Life, a Curse or a Blessing? (PHI-214)(4-2)

Comment by Roman Kozlowski on November 24, 2009 at 7:31am

Youstbi

When you said “I respectfully disagree, not because I think it is not right—I believe that God was against His own free gift of Free Will if He "moved" the writers to pen.”

Wow! “God was against His own free gift of Free Will”. You hit the spot there man.

My agreement too is that expressions of ‘Free Will’ in respect to being told or guided what to say by ‘God’ is in fact not ‘Free Will’.

Comment by david thurman on November 24, 2009 at 10:36am

self is a relative term, self is always in context of something. even self independent of context is always in context of context in and of it self. This what gives rise to comments by Roman God is the God of action and non action as well, and Roman is using the term God Metaphorically for the infinite undefinable set and so Roman and I here on this site are usually in really close agreement that set being both real and undefinable at the same time and that understanding that starts first with experience. Contextualizing correctly is the struggle after that in how we see the world analytically and how we sense the world emotionally. Getting that all aligned so to speak is at the core of Buddhism.
Off of this conceptualization of self being relative I can read Einstein Theory of relativity backwards. Where the standard interpretation says that space time is relative to the observer it's equally true that the observer is relative to space time and that only through empirically testing can we determine which is which. The reason I say that is that for space time to be relative to the observer the observer needs to be the context of spacetime rather than space time the context of the observer The current interpretation makes spacetime a context of the observer. From my point of view the observer and the space time are intertwined neither is independent of the other ever. Spacetime is the context in which the observer exists. The observer is not the context in which spacetime exists. So my experiment would read, That if we send a very precise clock up in the air increase it's velocity in relationship to the observer clock that the velocitized clock will come back with a different time frame that is slower than the original clock observer. Bring the clock back and that is exactly what happens and yet time has never changed for either observer in relationship to spacetime. We then can say that if spacetime hasn't changed for either observer then what has changed and we can say the observer has changed in context to the other observer inside the context spacetime.Spacetime is the context of the observer it in and of itself it is not relative the observer is relative according to the empirical evidence. For the spacetime to be relative to the observer spacetime one observer or the other observer would have to be independent or the context of spacetime and that observer would define spacetime. On that point I find the current interpretation odd because the observer is determining spacetime rather than the other way around when i read it I read it flipped over It could be a goofy part of my brain not working right since I contextualize oddly from most people as well, i don't know but I find self to be relative to space time rather than the other way around is more correct. Again it depends upon your relative point of view.

Comment by david thurman on November 24, 2009 at 10:55am

I relate the above to brain function. As the brain speeds up time feels as if to slow down and stop at it's deepest levels So the brain is experientially at the speed of light.since self is experiential and since time has stopped self now is the entire framework no time. People get a bit confused at this point to say the least because the perceive that they are independent of the experience and they are not.This gives rise to a conceptual framework of the observer inside a framework when in fact they are the framework in and of itself.So self perceives itself independent from it's own framework the psyche has carried the daily illusion the internal/external split into a framework of itself. Now you can get a better picture of why people go nuts if you grasp what I am saying. To properly understand and experience this is to that self is relative it's always in context so if time stops I am now the entire framework it is of equal validity to say self is the universe and yet at the same time self is me individually in time at the same time. The duality of this or that is an illusion of self separate or independent at any levels. I can be aware of self relative to the universe to be true in relationship to self in my body at the same time as being true, they are intertwined never independent of the other. There is no locality inside or outside the universe that consciousness does not exist it is that fabric in who we are we are not our bodies we are not that fabric, we are both at the same time. Bringing that together and well that was a very meaningful moment for me I contextualize from that and to that at the same time.

Comment by Jeff H on November 24, 2009 at 11:33am

Respectfully to both Youstbi & Roman, I pray everyday that God would show me His will for me, and empower me to do it. It is the 11th Step Prayer format and works for me . Jesus prayed the same, "Your will be done". When a person opens themselves to be an instrument of God of their own freeewill, a God then moves them, Freewill has not been violated.

Comment by Roman Kozlowski on November 24, 2009 at 12:33pm

Sorry Jeff, expressions of ‘free will’ confined to religious doctrinal constraints, or any other, is not Free Will.

Comment by Jeff H on November 24, 2009 at 3:09pm

Roman, please don't suggest that I can not of my own volition choose to align myself with God's will and remain free. If you choose to follow a moral code, in the privacy of your own home, away from all eyes, because you are following what you feel to be true, have you then abdicated your freedom? Of course not. Is there any difference between moral code and religious code in the eyes of an atheist (after all there is no God)? There shouldn't be. So then is the moral person more free then the religious? Not in the least.

If I choose to align my will with a particular teaching, I am as free as any other person following their choice, the fact that your admittedly biased against Christian teachings not withstanding.

Comment by PH214 Youstbi Djuanvat on November 25, 2009 at 4:06pm

Dear Jeff,

I like the answer; logically your idea is pretty true. But I am still not sure until today whether we can voluntarily "switch off" our Free Will or not for God to take action in our lives, I believe when God's will want to take place in our lives, our brains consciously pick whether we want to press yes or no to His offer. but I will look into it in deeper manner. thank you :)

Youstbi

Comment by PH214 Youstbi Djuanvat on November 25, 2009 at 4:15pm

oh oh! I forgot :p don't you think those authors of the Bible were like robots if God moved them down to fingertips? Even they voluntarily ask for it, do you think God will do it? I don't know the answer, but probably no. Early christians believe that Jesus came to teach and save them, if God can move people down to very precise action of writing letter if they ask for it, why God still sent Jesus? Don't you think God wants human to stay as much as human still in exercising their Free Will, and not robots? So I still believe that it was true that God inspired the authors, but moving them down to pen, prob no.

Youstbi

Comment by Jeff H on November 25, 2009 at 5:21pm

As one reads, considers and applies God's word to one's life over time, God's will in various mays permeates the life. I may a very significant insight, just the other day. I found that if I couldn't find a clear picture of what God would have me do in a situation, it was often easier to look at what I could be certain he wouldn't have me do. (Lie, manipulate, respond out of resentment, or fear). Those come to mind fairly easily.

I believe it is God is in charge of scripture down to the choice of word. I never said robotics. God used the personality of each writer, knowingly. He knew how they would express themselves. God is the master of the "Butterfly Effect".

I'll even go one further. I believe that Alexander the Great enjoyed the success he did just to the New Testament would be written in Greek, because the language is so precise.

Comment by david thurman on November 26, 2009 at 11:40am

Jim, as far as i can tell so far in talking to other people such as ourselves they all arrive at the exact same conclusion. The reason is we have to both accept our experiences as being true and then we need to contextualize them properly in some way and there is no easy context in normal western culture that this fits easily. II'm a self described panentheist, which is slightly different than pantheist. In the Christianity I think this fits best into Unitariansism, which of course most mainline views would hold is not Christian. For us it's getting around our biology, embracing it, understanding it and then proceeding to throw EVERYONE under the biological bus. It's sort of refreshing to think I perceive everyone as simply making biological statements. Scientific reductionism is virtually aspergers to me with a under functioning limbic system talking in that individual they have problems with their emotional range and perceive that they are independent from their biolgoy. HA that's a joke. . LOL.

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page