opinion.

I am glad that lotus sees that her words were spoken in anger. The intention behind them is one thing, but the truth or falsehood of them is another. I defended her right to be angry, same as fayte's. Then I defended her right to suggest that her view is correct while another's is false (I did not voice my own opinion as to whether or not I agreed with her view). I do not think it is sad to defend anything, Lia. I repeat, Every word of anger is a cry for help. I refuse to condemn anyone for anything. I seek only to understand. You call it sad. I disagree. I think what is sad is when people refer to such uncommon attempts at understanding as "sad".

You may call it an act of cruelty and abuse, when someone challenges you to question your time-honored beliefs and institutions, but I disagree. I call it an offer of opportunity, and a call to ever greater progress. Will you answer the call? Or lament that it "cruelly" asks you to do something other than follow your habitual pattens of perceiving?

~If you utter a "no" from your deepest conviction, just be careful you are not doing it merely to satisfy a primitive desire to avoid having to alter your personal habits.
~HSC

"The majority of men do not think in order to know the truth, but, rather, to convince themselves that the life which they are leading, and which is both habitual and agreeable to them, is the one that coincides with the truth."
- Leo Tolstoy
(friend to Gandhi,
and "the conscience of his time")

~ HSC

posted August 07, 2006 02:43 AM         

When I say "right" and "wrong", I am inferring no moral distinction. Therefore, I am not making a value judgement. I am speaking of "correct" and "incorrect". If anything is valued, it is objective reasoning. This whole thing began when I said that "free will" does not accord with objective reasoning. Subject it to analysis. Let us see how it stands up. But, if you would prefer to believe in free will because you value it for something other than its ability to stand up to objective analysis, then, by all means, go on believing it. But do not pretend that your belief in it is rational in the least.

One says, "I choose A, rather than B".

I ask, "Why",
and discover that they have a reason for choosing...

I inquire further, as to the cause of this reason,
and discover that it too is supported by an antecedent reason, or cause....

I inquire yet further, of this latest (or earliest) cause,
and am led to percieve yet another antecedent...

This chain of effects recedes until it is no longer perceptible to the person making the choice; you know, the person who insists that they themselves are the sole reason for their choice.

In other words,
it is too absurd for an actively rational mind to countenence.

So, to answer your question, I value truth, which I determine according to sound reason and a bold spirit of inquiry. If you (or anyone) feel that these are not priorities, then simply say so, and I will cease to subject you to their iron rule. But do not call yourself a lover of truth, and suggest that there is sound reason to believe in "free will".

If, on the other hand, we agree that reason is a prime value, then, let us likewise agree upon the most reasonable conclusion, which is that free will categorically cannot exist, for no choice, and no thing, can exist, as it were, within a vacuum, but, that all choices, like all things, exist in relation to one another, and therefore, one cannot be the cause of one's choice without being also the cause of oneself (an absurd premise, to say the least), and one cannot be the cause of oneself without being the cause of the entire universe, of which one is an indivisible part and parcel.

So, you have three options:

1. Reject the notion of "free will".

2. Reject reason.

3. Declare yourself the creator of heaven and earth.

I have stated my case. I have defended my belief with clear arguments. Has anybody on this thread even bothered to offer a reason for their belief in "free will"? Or are they all content to call me a bully for suggesting that a belief, in order to be truly valid, must have reasons in support of it (even if those reasons are antagonistic to "reason", as such)? Has anyone supported their view in any other way than by asserting, essentially, their right to believe whatever they take a fancy to (i.e. their right to be unreasonable, and antagonistic to the cause of the rational pursuit of truth)?

Because, while this debate has degenerated into others' emotionally motivated accusations against me, and my rational defenses of my right to value objective reasons above individual whims, the very question I wished to raise from the beginning has been entirely lost in the ensuing witchhunt.

Any takers?

Let's here your reasons for believing in "free will". See if you can drop the charges of "arrogance" for one moment, one post, in order to support the beliefs you hold so dear, and consider yourselves victims for having been called to account for.

I dare you.

I double dog dare you.

hsc

posted August 07, 2006 03:11 AM         

Let us subject it to scrutiny...

Did you choose this or that for a reason,
or for no reason at all?

If for a reason,
then your will was determined by a prior cause
or a greater will than your own.

If for no reason at all,
then your will is utterly random and chaotic.

In either case,
I cannot see how such a will ought to be called "free".

Can anyone?

posted August 07, 2006 03:24 AM         

"Did you choose this or that for a reason,
or for no reason at all?

If for a reason,
then your will was determined by a prior cause
or a greater will than your own"

posted August 07, 2006 03:28 AM         

It is way too late here to get into that now but I will get back with you on my thoughts regarding free will. For one thing I can say, it is the very thing about us human beings that is unique in all of creation. It is the one thing that makes us "created in the image of God." Also something to think about. Would you want someone to love you because they had no choice? Or would you rather have that person love you because they chose to do so? If your answer is the latter rather than the former then don't you think God wants us to believe in him and love him out of our own choice rather than because we have no choice?

Also I am confused about this statement in your post:

quote:

---

When I say "right" and "wrong", I am inferring no moral distinction. Therefore, I am not making a value judgement. I am speaking of "correct" and "incorrect".

---

posted August 07, 2006 12:29 PM         

Good point.
I did say my mind was closed on this.
That was premature, and foolish of me,
and does not express the whole truth.
If you can offer a rational justification of free will,
I will certainly reopen the case.
However, I find it quite impossible,
and unthinkable to imagine such an argument on my own,
so, I do hope, if you know of one, you will share it.

The things you have taken the time to say are not based on rational arguments, but, on emotional motives.

You are basically saying, "wouldn't you want this to be true?", as if that were somehow a valid argument for accepting the truth of it.

You say we are unique, but you do not offer reasons for this belief.

You say we are created in the image of God, but I myself interpret these words to mean that we are in the creation, which is a reflection of the Creator, and not that we are equal to the Creator in power.

We may have power to create, as he does, but, our power comes from Him, and is only ours by his will. When we create, it is because he wills us to create, and when we do not create, it is because he withholds his will, or, more precisely, wills us not to create.

Again, your "arguments" are all based on what you would like to believe, and what you think I would like to believe, and not on any objective reason for accepting them.

I would like to believe that I myself am all powerful and all knowing. Is this a reasonable argument for accepting the truth of the statement "I am all powerful and all knowing"?

Your "reasons" all fit in with a preconceived system for trying to make sense of God, and what God wants. I assure you, in the words of Roger Waters, "What God Wants, God Gets".

Otherwise, it makes no sense at all to call him God. For, if somethings happen against the desires of that being which you call "God", then, there absolutely must be another order, which transcends that "God", and by which all things that happen are in collaboration with one another.

hsc

posted August 07, 2006 01:11 PM         

1. You have already stated that when it comes to free will it is the one thing that you have a closed mind about.

2. You presented your last post as a challenge:

quote:

---

Let's here your reasons for believing in "free will". See if you can drop the charges of "arrogance" for one moment, one post, in order to support the beliefs you hold so dear, and consider yourselves victims for having been called to account for.

I dare you.

I double dog dare you.

---

I am not going to get into a discussion with someone on a topic they have stated they have a closed mind about because it is pointless. Having a closed mind on it means that you are not open to what anyone else says about it.

So what is this REALLY all about, HSC? It seems to me it is a game for you as that is the way you presented it. A game of who is more reasonable and logical and intelligent. You or us.

I have not at all implied that you are arrogant but sorry, that last post and the statement that I quoted here does sound a bit arrogant to me. You are only about 26 years old, HSC. You have a lot of growing and learning yet to do.

When it comes to spirituality and God it is not something you can come to know through the intellect alone. There is so much about God that you can never know or even attempt to know from the intellect. No one has the intellectual capacity to comprehend all that God is or even to know the right questions to ask ourselves.

You don't really care to hear this as your mind is closed to it but I will say it anyway. The very fact that you can think about these things regarding God, that you can question the existance of free will or not, the very intellect that you have developed through studying various things is proof that you have the free will or the choice to do so. Lower animal life cannot do that. They cannot think about these things or question God's existance or make choices. That is what sets us apart from all the rest of created creatures. We can choose to learn and question, or not. We can choose to believe in God or not. We can choose to do evil or do good.

God so highly esteems our free will that he does not intervene at all in our choices. He lets us mess up our lives, hurt ourselves and others, mess up the planet all through our own choices in life. He will not intervene unless he is asked by us for his help.

We can reason away anything with our intellect. We can make excuses for our behavior, we can deny, we can ignore, we can hurt, we can take away the lives of others and our own life, all through our choices.

For me, considering that all the evidence points to the contrary, it is not reasonable or logical to choose not to believe in free will.

The fact remains even if intellectually we choose to deny it, that we all are free to make choices and we do so everyday ( I chose to get out of bed this morning for example ) and the fact remains we are all responsible for the choices we make. We are all accountable for our actions. If we hurt ourselves and others in the process, rather intentionally or not, we are still responsible and accountable for messing up and making the wrong choices that caused another and ourselves to be hurt. We are responsible and accountable for messing up our planet too by the choices we make. Every word, every action sets out a ripple onto the rest of the world either for the good of the world or for the spread of evil in the world.

To me, it is totally illogical and unreasonable to NOT believe in free choice or free will when all of creation points to the contrary. All of spirituality is based on free will. However, it is a great excuse for not accepting responsibility for our actions and for not working towards being a better person and informing our conscience.

That's not an attack on you nor do I feel like a victim. It is simple disagreement. You made your free choice to begin this post and you made the free choice to use the words that you posted. All of which you are responsible for, good and bad. I did likewise with this post.

posted August 07, 2006 01:13 PM         

Please overlook what I posted in that regard just now.

posted August 07, 2006 01:33 PM         

I fled Him, down the nights and down the days;
I fled Him, down the arches of the years;
I fled Him, down the labyrinthine ways
Of my own mind; and in the mist of tears
I hid from Him, and under running laughter.
Up vistaed hopes I sped;
And shot, precipitated,
Adown Titanic glooms of chasmed fears,
From those strong Feet that followed, followed after.
But with unhurrying chase,
And unperturbèd pace,
Deliberate speed, majestic instancy,
They beat - and a Voice beat
More instant than the Feet -
"All things betray thee, who betrayest Me."

posted August 07, 2006 01:52 PM         

If God is within each of us then it would make sense that His Will is also within us. However, Christians are quick to point out that God himself gave us Free Will, so that we might be capable of demonstrating an honest and real love.

posted August 07, 2006 02:27 PM         

AG your theory rocks too. So does everyone elses here if I missed. I truly enjoy reading everyone's view point.

Having no free will simply means we are all relying on a central source for the quality of our lives. And if this source is perfect, every ones life will be high quality. But if we look even with our two eyes and not the third, we see that not everyone's life is high quality. Hence free will do exist. And it clashes with free will of others. For example consider the war that goes on amongst nations (conflict of interest). You may like to sleep with me, but I won't. Clash of free will. If this other person who desires, overrules the free will of object of desire, theres a clash of free will. When it becomes extreme we call it rape. I'm not sure what other justification people need to prove existence of free will.

It is giving that choice to the source , is when our free will is aligned with those of our neighbors and we experience high quality output of the choice.

posted August 07, 2006 02:37 PM         

AG,

You are right to say that God's will exists in us.
This is a logical inference from the point I rasied.
However, to then suggest that some of what exists in us is not God,
that is to miss the point entirely.

We speak of many aspects of "God",
and we must be careful not to confuse them.
The rose is in the bud, in potential form, yes.
And the rosier aspects of God are in man.
But the bud is also in the rose,
and, for that matter, so is the soil.

Hence, the plainer,
and even the "dirtier",
aspects of man are also in God.

I hope I expressed that clearly.

hsc

posted August 07, 2006 02:47 PM         

Steve, I think you are ignorant and don't know God.

*

*

Not really, but I thought you might benefit from feeling the "slap in the face" those powerful words deal. I agree that your point and any understanding of what your point may be was lost due to the approach. I am still interested in what your point may be, although, if I understand you correctly, I don't think I agree. And although it is true that might mean I think you are ignorant in that area, I would try not to say that to you. I prefer to hilight all the wonderful areas where you are brilliant and your best. We all have certain keys. I believe you have more than most. I also believe Fayte has more than most, although I don't necessarily believe that she and I have the same keys or that you and Fayte have the same keys.
We all have a lot to share and a lot to learn.
Hsc, you just give your information more freely, and take more chances at being judged or "proven" wrong. I can honestly say that you are the bravest man I have ever met, and the most spiritual. That doesn't mean that I think you were on your best behavior back there, just that I am already thoroughly convinced of your worth and I always will be, no matter your temporary actions or thoughts or feelings.

posted August 07, 2006 04:35 PM         

I think then that the question would become what use is God in our lives if he is the embodiment all good and all evil?

I think it's helpful to those who call on God to think of God in terms of what is good and right. To think of God as both good and evil kind of counteracts the positive fruits of relating with God. It's not that evil has no place in teaching people lessons, but people want God for inspirational and motivational purposes I think. They want to think about, pray about, and concentrate on things of a more humane nature. I think people want to increase their own self-respect by learning how to be more loving and respectful towards people. I think people also want to grow by developing better habits (if that's not already implied in what I've said).

posted August 07, 2006 07:10 PM         

See my reply to Lia on the "fayte" thread.

I am so drained and stressed right now,
otherwise I would respond to you in full.
Maybe later.

AG,

I agree, we should focus on the positive aspects of God. But this doesnt mean we ought to see the negative as somehow anterior to the natural order. The value in seeing the Oneness of all things can hardly be underestimated, and can only lead us to a loving and tolerant attitude. The idea of God as Oneness is useful for this purpose.

When we think that all things are not connected, we then imagine that what has happened did not need to happen; that some things could have been different than they in fact were, and that someone could have done something different that what he/she did in fact do. We do not reflect upon reasons. We do not look beneath the surface, to understand the motivations, and the reasons for why something happened the way it happened, as opposed to any other way. We begin to blame people for being what they are. This creates judgement, intolerance, prejudice, conflict, war.

But, when we reflect upon the Oneness, we see ourselves as members of a single organism (the universe - or "the body of Christ"), with one spirit, and one heart. We seek to understand others. We realize that people behave as they do because of necessary laws which determine their present level of evolution. We do not expect anyone to be something other than who and what they are. We allow people to develop in their own time, and we offer helpful words of instruction, as opposed to angry condemnations. We open our hearts to everyone, and see everyone as children, beautiful, and often hurt, lost, and in need of a good example. Instead of neglecting them, writing them off, screaming at them, beating, killing, or imprisoning them, we seek to give them love; and to encourage them, by our loving example, to develop love and social awareness for themselves.

As long as we see others as separate from ourselves, and as willfully ignorant or cold-hearted, we will neither desire nor be able to understand them, or to summon up the compassion for them, which is the only means of engendering love in them. Who makes enemies, MAKES enemies. Who loves and understands, makes friends and lovers even of "enemies".

hsc

------------------
'Would you know your Lord's meaning in this thing? Know it well. Love was his meaning. Who showed it to you? Love. What did he show you? Love. Why did he show it? For love. Keep yourself therein and you shall know and understand more in the same. But you shall never know nor understand any other thing, forever.'
- Julian of Norwich

posted August 08, 2006 01:04 AM         

Not sure what you mean.

I think I am always trying out new ways to express this message, and honing my understanding of it, and my powers of expression. I am always hoping that the next thing I say will make a lightbulb go off in someone's head, and they will know what I am aiming at. I think, on account of this latest experience, I am learning to use less agressive methods.

"[People often contradict a view
when it is merely the manner in which it is expressed
that is unsympathetic.]"
- Nietzsche

I'll google Keith Green. Thanks.