Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    
    
    I've been thinking about Will for awhile now.  I'm curious as to
    what others think Free Will is....what your definition is and
    what is its source.
    
    Thanks,
    Carole

    
     Re.1
       
           Buddhists consider free will to be something of an illusion.
         Humans are conditioned by a multitude of things all of which
         play a part in our perceptions, thoughts, actions and emotions.
           Being human itself imposes a very definite set of conditions
         upon us. While we do have the choice to behave and act and
         think in numerous ways this is not really "free will" but
         actually a finite set of options. 
          
    
                                                       Mike

	I've been pondering on the idea of "will" for awhile now, and
	have been doing a bit of reading about it - specifically one point
	of view but one that has really touched me.

	Basically, the ideas that I'm reading about now relate the "will"
	to that part of us that "reflects".  It is the function that
	lets us know if a place, a person, an experience, etc. is right
	for us.  Each person's will response is unique to them.  What is
        right for me is not necessarily right for you.

	I think many of our problems arise from not listening to the messages
	from our wills.  The majority of people are operating in this world
        with most of their wills denied, for along with will comes feeling,
        and we have so much repressed feeling in this world it is amazing
        that we have survived this long.

        Will has to be "free" - instead it is ignored and suppressed much
        of the time.

        Just some thoughts on this rather mellow Monday afternoon.  Sorry
        that I haven't been in this file very much recently, but my energy
        has been elsewhere for a bit.

	Carole

Re: 122.45  Collis
    
    
>Yes, Carole, your definition of free will is quite a bit different than
>mine.

     Collis, are you open to consider that it may be something different
     than you think it is?  Where do you derive your understanding of what
     free will is?
    
     Thanks,
     Carole

Re:  .4

Carole,

To some extent I'm open to modify what I think.  I re-read what you put
in .3 and some of it I find interesting to consider and some I just
disagree with (I think).

What I disagree with (if it's there) is the hint of situational ethics
in what you wrote (that what is right for me is not right for you).  If
you were speaking purely in a non-ethical sense i.e. a choice sense
(you like green, I like blue), I agree with you.  However, I certainly
wouldn't agree with that statement in an ethical sense.

My understanding of free will is not well-based.  It's simply an
understanding from living and general talking, but not a well-developed
understanding from the Bible (or life).  So, yes, this is an area I'm
willing to explore and grow in.

Collis

Re:  .5 Collis

    
    I am finding the topic of 'free will' an interesting one to think
    about.  I understanding where you might have picked up a hint
    of situational ethics in my note.  Let's see if I can rephrase
    what I'm trying to say here....(it's so hard to put some of
    these things into words!).  The will is that part of us that
    sends us messages and information from which we can make
    choices.  This can be as simple a thing as where you live.
    One place may be very good for you, but for me it may be all
    wrong.  There is a part of us that knows this and sends us
    information about it.  I call this part of us the 'will'.  
    To continue the example of place....I could be very much
    attached to my family and their opinions could carry a lot
    of weight in the decisions I make.  My family all live in the
    same area, but there is a part of me that is very uncomfortable
    living there and this part of me sends me messages that I should
    move.  What happens very often in a situation like this is that
    the 'free will' message to move gets denied and pushed away 
    because of some form of guilt about what the family will think
    if I take that action.  So I make the choice of staying, and in
    turn do not allow my will to be free and do what it is meant to
    do.  Instead I make that part of me wrong and bury it in guilt.
    So, to me the choice is an extension of this process but not the
    process itself.  This denial of the will really keeps it from
    being free and is causing an enormous problem in our world.  We
    are being buried by guilt and do not even know it.  There is 
    nothing loving about guilt.
    
    Carole
    
    Carole,

To some extent I'm open to modify what I think.  I re-read what you put
in .3 and some of it I find interesting to consider and some I just
disagree with (I think).

What I disagree with (if it's there) is the hint of situational ethics
in what you wrote (that what is right for me is not right for you).  If
you were speaking purely in a non-ethical sense i.e. a choice sense
(you like green, I like blue), I agree with you.  However, I certainly
wouldn't agree with that statement in an ethical sense.

My understanding of free will is not well-based.  It's simply an
understanding from living and general talking, but not a well-developed
understanding from the Bible (or life).  So, yes, this is an area I'm
willing to explore and grow in.

Collis

As I've thought about free will, I think of it simply as the ability
to choose.  It is God's desire that we choose to submit our free will to Him
and choose to glorify and love Him.

Now, I also think there are many areas where we exercise our free will
where either it is not clear what glorifies God or where the options
do not reflect on God one way or the other (preference in what color
we might choose for wallpaper, for example).  However, many areas of
our life did indeed allow us the opportunity to choose the way that
God Himself would have us choose.

Collis

    
    Collis, we do have different viewpoints of what the will is, and
    for me, my seeking to understand it will continue.  However, if
    free will is a 'gift' from God, I believe we are to use it as it
    is meant to function.  So far what I am coming to understand is
    that it's 'function' is to give information so that we can make
    choices that are for our wellbeing.  Our will is already in line
    with God when we allow it to function freely and do what it was
    created to do.  We don't have to question it's promptings and 
    hold them up to a criteria because, IMO, the criteria is already
    built in to it.  When we allow it to function freely we are in
    alignment with its and God's purpose.
    
    Carole

Carole,

What you are leaving out of your equation, from a Biblical perspective, is
the sinful nature that we have.  Our free will (certainly mine does) chooses
sin at times.  In fact, we *enjoy* sinning.  That is why we choose it.

God's "free will" does not choose sin.  That is why we are to align our
will's with God.  "The chief end of man [people] is to glorify God and
enjoy him forever."  Following the dictates of our wills does *not*
glorify God.  This is why the Lord's prayer prays that THY WILL (i.e. God's
will) be done, not that MY will be done.

Collis

    
    
    But Collis, you are missing what I am saying.  I believe that
    our free will is *naturally* aligned with God, and that we have
    very much disconnected ourselves from it.  What we think is our
    free will may not be, and very often it is clouded with guilty
    motivations.
    
    Yes, I did leave out 'sinfulness'.  I don't consider this as I
    have many questions about the idea of original sin and all of
    us being sinners.....but than that is a totally different
    discussion.
    
    Carole 

I think I'm understanding what you're saying now.  But when you say
that our "free will is naturally aligned with God", this is where 
red flags go up.  I believe we are naturally misaligned with God, at
this point.  There was a time (Adam and Eve before the fall) that we
were naturally aligned with God, but not anymore.  It's not just a matter
of part of us choosing poor things.  Our natural bent is now out of
sync with truth (i.e. God).

Collis

    
    
  
    I understand how you view this Collis.  For you (correct me if
    I am wrong), we can't rely on any part of us because you see us
    as being out of sync with God.  So anything that comes from within
    is not in alignment with God.  Is that correct?
    
    And if this is correct, than even though free will has been given
    to us as a gift, it cannot really be 'free' because the exercising
    of it has to be measured against some criteria first.
    
    For me, I think there was and is wisdom in the gift of free will
    and it is ours to utilize now just as it was Adams and Eves.  I
    don't look at the creation story the same way you do, so we are
    at divergent points about this.
    
    I see the Bible as a wonderful book and a chronicle of a people's
    spiritual heritage.  The stories and information however are based
    on the culture of the time, so the stories also pass along a lot
    of 'guilt' motivation as well.  There is more to God and to us
    than this.  There is a much deeper story.
    
    Carole

Carole,

I wouldn't go as far as you put it.  We are out of sync with God so we
can't *depend* on our wills being in sync with God.  There are times
that they actually are, but it needs to be evaluated on a case by case
basis (using the guidelines that God has so graciously provided).

So, free will is a gift that God has given us and that we should exercise.
However, we are not sure that we are doing the right thing just by
exercising it; we need to constantly check back to the giver of the
gift (for He is the standard of the appropriate use of free will).

Collis

    Collis,
    	a good many conservative Christians believe - for some reason or
    other - that man is inherently opposed to God and that choices made by
    "free will" - except where that will is sublimated to God's - are going
    to be sinful. Isn't sin much more fun ? Isn't it the easier path ? 
    Doesn't it provide greater and quicker gratification ?  You believe
    that "free will" is essentially the option of sinning. Right ?
    	So now you can try to explain why I (or Karen, or ?) do good
    things? I, for one, have stated that I expect no reward and am unsure
    if heaven exists, yet I do good things and try to avoid doing bad
    things. Why, if my nature is inherently contrary to God and I laugh at
    the suggestion that I should sublimate my will to God's, why do I still
    do good rather than evil ?  Should I not be out raping and pilaging as
    I suspect one or more of my ancestors did while "touring Ireland"? Or
    am I just an aberation ?

Re:  79.14

  >a good many conservative Christians believe - for some reason or
  >other - ...that choices made by "free will" - except where that will 
  >is sublimated to God's - are going to be sinful.

Fortunately (or perhaps unfortunately for you), I am not one of those.

  >You believe that "free will" is essentially the option of sinning. Right ?

That's certainly not the way I generally look it.  But, that certainly
is one of the ways to look at it.  (You can choose to sin or not to sin.)
However, you could also say that free will is choosing to read or not
to read.  To swim or not to swim.  So, I don't think I view quite in the
way that you meant.

The rest of your questions are based on premises that I didn't accept,
so I won't bother to answer them here.

Collis

    
    
    
    Yes, but there's one thing I've never understood about free will, and
    it seems to be at the very crux of the question of sin and so much
    else. That is the issue of whether or not free will EXISTS AT ALL. 

    Picture if you will a person sitting atop some tall mountain with a
    great rock beside him. One morning he decides to push the rock down the
    mountain. 

    I see a couple of possible ways to look at this. First, the rock will
    bump into various obstacles as it careens down the mountain wreaking
    ever greater harm and destruction. Obviously there is no way to know
    where the rock will travel or what harm it will do, so he who pushed it
    can claim some degree of innocence, some lack of responsibility for the
    end result, right?

    Now, let's assume that the entity on the top of the mountain is God,
    and he has pushed the rock down the mountain. We seem to be stuck with
    a quandary. If He KNOWS what He is doing, knows what the result will be
    before He does it, it seems to me that He has full responsibility for
    the outcome. If on the other hand He DOESN'T know the outcome in
    advance, he still has some level of responsibility for having set the
    chain of events in motion.

    So here we are, poor fragile mankind, hurtling forward down some steep
    incline that is filled with obstacles and distractions. We bump into
    one obstacle after another, and when we've been beaten and our feet are
    bleeding from the sharp stones in our path, we decide to take the
    "broad and easy way" instead. 

    We are that rock pushed down the precipice.

    I have always believed that while God gives us free will, He knows in
    advance what we will do.  He does not ordain it, but it is as if the
    whole of time and all its events were as on the head of a pin to God.
    
    Love,
    
    Brian.
    

    My own view of God's omniscience is that He/She knows all that has
    happened in the world up to the present moment, but that the future is
    still open and undetermined.  Rather than viewing God standing on the
    peak and pushing rocks down a mountainside, I see God as the expert
    climber, scaling the mountain with us, offering a hand of assistance
    and giving directions.  We may trip, and we may slip on the rocks as we
    climb, not because God pushed us, but because we are human.  In this
    view, God is not pushing us down, but accompanying us on our trip up.

    -- Mike

    Thanks very much for your thoughts Brian and Mike. 
    
    Here's where I run into challenges in considering God's omniscience:
    Mike, you feel that God only knows all that has happened up to the 
    present moment, and not necessarily that of the future, that it is
    still undeterminied.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I think physics has pretty 
    much shown that time does not exist as we understand it beyond the 
    three dimensional world we're familiar with.  There is no distinctive 
    dileneation between past and future beyond the physical universe.  
    
    If this is so, and if we believe that God exists everywhere even 
    beyond 3 dimensions, what implications does that have for the concept 
    of God's omniscience?  (I really don't know myself, but it is something 
    I wonder about when I'm feeling mentally adventurous. :-))
    
    And Brian, on the other side of the coin, if God *does* know what we're 
    going to do and how things will work out *beforehand*, then I find
    myself wondering what the purpose is of some Christian doctrines which 
    say that human beings will be punished by spending an eternity in Hell 
    if they don't accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.  
    
    Why doesn't God just relegate people to Heaven or Hell according to what 
    S/He already knows???? 
    
    Any ideas?  (This one really turns my mind inside out. :-))
    
    Karen
    

    Mike,
    
    My point which I don't think I stated clearly enough in my last note 
    is that if time does not exist as we understand it beyond the 3
    dimensional world, then perhaps God does know "the future"....??
    
    Karen                                                        

    Karen,
    
    I believe the answer to your question,(what's the point...?) is that we
    do have free will and therefore we are able to exercise a free choice
    to comply or not with His Will.  I know it sounds like a circular
    argument, but perhaps it comes under the heading of a "Mystery".
    
    I remember a story I once heard which related to the Mystery of the
    Holy Trinity.  A certain Saint (I'm sorry I can't remember which) who
    was struggling with understanding this Mystery, was walking along a
    beach when he saw an old man who was digging a hole in the sand with
    his bare hands.  When asked what he was doing the old man said he was
    digging a whole to empty the sea into, so that he could see what was on
    the ocean bed.  The Saint tried to explain to him that this would be
    impossible, but the old man only responded by saying that he had more
    chance of succeeding than the Saint had of understanding the Holy
    Trinity.
    
    I believe that with Faith and trust in the Lord we do not need to
    understand everything.
    
    Love,
    
    Brian.
    

    Hi Karen,

    I understand the view that God is outside of time (and that he created
    time).  My own conception of God is a little different.  My premise is
    that the process of creation and unfolding in the universe is
    continuous and, in a sense, is the fundamental nature of the world.  I
    also view God as the ultimate reality that partakes in the world by
    offering novel possibilities to it, rather than having evoked it out of
    nothingness.  This implies to me that God and the universe (which
    partake of one another) coexist in a perpetual relationship of process,
    and that means (to me) that time is has a special role in the
    relationship between God and the world.

    I'm not sure about where physics fits into this, although I am sure you
    are right that time relates very closely to the three physical
    dimensions that we experience.  Some aspects of physics that I find
    interesting are quantum mechanics and chaos theory, which seem (to me,
    anyway) to point the way to potentiality and indeterminacy as
    characterizing certain aspects of the world.  I don't think that
    everything in time has proceeded on an inevitable course from the Big
    Bang.  I think that the universe is not fully deterministic.  Whitehead
    defined his "ontological principle" in terms of three factors: the
    actual world that precedes each occasion, the subjective aim of each
    occasion, and the successive influence of that occasion for future
    occasions.  In Whitehead's metaphysics, the subjective aim of an
    occasion is partly determined by its actual world, but not completely. 
    This is where free will comes in to play.

    I am not saying that I disagree with you that God knows the future by
    being outside of time.  What it boils down to is that I haven't been
    able to fit that concept into my own cosmology, and thus I don't
    conceive of God that way.  I see God as being irrevocably bound up with
    time because I see time as representing the ultimate expression of the
    mutual relationship between God and the world, and the creativity that
    represents the ultimate characteristic of reality.  In my view, the
    divine life is continuously enhanced by the unfolding of the world's
    creative processes, and this implies that time is an aspect of God's
    nature, no different than "goodness" or "perfection" representing
    divine attributes.

    -- Mike

Hi Karen,

I find myself arriving at a quandry. If God is finite, how can He be
God? If God is not finite, how can I describe God?

I try to compromise by trying to describe essences of God, hints if 
you will. However I see this as futile as 7 blind men describing
an elephant.

If God is infinite, and created our universe & all the things & 
relationships within it, what makes us think God stopped with one?
Is it our own elitism? 

How then can we grasp the infinite?

Once I was a military commander of troops, I understood to 
lead you had to make your subordinates successful. Sometimes
that meant coaching, other times it meant rewarding, often 
it meant leaving the person alone and letting him live with his
decisions, once in a while it meant a sharp word, frequently it 
meant forgiving someone for misinterpreting your instructions,
or willfully disobeying a Stupid order. And if all positive means
failed, oxymorons such as a quiet but spririted discussion, 
non-judicial punishment, military justice, etc. could be relied upon.

In the same way I find it easy to identify one essence of God with
my own experience, Lord of Hosts == Troop Commander.
For me the equasion is easy to draw, and I can understand a little
of the agony/anger of experiencing free will. 

If, however, God is infinite, does that mean God is limited to a few
dozen essences? If God grants mankind in this universe the 
ability to choose can God withdraw that gift without admitting 
limits to God's infinity? 

Best wishes,
Rollyn

One of my favorite terms for the Most Holy is "the Ineffible"; which means
incapable of being expressed or descibed in words.

Perhaps neither "finite" nor "infinite" can adequately express the Divine.
Perhaps the Ineffible cannot be confined within either term.

Yet as far beyond our capacities of understanding the Ineffible might be, I
possess an undeniable sense that the Divine is intimately integral to each
life, and closer to each of us than our very breath.

Peace,
Richard

    How much I appreciate the witness of those who combine a passion for
    social justice with a testimony of personal encounter with our Lord!

    Rollyn .23,
    
    Thanks very much for your thoughts.  
    
    I believe that God is infinite.  Within that infinity, there is an 
    aspect of finitness in which we and the physical world we know 
    dwells.  The best we can do, imo and as you imply, is articulate and 
    reflect upon 'essences' which we perceive and subsequently attribute 
    to this Divine Presence.  
    
    On the occasions where I engage this Divine Presence it is oftentimes 
    in the most mundane elements of the human condition:  in the 
    celebrations of life as well as the tragedies.  To articulate and 
    reflect on the 'essences' I encounter, a whole spectrum of feelings 
    can emerge:  profound joy, gentle humor, deep irony, tearful anguish.  
    Words more often than not are woefully impotent in describing these 
    essences.  I oftentimes find myself moved to express them in dance or 
    art, a walk in nature, or by a heart-felt letter to a friend, with no 
    overt mention of the underlying experience, but its essence is woven 
    throughout the words.
    
    Like Richard, I believe the totality of the Divine Presence is 
    ineffable, which reminds me of a story Leo Buscalia relates.  I think 
    it is called "The Little Prince."  The story, if I recall correctly, 
    concludes with the line "What is essential is invisible to the eye."  
    The "essence" of that declaration has always stayed with me.  
    
    You mention quandries.  Quandries arise when I face the nature of 
    God, (and my life) and see it in contradictions;  for contradictory 
    thinking is based upon perceiving the world in sharp dualities, and 
    is always marked by placing more value upon one aspect at the expense 
    of another.  It is oftentimes the source of much anxiety for me.  To 
    me the nature of God is not only ineffable, it is also inclusive and 
    paradoxical.  Once I am able to behold the various essences in a 
    paradoxical way, rather than contradictory, the quandries dissipate 
    of their own and thus the anxiety.  I think of this as grace.
    
    But therein lies the challenge, and one that I believe Jesus Christ 
    put to humanity.  The ego part of the mind which we are so accustomed 
    to perceiving with is unable, of its own accord, to perceive in any 
    other way other than dualistically, in sharply defined either/or's.  
    But "if thine eye be single" then the contradictions that are created 
    from dualistic egoic perceptions are integrated in such a fashion 
    that the contradictory aspects are valued, and a paradox, or a 
    dialectic emerges from the ashes where the contradiction once stood.
    
    When we live strictly in a world of contradictions we live in a world 
    where the deeper nature of God remains veiled to us, imo.  I believe 
    that psychologically, humanity has evolved and is at the threshold of 
    being able to perceive the world in a more paradoxical, dialectical, 
    and therefore inclusive way.  And neither our lives nor the world 
    will turn to a drab hue of gray in the process. 
    
    I believe that this dialectical way of perceiving and living is the 
    essence of salvation, and the foundation of the gospel message that 
    Jesus Christ embodies.
    
    peace & blessings of the new year,
    Karen
    

The following was submitted for posting in C-P by a read only member who
prefers to remain anonymous.

Peace,
Richard
=========================================================================

I heard this at an AA meeting last night:

            "God's will for me is God's good for me."

I liked it because it is so simple.