Brightfame52 said:

Yes it does. And Jn 12:32 is about Jesus will doing the drawing

Click to expand...

Yes.
He drew "ALL MEN.'

He did not pick and choose.
'For God so loved the 'world.'

childeye 2 said:

It's not MY idea, it's the Gospel. I simply posted the scriptures showing we don't choose to be righteous of our own accord, that's all.

Click to expand...

Perhaps at this point you can answer the question I asked twice, which you ignored.
Ephesians 4:30 reads... And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, in whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
How does one grieve the spirit? Isaiah 65:10

childeye 2 said:

So, you're convinced?

Click to expand...

Sure, I'm convinced.

childeye 2 said:

I don't presume to think there's anything wrong with the lexicons that exist.

Click to expand...

You don't?
No, you do... Throughout this entire thread... from your first post.
You have denied all of these.

Regarding free will - the ability to make decisions of our own, unforced; willfully, and intentionally; voluntarily; of our own accord, rather than God controlling or predetermining our choice, is a Biblical teaching.
The Bible says, at Hosea 14:4, in part...

I will freely love them / I will love them freely

Click to expand...

The Hebrew expression nedabah (נְדָבָה) is rendered freewill offering, freely, plentiful, voluntary, offering, willingly, offering.
This Hebrew word comes from the Hebrew word nadab, of which Topical Lexicon says...
The verb נָדַב consistently underlines a movement of the heart that is neither coerced nor merely dutiful. It describes people stirred from within to give, serve, or step forward because they have first been moved by God. Throughout Scripture this spirit of readiness is linked to worship, stewardship, civic responsibility, and warfare, revealing a multifaceted biblical theology of voluntary devotion.

God was not coerced into loving his people, but did so freely; willingly.
Exercising free will first started with God, and as humans are made in God's image, they too have this God given attribute, as can be seen in the scriptures where God allows persons to give him worship of their own accord, or of their own free will.

God gave humans the opportunity to make a personal choice regarding their course in life. Deuteronomy 30:19, 20

At 1 Corinthians 9:16-18, verse 17 says,

For if I do this willingly, I have a reward; but if unwillingly, I am entrusted with a stewardship.

Click to expand...

Paul uses the Greek word hekón: Willing, Voluntary. Which means of one's own free will.
According to Thayer's Greek Lexicon...
STRONGS NT 1635: ἑκών
ἑκών, ἑκοῦσα, ἑκον, unforced, voluntary, willing, of one's own will, of one's own accord: Romans 8:20; 1 Corinthians 9:17. (From Homer down.)

At Philemon 1:14, Paul says...

But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that your goodness will not be out of compulsion, but by your own free will (Berean Standard Bible; NASB; Amplified Bible; Christian Standard Bible; Holman Christian Standard Bible; American Standard Version; English Revised Version; New Heart English Bible; Majority Standard Bible; World English Bible; Smith's Literal Translation; Anderson New Testament; Godbey New Testament) / according to willingness / willingly / voluntary / not something forced.

Click to expand...

The Greek word hekousios - meaning free will, is the neuter of a derivative from hekon; voluntariness -- willingly, which is (an adjective, a primitive term) – properly, willing; "unforced, of one's own will, voluntary" (J. Thayer), i.e. acting on one's own accord. The root (hek-) emphasizes intentional, deliberate action (choice), i.e. "of free-will" (J. Thayer).

This you have done, while at the same time dismissing the meaning of voluntary.
voluntary
adjective
Now, you are denying that you haven't dismissed them???
No, you have... the entire thread from page 3, post 56.

CoreyD said:

This argument is dead, Clare.

Click to expand...

Now, all you have to do is demonstrate such by choosing to live a sinless life in thought, word and deed.
If you can't make and execute that choice, your "free will" is limited, and not truly free.

CoreyD said:

Too bad you did not leave it buried, but dug it up again.
I'm sorry you are not free. May God have mercy on you.
Would you like us, here on CF to pray for you, so that this may be your state as well? Romans 6:18-22; 1 Peter 1:18-21

Click to expand...

Falls somewhat short of a refutation.

Felony bacon-waving, followed by a press conference. Only in Ame...whatever this place is.

CoreyD said:

You said this a hundred times in this thread. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 100
Amazing, that you are back with it... this time adding the word unregenerate, as if to say, only some people do not have free will.
How does that support your argument, if man does have free will? It doesn't does it.

It was shown to you that persons are no longer slaves.
Are you a slave, and don't have free will?


All scripture is inspired of God, yes... and the words that translators use are what?
I'd appreciate if you answer that question with an example. So try this...
In the book of Psalm the word מוֹט (Hebrew mot) is used.
Translators use the English words "To totter," "shake", "slip", or "be moved"

For example, Psalm 104:5, when translated, read....

1. He set the earth on its foundations, never to be moved. Berean Standard Bible
2. He established the earth upon its foundations, So that it will not totter forever and ever. New American Standard Bible
3. He founded the earth upon its place, So that it will not shake forever and ever. Legacy Standard Bible
4. He established the earth on its foundations; it will never be shaken. Christian Standard Bible

Which of these four highlighted chosen words is God's word, and are any of them human notion?


You said the word is a human notion. Did you not.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say then, since all these words are human construct.
Every word is... whether English, Spanish, German...


LOL.
I don't believe anyone here is crazy... but then, I don't know.
The only person contradicting 2 Timothy 3:16 is the person claiming that God's inspired word is the words translators chose, but they don't accept the words they don't like... such as "freewill", and "free will".

As for the scriptures that refer to free will of man, you did see them... unless of course, you are closing your eyes when you read a post, and see them. You're not doing that, are you?
Would you like me to do a rerun of the posts where you acknowledged the free will of man?

Click to expand...

"Free will" is a human notion nowhere stated in Scripture.
The human notion means power to make all moral choices.
Man does not have the power to make all moral choices, he cannot choose to live a sinless life.
Man's will has limited freedom only.

wing2000 said:

"I love the smell of appeasement in the morning." -Vladimir Putin

Click to expand...

And Trump, don't forget Trump.

Rescued One said:

Do people still send Christmas cards? Some years I sent 70. At any rate I always sent several cards. Now I'm blessed if I receive two. Are cards a thing of the past? I have some boxes of beautiful cards and i hate to throw them away. I also miss receiving them. Can someone enlighten me about this custom?

Click to expand...

I still send them, but I'm down to only two out-of-town relatives to send them to. I have a small handful of cards so I'll run out in a couple of years, and I don't think I'll buy more.

I had some vague memories of a movie I watched as a child. I briefly described what little I remembered from the movie, and the AI was promptly able to identify it.

This use is best!

Uses of "I know..."


We often talk as if “I know…” had one clear meaning. In practice it is doing at least two very different jobs.

1. “I know” = “I am sure”​

Sometimes “I know” just means “I am completely convinced.”

• “I know he cares about me.”
• “I know my team will win.”
• “I just know something is wrong.”

Here you are not really talking about evidence. You are talking about your inner state. You are saying “This is how it stands for me, do not try to shake me.”

Call this the conviction use of “I know.” It expresses firmness, not careful support.

2. “I know” = “This is well supported”​

Other times “I know” is a claim about evidence.

• “I know the store is open, I checked the website a minute ago.”
• “I know Paris is the capital of France, you can find it in any atlas.”
• “I know she left already, I just saw her drive away.”

Here “I know” means something closer to:

This is true, I believe it, and I have reasons you could in principle check for yourself.

Click to expand...

Call this the epistemic use of “I know.” It belongs to the game of giving and asking for reasons. When someone uses “I know” in this sense, it makes sense to ask “How do you know?” and to expect an answer.

Why the difference matters​

A lot of arguments get stuck because people mix these two up.

One person uses “I know” as conviction.
The other hears it as an epistemic claim and starts asking for evidence.

The first person feels attacked. The second person feels stonewalled.

A small habit can help:

• When you say “I know…”, quietly ask yourself which use you mean.
• If you really mean “I feel very sure”, you can say that instead.
• Save “I know” for the cases where you are ready to show your work.

Once you see that “I know” often means two different things, some disagreements become much easier to understand, and sometimes easier to resolve.

Lord have mercy!

Nick Fuentes definitely agrees.

Nick Fuentes on his America First movement: “We’re looking to fundamentally replace the GOP”​

Fuentes: “This is the moment when America First demonstrates that it has legs. ... We’re looking to totally alter the GOP. We’re looking to fundamentally replace the GOP. ... Now you have a blueprint for how this could be used in the future.”

And arguably, this is the moment when America First demonstrates that it has legs. This is what Trumpism has to give birth to, which is we’re not looking to win control over the GOP. We’re looking to totally alter the GOP. We’re looking to fundamentally replace the GOP. And this now has legs. Now you have a handful of MAGA congressmen or America First congressmen. Now you have a blueprint for how this could be used in the future.

Fervent said:

Yeah, this just sounds like special pleading through semantic games. It's a dogmatic solution, with added steps to try to explain away the dogmatism. It's exactly the kind of shell game that analytic philosophy is supposed to dispose with but actually only serves to paper it all over through clever use of language. I'm immediately reminded of Carroll's Agrippa and the Tortoise.

Click to expand...

You keep saying “dogmatic” and “shell game,” but you have not shown where the trick is supposed to be. The regress you are invoking, from Agrippa and Carroll, leaves you with exactly three options:

1. Infinite regress of reasons.
2. Circular reasons.
3. Stopping somewhere.

There is no fourth option where every belief is backed by further reasons and you never need to stop. If you reject circularity and you reject an infinite regress as unliveable, then you stop somewhere. The only honest question is whether you make your stopping points explicit or pretend you have none.

The hinge view does the opposite of a shell game. A shell game hides the pea. Hinge talk puts the pea in plain sight and says:

Here is where the “because” questions in fact stop for us in practice. Here is the background we already treat as fixed while we argue about other things.

Click to expand...

That is not special pleading, that is intellectual bookkeeping.

If you want to say that any stopping point at all is “dogmatic,” then you have just accused every finite reasoner of dogmatism, including yourself. Because you also either:

• push the “why” questions until you collapse, or
• stop at some set of unargued background commitments that you simply take for granted.

In other words, you have hinges too. You just refuse to look at them.

From that angle, the real shell game is the posture that says “I have no hinges, only pure reasons all the way down.” That is the move that shuffles the cups while pretending there is no table.

On my side, I am doing two things very plainly:

1. A Gödel style point about structure. No sufficiently rich system proves its own legitimacy from inside. Something has to be taken as given at the level of practice.
2. A Wittgensteinian point about grammar. Words like “know,” “doubt,” and “evidence” already presuppose a background of certainties. Children acquire that background long before they can even understand global skeptical questions.

You can disagree about which propositions function as hinges. You can argue that I have misdescribed our actual practice. Those would be real criticisms. Simply repeating “dogmatic shell game” is not.

So I will turn your charge around. The hinge framework is what you get when you take Agrippa and Carroll seriously and admit that the space of reasons has a floor. The refusal to acknowledge any floor, while still happily standing somewhere, is the real piece of philosophical sleight of hand here.

Fervent said:

"Closer"? In what sense?

Click to expand...

To losing their souls or finding salvation?
Gay children or white supremists.

Well I'm glad we settled that.

Brother Del said:

Ships don't disappear over the curvature of the earth, they advance beyond your visual perspective.

Click to expand...

They do, and this fact was known to the ancients 2000 years ago (if not more).

Pliny 65. 163

Here there is a mighty battle between learning on one side and the common herd on the other: the theory being that human beings are distributed all round the earth and stand with their feet pointing towards each other, and that the top of the sky is alike for them all and the earth trodden under foot at the centre in the same way from any direction, while ordinary people enquire why the persons on the opposite side don't fall off - just as if it were not reasonable that the people on the other side wonder that we do not fall off.

But what the crowd most debates is if it must believe that the conformation of the waters also rises in a curve. Nevertheless nothing else in the natural world is more visibly manifest. For (1) hanging drops of liquid always take the shape of small round globes; ... (5) The same cause explains why the land is not visible from the deck of a ship when in sight from the masthead; and why as a vessel passes far into the distance, if some shining object is tied to the top of the mast it appears slowly to sink and finally it is hidden from sight.

rambot said:

Not with the new rifts in the Republicans starting to show up. Fuentes and Carlson...par example.

Click to expand...

Thats why they had charlie killed.

BCP1928 said:

Good. So it's OK to teach kids that it happens and it's not scary or dangerous and they're just going to have to deal with it.

Click to expand...

It's okay to be honest with school kids. There is no excuse for these kids to bully those they don't understand.

ICE arrests McMinnville High School student during Friday lunch period​

“This afternoon, we became aware of an incident off school grounds in which a high school student was taken into custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE] during today’s lunch period,” McMinnville Superintendent Kourtney Ferrua wrote in a message to parents. “Students who were nearby witnessed the event. We are working to verify information through appropriate channels and remain in communication with local partners.”

The Yamhill County News-Register reported that the family of the arrested 17-year-old student said he is a U.S. citizen.

--
[Second link has been updated:]
[Update 11/22] Family of a Mac High student detained by ICE say he was released around 7 p.m. Friday evening.

Cesar Jimenez, the brother of Mac High senior Christian Jiminez, said the family was contacted by federal authorities around 5 p.m. and told he could be released "only if two family members who are U.S. citizens arrive in person to pick him up."

Cesar said his brother was "racially profiled, threatened along with his peers, dragged out of a car, and injured by shattered glass when ICE agents broke the driver’s window." He told The Oregonian that authorities are trying to charge his Christian with “interference or obstruction of investigation.”

CoreyD said:

@childeye 2 there's not much to say to you, since I know you read my posts, so I'll just say you chose to have a conversation with yourself rather than with me, by talking about "will" rather than the subject of the OP, which is "free will".
That's off topic, and I am not taking this thread off topic.
If at any time you want to get back to the topic, and actually discuss it with me, feel free to respond to the posts that actually discuss one's "free will".
That would be these...
Posts #172, #184, and #209, if you like.
These make clear that both you and I understand that we aren't discussing "the will".

I think I have covered everything here.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I am on topic. The record shows I asked you for clarification about what you meant by free will. That would include the term "will" and whether it denotes a desire or the ability to choose. The op asserts that free will exists, so I am invited to challenge that premise. The record shows that in that endeavor my comments on the will would be strictly in the moral/immoral context. I didn't say comments on the 'free' will because free is qualified several different ways in your op and other posts, and I don't think you're even aware of that. In some places it's an adjective or an adverb and other's "will" is a noun. At any rate I do not want to accept a false premise and speak against God as if free will is real or not real, when I can't be sure of what you mean by free will.

As it stands, I don't believe we can choose to be righteous apart from God's Spirit; to know Him is to know brotherly love. That's my contribution to your thread. This is why I don't believe free will is real if it means we choose to be righteous apart from God. The record shows that to me it's the same form of lie in the garden. The record also shows that because you neglected to qualify your terms, I posted the Merriam webster definition for free will myself. Here it is again. And as you can see, just like I said, in a moral/immoral context belief in free will asserts that God does not intervene in human choices.

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.

Examples of divine intervention

• Proverbs 16:9– “The heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps.”
  • Human beings make plans, but God determines the outcome.
• Jeremiah 10:23– “I know, O Lord, that the way of man is not in himself, that it is not in man who walks to direct his steps.”
  • Human choice is not autonomous; God directs the path.
• Philippians 2:13– “For it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.”
  • Even the willing (the choice itself) is God’s work in us.
• John 6:44– “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.”
  • The choice to believe in Christ is initiated by God’s drawing, not human free will.
• Romans 9:16– “So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.”
  • Salvation is explicitly said to depend on God’s intervention, not human will.
• Acts 16:14– “The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.”
  • Lydia’s “choice” to believe was enabled by God opening her heart.
• Ezekiel 36:27– “I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes.”
  • Obedience is caused by God’s Spirit, not independent human decision.

Brother Del said:

In regards to airplane windows, they are all convex, much like the lens on a go pro camera. In other words, you are looking out a curved window, not at a curved earth.

Click to expand...

And yet, the wings of the plane and straight features on the ground are not distorted.

Brother Del said:

Ships don't disappear over the curvature of the earth

Click to expand...

Yes they do.

Brother Del said:

That what you call science, and established facts have already had this effect is beyond dispute. The theory of evolution being a prime example. How many people will never believe in God based upon that one scientific theory alone, how many others raised in the faith have abandoned that faith because of the things they were taught as facts during the process of higher education?

Click to expand...

Facts are taught as facts because they can be proved, which is what makes them facts.

Sam266 said:

Calling something a hinge is not giving it a magic justificatory status. It is exactly the opposite. A hinge is a commitment that does not sit inside the space of reasons at all. It is not “self justified” and it is not declared immune from evidence. It is what stands fast while we use concepts like evidence, doubt, and justification in the first place. That “standing fast” is visible in how children are trained into a language and a form of life long before they can even understand radical skeptical questions.

Click to expand...

This right here is where it seems to be a shell game/special pleading. The notion that there is such a space at all is an invention, and can only be maintained dogmatically. It's a semantic shell game that serves more to paper over the problem with language than to actually engage with the challenge the diallelus presents. It seems to be precisely the sort of language-obfuscation that the analytics were supposedly combatting, which is not all that surprising.

Fervent said:

Yeah, this just sounds like special pleading through semantic games. It's a dogmatic solution, with added steps to try to explain away the dogmatism. It's exactly the kind of shell game that analytic philosophy is supposed to dispose with but actually only serves to paper it all over through clever use of language. I'm immediately reminded of Carroll's Agrippa and the Tortoise.

Click to expand...

I do not think the hinge picture is special pleading, and it actually takes Carroll’s point more seriously than your comment suggests.

Carroll’s Tortoise forces the issue that neither rules of inference nor basic premises can be justified by one more premise, on pain of infinite regress. Agrippa’s trilemma makes the same pressure explicit. At some point the “Because?” questions either loop, regress, or stop. The hinge view is simply an attempt to describe where and how they in fact stop in our practices, rather than pretending that they never do.

Calling something a hinge is not giving it a magic justificatory status. It is exactly the opposite. A hinge is a commitment that does not sit inside the space of reasons at all. It is not “self justified” and it is not declared immune from evidence. It is what stands fast while we use concepts like evidence, doubt, and justification in the first place. That “standing fast” is visible in how children are trained into a language and a form of life long before they can even understand radical skeptical questions.

So there are two different projects here. One is to imagine a view from nowhere where every commitment must be supported by further reasons on pain of dogmatism. The other is to describe honestly how reasoning and doubt actually function for finite language users, who always already inherit background certainties they have never argued for. The hinge framework belongs to the second project.

You can call that “semantic games” if you like, but what is really going on is an investigation into Wittgenstein's grammar of “know”, “doubt”, and “because”. Wittgenstein’s point is that once you see how these words actually work in practice, you also see why the regress that Carroll dramatizes cannot be resolved by one more argument. Something has to stand fast. The hinge theorist is not papering that over. He is putting his finger on it.

One way to see that this is not just verbal juggling is to notice the structural parallel with Gödel’s work. Gödel showed that any sufficiently rich formal system faces a choice: either it is incomplete, or it is inconsistent. In particular, a system that can express basic arithmetic cannot, if it is consistent, prove from within itself that it is consistent. Any such proof has to come from a stronger meta-system.

Something similar is going on with hinges. Agrippa’s trilemma and Carroll’s Tortoise dramatize the fact that a system of reasons cannot, from within, justify all of its own inferential rules and basic commitments without either looping, regressing, or simply stopping. The hinge view does not “explain away” this problem; it takes it as a datum. Hinges are those stopping points, the inherited background that is not itself the product of further reasons, but on which the whole practice of giving reasons depends.

In other words, hinge theory is not adding a dogmatic extra layer, it is making explicit the same limitation Gödel exposed in formal systems: you cannot have a finite, self-contained system that both captures all truths of its domain and proves its own legitimacy from the inside. Something has to be taken as given at the level of practice. Calling those “hinges” is not special pleading; it is simply owning up to the structural fact that your regress argument already relies on.

Much of this I cover in my work on epistemology.

Hentenza said:

Why do young, non sexual children have the need to learn this kind of convoluted sexuality?

Click to expand...

In the context of the material in the OP, it includes resources for teachers who happen to be trans and how best to go about '"coming out" at work and "tips" for "transitioning at work."' For all the scare tactics, the training materials appear to be about how teachers should deal with issues professionally, not about curriculum to be taught to students.

But yes, if a kid's teacher is trans, they will face this issue.