Posted on 05/08/2003 9:44:29 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare [are] not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled. - II Cor 10:3-6
For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of [his] good pleasure - Philippians 2:13
A-G, I am not the least bit offended by submission to God. I'm just stating the self-evident fact that this submission is in itself, an act of one's will. See it for yourself, in that passage in Philippians, above! To WILL and to DO of his good pleasure -- not to deny the inevitable, God given fact that one has a will. How can we will to submit to God if we deny the fact of our will to do so?
A will submitted to God and a will to Him most still, is still a will! It's a will or it... you wouldn't be able to submit to God.
Thank you for the wonderful insights, William Terrell. I've often wondered about the dictum, "Ye must become as children." Certainly children don't go through successive states of amnesia: They are vividly conscious of what's going on around them, perhaps more so than adults. I think the idea implicit in the dictum is that children have trust in spontaneous primary experience, the integrated totality of immediate experience -- they trust its authenticity, and have not yet learned how to "rationalize" it away. In a way, "the education process" is a process of rationalizing existence into whatever accepted categories may currently prevail. Doctrines take precedence over direct experience -- as if one can live in a doctrine! (We live in the world, and that fact is irreducible.)
If you consider yourself a cynic, perhaps it's because you have no taste for the currently fashionable doctrines (which, to use the language of Elizabeth Newman -- see link that unspun put up) are universalist and hegemonic. I have no use for them either, thank you. That must make me a cynic too!
Can "knowledge about" also be primary experience?
And hugs, even if you may think I need a shower... one I trust I will always take.
A-G, I think unspun is correct in this. Unless you're prepared to say that what has happened with you is an accident.
For Lurkers, this conversation started with unspun’s post at 161 and my reply at 176. We are in disagreement over willfulness.
Dancing is a good example of submission to another’s lead where both parties retain their identity. When I speak of submission, I’m speaking to the command to abide in Him, i.e. more than a dance.
We may just have an issue in the definition of terms. I do not see the mechanism of choice as the same thing as willfulness. To the contrary, I see willfulness as the polar opposite of obedience. For instance, those who are without the law are not held to the same standard because they did not sin willfully, i.e. knowingly choose to disobey. Instead, they are held accountable for willful disobedience of their conscience.
Unspun, we are in hopeless disagreement on this one. I am not the captain of my ship and the master of my destiny. I choose not to be willful, rather I choose to submit altogether to God’s will. The joy of wallowing in His being is beyond words and I couldn’t be happier in this life.
But if you’d rather have a spiritual relationship where you retain your identity, your will, and dance – that is your choice. Each disciple had a different personality and the churches in Revelation had different personalities. I expect to see y'all in heaven also!
hmmm.
?
I don't think so, cornelis. "Knowledge about" refers to something that has been "mediated" (analyzed) by the mind. That which is mediated cannot be primary. For example, we may know what a circle is. But since no true circles really exist in nature, they are not given to us from primary experience, but from analyzing the concept of the circle, usually as something that has been taught to us. Thus, our knowledge of the circle is knowledge about. It is that knowledge about that lets us perceive things that have the (imperfect) form of a circle in nature.
On the other hand, we might argue that the idea of "circle" is somehow innate to the human mind (which, after all, is a part of nature). If that were the case, we'd have to dredge it up from the unconscious into consciousness in order to have a "primary experience" of it. It seems to me the dredging operation in this case must be an operation of the mind. So, again, "circle" wouldn't be a primary experience, strictly speaking.
Does this make any sense? Just because I can't think of anything that is "knowledge about" that is also a primary experience doesn't mean there aren't any of those. I just haven't found one yet. Maybe mathematical objects are somehow "primary" in themselves. But it still seems to me that they are useless to us, unless we analyze them and discover the relations that make them what they are.
Can you think of an example of something that can be classed as "knowledge about" that also is a primary experience? I'd be glad to find one!
There's the source of the difficulty, then, A-G. To me (maybe unspun, too), the exercise of will = to choose, = to act. The willfulness that you oppose to obedience is, to me, the "color" of the act, which depends on its motive that becomes visible (at least to God) in the choice we make.
IOW, willfulness does not necessarily mean stubbornness or resistance -- though in common parlance, the words are often used as if they were synonyms.
It seems to me that to abide in the Lord is an act of the will -- with an important qualification attached: It cannot be done by means of self-will entirely. We cannot take "heaven by storm," but can lovingly respond to an Invitation. Christ is the willing mediator who bears us across ("I am the way, the truth, and the life.")....
Would you mind please also posting it to the Freeper Views on Origins? The thread is a collection of insight on origins which has proven useful to other Freepers from time to time.
I'm glad to see that what I suspected was true, the difference between your view and mine is a matter of word usage.
The word willful is defined:
With regard to the command to “abide in” Jesus, I also see it as a matter of choice to pour oneself (self-will and all) into Him upon His invitation. To me, it’s involved relinquishing control, sheltering in His love, wallowing in His being. Self has no practical significance therein.
Nope.
Betty, certainly there can be no obedience without willfulness just like there can be no good without evil. Hate exists so that we can know love. Fear exists so that we can know courage. Evil exists so that we can know good. Willfulness exists so that we can obey. But none of this means that hate, fear, evil, willfulness are therefore to be treasured and should be continued in the presence of God.
I must say I just don't agree with this and it does have to me, the appearance of dualism, sweet A-G. God is preternatural, apriori and does not need anti-God in order to be fully experienced as God. The same, for his qualities. The same for how he may be perceived, by one created to be in communion with him.
Satan's grave error was not willfulness (if "willfulness" means having the full faculties of one's will). His error was pride, egocentrism. He turned his will against God and toward his own nature. Silly guy.
Adam and Eve would have been better off being more wilfull in obeying God than in disobeying God, simply enough.
Unspun, we are in hopeless disagreement on this one. I am not the captain of my ship and the master of my destiny. I choose not to be willful, rather I choose to submit altogether to God’s will. The joy of wallowing in His being is beyond words and I couldn’t be happier in this life. But if you’d rather have a spiritual relationship where you retain your identity, your will, and dance – that is your choice. Each disciple had a different personality and the churches in Revelation had different personalities. I expect to see y'all in heaven also!
I want to be fully overwhelmed by God, inside and out. Intermingled even, as He would allow, in His glory. I just know what he's given me. I think you've said in a very recent post that God is not someone who gives then takes back. Dear Theophilla, I will try to explicate within the next day or two, and perhaps present some consequences. I do think that we have a disagreement on the definition of terms, but with all cherishing and respect, I believe I do not take the simple truth of "will" to mean something it wasn't intended to mean (vainglory of any kind). Please don't let me get hung up on the words "relation" and "dance;" I also very much mean communion.
In this discussion, "will" is basically synonymous with "the ability to make choices." Free will means that our choices (and the choices of others) can have consequences.
It is in the context of choices that we can begin to dissect the meaning of will.
As with so many other "human" topics, I find Peter to be the most helpful, as he's seen in contrast to Jesus.
Thus, in the Garden we see Jesus faced with a choice: between what God wants, and what Jesus (as a human) would rather do. The price of choosing to do what God wants is enormous; the choice to avoid immediate suffering and death is both low and immensely attractive.
We see Peter faced with much the same choice -- though his choice (merely to admit that he knows Jesus) is apparently much easier. And yet Jesus chose well, and Peter did not.
In both cases we see acts of will. In this story, not to mention most of Jesus' parables, the whole point is what we do with our ability to make choices. It's not that we have always to make the right choice -- it's that we try to do so, and are properly sorry when we don't.
(Of course, the reason we all identify so well with Peter, and gain hope from his example, is because God does not abandon Peter when he makes the wrong choice, but instead strengthens him to make the proper choices when he faces them again.)
I suppose it's also appropriate to look at the role of Judas in this story, his choices, and the consequences of his actions, but I guess that would probably take us pretty far afield.
I must say I just don't agree with this and it does have to me, the appearance of dualism, sweet A-G. God is preternatural, apriori and does not need anti-God in order to be fully experienced as God. The same, for his qualities. The same for how he may be perceived, by one created to be in communion with him.
I pondered on this state at length and deduced that God must have wanted to reveal Himself and thus there was a beginning. Notably, the inflationary theory underlines the first three words of the Bible (“in the beginning”) – until then the mindset was a steady state universe.
Then I pondered how God would go about revealing Himself. I deduced He would create beings who could think to whom He would reveal Himself and would commune. I further deduced how He would go about communicating Himself to these beings, i.e. that He is good and truth and so forth.
These attributes would have no meaning in any language unless they were set in contrast to what they are not. (How would you know if you are happy if you have never been sad?) Thus, I pondered that He would create good and evil, love and hate, et al so that a language could be formed, the Word.
I then pondered He would communicate His will to the thinking beings so they would know Him. I also pondered that, for the words to have meaning, He would give them numerous manifestations of all these contrasts – space/time, geometry, particles, energy, matter, creatures.
One of the ideas of the Jewish Kabbalah that rings true to my spirit is that the Scriptures are another name for God, i.e. it reveals who He is. So I see all of creation – spiritual and material – and the Word as God revealing Himself.
Enter Satan, beautiful and thinking being as he is, decided he ought to exalted. He became “aware” of his beauty and self and thus was at odds with God’s will for him.
Likewise, Adam and Eve became “aware” of themselves and sought to be more by gaining the knowledge of good and evil. And likewise, they were at odds with God’s will for them.
If the label mystic fits me or the label dualist then be my guest!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.