partinobodycular said:

I have no idea what a balance between those two things looks like. As a self-proclaimed stoic am I more in balance than other people, or less in balance than other people?

Click to expand...

Probably less, if youre actively trying to snuff out your emotions. But in all honesty, I don't think you're capable of going all the way with that. Because it's part of your human nature.

Surely you've enjoyed listening to music before. That "joy" is something that sets us apart. Also, it takes "passion" to study any topic or subject in depth. These emotional aspects that drive the human person cannot be created by man. Yet it is our balance in relation to facts. It's really our driving force. Without it, we wouldn't have gotten anywhere farther than a sponge..

Dan1988 said:

I don't know who the "elohim" are that you're referring to. If you mean the "Angels who sinned" then just refer to them as Demons or fallen Angels.

Click to expand...

Elohim is the name of God in the Hebrew Bible.

Apple Sky said:

And it's been explained why we don't.

Click to expand...

No it hasn't. As I explained the only way you can see the entire 90 miles of road is if you are looking from a really high elevation, like filming with a drone. Otherwise your view of the road is stopped by the horizon which is the curve of the earth.
Both photos were taken from up high, but not high enough to show the entire road of bridge. Both photos demonstrated the limited view due to the drop caused by the earth's curvature. That's what is so stupid about the memes, they both prove the curvature of the earth.

childeye 2 said:

I believe it grieves the Holy Spirit when we don't listen to Him. Sometimes what people say grieve the Holy Spirit inside me. Let me say here, I don't mean to imply in any way someone is going to be perfect as they transform; I'm saying that the transformation is a process that first begins by admitting we cannot choose to BE GOOD, apart from God's Spirit.

Click to expand...

Thank you.
So, you believe that people with holy spirit can choose not to listen to God, and go against him.
Free will is having the ability to choose a course willingly; voluntarily; unforced; of one's own accord, desire or will; intentionally and deliberately.

• The angel called Satan the Devil, did this... despite having the influence of holy spirit, and despite being sinless.
• Adam did this... despite having the influence of holy spirit, and being sinless.
• Mankind today does this... despite having the influence of holy spirit.

They all exercise free will regardless of holy spirit or not; regardless of having sin, or not.

Thank you, Mark, for your helpful and encouraging reply. As an update, I decided to remove the time limits for texting, not wanting to be in a situation again where I am glued to my phone feeling severely restricted in what I can do. The result is that the only reliable strategy I have to try to control my smartphone use is to turn the phone’s power off when/before I get home. One of the inconveniences is two step verification where I have to get a code texted to my phone for certain websites/accounts I have to use. In the future I am thinking of getting an authenticator app or password manager on another device for this purpose, but for now, if I have to receive the 2FA code, I could power my phone on only for a few seconds and power it off immediately after inputting the code. However, needing to have the phone for 2FA makes the next phase of my plan a hassle. In the future, I want to obtain a special time lock safe (or use a safe with the combination saved in the timelock online lockbox) to lock myself out from the phone for certain periods of time. One of the timelock safes I researched is bypassable by removing the batteries I think, so it might not be an option.

So because I disabled the time limits for texting in the Lock Me Out app, and I may not consistently turn my smartphone’s power off, I am back in the situation where I could waste entire evenings after work spending time on my phone, which seems like a problem to me, but I do not want to be on a smartphone where I am severely restricted. If the phone is powered off, and not locked up in a safe, if I really want to text, I can just get the phone and power it back on.

I also struggle with the inconvenience of powering my smartphone off. It is really convenient to listen to the relaxing music stations on my phone with my bluetooth earphones to block out outside sound in the apartment I live in. With turning off my phone, if I wanted to listen to music with my wireless earphones, I would have more of a hassle of having to turn my laptop on to stream the music, and I think if I run the laptop all the time when I am at home that it wears on the battery so that the laptop gets more worn down sooner in time. I may want to get an iPad or alternate device locked down with restrictions in the future where I can stream music. And there is also an inconvenience where if the laptop connects to the bluetooth earphones, it will always take precedence over connection to the phone, meaning I will have to remove the earphones in settings on the computer if I want to connect them to the phone.

Another inconvenience with powering off the phone is I cannot easily look up phone numbers and make calls, so if I want to call with my landline, I have to use the laptop to look up phone numbers. This inconvenience has sometimes resulted in me deciding to keep the smartphone turned on when I get home to make the call.

soldier of light said:

Jesus can teach anyone. That's what my eyes see in scripture

Click to expand...

The only teacher is GOD through Jesus Christ the mediator. We are taught of GOD. If anyone learns from the FATHER they must go through Christ. This eliminates deception, GOD cannot lie, neither can Jesus.

Daniel Martinovich said:

The whole thing is a process that started way before Christ came. The only reason I mention the future is because that is where the process is leading us.
However, I don’t hold to any traditions of a second advent and especially when it involves a physical kingdom on earth.

Click to expand...

You do not believe in a literal physical visible future return of Christ?

Maria Billingsley said:

This article characterizes a professional training course as an attempt towards radical political action, but that fundamentally misses the true, and far more compassionate, goal of the National Education Association's program. This is not an attempt to "transform" people, but a crucial effort to foster understanding, safety, and dignity for LGBTQ+ educators and students who are already members of our schools and communities.
The union is just providing guidance as inevitably there will be employees going through a transition. This training is necessary to dismantle the very "systems of oppression" that cause stress and discomfort—or what is clinically known as gender dysphoria.
As Christians we should exercise compassionate understanding towards those who are marginalized, misunderstood, or struggling with the immense complexities of identity and life.

What would Jesus Christ of Nazareth do?

Be blessed

Click to expand...

I mostly agree, but it's full of leftist jargon. I've seen that kind of training. Likely everything that's said is in some objective sense true, but the overall smug attitude is one of the major things turning people away from liberal politics. Surveys suggest that this is a major problem for the Democratic party. We need a way to encourage acceptance of people who are different, while including people with traditional backgrounds in our sympathies.

Akita Suggagaki said:

Our responsibility lies in working for the Lord, whether it is in “looking after orphans or widows in distress” (James 1:27), giving to the hungry, the naked, visiting those in prison (Matthew 25:35-36), serving in our workplace (Colossians 3:22), or doing whatever we do (Colossians 3:23). And our motivation is that we have God’s own promise that our work “is not in vain” in the Lord “since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving” (Colossians 3:24).

Click to expand...

What you have listed has nothing to do with politics. I do agree with them but I don’t do these things through government, I do them personally when I see a need and am able to help. These works cannot be ours but GODS work of love in us. Ephesians 2:10 Philippians 2:13 We do not earn salvation by any works of our own we are GODS workmanship. GOD planned our works in advance. Just as Jesus said his FATHER did the works, John 10:14 John 5:19,30 Jesus here sets the example for us that we also do no works, the FATHER does them. In this way GOD receives all the glory.

partinobodycular said:

Interesting, a warning about indoctrination from a self-proclaimed victim of indoctrination. Do you not see the irony?

Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about indoctrination though, I was talking about cultural and non-biological evolutionary changes, where humans share their existence with AI over many generations. We don't really know how this will turn out, considering that we humans have never seen such a thing as AI in nature.

Humans are used to being the dominant natural force in regards to intelligence. Once we no longer are, what do you think that will do to us? Will it make us absolutely dependent? Will we submit as subjects? We just don't know.

As far as me being indoctrinated, I don't think I am any more than any scholar of any discipline.

Desk trauma said:

She spent years screaming at people and they don’t rush to her aid? Odd that.

Click to expand...

Respect for someone doesn’t mean denial of their faults. I respect Schumer, although I can’t stand his politics but thank the Lord for the golden rule. Politics fall within the area of our fallen nature.

zoidar said:

I appreciate your respons, but that's a theological conclusion. Dikaiouminoi believes that conclusion can be made from the grammar. It's a bit annoying I can do nothing with his statements. Kind of kills the discussion.

Click to expand...

Grammatical arguments like that tend to be fallacious because they treat the text as if it were a technical document when it is not. Your approach of reading further on in the passage is the more appropriate exegetical move, because it deals with the narrative context rather than being deconstructive and creating a foreign context through linguistic games. Language simply doesn't function in the way that is necessary for the technical grammatical arguments to be anything more than puffery.

concretecamper said:

We are talking about free will and the ability to be virtuous, or not. We are not talking about physical gymnastics, ugh

Click to expand...

I see virtue as a power not a choice/decision. In that view, the desire/will, to obtain virtue, would compel us to Christ as the source of virtue.

20 And, behold, a woman, which was diseased with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind him, and touched the hem of his garment:

21 For she said within herself, If I may but touch his garment, I shall be whole.

The earth is round, no if‘s, and’s or but’s. Period. Gosh, if it were me arguing that it’s flat, I’d be rethinking my position long ago but I guess some people refuse to see reality.

ChubbyCherub said:

Out of interest, why does it matter if the earth is round or flat?

Are we trying to ascertain biblical explanations versus man or are we just making a thread to pass the time?

Click to expand...

Because it’s really ODD for people to think the earth is flat in this day and age.

Brightfame52 said:

Because the Father draws them

Click to expand...

I appreciate your respons, but that's a theological conclusion. Dikaiouminoi believes that conclusion can be made from the grammar. It's a bit annoying I can do nothing with his statements. Kind of kills the discussion.

RDKirk said:

Military personnel do not have the authority to interpret the Constitution, however.
No military court is going to rule a presidential order as "unconstitutional."
That's never going to happen.
That is out of their jurisdictional wheelhouse.

Click to expand...

Not if those Constitutional amendments had already been explained by SCOTUS.

RDKirk said:

The military kills civilians all the time. What are you talking about?

Click to expand...

Then you admit that the US military ignores the Geneva Convention and are guilty of war crimes.

Dan1988 said:

because everyone is born into slavery to Satan. Nobody can escape Satan's grip on them

Click to expand...

The only grip the Adversary has is death, and that was overcome. We are free once again to make the right choice, a willing choice based on understanding of how God's will is superior to our instinctive animalistic self-serving will we are born with like the family cat.

timf said:

A question arises as to when the "church" begin.

Click to expand...

At Caesarea Philippi when Jesus said it was truth from the Father, and not man,

timf said:

Many consider that all of the promises for Israel

Click to expand...

This was the entire House of Israel, all 12 tribes, not just the Jews or Judaea. When Jesus said go first to all nations he meant of the House of Israel, reunite the original kingdom under the Kingdom/governance of the Father.

There is a point where people lose focus of the Lord by becoming obsessed with their sin, but if your relationship with Christ doesn't result in your abhorring your sin and seeking to be free of it then I can only wonder who it is you are having a relationship with.

It was death that came out of the Garden as a result of the fall, not a sinful nature. That nature was built in from the beginning in order for us (and elohim) to have choice..

CoreyD said:

The record shows I gave clarification... repeatedly.
The record shows you ignored the posts.

Click to expand...

childeye 2 said:
The definition of freewill in Greek that you have given above is an adjective, not a noun. It describes a certain type of action or choice that is uncoerced/voluntary.
----------------------------------------------------

Subjective Semantic Analysis of the op​

Objective Contextual Meaning​

• Will = predisposed intent or desire, shaped by God’s Spirit or sinful desire.
• Free = voluntariness of action.
• These meanings are grounded in the context of Scripture, not abstract philosophy. They arise from how the words function in their passages (John 8:44, James 1:14, Leviticus 1:3, 2 Corinthians 9:7).

Subjective morphing​

When lifted out of their contexts and combined into “free will” or “free‑willed agents,” the terms morph:

• Biblical usage:
  • Will = predisposed intent or desire.
  • Free = voluntariness of action.
  • Together, they describe how choices are made in context (voluntary offerings, desires shaped by influence).
• Philosophical usage:
  • “Free will” = autonomous human faculty of choice.
  • “Free‑willed agents” = beings with innate, independent agency.
  • These are interpretive constructs, not direct lexical meanings.

Mechanics of Morphing​

Here’s how and why the shift happens:

1. Loss of context → In Scripture, will refers to intent/desire, and free refers to voluntariness of action. Once those contexts (offerings, desires, voluntary acts) are stripped away, the words lose their specific grammatical anchors.
2. Fusion into a new phrase → The separate categories (noun vs. adjective/adverb) are merged into a single compound phrase, “free will,” which Scripture itself does not define.
3. Interpretive overlay → Theology and philosophy supply new meaning, treating “free will” as a metaphysical faculty of autonomous choice.

In other words, they become subjective terms, shaped by theological or philosophical interpretation rather than by the objective contextual meaning.

Summary​

• Objective contextual meaning:
  • Will = predisposed intent or desire.
  • Free = voluntariness of action.
• Subjective morphing:
  • Out of context, “free will” becomes a philosophical construct of autonomous choice.
  • The morphing occurs because the terms are lifted from their contextual usage and reinterpreted through theology and philosophy.

CoreyD said:

The record shows you wanted to talk about something that wasn't actually what the OP referred to.

Click to expand...

The op showed the terms were morphing terms taking them out of the syntactical context. The record shows the subsequent disconnect in communication:

CoreyD said:
I referred to the scriptures which refer to man's free will, repeatedly.
Leviticus 1:3;
childeye 2 said:
A "voluntary" or "freewill" choice/decision (an adjective).

CoreyD said:
From your comment, you agree then, that an unforced choice/decision, is an exercising of free will. Yes?
childeye 2 said:
Not really. The context of Jesus saying, "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do", implies the character of the father manifests in the fathers children.

CoreyD said:
I don't understand this statement - the choice/option between right/wrong is a valid freedom as conveyed by the serpent??
What do you mean? Can you explain. <-- This is a snippet: here is the full sentence: childeye 2 said:
I therefore do not accept the premise that the choice/option between right/wrong is a valid freedom as conveyed by the serpent.
CoreyD said:
I don't understand this statement - the choice/option between right/wrong is a valid freedom as conveyed by the serpent??
What do you mean? Can you explain.
childeye 2 said:
The Satan is the one that conveyed we have the choice/option to disobey God and not die.

CoreyD said:
You appear to be saying the woman did not have a choice in the matter, and could not exercise her freedom of choice... she had none.
Is that what you are saying?
childeye 2 said:
The scripture is saying she was deceived into doing it. You know that don't you? It's not like she would volunteer to be deceived. Did you know that Jesus came down to destroy the works of the devil?

CoreyD said:

The record shows that you didn't want to accept that, but wanted it your way, and so, went right on ahead with what you wanted... ignoring me - the OP, and my posts.

Click to expand...

The record shows we're having a communication breakdown, because "will" in scripture is a desire/intent, NOT an ability to choose.​

​

Analysis of Syntactical Disconnection, Term Morphing, and miscommunication​

1. Initial Claim​

• CoreyD: “I referred to the scriptures which refer to man's free will, repeatedly. Leviticus 1:3.”
• Problem: Leviticus 1:3 uses nedābâh (“freewill offering”), which is an adjective describing voluntariness of an act, not a noun establishing a metaphysical faculty.
• Morphing: CoreyD lifts “freewill” out of its syntactical context (adjective modifying “offering”) and morphs it into a noun phrase “man’s free will” (faculty of choice).

2. Response Clarifying Syntax​

• childeye 2: “A ‘voluntary’ or ‘freewill’ choice/decision (an adjective).”
• Point: Correctly identifies that “freewill” in Leviticus is adjectival, describing the manner of the offering.
• Disconnect: CoreyD interprets this as agreement with his philosophical construct, but syntactically it is not the same.

3. Morphing into Faculty​

• CoreyD: “From your comment, you agree then, that an unforced choice/decision, is an exercising of free will. Yes?”
• Problem: He morphs “voluntary” (adjective) into “exercising free will” (noun phrase = faculty).
• Disconnect: He assumes voluntariness = autonomous faculty, which is a semantic leap.

4. Counter with Contextual Meaning​

• childeye 2: “Not really. The context of Jesus saying, ‘Ye are of your father the devil…’ implies the character of the father manifests in the children.”
• Point: Returns to contextual meaning—will = predisposed intent or desire, shaped by spiritual influence.
• Disconnect: CoreyD expects agreement on “faculty of free choice,” but childeye 2 insists on contextual predisposition.

5. Further Miscommunication​

• CoreyD: “I don’t understand this statement—the choice/option between right/wrong is a valid freedom as conveyed by the serpent??”
• Problem: CoreyD interprets “choice/option” as evidence of free will (faculty).
• childeye 2: “I therefore do not accept the premise that the choice/option between right/wrong is a valid freedom as conveyed by the serpent.”
• Point: Argues that the serpent introduced the illusion of autonomous choice, not Scripture.
• Disconnect: CoreyD reads “choice” as proof of freedom; childeye 2 reads “choice” as deception.

6. Final Breakdown​

• CoreyD: “You appear to be saying the woman did not have a choice… she had none.”
• Morphing: Equates deception with absence of choice, still within the “faculty of free will” framework.
• childeye 2: “The scripture is saying she was deceived into doing it… It’s not like she would volunteer to be deceived.”
• Point: Maintains that her will was predisposed and manipulated, not freely autonomous.
• Disconnect: CoreyD insists on freedom as faculty; childeye 2 insists on predisposition and deception.

Summary of Morphing​

• Lexical context:
  • Free = voluntariness (adjective/adverb).
  • Will = predisposed intent or desire (noun).
• Morphing:
  • CoreyD fuses them into “free will” = autonomous faculty.
  • childeye 2 resists, keeping them in contextual syntax (voluntariness + predisposed desire).
• Syntactical disconnection:
  • CoreyD treats adjectives as nouns (faculty).
  • childeye 2 treats them as modifiers (manner/intent).
  • Result: They talk past each other—one in philosophy, the other in grammar/context.

Clare73 said:

C'mon, you know better than that. . .

Just because I can climb a tree as does a money doesn't mean I, therefore, can safely jump from tree to tree several feet apart.

Click to expand...

We are talking about free will and the ability to be virtuous, or not. We are not talking about physical gymnastics, ugh

stevevw said:

What do you think of the Billy Graham crusades. I think this was a time of religious revival. At least in the US. But I think also in my country Australia. Possible across the west.

Click to expand...

The Billy Graham crusades seem different from street preaching, to me, because they were held in a stadium or convention hall, and people chose to attend them. When I think of a street preacher, I think of a guy standing on a sidewalk or street corner holding a sign, or walking up to strangers to interrogate them. Those feel like different activities.

I thought Billy Graham was an excellent preacher, in the classic Southern Baptist tradition. I heard him preach in person several times, and on TV many times.

Benaiah468 said:

This prayer movement will culminate in the return of Jesus, the salvation of all Israel, and the completion of G-d's Kingdom ‘on earth as it is in heaven.’

Click to expand...

The House of Israel, all 12