36 posted on 01/07/2004 5:51:38 AM PST by PFKEYHey, PFKEY, guess what -- you've just been in a terrible accident, and you're dead (it's an anology, follow me through on this).
However, I have a pair of electro-shock paddles on hand, and I can bring you back -- if I so choose.
Now, if I choose to shock you back to life, you are going to breathe -- for breathing is what living men do. Is breathing necessary for life? Sure, living things require oxygen. Is it you who are doing the breathing, or me? Obviously, you. So was it your choice to live and breathe? No, it wasn't. You were dead -- you weren't choosing anything.
It was my choice which caused you to live and breathe (again, in this example), not yours. So you are doing the breathing, and breathing is necessary for life -- but the fact that you live and breathe was all of my choice, and none of yours.
Hey OP, thanks for the allegory.
I know you are trying to help me understand and I appreciate the effort.
Where I am still lacking in understanding is related to my nature. My sinful nature.
In your example, before my terrible accident it was my nature to breath. I required oxygen. After your choice to bring me back to life it still remains my nature to breath.
Would a better example be that I am a fish and as such my nature requires that I live in the ocean and breath water.
Then you come along and for your good pleasure or glory you decide to change my nature and give me lungs instead.
Now you throw me back in the ocean and I'm drown.
Then by your grace you decide to throw me on land and clear the water from my lungs. You choose to bring me back to life.
My nature has changed. I still need oxygen to breath but can no longer by my nature extract that oxygen from the water and now must live on land and breath air in order to live.
Could you restate your allegory using this fish or something similar which shows my changed nature?