# Free Will



## Morris (Aug 17, 2014)

Pondering the question, do you have free will?  The definition that I relate to when thinking about this subject and you may have a different definition. 

1.the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

Thoughts? I don't believe a person who lives in servitude has free will. Servitude can be as extreme as enslavement to the simple obligations in your life. By this definition, if you believe in fate or divine intervention (depending on what fate means to you) then you can't act without constraints.


----------



## coachn (Aug 17, 2014)

JMorris said:


> ...I don't believe a person who lives in servitude has free will. Servitude can be as extreme as enslavement to the simple obligations in your life...


So, the moment one freely takes upon one's self an obligation, one is no longer able to exercise one's free will?

(great topic Bro.!)


----------



## Brother JC (Aug 18, 2014)

My obligations to my family, country, Deity, or fraternity do not remove my free will, they keep it within due bounds.


----------



## Morris (Aug 18, 2014)

trysquare said:


> they keep it within due bounds.


 
Somewhat of a play on words but keeping it in due bounds is acting with constraint, which (according to my definition atleast) is against having free will. 

Please understand anyone reading that I don't have a lot of emotion invested in this. It's simply a topic I've explored in the past. I also believe in fate which renders me powerless to free will.


----------



## Morris (Aug 18, 2014)

trysquare said:


> My obligations to my family, country, Deity, or fraternity do not remove my free will, they keep it within due bounds.



Solely looking at the below definition I think I would agree to what you've stated but I don't know which definition is more correct. I just know I've sort of leaned towards my original definition. 
Function: noun
Date: 13th century
1 :  voluntary choice or decision <I do this of my own free will> 2 :  freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention


----------



## jjjjjggggg (Aug 18, 2014)

Careful, next thing you know we'll have a philosophical schism and begin a sect of Calvanistic Freemasons. ;-)


----------



## coachn (Aug 18, 2014)

JMorris said:


> Somewhat of a play on words but keeping it in due bounds is acting with constraint, which (according to my definition atleast) is against having free will.
> 
> Please understand anyone reading that I don't have a lot of emotion invested in this. It's simply a topic I've explored in the past. I also believe in fate which renders me powerless to free will.


You are obligated by choice, one made by free will.  That bind exists by choice.  That choice can change at any time.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Aug 18, 2014)

One could define "free will" so rigidly that only omnipotence qualifies as "free will". I would say that even the lowest status slave still has free will, although exercising that free will could likely have unpleasant consequences.


----------



## pointwithinacircle2 (Aug 18, 2014)

JMorris said:


> 1.the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.


If this is how you choose to define free will then I agree with you, nobody has that except maybe God.

I have a personal motto which bears on this question.  It is: "Most people are not in control of their actions".  I believe this motto to be true of most people.  How then can I believe in Free Will?  It is simple and is based on the rule of personal responsibility.  My rule of personal responsibility goes like this: "I am responsible for everything I do whether I think I am or not".  Sometimes my actions are based on fears or habits that are buried in my subconscious, outside of my awareness.   Sometimes they are based on ignorance or misunderstanding.  This does not absolve me of personal responsibility.

My own personal viewpoint centers on the answer to the question, Free Will to what?  I believe that the answer is Free Will to choose.  In every situation I choose.  Do people, places, things, and ideas influence my choices?  Of course!  Advertising is multi-trillion dollar business dedicated solely to influencing choice.  Politicians, churches, newscasters, con-men and pitch-men,  our spouses, parents, and children, basically everyone we know wants to influence our choices.  

How then can I believe in free will when I am under the crushing weight of all these influences?  Simply by refusing to surrender my personal responsibility for my choices.  

I guess that I see several issues in this topic.  
1. Do I make the choice in everything I do?   My answer is yes.
2. Am I able to make the choice free of outside influences?   My answer is no.
3. Do I get to choose the influences which control my choices?  My answer is "I am a Freemason".


----------



## Brother JC (Aug 18, 2014)

Most of the "crushing weight" you describe disappears when you turn off the TV. Sure, there are still people wanting you to choose their way, but you always have an option. There is no magical force stopping you from picking A over B.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Aug 18, 2014)

JMorris said:


> 1.the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.



This defines free will as omnipotence and nothing less. Compared to omnipotence, the "freest" man in the world is indistinguishable from the lowest slave.


----------



## dfreybur (Aug 18, 2014)

A couple of months ago Scientific American magazine has an article about how people behave if they think about free will or predestination.  Experimental subjects chose less moral options when told about predestination.  Experimental subjects chose more moral options when told about free will.  I don't know if the experiment counts as experimental psychology or experimental philosophy, but I'll go with the result - Believe in free will.  Act like you have free will.  Because that produces the better results.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Aug 18, 2014)

It's a rational choice. If you have no choice and no will, there is no point in exerting that will.


----------



## pointwithinacircle2 (Aug 18, 2014)

trysquare said:


> Most of the "crushing weight" you describe disappears when you turn off the TV. Sure, there are still people wanting you to choose their way, but you always have an option. There is no magical force stopping you from picking A over B.


It is interesting that you mention television.  I gave up watching most commercial television five years ago.   The only television with commercials that I watch today is live sports and the news.   And as for magical forces, it is my understanding that they do not exist.  In my experience when people refer to magical forces they are referring to natural forces that they do not understand.  It is lack of understanding, or lack of knowledge, that makes forces seem magical.


----------



## BroBook (Aug 18, 2014)

JMorris said:


> Somewhat of a play on words but keeping it in due bounds is acting with constraint, which (according to my definition atleast) is against having free will.
> 
> Please understand anyone reading that I don't have a lot of emotion invested in this. It's simply a topic I've explored in the past. I also believe in fate which renders me powerless to free will.


I hear what you saying "but" you do have the right to do the wrong thing, as far as fate is concerned the only thing that can not be changed is the past, and I would contradict my self almost but I will finish reading the other replies!!!


----------



## BroBook (Aug 18, 2014)

jamie.guinn said:


> Careful, next thing you know we'll have a philosophical schism and begin a sect of Calvanistic Freemasons. ;-)


That's really the idea of agreeing to to disagree or figure a way to get those who can best work and/or agree to meet each other.


----------



## Brother JC (Aug 18, 2014)

JMorris said:


> I also believe in fate which renders me powerless to free will.


So, no matter what you "choose" to do tomorrow morning, it was "fated" to happen? If you go to work, if you don't go to work? It was never your choice? I can't live that way.
I can choose to follow my obligations, and obey the laws of my town/state/country, and believe it's the best choice, or I can ignore all that and possibly pay the price.
Do obligations constrain my free will? Yes, but only to the point that I allow them. I'm not a complete anarchist... this week.


----------



## coachn (Aug 18, 2014)

JMorris said:


> ...I also believe in fate which renders me powerless to free will.


LOL!  Good one!  Blaming free will upon having no choice but to have it!  AWESOME!


----------



## BryanMaloney (Aug 19, 2014)

Without free will there is no moral responsibility.


----------



## dfreybur (Aug 19, 2014)

Let's everyone gather at the local lock up, make placards and start a chant -

They jailed Will!  Free Will!  Free Will!

They'll have no idea what's going on but we might go viral on utube.

They jailed Thoth.  Free Thoth!  Free Thoth!  (grumble spelling correction grumble ...)   ;^)


----------



## Morris (Aug 19, 2014)

When you compare choices to free will then yes I can agree. 

I read someone talk about predestination. I don't think fate (intervention) is the same as predestination. I don't subscribe to that but I do believe in fate. For today atleast, haha. 

Rhetoric is definitely not my strong suit but pointwithinacircle laid out my way of thinking perfectly. 

Seine talked about lack of freewill is lack of meaning. I disagree in that with the right spiritual well being and attitude anyone can have meaning in their life. 

Please don't let me kill the conversation because I for one have learned a lot and contemplated a lot. I rather enjoy overthinking things!


----------



## Morris (Aug 19, 2014)

coachn said:


> LOL!  Good one!  Blaming free will upon having no choice but to have it!  AWESOME!


If I were to think I caught a red light that spared me from a traffic accident I would call that fate. I could have driven faster (free will) to beat the light but didn't because fate intervened. I would never use think of using the word blame. 

Perhaps you can add some value to the conversation.


----------



## coachn (Aug 19, 2014)

JMorris said:


> If I were to think I caught a red light that spared me from a traffic accident I would call that fate. I could have driven faster (free will) to beat the light but didn't because fate intervened. I would never use think of using the word blame.
> 
> Perhaps you can add some value to the conversation.


It was just the way that you wrote it Bro., that's all.  It sounded as if you were saying in that short blurb that_ you were blaming fate that you now have to exercise your free will!  _I liked the irony.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Aug 19, 2014)

coachn said:


> It was just the way that you wrote it Bro., that's all.  It sounded as if you were saying in that short blurb that_ you were blaming fate that you now have to exercise your free will!  _I liked the irony.


And it sounds like it could be quite valid, too--almost Greek in its tragic implications.


----------



## JVan357 (Aug 23, 2014)

jamie.guinn said:


> Careful, next thing you know we'll have a philosophical schism and begin a sect of Calvanistic Freemasons. ;-)


HA! I am a Calvinist Freemason!


----------



## Morris (Aug 23, 2014)

coachn said:


> It was just the way that you wrote it Bro., that's all.  It sounded as if you were saying in that short blurb that_ you were blaming fate that you now have to exercise your free will!  _I liked the irony.



Sorry I mistook your post. The e-world is often hard for me to navigate which is why I try to read more than type.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Aug 24, 2014)

John Vandewater said:


> HA! I am a Calvinist Freemason!



You could not choose to have not become a Mason?


----------



## JVan357 (Aug 26, 2014)

Your understanding of Calvinism (Reformed Theology) is incorrect. (Unless you're only joking) Calvinism says one can never seek God, that human free will will always choose the things that are not of God until He regenerates the heart. I think what you speak of is hyper-calvinism. The average Calvinist does not believe in "hyper-calvinism." 

"Free will hath all the power in the world to send a man to hell, but never to heaven." -Charles Spurgeon


----------



## coachn (Aug 26, 2014)

John Vandewater said:


> Your understanding of Calvinism (Reformed Theology) is incorrect. (Unless you're only joking) Calvinism says one can never seek God, that human free will will always choose the things that are not of God until He regenerates the heart. I think what you speak of is hyper-calvinism. The average Calvinist does not believe in "hyper-calvinism."
> 
> "Free will hath all the power in the world to send a man to hell, but never to heaven." -Charles Spurgeon


YA SEE, THIS IS WHY I LOVE MASONIC DISCOURSE!!!! ;-)


----------



## JVan357 (Aug 26, 2014)

Not sure if that is sarcasm Coachn? lol


----------



## coachn (Aug 26, 2014)

John Vandewater said:


> Not sure if that is sarcasm Coachn? lol


It's Genuine Delight my Brother.  Thank You for posting.


----------



## JVan357 (Aug 26, 2014)

dalinkou said:


> Could you define hyper-Calvinism?
> (Not for the purposes of debate but only to understand)



Absolutely Brother, 
     Hyper Calvinism is not necessarily a Theological stance as much as it is a misunderstanding of what reformed theologians historically called Divine Election. Divine election is the belief that God elects those who He will save and has done so from the foundation of the world. 
     A "hyper-Calvinist" view of this is that because God predestines those who He will save, He also predestines everything else. Basically meaning that there is no free will at all. In this belief evangelism is also not seen in high regard due to the fact that God will save them regardless of whether or not we bring them the Gospel. 
     A typical "Calvinist", (me) will say that a man has all the free will in the world to send himself to eternal damnation but can never search for the things of God unless God first regenerates him or her. Americans in general hate this doctrine because of our definition of freedom but these are the doctrines that sprung from the reformation and the belief in sola scriptura or scripture alone. Of course other denominations (Catholicism, some Southern Baptists, Pentecostal, etc.) will disagree with this doctrine due to the fact that church tradition holds as much water as scripture. (even though the SBC will deny this) Reformed denominations include Presbyterian, Lutheran, Some Epicopalian, Reformed Baptist, Dutch Reformed, and even some Whitefield Methodists.
     This is a VERY broad explanation and there is MUCH more to it than this but in the context of what is being discussed in this thread, I think this is the answer you are sort of looking for.


----------



## pointwithinacircle2 (Aug 26, 2014)

John Vandewater said:


> unless God first regenerates him or her


Thank you for your explanations, they have been enlightening.  If I may also ask for a clarification, what does it mean to be regenerated by God?


----------



## JVan357 (Aug 26, 2014)

pointwithinacircle2 said:


> Thank you for your explanations, they have been enlightening.  If I may also ask for a clarification, what does it mean to be regenerated by God?



     The Bible says the human heart is desperately wicked above all things. That man is dead in his trespasses and sins. Now, a dead man cannot arise on his own. Just as a baby has nothing to do with his birth. Jesus said you must be "born again." Both of these connotations involve something a human heart cannot do on it's own. In order for the heart to accept Jesus, it must be softened, opened and regenerated. Changed from a stony heart to one of "flesh" as it says in Isaiah. Without this regeneration of the heart, one will never be able to call Jesus the Son of God. 

     Hope I helped? I feel like I did more harm than good? lol


----------



## BryanMaloney (Aug 27, 2014)

John Vandewater said:


> Absolutely Brother,
> Hyper Calvinism is not necessarily a Theological stance as much as it is a misunderstanding of what reformed theologians historically called Divine Election. Divine election is the belief that God elects those who He will save and has done so from the foundation of the world.



Of course, this means that, if God chooses not to pick you, it's still 100% God's choice and 100% God's responsibility, since we have no input into the matter. Those God rejects are rejected through no fault of their own, since those God chooses are chosen through no virtue of their own. If the elect cannot earn anything, then the condemned are equally as incapacitated. If we cannot refuse salvation, and God, alone, with zero input from people, decides who is given it, then we cannot be blamed for not accepting what was never given to us. It also makes praying for others' souls pointless. God already decided, He has fixed the outcomes. The measly prayers of unworthy mortals will have no influence and are of no use nor benefit.


----------



## coachn (Aug 27, 2014)

Yet, when you earnest Believe that you hold the Breath of God within you (see that nasty Garden in Eden story for the clue), and that very Breath provides you the God Given Ability to Choose using God's Free Will, then you are back to square one with God making the Choice, but doing so Through You!  So if there is anyone to blame, it would be God's fault for causing the whole thing to begin with.


----------



## coachn (Aug 27, 2014)

BryanMaloney said:


> ... salvation, ...


What's that?


----------



## JVan357 (Aug 27, 2014)

Oh yes we can be blamed...unless we are perfect and as holy as the creator? If we are not, then God in his perfect just ways is 100% justified in destroying us. None of us deserve heaven, its bestowed grace that allows any of us to receive communion with God.
     If 10 murderers go to trial and 8 get the death penalty but the judge lets 2 of them go completely free, is it unjust that the other 8 get the chair? By no means, all 10 deserve it. 
     God has chosen every single human he ever dealt with. (And nation) was it unfair he chose Israel and not Greece? 
     The typical argument here is that it's unfair of God to do all of this. However, whats unfair is that any of us in our sinful state ever get to be with Him. Grace changes everything. Unmerited Favor! If it depends on our decision, then it's not unmerited. That is Calvinism. (Broadly)


----------



## JVan357 (Aug 27, 2014)

And praying for others will never be pointless. We do not know what God has in store for us or others. That is why we evangelize and pray. Beseeching the Almighty in every endeavor.  We are His tools, He will never be ours.


----------



## coachn (Aug 27, 2014)

John Vandewater said:


> Oh yes we can be blamed...unless we are perfect and as holy as the creator? If we are not, then God in his perfect just ways is 100% justified in destroying us. None of us deserve heaven, its bestowed grace that allows any of us to receive communion with God.
> If 10 murderers go to trial and 8 get the death penalty but the judge lets 2 of them go completely free, is it unjust that the other 8 get the chair? By no means, all 10 deserve it.
> God has chosen every single human he ever dealt with. (And nation) was it unfair he chose Israel and not Greece?
> The typical argument here is that it's unfair of God to do all of this. However, whats unfair is that any of us in our sinful state ever get to be with Him. Grace changes everything. Unmerited Favor! If it depends on our decision, then it's not unmerited. That is Calvinism. (Broadly)


If this was a response to my post, you took it far too seriously.  That being said, let the fun & games begin!

1) Adam and Eve were not tossed because they ate the knowledge fruit.  They were tossed for two specific reasons.
a) They were blaming someone else for their freewill choices and basically said that they did not want to be held to account for their choices.  This made them both irresponsible and dangerous.
b) They might eat from the tree of life and therefore live for ever, and this would mean that irresponsible and dangerous and immortal people would be in his garden mucking it up and that was simply too intolerable for God to allow.  Boot Time occurred very rapidly thereafter!​2) We are all perfectly human. We were designed this way by God (by way of God's brilliant idea - EVOLUTION).
3) God needs no Justification.  Men do.  God doesn't.
4) We are all in heaven now (at least according to the Gospel of Thomas).  And accordingly, we deserve all that Heaven shall shove our way as a result of that God given reality. It is our choices that makes the experience either hot or cool.​


----------



## JVan357 (Aug 27, 2014)

A Gnostic in my midst? This should be a hoot! lol Once I return tonight I will begin a response. This could take a while. I'm not being serious at all, just debunking what some believe is Calvinism. This is not a debate nor am I being facetious or sarcastic in any way. I am only trying to explain Reformed Theology.

     I am a Theology (UnderGrad) Graduate from Liberty U and a Seminarian majoring in Apologetics with a concentration in textual criticism. I attended a Baptist and Methodist college but quickly learned that those specific universities did NOT teach the WHOLE counsel of God. And so, after many years of being an Arminian believer, I became a Reformed. This doesn't make me a super expert, just wanted you all to know where I am coming from. 

The great Baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon said _"We are all born Arminian, it's Grace that makes us Calvinists."_


----------



## coachn (Aug 27, 2014)

LL! It shuld be fun my Brther.  Lking frward t the Brtherly Discurse.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Aug 27, 2014)

John Vandewater said:


> Oh yes we can be blamed...unless we are perfect and as holy as the creator? If we are not, then God in his perfect just ways is 100% justified in destroying us.



What an evil parody of God.


----------



## JVan357 (Aug 27, 2014)

His ways are not ours my friend.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Aug 27, 2014)

The decision maker always holds responsibility in direct proportion over his control of the decision. It is that simple.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Aug 27, 2014)

John Vandewater said:


> His ways are not ours my friend.



Cop out response, can be used to rationalize any evil.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Aug 27, 2014)

As my Church (non-Arminian--Arminianism is Western) teaches, God has the power to select and decide all things. He freely chooses (for only God is free) to grant us a pale reflective measure of freedom to respond to His call. If we refuse to respond, it is upon us. We cannot choose to respond on our own merit, but God grants all the ability to choose to respond--such is Grace, given freely and without being earned. That being said, we still can repeat the first Adam. Even given Grace, we can still cast it away, ourselves, although nobody ELSE can take it from us. That is, while Grace cannot be taken from us, we can repudiate it, not because we have more power than God, but because God permits it. Why would God permit such worthless creatures to do such a thing, to refuse His unquestionably Holy Gift? Hrm, how to answer that? "His ways are not our ways."


----------



## JVan357 (Aug 27, 2014)

If you can cast away grace then you can cast away the New Testament. I'm at work and will respond with scripture later. Also, if you call my response a "cop out" then you must know it came from the psalmist himself?
    If you are going to get as offensive as I have read in your other threads then I will choose to end this conversation with you. It seems that you like to argue and not hold peaceful discourse. (Judging from your posts on several other threads) but....I am a flawed and sinful man so I hope you prove me incorrect.


----------



## JVan357 (Aug 27, 2014)

BryanMaloney said:


> As my Church (non-Arminian--Arminianism is Western) teaches, God has the power to select and decide all things. He freely chooses (for only God is free) to grant us a pale reflective measure of freedom to respond to His call. If we refuse to respond, it is upon us. We cannot choose to respond on our own merit, but God grants all the ability to choose to respond--such is Grace, given freely and without being earned. That being said, we still can repeat the first Adam. Even given Grace, we can still cast it away, ourselves, although nobody ELSE can take it from us. That is, while Grace cannot be taken from us, we can repudiate it, not because we have more power than God, but because God permits it. Why would God permit such worthless creatures to do such a thing, to refuse His unquestionably Holy Gift? Hrm, how to answer that? "His ways are not our ways."


_"37 All those the Father gives me WILL come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose NONE of all those HE has given me, but raise them up at the last day."_ -John 6:37-39

_Emphasis mine on the will, none and He_


----------



## Isaih (Aug 30, 2014)

JMorris said:


> When you compare choices to free will then yes I can agree.
> 
> I read someone talk about predestination. I don't think fate (intervention) is the same as predestination. I don't subscribe to that but I do believe in fate. For today atleast, haha.
> 
> ...


Paul says "
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,"

I think we are spirit portals. And the lesson the "choice" Eve made was to trust (or love) god.
Because the moment she doubted him , in listening to the lie of the serpent, she invited the influence of that spirit.



If we genuinely had free will, I should imagine we would all be Alexander the Great by the time we were 25 years old.

I think Gnosticism is about fighting this slavery to the influence on us by the spirit world, by trying to take control of the serpent spirit. And thus attaining free will.
But it is all a lie, and you just become useful idiots to that serpent because he is more powerful than any man. And likes you not.

Therefore JMorris the difference between Superfly and just Fly is realising god does not force you to trust(or  love) him, whereas the serpent treats you like a $2 whore.

We can imagine whatever we like, but only do what the spirits allow.


----------



## Morris (Aug 30, 2014)

Isaih said:


> whereas the serpent treats you like a $2 whore.
> .



How does one treat such a women?


----------



## Morris (Aug 30, 2014)

JMorris said:


> How does one treat such a women?


That wasn't very mature of me, my apologies isaih


----------



## Isaih (Aug 30, 2014)

r





JMorris said:


> How does one treat such a women?


He gives you riches and power in this world,in accordance with his plan to challenge god again, riches and power that will turn to ashes in your mouth.

Or in other words, you'll get your $2,and the illusion of free will in that you may achieve great things, but once its spent you're left with nothing but a  nasty coldsore


----------



## Warrior1256 (Sep 18, 2014)

BroBook said:


> I hear what you saying "but" you do have the right to do the wrong thing, as far as fate is concerned the only thing that can not be changed is the past, and I would contradict my self almost but I will finish reading the other replies!!!


I agree. I think my future is predicated entirely by the decisions I make today (free will) and chance (things I can not control).


----------



## pointwithinacircle2 (Nov 9, 2014)

coachn said:


> That being said, let the fun & games begin!
> 1) Adam and Eve were not tossed because they ate the knowledge fruit.  They were tossed for two specific reasons.
> a) They were blaming someone else for their freewill choices and basically said that they did not want to be held to account for their choices.  This made them both irresponsible and dangerous.
> b) They might eat from the tree of life and therefore live for ever, and this would mean that irresponsible and dangerous and immortal people would be in his garden mucking it up and that was simply too intolerable for God to allow.  Boot Time occurred very rapidly thereafter!​


This thread has been quiet for 8 weeks so I have no problem posting this, even if it is off topic.

Did anyone else notice that, prior to eating the fruit, God told Adan and Eve that if they ate the fruit they would die and Satan told them they would gain knowledge.  So, God lied to them and Satan told them the truth.  I have never heard an explanation of this point.  Does anybody have one?​


----------



## pointwithinacircle2 (Nov 10, 2014)

The quote from God is in Genesis 2:17.  Many different translations can be found and compared here; http://biblehub.com/genesis/2-17.htm
In Genesis 3:3, 3:4, and 3:5 Satan questions the woman about what God said then tells her the truth; http://biblehub.com/genesis/3-3.htm http://biblehub.com/genesis/3-4.htm http://biblehub.com/genesis/3-5.htm


----------



## Chaz (Nov 10, 2014)

I've heard it taught that He was referring to spiritual death.


----------



## jjjjjggggg (Nov 10, 2014)

Now that I think about it, I don't remember the subject of free will ever coming up in any of the numerous buddhist or taoist texts I've read. In fact, I'm not sure in any of the eastern traditions that I've studied and practiced that this was ever mentioned. The subject of free will has shown up more in the western traditions, even those predating Christianity (Greek philosophy), and in the western secular philosophies that show up later on. Hinduism, even with its rich and numerous texts don't really tackle the subject as much as I would have thought.

Of course, I guess since Buddhism stands on the side of "no-self" then the idea of free will would be moot.


----------



## coachn (Nov 11, 2014)

AmigoKZ said:


> I am explainin' this issue like that:
> 1. The most important thing is that in humans there's existance of 2 things. 1 -- Body/mind. 2. Soul.
> The problem is that there's no "proof" that -- "soul" is existing! Scientists cannot see it through microscope or sth. else.
> Where is "soul"? Show me, please. Then, from that point, we don't have anythin' else, but -- BELIEVE.
> ...



The Body is time and space bound.  It is physical and mortal.
The Spirit is neither time nor space bound.  It is non-physical and eternal.
The Soul it the interface between the physical and the spiritual.   It is created through their synergy.  It is also their historical component and hence recordable and reportable.  It is time and space bound and it is immortal.


----------



## coachn (Nov 13, 2014)

AmigoKZ said:


> Thanks for the info. Sir.
> So, you think that there's 3 sources(substances) in humans?
> It's accordin' to what Teaching(religion)?


I do not think that there are three substances.  I believe there are three aspects of man:  Body, Soul (mind-emotion), Spirit

I understand this can be found within the Holy Scriptures.  

REF: 1 Thessalonians 5:23 [New King James Version (NKJV)]  -- Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.


----------



## pointwithinacircle2 (Nov 13, 2014)

coachn said:


> I believe there are three aspects of man:  Body, Soul (mind-emotion), Spirit


I have always had trouble understanding the concepts of soul and spirit.  If soul is mind-emotion, what is spirit?   Let me ask it another way.  I can relate to soul because I can relate to what it feel like to have a mind and emotions.  But I have trouble relating to having a spirit because I can't understand what it is and where I might find a correspondence in myself.  Do you have any other words to describe spirit so that I can try to figure out what you are saying?


----------



## coachn (Nov 13, 2014)

pointwithinacircle2 said:


> I have always had trouble understanding the concepts of soul and spirit.  If soul is mind-emotion, what is spirit?   Let me ask it another way.  I can relate to soul because I can relate to what it feel like to have a mind and emotions.  But I have trouble relating to having a spirit because I can't understand what it is and where I might find a correspondence in myself.  Do you have any other words to describe spirit so that I can try to figure out what you are saying?


Yes.  I believe that I do and thanks for asking. 

Spirit encompasses anything that is transcendent of and to time and space.  Spirit is recognized as patterns within time and space but it is not bound to or by them.   Things like Truth, Eternity, God, Evil and Good are all transcendent and hence spiritual in their nature.  You cannot put your finger on any of them, but you can recognize them all by the patterns they produce within time-space.


----------



## NY.Light (Nov 13, 2014)

jamie.guinn said:


> Now that I think about it, I don't remember the subject of free will ever coming up in any of the numerous buddhist or taoist texts I've read. In fact, I'm not sure in any of the eastern traditions that I've studied and practiced that this was ever mentioned. The subject of free will has shown up more in the western traditions, even those predating Christianity (Greek philosophy), and in the western secular philosophies that show up later on. Hinduism, even with its rich and numerous texts don't really tackle the subject as much as I would have thought.
> 
> Of course, I guess since Buddhism stands on the side of "no-self" then the idea of free will would be moot.



I'm not sure about free will, but the will is something that Buddhism talks about explicitly in terms of conquering the will. Not elimination of, but controlling your individual will.  The antithesis to this would be the philosophy of Nietzsche, who advocates the free reign of the will.


----------



## jjjjjggggg (Nov 16, 2014)

A link to great videos on the scientific perspective of the question... thank me later.

http://m.theepochtimes.com/n3/1079583-what-does-science-say-about-free-will-videos/


----------



## pointwithinacircle2 (Nov 16, 2014)

coachn said:


> Yes.  I believe that I do and thanks for asking.
> 
> Spirit encompasses anything that is transcendent of and to time and space.  Spirit is recognized as patterns within time and space but it is not bound to or by them.   Things like Truth, Eternity, God, Evil and Good are all transcendent and hence spiritual in their nature.  You cannot put your finger on any of them, but you can recognize them all by the patterns they produce within time-space.


 Please forgive me for taking so long to reply, I have been looking for my copy of "Six Great Ideas" by the philosopher Mortimer Adler.  Your comments reminded me of a description that Adler gives of Ideas.  The second section of Adler's book is entitled "Ideas we judge by: Truth, Goodness, Beauty".  When I first read your post I was struck by the similarity of the words you chose to describe as "transcendent and hence spiritual in their nature" and Adler's list of "Ideas we judge by".  While the spiritual and the philosophical are seen by some as opposing viewpoints, I wonder if in this case they are both viewing the same object.  Perhaps it is spirit, or our "spiritual condition" if you will, that aids us in our judgements.  By refining these core values, whether we approach them from an intellectual or a spiritual perspective, we increase our ability to make correct judgements that lead to constructive action.  Action like you referred to here:





coachn said:


> you can recognize them all by the patterns they produce within time-space.


----------



## Michael Hatley (Dec 11, 2014)

Personally, I do not believe in a Judgement Day.  I don't personally believe our decisions are tallied up at the end of our lives and weighed on a scale.  That allows me to see Calvin's, Aquinas' and others "compatabilism" as the, well.  To be be direct, it paints them into a corner which precludes a sentient, benevolent God.  In accepting that free will is in fact provided by our Creator, and yet God, who is omnipotent, predetermined all of it.  And so, why would God make any creatures suffer in ignorance (the world that did not have his Word), struggle in pain to hopefully make correct decisions which leads either to nirvana or burning Hell?  Because he wanted to.  And an onmipotent God wants for nothing.

And if you set aside the reasons for doing this to us (because, we can't know the mind of God, etc etc), then how can it be benevolent to give people the free will to allow themselves to burn in hell, while at the same time predestining them to do so?  

It is a self contradicting mess, I'm afraid.  One that neither the Bible nor the philosophers (and I tackled Hume, Kant, Spinoza etc) can answer to satisfaction.

I think you have to utilize the evidence of observation.  Clearly, evil actions are a choice by those not insane (i.e., incapable of fully understanding social norms).  We know it, because we make those choices.  We see others do so.  Ergo, free will exists.  

But also we know that we are largely the product of what we have observed.  Moral relativism may not be absolute, but we learn what our own particular society views as evil, and make choices within that structure.   We know that a human being raised in the wild will have a different set of standards, one circling around survival.  A more brutal world, and one that has made up the vast majority of humankind's time on Earth.  Was it evil to kill your brother and take his woman or his food, before concepts of evil existed?  According to Plato's forms, sure it was.  I trend towards thinking that evil is a social word, and society is what separates us from the animals.  But invented and measured by us.


----------



## Michael Hatley (Dec 11, 2014)

Aristotle is great without all the Aquinas 

They had just recently rediscovered Aristotle (via Islamic scholars, ah the irony) and he was bending it to Christianity.  I don't mean to sound glib, but to me its a bit like trying to true astrophysics with Revelation, or oceanoagraphy with Moses parting the Red Sea.  You read his stuff on transubstantiation?  Woo.

But if I had remained a Christian seeker rather than letting it go in favor of Deist seeker, I suppose I'd feel compelled to true it.

In my worldview (which I don't hold above anyone elses), you get two principal things from ethically sound behavior.  Both are manifestations of the same things: peace and harmony.  Peace with yourself, harmony with civilization.  Personally, I don't believe God is concerned with our actions one way or another, it is entirely on us.

But I also subscribe to a prime mover idea.  We've talked.  Big bang, etc.  The fundamental difference I think in my view and the "compatabalist" sort of view, in my mind, is a anthropormorphiclly sentient, meddlesome sort of God.  That just doesn't square, to me, with our observation of the universe.  It is just to grand a place for it to jibe that the Archiect would care if we let the old lady cross the road in her own, or not.  That is on us, and affects us.  The micromanager God just appears too petty, to me.

Wandering OT.  See you tonight Brother.


----------



## GKA (Aug 8, 2015)

[QUOTE="Morris, post: 134162, member: 15586"
I don't believe a person who lives in servitude has free will.  .[/QUOTE]

It is possible for a person to live in servitude yet not be subservient, devotees do it, there is an inner peace for those who choose to serve, I don't mean serving the whims of man, it must be a higher purpose


----------



## coachn (Aug 8, 2015)

GKA said:


> Morris said:
> 
> 
> > I don't believe a person who lives in servitude has free will.  .
> ...


To Provide Service is Choice Driven.  When there is no Choice, it is no Service.


----------

