Landon Caeli said:

I hate to repeat this, as it's kind of depressing, but I've always believed that we're quickly accelerating in the direction of socialism, with no way to change course.

Click to expand...

I think that you are right. My reasons would be that but corporations are getting too much of what they want from the government. Failing to correct this is pushing many towards not just wanting more, but in some cases real need. U.S. health care is broke completely. Many of the government programs are too. For instance the social security surplus was not invested to maximize returns such as occurred in Norway, but instead to maximize low interest loans to the U.S. Federal Government. I would think the USA could change course, but something would need to be done with the huge public debt. At a minimum you have to get deficits (the yearly red ink) close to balanced.

Should we ask Liza?

Piled leaves like nuthin'!

NUTH

Eiffel Towers

Valletta said:

What has happened is the Democrats are interfering with the normal affairs of government, demanding their agenda be put forward instead of the GOP agenda, and the GOP majority in both parties and the president were elected by the people. The Democrats have said before they realize that people would suffer because of a shutdown, but they went ahead and did it anyways. Some say get rid of the filibuster because the Democrats would do it if situation was reversed. I think that eventually Republicans will run out of ways to fund those out of work, and the workers, mostly Democrats, will get angry at the Democrat leadership.

Click to expand...

"Every day gets better and better for us" Chuck Schumer.

The

GoldenBoy89 said:

Looks like you and @Vambram are onboard with leveraging human suffering.

Click to expand...

The GOP doesnt need human suffering for leverage. It is the only card Democrats have left in their hand.

Greg has narcolepsy, not arthritis.

ARTHR

When I noticed this thread got bumped, my first thought was Chevy Chase.

Three things result from the death of Christ, for all whom He died, which if they dont occur in our life, its obvious Christ didnt die for us.

#1 We are reconciled to God Rom 5:10

10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

#2 We were spiritually healed Isa 53:5

5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. CP 1 Pet 2:24

#3 We have peace with God Isa 53:5

5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

Col 1:20

And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven

sjastro said:

No scientist worth his salt would waste time on this drivel.
For example:
"The Dynamic Aether Framework is not the static aether that the Michleson-Morley experiment could not detect, but
the Dynamic Aether that Faraday knew caused electrical "reluctance", and that Maxwell used as the basis for his
electric and magnetic "inertia" constants, and used in his Aether equations to calculate light speed. C."
While this looks impressive to the uninitiated, the presence of an aether irrespective of whether it is static or dynamic has never been detected and contradicts the main postulates of SR (Special Relativity) of no aether being required to propagate light and the speed of light c is the same to all observers.

If there was a dynamic aether SR is wrong which leads to another problem of GR (General Relativity) being wrong as well.
GR is the gravitational model for cosmology and the Hubble constant is predicated on c being constant to all observers.

It becomes a pointless exercise to even discuss the Hubble constant when our resident self professed genius cannot tell us how the Hubble constant is derived if the dynamic aether theory is correct.

Click to expand...

I still stand by what I said. If he thinks it's worth the time, then he should put up or shut up.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

So simple fact: put up or shut up. Give this formula to actual scientists and be done with it. Stop blagging around on here for personal clout.

Click to expand...

No scientist worth his salt would waste time on this drivel.
For example:
"The Dynamic Aether Framework is not the static aether that the Michleson-Morley experiment could not detect, but
the Dynamic Aether that Faraday knew caused electrical "reluctance", and that Maxwell used as the basis for his
electric and magnetic "inertia" constants, and used in his Aether equations to calculate light speed. C."
While this looks impressive to the uninitiated, the presence of an aether irrespective of whether it is static or dynamic has never been detected and contradicts the main postulates of SR (Special Relativity) of no aether being required to propagate light and the speed of light c is the same to all observers.

If there was a dynamic aether SR is wrong which leads to another problem of GR (General Relativity) being wrong as well.
GR is the gravitational model for cosmology and the Hubble constant is predicated on c being constant to all observers.

It becomes a pointless exercise to even discuss the Hubble constant when our resident self professed genius cannot tell us how the Hubble constant is derived if the dynamic aether theory is correct.

SabbathBlessings said:

The Ten Commandments are the Law of Love.

Click to expand...

I have no idea how you have arrived at the conclusion that the Ten Commandments were the Law of Love. There is not one word in any of them about loving. The only real conclusion anyone can derive is that they were about duty. Remember, Thou shalt not. The law of Love was expressed first in Deuteronomy and Leviticus. Jesus then gave us a new Law of Love in Jn15. We are to love others as He loves us. No greater love than to give our lives for our fellow man. Jesus did it on the Cross.

SabbathBlessings said:

How to love God, how to love man. God IS love so it would be impossible for Him to personally write a law by His own finger that wouldn't be about love. His own Testimony which is Love.

Click to expand...

Oh! What makes you think that?

SabbathBlessings said:

The law is not the issue, the heart is, when its not right with God sadly, we rebel against His Law Rom8:7-8

I pray you will see this before its too late. If I am not mistaken, its what your family believes.

Click to expand...

You are mistaken. We all know we are not subject to the ritual laws of the Old Covenant.

bèlla said:

You’re correct. Do we apply it across the board? Disabled people can’t work. Should they be eligible for government benefits or the responsibility of their loved ones? There’s a biblical principle which places the onus on caretaking to families for widows. Can we apply the same to them?

What about seniors? If social security isn’t enough should our tax dollars make up the difference through government programs? And while we’re at it. Why isn’t everyone responsible for their healthcare too? That’s why we’re in this mess. Just cut the program off and be done with it.

And since we’re on the subject. No more federal aid for college. That’s the parent’s responsibility not tax payers. If they don’t have the money on hand it‘s not our fault. The same holds true for mortgages. No more special programs or interest schemes. You pay the expected amount or you can’t apply.

I guess that means no refugees as well and we’re paying our way for everything and we’ve made America great for the handful who can. Everyone is subsidized to some degree and pay your own way can go sideways fast. Be careful what you wish for. There’s a lot in people in high places who feel the same. They don’t want any assistance programs. Whether you’re poor or middle class.

Click to expand...

I can't tell if this is sarcasm, because you seem to be contradicting things you've said elsewhere. No offense, again, but, again, you have a confusing style of prose (at least for me).

When it comes to the Constitution, I'm a strict constructionist, and I stand with Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and the others who were unable to find any place in the Constitution which gives Congress the right to engage in charity with other people's money. Madison said this would snowball into a "a general scramble for the public money" and corruption of public virtue. And that is exactly what has happened. In the 1700's, Alexander Fraser Tytler (Lord Woodhouselee) wrote:


And this will indeed be our downfall if it's not controlled. The enemy's within.

walter45 said:

What are your thoughts? Doesn't everybody come from their own unique experiences and reasons for believing what they believe?

Mark 12:30-31

IMO Even if we believe differently than the other person, but we ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’ wouldn't that be a powerful and positive foundation for the world?

Click to expand...

Yep. I’m all for keeping Jesus commandments. But, like siblings, we have differences of opinion and will argue over it. I always hope and pray that we all love each others as followers of Christ because what we are discussing here is not part of the salvation formula. Whether one believes in hell, annihilation, or UR salvation is by faith alone in Jesus.

SavedByGrace3 said:

I think what you are experiencing is more of a natural reaction that revolves around eating and drinking—anything! Try the same thing with a Coke or tea. Try to eat just one Lays potato chip. I think we are just made to desire that extra sip or nibble. I may be wrong, but that is just my two sips.

Click to expand...

Eating only one lays potato chip, should be an act of penance more powerful than fasting

Try it, if you dare

Delvianna said:

There are 3 types of Laws and you aren't specifying which type of law Galatians is referring to.

Click to expand...

Hi D and appreciate much your reply, it's very probing. Actually I'm referring to the Pentateuch, the entire Law of Moses, none of which exits now. Some do not accept that the Law is part of the Decalogue, but the Law began with it.

Delvianna said:

Your conclusions that they adopted a different mode of justification is ignoring the definition of the word "fallen". That implies it was held, and then lost. Up vs down.

Click to expand...

One can "fall" from a false profession, from the doctrine of faith, but not from true faith. They didn't fall from salvation because they weren't saved, they fell from the doctrine faith but not from salvation itself.

Delvianna said:

You also mention "works" and don't define that either.

Click to expand...

The only works that are works are those which are through God.

Delvianna said:

We will never be perfect, we will stumble and he is faithful to forgive us of our sins, but we can absolutely fall away by turning our backs on God and the agreement that we entered into (following the 10 commandments). That means WE broke the covenant, not God.

Click to expand...

We must be aware that the Decalogue was not only to God's people Israel, it no longer exists, even for the Jew.

Delvianna said:

do you honestly think God would hold them against their will?

Click to expand...

It can be said that anyone that God is "working in" will never desire to leave Him, because He knows all we want to do now is "please" Him (Phl 2:13). If one ever says he does not want to please Him it will be due to God never "working" in him!

Lady Bug said:

About the dessert. If the dessert is consumed more than 45 minutes to an hour after dinner, it really causes my head a problem.

Click to expand...

Sugar could be the problem. I would try a sugar free dessert to see what happens
You would just need the artificial sweetener that you like best
You don’t have to eat it all the time, just for diagnostic purposes

DamianWarS said:

Your argument hinges on bifurcating law, essentially elevating one over another (which is not scripturally supported). NT teaching doesn't isolate law like this; these terms we use to categorize law is not something scripture itself uses but is something the church has introduced later. What is sacrificial law over moral or ceremonial? Why is sacrificial also not moral? why is the 4th not ceremonial (since it clearly is a ceremony of rest)? Who made these terms? and why are we elevating these words over scripture? How can we be so bold to claim one law is greater than another without any scripture to back it? Christ tells us in Mat 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." so which law did he come to fulfill? he does not bifurcate law, his reference is all-inclusive. Christ already tells us what the greatest is, so should that not settel the matter? Christ's remarks of the greatest commandments in Mat 22:40 is "All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" again he makes no effort to distinguish which law is what (apparently he doesn't discriminate law); he encompasses them all in the term "All the Law and the Prophets."

you're jumping through hoops trying to establish a hidden line that these law/commandment means the 10 where another reference to law/commandment mean the other (whatever you want to call it). What establishes one group of laws over another group of laws? Circumcision is established as a sign of the everlasting covenant between God and Abraham (Gen 17) and to his descendants. It is quite explicit, it must be done physically, otherwise the offender in a twist of irony, is cut off himself. Yet Paul calls circumcision nothing. The word for everlasting is the same word used to describe the sabbath commandment, yet we are to understand circumcision in the physical as a limited law and sabbath law (in regards to physical requirement) as a neverending law? spiritually they are both everlasting in the fullest sense, but physically they are limited. how do you reconcile these concepts?

Gal 3:19 says as you quoted, "Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions..." but a valuable part is missing. if we complete the sentence, it says "...till the seed should come to whom the promise was made" leaving this part out in your quote is disingenuous to the verse and seems a bit sneaky to be honest. It makes me suspicious that you're agenda-driven and carry too much bias to make an informed decision.

Galatiansis not just a bunch of cut and copy verses meant to be taken out of context. It's a short letter and can be easily read in one sitting, it's also Paul's earliest letter. when we read it's whole it's view of law is clearer than a cut apart single verse. for example, 5:14 is a pretty big one "For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” now which law do you suppose this points to? it says the entire law and is clearly a quote of Christ who says "All the Law and the Prophets" do you still want to say but when Paul says this law he meant something else? Do you still wish to cut up law so that you declare one as superior to the greatest commandment?

The word "greatest" is already a superlative but do you mean to suggest the 10 are greater still? I suppose you use the term as a "summary" if so please unpack that. Where is that concept based? show me in scripture how the greatest commandments Jesus speaks of is actually a summary of the 10? these are serious matters and I can't just hand wave these missing elements and pretent it's ok to fill in the blanks myself. I instead need to use what information is there to show me how to go forward.

Click to expand...

Let's continue where I left off.....Now, let's back up in this chapter to the third verses and point out the two sets of laws. Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? (Galatians 3:3)

The spirit in this case is the word of God, but pay close attention to what Paul says at the end of the verse. "Are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" Can we be made perfect by the flesh? What flesh is Paul talking about? Let's go to the book of Hebrews and find out.

For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. (Hebrews 10:1)

The flesh Paul spoke of was the animal sacrifices. Notice what the verse says, "never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect." That's pretty clear don't you think? Let's go back to Galatians chapter 3 and take note how Paul uses the word "law" but does not say this is the sacrificial law or the Commandments. But as we read further in the chapter we will see the difference between the two.

For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. (Galatians 3:10)

We have both Laws with in this verse. In the first part of the verse where it states, "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse:" This law is the sacrificial law, let's skip to the 13th verse and we will see this clearly. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: (Galatians 3:13)

Notice what's being said, "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." How was he made a curse for us? He took on our sins and redeemed us from the curse of the sacrificial law which could never take away sin. Now take a look at the next set of verses and we will see indeed that only the sacrificial law was nailed to the cross.

And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; (Colossians 2:13-14)

Notice this, "He quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross. Why was this law (which is the sacrificial law) contrary to us?

Notice this in Hebrews the 10th chapter; For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. (Hebrews 10:4) For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. That is why it was contrary to us. The sacrificial law simply could not make us perfect.

Now let's look at the second half of the 13th verse in the book of Galatians chapter 3.

Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: (Galatians 3:13) Paul is simply quoting Moses, take a look. His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance. (Deuteronomy 21:23)

Go into the Book of John chapter 19 verse 31 and you will see that Jesus was removed from the cross before sun down. Let's back up in Galatians chapter 3 to verses 10 and watch how we have a different law in the second half of the verse.

For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. (Galatians 3:10)

This law is part of the commandments. Once again Paul, is quoting Moses, let's take a look.

Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen. (Deuteronomy 27:26)

Let's take a look at some of these laws in Deuteronomy 27th chapter.

Cursed be he that perverteth the judgment of the stranger, fatherless, and widow. And all the people shall say, Amen. Cursed be he that lieth with his father's wife; because he uncovereth his father's skirt. And all the people shall say, Amen. Cursed be he that lieth with any manner of beast. And all the people shall say, Amen. Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother. And all the people shall say, Amen. Cursed be he that lieth with his mother in law. And all the people shall say, Amen. Cursed be he that smiteth his neighbour secretly. And all the people shall say, Amen. Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person. And all the people shall say, Amen. Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen. (Deuteronomy 27:19-26)

After reading through some of these commandments ask yourself, what's wrong with these laws? If we say we are followers of the Lord shouldn't we keep ourselves from doing these things? Yes! If the sacrificial law was the only law taken away when Jesus was nailed to the cross, which would mean all the other laws are still intact. Commandments, High and Holy Sabbaths, weekly Sabbaths and the Dietary law .

Abraham1st said:

The royal law is one.

Do you think a law to not commit adultery has to be in the heart of Christ, the Son of God, or it is God that is in Christ, love in Christ, and love does not need to be made to be kind, it is kindness.

I separated the verses below, so ANYONE CAN FOLLOW MY THOUGHTS.



Galatians 5:13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

Galatians 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Galatians 5:15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.
16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.



James 2: 1 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.

James 2:5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?
6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?
7 Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?

James 2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:

James 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.

Click to expand...

Wonderful verses, but let's look at how things fit in the word of God when it comes to the love of God, because in the days of Jesus, the religious leaders were constantly questioning Jesus in order to test Him and on this occasion a lawyer asked Jesus what is the great commandment?

Matthew (22:35) Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, (36) Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

Jesus reply was the 1st great commandment was to love God and the 2nd was to love ones neighbor. These were given as a commandment for man to love.

Matthew (22:37) Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

(38) This is the first and great commandment. (39) And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

One should note that by following the 1st and 2nd great commandment they will be adhering to the 10 commandments issued by Moses. If they love the Lord they won’t have any other Gods before him, or make any graven images or take his name in vain, they will remember his Sabbath and if they love their neighbor they will honor their Father and Mother and they won’t kill or commit adultery or steal or bear false witness nor will they covet. This is why Jesus goes on to state that on these two commandments hang the law and the prophets. Because by fulfilling these two commandments one fulfills the law.

(40) On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Jesus stated that these 2 commandments where the 2 great commandments however the following verses will show that these commandments were not new and that the Jews and Jesus was speaking to were aware of them. These were the same ones issued to Israel by Moses.

Deuteronomy (6:5) And thy shall love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Leviticus (19:18) Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Now that it has been established that man was commanded to love one needs to examine the scriptures to get an understanding of the love required in these great commandments.

In the following verses Moses is telling the Israelites that God chose them strictly out of His love for them.Deuteronomy (7:7) The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: (8) But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

(9) Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;

Note in verse (9) Moses states a condition that God requires in order for Him to keep covenant and have mercy. And that is an individual must love God and keep His commandments. The scriptures will show that there is only one way to love God and that is by keeping His commandments.

Note that Jesus states in the following verse that in order to love Him one has to keep His commandments.

John (14:15) If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Jesus further defines the love He requires when He states in the following verse that those who have His commandments and keep them are those that love Him. One does not have to guess at Jesus definition of love He made it clear.

John (14:21) He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

Jesus also reinforced what was said in Deuteronomy verse (9) by adding that those that love Him will be loved by the Father. How does one love Jesus? by keeping His commandments and Moses said God will keep covenant and have mercy with those who keep His commandments. So therefore by following Jesus one shall receive love from Him as well as mercy from the Father.

Note in these scriptures it did not say those who profess their love for Jesus or those that claim that Jesus knows what in their heart. Jesus made a clear and direct statement if one has His commandments and keeps them they are the ones who love Him. The statement that Jesus made as well as the condition Moses gave in Deuteronomy verse (9) were based on behalf of an individuals actions not their feeling or emotions or conditions. To exhibit love towards Jesus one must engage in a specific action and that action is being obedience to the word of God. And one will see that they are to be obedient regardless of their feeling or the surrounding circumstances.

Jesus states again in the following verses what is required of an individual to receive His love.

John (15:9) As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. (10) If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

Notice Jesus use the word if ye keep my commandments, so what happen if ye do not keep his commandments. The above verse shows to be loved of Jesus one needs to be obedient. Jesus also states in verse (10) that He was obedient to the Father by keeping His commandments and therefore abides in His love

GoldenBoy89 said:

Looks like you and @Vambram are onboard with leveraging human suffering.

Click to expand...

It is the Democrats in the Senate who are leveraging human suffering every time they continue to vote to keep the filibuster going and thus keep the government shutdown.

CoreyD said:

Deliberate :

adjective​

1. Done with or marked by full consciousness of the nature and effects; intentional.
   mistook the oversight for a deliberate insult.
2. Arising from or marked by careful consideration: synonym: voluntary.
   a deliberate decision.
3. Unhurried and careful.
   moved at a deliberate pace.

1 Timothy 2:14​

Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, has come into transgression.

​

Deceive :​

to persuade someone that something false is the truth, or to keep the truth hidden from someone for your own advantage

Please, in a clear and coherent way, explain which of the following is not true, and why. Thank you.

Click to expand...

We need to remember that the question is whether Adam wanted to disobey God. The scripture does not indicate in any terminology that Adam experienced any such desire/want <--see #4 meaning of 'want' below.

CoreyD said:
The question was...
Did Adam want to disobey God?
The Bible's answer: 1 Timothy 2:14 Yes, he did.

1 Timothy 2:14 Adam was not deceived.
Therefore, the man's disobedience was willful. Adam sinned willfully.

want​

1 of 2

verb​

ˈwȯnt
also
ˈwänt
and ˈwənt

wanted; wanting; wants
Synonyms of want
intransitive verb
1
: to be needy or destitute

2
: to have or feel need
never wants for friends


3
: to be necessary or needed

4
: to desire to come, go, or be
the cat wants in

wants out of the deal
---------------------------------------------
The scripture places Adam in a scenario where he is forced to choose between who to believe. Such a scenario is the product of the antecedent event caused by the serpent's lie. Therefore, Adam did not volunteer to be in the situation of being forced to choose. I believe Adam did not want to disbelieve God, but at the same time he didn't want to disbelieve the woman. He was likely disconcerted, and he did not want to be in this scenario.

freewill​

1 of 2

adjective​

free·will ˈfrē-ˌwil

Synonyms of freewill
: voluntary, spontaneous
free will
2 of 2

noun​

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

CoreyD said:

• Adam was not deceived into taking the fruit from his wife Eve, and eating it.

Click to expand...

This statement is NOT ACCURATE. <-- Note I did NOT say Not TRUE. Why? Because You're taking 1 Timothy 2:14 out of context. Paul did not intend to convey the sentiment that Adam disobeyed God willfully/deliberately. I have already proven that you're misinterpreting Paul's sentiment because your misinterpretation ends in a contradiction of reasoning.

Explanation: Paul IS saying he will not suffer a woman to teach, and that the woman should not usurp authority over the man. Why? Two reasons (1) The man came first (2) The woman was the one deceived, not the man. We can ascertain that Paul intends to convey that the man should NOT be led by the woman.

You're implying that Paul is conveying that he feels the man should be in authority over the woman because the man deliberately, and willfully disobeyed God. <-- This misinterpretation makes Paul look stupid, since it's common sense that anyone who willfully and deliberately disobeys God should NOT be leading anyone.

If we look above (the dictionary meaning of 'deliberate' is posted in a negative connotation of disobedience, NOT obedience). The fact is only a wicked mind would deliberate so as to rationalize doing wrong. You are implying that Paul is conveying that Adam ate after careful consideration and therefore that Adam was wicked.

CoreyD said:

• Adam deliberately took the fruit from Eve and ate it, doing so with the knowledge that to do so he would be disobedient to God.

Click to expand...

False. The bible states that Eve gave the fruit to him Adam. It does NOT state that Adam deliberately took the fruit from Eve. We know God told him not to eat or he would die and therefore he didn't eat because Adam believed/trusted God. We know God commanded Adam not to eat, "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die". And we know that God said that Adam had hearkened to the woman, which implies he was persuaded to eat by the woman.

The scriptures are describing Adam in a scenario where he is forced to choose between who to believe, God or the woman. The term free will in the OP sometimes morphs a choice/decision that is unforced. Subsequently, one must ask "If a person is forced to choose between who to believe is it a forced choice? My personal assessment, with the full knowledge that a lie created the event, is yes; it qualifies as a forced decision.

CoreyD said:

• Adam deliberately - that is, without being fooled, or persuaded into believing something false to be true, acting in accord with his own will, and disobeyed God.

Click to expand...

A false statement. Scripture indicates that God said Adam had 'hearkened' to the woman, which implies Adam was persuaded by the woman, who was deceived.

CoreyD said:

A "will free from the desire to sin. A will free from the lies that evil desires arise out of" is certainly something we would welcome.
In fact, that is what God wants for us, and it will eventually be accomplished.

Click to expand...

This will be accomplished by the Holy Spirit.

CoreyD said:

What you are describing though, is not free will.

Click to expand...

I disagree. You have not even given a coherent definition of what this free will is that you're referring to.

CoreyD said:

You are describing having a nature that is free from corruption.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

CoreyD said:

In other words, you are describing a person's character... which is what God's people are aiming for, and what God is aiming them to - perfection, or a perfect state, such as at a level Adam and Eve could have had, if they had been like the son God speaks so well of.

Click to expand...

I disagree with any assertion that Adam and Eve were corrupt when in a state of innocence.

CoreyD said:

Jesus state of perfection is one where he has no desire at all, to disobey the father... that is, sin.

Click to expand...

Exactly, Jesus has no will with the capacity to desire to disobey God.

CoreyD said:

The difference here, is between free will and perfection.

Click to expand...

If the free will you're describing is imperfect, but on its way towards perfection, this would be done by the Holy Spirit of Truth, and Truth is a revelation.

Note below that this would not qualify as a free will (noun) in the dictionary.

free will
2 of 2

noun​

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

CoreyD said:

Humans will reach that level of perfection, and will continue to have free will, like the angels, and Jesus, who said "My meat/food is to do the will of him that sent me." John4:34

Click to expand...

I don't believe Jesus has the same free will that has the capacity to want to disobey God. In my psycholinguistics, I don't count the capacity to disobey God as freedom.

CoreyD said:

Note the contrast...

• Jesus wanted to do, only what God wants him to do.
• Faithful angels too... they desire to do the will of God. Isaiah 6:8
• Humans who are in the new world that Jesus' 1'000 year rule will complete... they will desire to do only what God wants, and therefore, there will be "no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the former things have passed away." Revelation 21:4

• The angels that sinned, as well as Adam and Eve did not want to do the will of God.
• All mankind today whom God judges as wicked, do not want to do the will of God.

Both these contrasts have free will.

Click to expand...

Jesus does not have this so called free will which is an equivocation of freedom to sin and to not sin. That's' called doublemindedness. Certainly, God doesn't either.



I don't accept the assertion that Adam and Eve did not want to do the will of God. The contrast I articulate is that there are powers of Light and darkness that indicate the knowledge and ignorance of God's Person. A corrupt image of god's person, formed out of ignorance/darkness, would therefore corrupt the soul.

CoreyD said:

So, while perfection and free will can both exist together, they are not the same thing.
The angels have free will and perfection, yet they sin... that is, acted on desires opposed to God. Genesis 6:1
The mark of perfection God sets the target at, may be reached by operation/help of God's holy spirit, but the freedom of choice, or free will, is what allows one to attain that, since it requires first, choosing to submit to God. Psalm 73:28
James 4:8-10

8 Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Clean your hands, sinners, and purify your hearts, men of two minds; 9 be miserable, and mourn, and weep; let your laughter be turned to mourning and your gladness to abasement. 10 Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will uplift you.​

Click to expand...

Okay wait a minute. The Holy Spirit testifies to the Character of God and the son. It's a revelation and therefore has nothing to do with the will of any man or angel choosing. Note that Psalm 73:28 is talking about drawing close through faith which is dependent upon a trustworthy image of God. We don't choose to have faith; Faith comes by hearing and hearing comes by the Word of God.

CoreyD said:

One has to choose to be humble, and draw near to God, in order for God to respond, and help that one.
Free will allows one to choose to go against sinful desires, or to choose one course or the other... whether sinful - that is, prone to sin, or not.
The Bible does not say sickness, or weakness killed off free will, from the make up of the perfect man Adam, and his offspring.

Does being free from slavery to sin (Romans 6:6, 16, 17, 20, 22), prevent one from having the freedom to choose to become a slave to sin? No.
Hebrews 2:1; Hebrews 3:12; 2 Hebrews 12:25; Peter 2:20, 21

Click to expand...

This is all confusing.

I note that the statement that the free will you are describing allows one to choose to go against sinful desires, or with sinful desires. It is therefore doublemindedness. It is also predicated on the existence of sinful desires that in turn are based on lies and vain imaginings. This is the problem I have with the term. I do not want to cloak doublemindedness with the sentiment of freedom. We can qualify this free will as free from singlemindedness.

21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!

Jesus, The Word made flesh, said ---> And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. <--- These words clearly indicate that people who don't have the Truth he is alluding to need to be set "Free" by the truth. <--- This is a positive connotation of the term "Free" that we need to agree upon to receive the Word of God lest we misconstrue or mischaracterize ignorance and/or being deceived as a freewill. To be clear, I'm saying that we need to acknowledge that Jesus is conveying that the people who he is talking to are NOT FREE, so that we can acknowledge that there are wills that are FREE and there are wills that are NOT FREE, without equivocation.

unequivocal​

adjective​

un·equiv·o·cal ˌən-i-ˈkwi-və-kəl

Synonyms of unequivocal
1
: leaving no doubt : clear, unambiguous

2
: unquestionable

equivocation​

noun​

equiv·o·ca·tion i-ˌkwi-və-ˈkā-shən

pluralequivocations
Synonyms of equivocation
: deliberate evasiveness in wording : the use of ambiguous or equivocal language

childeye 2 said:
There is a premise that the serpent subconsciously introduces a false image of God to Eve through his subtilty. I'm saying Eve is not consciously aware that she is accepting a false premise. That hidden premise is (1) that God is a liar because he said you will die if you eat (2) God is keeping the man and woman down by forbidding them from knowledge that would elevate their status (3) They could be free from their blind servitude to God and become like gods themselves if they ate.

CoreyD said:
Cool.
That sounds like something I can agree with.
In other words, Satan introduce the idea of independence from God...

Always in His Presence said:

I didn't say anything about tax cuts - frankly have no clue how you even got that idea.

Click to expand...

You were abundantly unclear as to why you thought the ACA was "unaffordable". I assumed that you were saying it was unaffordable from a federal budget perspective, not from a personal budget perspective.

Always in His Presence said:

My point is that before the Unaffordable Care Act caused premiums to rise 105% and completely eliminated health care plans for hundreds of thousands of Americans (of which I was one) that were working for us. Then fining us $3,000.00 a year for not having the coverage we could no longer afford was draconian and authoritarian in scope.

At the time I had five of six children living at home - when my health insurance DOUBLED, there was little room left for the necessities of life, so I dropped the coverage and went with a cash plan my primary care provider had. Then I get hit with a $3,000 penalty for not subscribing to a health insurance plan that was double the cost of my previous one.

Thank God he stopped the $3,000.00 penalty.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that stinks. And I didn't know that the ACA impacted some people that drastically. I went back to school in my late twenties, and left my job to finish my degree (full time) shortly after the ACA was implemented. In all honesty, I could not easily afford the market coverage, so did not get it. But I managed to avoid the penalty.

The thing is... how is eliminating the ACA subsidies going to change all that? It just seems like you will be putting a bunch of people in the same situation that you faced. How will that right the ship? If you think that the ACA is a bad plan, that's fine - and maybe you're right. But where's the better plan that will replace it? Don't you think this different / better plan should be in place before pulling out the rug out from underneath a bunch of people?