Free Will vs. Determinism v. 2.0

[AYHJA]

Let me get out my protocol droid and see if he speaks "monkey" <jk>

That fucked me up so bad I'm going to have to come back and read that post later, CDR...

[raum]

^to be fair, i heard that in a Christopher Walken voice... like Gabriel from the prophecy...

Love that flick.

[Aemeth]

Ok not bad...A few clarifications:

So Christianity blew up because of clever marketing schemes such as the verse we all know and love, John 3:16? Surely this can't be complete shit though, as it had to be based somewhat on what Jeshua taught, right? If so, what are those principles?

And:

"I do not use the word "God" as a being... but as a progression... it is synonymous with the word Justice in Hebrew, or the word "Fate". El is the being which dictated G-d is Ahab, or Love. It is the will of El through his four letter ineffable name that the hebrew dictates, not the will of God."

Can you elaborate on this a little more? The sentence structure on the El is the being which....sentence is trippin me out and I don't think I am understanding it correctly...

:)

[raum]

Ok not bad...A few clarifications:

So Christianity blew up because of clever marketing schemes such as the verse we all know and love, John 3:16? Surely this can't be complete shit though, as it had to be based somewhat on what Jeshua taught, right? If so, what are those principles?

Good to hear from you, btw! but now...

You don't know most of the New Testament is about writing to where Christianity's numbers are down for the month to motivate the local recruiting effort, or trying to grow their market... It literally says it. most of it is LETTERS, not journal entries. Letters to people who need persuading...

As far as what Jeshua taught - the Nazarenes and the Ebionites have it far more accurately. He adhered to the Torah, he expounded on the Torah, and he Questioned the Torah where there was need to question it. He challenged those parts of the Torah that are clearly not original to the text, and he was an incredibly learned trust-fund baby, who became a political revolutionary and experienced the total Messhiach when he realized his path would not lead to overtaking the throne of the corrupt king of Judea, but would lead to his own persecution, which would be paramount to realizing his teachings. His annointing with the Divine Providence of his royal Bloodline which first enjoyed the covenant is something all should strive for. He himself never asked for belief nor promoted that his mom was a virgin, or that his dad was El; or what he was doing was singularly his opportunity. I find those same claims unessential to my application of his teachings.

And:

Can you elaborate on this a little more? The sentence structure on the El is the being which....sentence is trippin me out and I don't think I am understanding it correctly...

OK, G-D is a hebrew word for "fate, destiny, justice." Depending on the diacritics applied to the G and the D. The hyphen is a "ah", "eh", or "oh" sound depending on those marks. God really should be "Gahd", "Gehd", or "Gohd". As with most Hebrew, all the pronunciations can be used interchangeably, but have subtle difference and general usuage rules.

G-D is "what happens", El is the Being that makes what happen to occur. that is later described by the formula YHVA. It is forbidden to pronounce this unless you are in the Holy of Holies, and only at certain times, to remain in the covenant established with the El of Yishrael. Instead, El in the formulation of YHVH, which is the natual balance of things, is called ADNI, or Adonai (Ah-Doh-Nah-Yay-Ee) which is the hebrew word for "Lord." El is the God of Abraham and who called him Shaddai El Chai, of the "Almighty Living God." in that natural balance "Yah" is the Terrestrial Deity, and Voh is his Creation. This is the formula for the impregnation of woman and the mainfestation, in term, of the child and its emergence from the womb. This is a material metaphor for the spiritual truth of the Ratzon El, The Will of El, which is Called God in Hebrew.

This is why the Qabalist Rabbi says "I am Man, in whom is God." Because in Man, resides the core component of the Will of El, in his YHVH." If you do not know the true meaning of the word G-d, you will think the Rabbi is saying his is "god", when if you insist on English only - you should hear it as "I am man, in whom is the will of god."

When you refer to El as "God", is but a part of the equation of El, you reveal the flaws that are fundamental to the Western Misunderstanding of the West. Ironically this same misunderstanding that is promoted in prayer and study is indicicative of almost every flaw in the American system.

God is defined in the Mind of Man in three parts: Being, Doing, and Knowing. These are the Shin, Mem, and Aleph (Sh, M, and A) of Shema, "The name" - which is Name of El sacred to the Covenant of the Tribes; and known by VERY few. You earn it by birth, and no other way. When no more know it, it will be dissolved. But should any ever learn it, they could sap power from it, and form a covenant of their own. Thus it is kept sacred, and secret. For the record, I have not been told it, but I have suspicions... and this "Mastery of the Names" (of El) is the core idea behind the "Magic" of Christianity that was removed and in some places by the Gentile Christians.

That is why many of us question if "modern christianity's flawed understanding" is leading humanity into a Land of Confusion. It's not their fault, it's just that believe it or not, there is more than the Devil in the details... Modern christianity has disarmed itself of its own meaning, and has turned the way of the Masons, who pass solemn rhetoric of the Ancient Craft in hallowed halls, but fail to be able to chisel much of the original meaning out of it, and thus its power lies untapped.


If your desire to understand Christianity runs so deep, you must learn some Hebrew and some Greek. The Aramaic you need is pretty much a breeze at that time..

[Aemeth]

That is very interesting and helpful...I am sure I will reference back to this thread...

Now, to get back on topic:

"I am man, in whom is the will of god."

If El puts the G-D into man, whom are we to think that we can do anything about it? I am not seeing how free will can play with the other children here :(

And:

"We are chosen to serve because we choose to serve."

I know this is intentionally worded this way, but it still seems circular...expand?

[raum]

That is very interesting and helpful...I am sure I will reference back to this thread...

Now, to get back on topic:

"I am man, in whom is the will of god."

If El puts the G-D into man, whom are we to think that we can do anything about it? I am not seeing how free will can play with the other children here :(

El doesn't put the G-D into Man... Man can reach an exhalted state where he invokes El, and is a vessel of The Ratzon Ha-El, or "Will of El." (i.e. "G-d") He is thus, El's agent. This is not the raw state of man, but rather the state to which he may hope to achieve. The raw state of man is still tied to Guph and Nephesh (infantile reliance on food and nurturing, and sensual enjoyment of the physical world). ( Regarding the use of the word "man"... Some schools debate whether women can do this, but mine holds firm a woman is capable of any achievement of mankind she would be capable of if she were a man of the same spiritual calibur, technical experience, and mental, physical, and emotional constitution. But we do NOT believe people can do "anything", we hold there is that direct course that is most in alignment with your personal essence,... and we do not believe those courses are really defined by things like gender. In order to know thyself, you must know your abilities and your capacity to perform them.)

And:

"We are chosen to serve because we choose to serve."

I know this is intentionally worded this way, but it still seems circular...expand?

If we prove ourselves serving in small ways for the right reasons,
we MIGHT be chosen to serve in big ways for other things.

That's one interpretation...

[Fapper]

The fact of not to be able to decide to be born or not, is something that limitates the amount of freedom of your will. Even bitting your elbow is kind of impossible with no need of having a supreme force denying you that privilege.

The determinism is something that can be used but without any chance of being specific, for example: we all will die, ence, we are born to die. Anyone thinks that's determinism?
Accepting there's something written somewhere about one particle of the universe makes necesary to asume that also describes the others otherwise any other particle could affect the first in a way is not pretended to. That makes the idea pretty absurd.

Free Will and Determinism are the two extremes of a human point of view, we accept the sum of all facts as mix of both but that simply means the whole thing is none of them two.

[raum]

The problem with free will is people for some reason don't understand the word "free". Just because something is "free" doesn't make it strong, or good.

See, here is the point I make, for the anology's sake, you have "free will" over your arm. Can you make it do something that you have not conditioned your arm to do? Maybe.

The will is the same way, it is a muscle of sorts that must be developed, refined, focuses and slowly applied for stable and healthy growth. If anyone doubts me, ask someone who went to bootcamp, or practiced weekly for a sport... Just because your will is "free" doesn't mean you are free to do with it what you want; you have to build up your will before you can use it to any great effect. The thing is, only you really know how strong your will is, and when you started trying to control the forces and powers of your being; which is the greatest exercise in building up your will.

But the real question is why would you "Free Will" be important unless there was something trying to control you?

For the record I do believe in self-determined existence, but not necessarily preordained birth.

[AYHJA]

Free Will and Determinism are the two extremes of a human point of view, we accept the sum of all facts as mix of both but that simply means the whole thing is none of them two.

Interesting way of putting that Fap...

To be honest, I think to even begin to understand what is being said here is to free your mind of your previous ties and see things for what they really are...There is no way (at least in my mind) the the purest of Christians would see the truth in these words, even though they can't offer up a rebuttal...

"We are chosen to serve because we choose to serve."

To me, this quite sums up this thread quite nicely...Even when thinking about everything you've ever known about religion and the bible, it should ring out like the school bell...Every prophet, man who has done great things, even if they are just stories, every one of them had this theme in common...As Faps post said, and raum's last interpretation, every great teacher doesn't work in a university...Every great teacher doesn't teach something that can be learned...Everything that can be learned isn't learned in a school, though VU kicks all kinds of ass... :)

So, this is what I think: We are determined to do the good, until we choose to do the bad.

This is what I feel is your fundamental error, your belief in a 'good or bad' only depends on your point of view...We have discussed this before, what you consider bad, someone else considers good...We see this all the time in our culture, various social dynamics, practices, and so forth...I got ass whippings, you may have gotten Time-Outs...Good or bad..? How about a point of view..? A POV, I might add, that needs to be shed before any of the things said here will start making since IMO...

[Aemeth]

"If we prove ourselves serving in small ways for the right reasons,
we MIGHT be chosen to serve in big ways for other things.

That's one interpretation..."

2 things:

1) So we must use our free will to achieve a state of existence where we sacrifice our will?

2) I read this and think of a somewhat helpless El, hoping that certain individuals are able to invoke him...Supwiddat?

"The will is the same way, it is a muscle of sorts that must be developed, refined, focuses and slowly applied for stable and healthy growth. If anyone doubts me, ask someone who went to bootcamp, or practiced weekly for a sport... Just because your will is "free" doesn't mean you are free to do with it what you want; you have to build up your will before you can use it to any great effect. The thing is, only you really know how strong your will is, and when you started trying to control the forces and powers of your being; which is the greatest exercise in building up your will."

Nice.

"For the record I do believe in self-determined existence, but not necessarily preordained birth."

How exactly do these not mutually entail each other?

"This is what I feel is your fundamental error, your belief in a 'good or bad' only depends on your point of view...We have discussed this before, what you consider bad, someone else considers good...We see this all the time in our culture, various social dynamics, practices, and so forth...I got ass whippings, you may have gotten Time-Outs...Good or bad..? How about a point of view..? A POV, I might add, that needs to be shed before any of the things said here will start making since IMO..."

Well raum said if we use our will properly we can invoke El...I would say using free will properly could be considered good and not using it would be bad. (I differ in the argument b/c I say we are set to do "good" until we make the decision to rebel.