Free Will

Echi, good question: "BTW is there even really a "me", now?"
No there isn't. Language forced me to couch my message in the dualism of "me" and "all else."
Nor is there an "eternity" before my birth (which stops with my birth) and then resumes its course upon my death. If that were so, there would be two eternities, and that's oxymoronic.

Thanks. Good answer.
However, I might have a different idea of eternity than you. I do not equate "eternal" with "infinite". "Infinite" suggests something that's never-ending. "Eternal", as I understand it, more accurately means "outside of time", a concept that is without past or future; not subject to change.

I agree. I do not really think the term, eternity, is best defined in terms of a temporal linear forever and forever. Outside of time is what it is. It has no beginning and no end. The "eternal or timeless now" is one way of thinking of it, but the concept, "now" is meaningless without the notions of "past" and "future". Best to be silent and just feel it as it presents itself (oops another linguistic trap) in this ever-changing-but-always-one whatchamacallit...how about the nameless Tao?

Totally insufficient. But I guess it'll have to do.

Yes, TOTALLY inadequate.

Will
There is the ordained will of God and the permissive will of God. Some of us mess up God's Good will for us by making poor choices with our lives and they have negative consequences.

"In His will is our peace."


Off the subject Neo,

You are such a great communicator Neo, a bright man!; this is a great topic!

Nancy

Thanks, nancyann.

Anything I know I have learned from others greater than I.

neologist,

Noticing your Galileo quote, it seems that your "learning" has not extended as far as one of Galileo's 20th century successors - Niels Bohr:-

"The opposite of a great truth may well be another profound truth". :wink:

I don't see a contradiction. Perhaps you need to research your premises.

Galileo's understanding of common sense as it applies to both God and to nature, seems to me to be unequaled in very few men who have come after.

Einstein had his own unique way of approaching these concepts, but Galileo understood something that hardly anyone ever perceives (or even considers worthy)

He wrote that the bible must be 'correctly understood.'
And since it is not we sure have a mess.

That is the fault neither of the bible nor of the inspiring author.

That is exactly what I say. Neo, you are a humble and inspired soul.

queen annie,

Surely Galileo's particular statement can only be understood within the context of his dispute with the Church authorities. The allegorical status of the bible is well accepted by most "religious" scientists. (see for example Google references to Polkinghorne).

I agree that the "mess" to which you refer is a result of the failure of "common sense" in the perception of the ad hoc nature of competing rationalities. On the other hand such failure may be the inevitable result of our innate tendency towards tribalism which we share with other primates. I do not dismiss the possibility of an opposing trait of "spirituality" but this could be an epiphenomenum of "consciousness" and in no way implies the necessity of a deity as "a prime mover" or a source of life. (See Polkinghorne's attempt to maintain his theistic position in response to Prigogine's account of "life" as a spontaneously occuring "dissipative structure")

No doubt. I still see that essential dispute going on these days, only the effects are much more dispersed and far reaching than just those questioned by the Holy See. Galileo really didn't prevail in his fight, and the approach to scripture of those who accused him of heresy is now more common that not, but in all flavors of protestant and catholic, and everything in between.

If we begin to view the bible as allegory, then we are free to ignore its moral imperative.

Before we do that, we should carefully examine both our premises and our motives.

neo, When some christians claim that some parts of the bible is allegory, we have no choice but to assume they are correct. You can't have it both ways - or can you? LOL HAPPY HOLIDAYS.

The bible has many layers of understanding. I have gone through several of those. Literal and allegorical, over and over, is the only way to get to the deep. Allegory does not, in any way, take any of the 'moral imperative' out of it--it only allows us to conceive of the spiritual message which we cannot find materially. But we must get there through material images and symbols. We cannot see the unseen, and that is the way it reveals itself.

I actually read the bible on many different levels, all at the same time. But then again, I've been at this almost my whole life.

Only by 'having it both ways' yet not 'requiring any certain way' does the contradiction melt away. And not in a garbled mess of illogical nonsense and unbelievable fairy tales--but in a way that eventually reveals the masterpiece of literature it really is.

Because I do not hold with the bible being written directly by God. That's crazy. But men who God had revealed Himself to--in their day they were the enlightened and scorned hermits who came to understand things not suitable for social conversation, not believed, anyway, and so surely they felt compelled to write them down. There are others who didn't meet the approval of the Councils of Rome and so whose wisdom fits in perfectly well, but are felt to be dangerous and misleading. It doesn't matter if the name on the book doesn't match the historical personage, either in truth or reputation. Whomever they were, they were not just out to pen some interesting fiction. Men all over the world have written 'scripture' and still do, even to this moment. God still works the same way, but we are so grounded in material reality that we have closed our eyes even tighter to that which we should now be able to see and eventually recognize.

The sad ways of the world, today, to me are such that cause us to be skeptical of things which don't even matter (like who wrote) yet fall hook line and sinker for those things that should be totally tested (such as the canon we have is the sole inspired written work ever produced by man, and that some manmade authority can actually know this for the rest of the people--barring the way to true understanding) and those who blindly promote something they do not see then do everything they can, ignorantly, to sour many others before they've even had a fair shake at applying their own functional and healthy open-minded skepticism and the whole thing gives God, and the possibility of truth and life, a bad name.
Skepticism isn't about proving one's ideas, it's about seeking proof in an open-minded fashion, for the purpose of only one's self.

Sorry about the soapbox. I feel strongly about this because of what my life has shown me.

neologist,

You are fond of the phrase "examine your premises" yet you don't offer to examine your own.

Allow me to assist you with this information from Google.

<<It is well-known to many Biblical researchers that most of the Old Testament comes from other, more ancient, writings. Even Jewish writers admit that most of the "Hebrew" writings were merely taken freely from Sumerian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and even Greek sources. Horace Meyer Kallen, at one time a professor at the Jewish New School of Social Research, said that the Book of Job was lifted bodily from an early and obscure Greek play. Scientist and author Immanuel Velikovsky admitted that there are "many parallels" between the Vedic Hymns and the Books of Joel and Isaiah. Hebrew scholar Zecharia Sitchin claimed that the Book of Genesis is based on the Sumerian creation myth. The story of Noah comes from the Sumerian legend of Gilgamesh. The Psalms were taken word for word from Akhenaton's Hymns to the Sun, written 600 years earlier in Egypt. The Ten Commandments were taken wholly from the Egyptian Book of the Dead. And so on through the books of the Old Testament.>>

Similar "examination" will reveal financial incentives paid by Constantine to establish a unified set of "holy texts" to assist the imposition of Christianity onto the Roman Empire as a political unification device.

Hi
I wrote this in reply to another thread. It is my take on this question.

Someone told me that the choice we have to make in life is whether or not to love God. Isn't love something that must be freely given, otherwise can we really say that it is love?
Some say they feel people should have choices, but they shouldn't have the kind of choices that lead to bad consequences. Some say that everything in life should be good or else they don't see how someone can love God. What is good? Do we, who don't have the ability to see all ends, really know what is our ultimate good. If we love God only when things are going "good" or easy for us then do we really love God? Have you ever heard of a fair weather friend? It's someone who'll stick by you in good times, but once it starts to cost them something then they stop being your friend. I know not everyone on this board is a christian. I don't expect them to understand what, as a christian, it means to love God because that usually involves seeking and knowing God. It takes some faith.
Can we force someone to love us and still call it love? I feel that love, in order to be love, must be freely given. We have free will to choose. Because we have free will sometimes we will make wrong choices, but the bible says that God will forgive us of these wrong choices/sins if we confess them, if we confess that we are not perfect. God knows we're not perfect. Remember we're not robots programed to act a certain way.
I used to wonder why it was that Jesus had to die on the cross. It seemed to me if God was Jesus' father then wouldn't he have wanted to protect Jesus from that horror. Jesus died for our sins. God is a just God. Justice requires payment for sin, yet we are not perfect. If we had to pay for our sins then who could survive? But what becomes of justice if sin is ignored? To have justice there must be payment for sin to make it right...Jesus paid. Does that mean that God required the murder of his son. I would have to say...ABSOLUTELY NOT. Jesus gave himself as a sacrifice for our sins. He offered himself up. Jesus was perfect; he didn't have to suffer. As the son of God, just think of the retribution he could have called for, but instead he suffered and paid the cost of loving us enough to forgive us.
Let's say someone was playing with a grenade. They didn't know what a grenade was, or maybe they did, and they pulled the pin and dropped it on the ground. Let's say I were to throw myself on the grenade and take the full brunt of that grenade so that the person who had been playing with the grenade might live. Wouldn't that make me their savior? But why would I do that if I didn't love them? Sin can be like that grenade. It can cause great harm to people. Jesus gave himself for our sins. If you love you are "required" at times to make sacrifices, but I wouldn't call it murder. This is the kind of love that christians are called to. Jesus says that his followers are to take up their cross and follow him. Yes, sometimes love will require a sacrifice. (Just ask any parent what they've had to sacrifice for their kids, but that aside...) Love is to act for the good of others even if it costs us. Jesus was beaten, ridiculed, crucified and yet he forgave. He forgave because that is love. I believe there is great joy in heaven when God sees that same love, his son, living in us. The bible says that Christ is our example. The bible says that Christ was resurrected.
At this time of year christians celebrate the birth of Christ, the day when love came down to earth and dwelt among us.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish , but have everlasting life. John 3:16
Merry Christmas