Free Will - its scope and purpose

[earl]

Huston Smith would be astounded-and amused-if you thought he wasn't Christian. earl

[Dor]

Originally Posted by earl

Well Derek, while it's a minority position in Christian theology, you might find the notion of Christian universalism interesting-has some parallels to Pure Land in its notions of mercy and ultimate reconciliation-see for instance Christian universalism--Ultimate Reconcilation: The True "Good News" Gospel of the Bible

It would certainly be the only Christian theology I'd ever entertain & I believe it's Luna's orientation. We'd be in good company though as it apparently is also Huston Smth's, (the man also apparently believes rebirth/reincarnation is not contradictory to a Christian theology):
http:jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/15877.htm

have a good one, earl

Christian Universalism....not biblical.
I can see a scenario where a universalist can be a Christian (death bed) and I believe that it is possible to be saved in confusion and error -- including in the confusion and error of universalism.

[Dor]

Originally Posted by earl

Huston Smith would be astounded-and amused-if you thought he wasn't Christian. earl

Hmm please show many anywhere it says he is. I cant find it.

During his career, Smith not only studied, but practiced Vedanta Hinduism, Zen Buddhism, and Sufism for over ten years each. He is a notable practitiner of autodidactism.
As a young man, Smith, of his own volition, after suddenly turning to mysticism, set out to meet with then-famous author Gerald Heard.
Heard responded to Smith's letter, invited him to his Trabuco College (later donated as the Ramakrishna Monastery) in Southern California, and then sent him off to meet the legendary Aldous Huxley. So began Smith's experimentation with meditation, and association with the Vedanta Society in Saint Louis under the auspices of Swami Satprakashananda of the Ramakrishna order.
Via the connection with Heard and Huxley, Smith eventually experimented with Timothy Leary and others at the Center for Personality Research, of which Leary was Research Professor. The experience and history of the era are captured somewhat in Smith's book Cleansing the Doors of Perception. In this period, Smith joined in on the Harvard Project as well, an attempt to raise spiritual awareness through entheogenic plants.
He developed an interest in the Traditionalist School formulated by Rene Guenon and Ananda Coomaraswamy. This interest has become a continuing thread in all his writings.



HMMM see nothing about Christianity in there so I wont say it but...

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Dor

Christian Universalism....not biblical.
I can see a scenario where a universalist can be a Christian (death bed) and I believe that it is possible to be saved in confusion and error -- including in the confusion and error of universalism.

Ouch!

[Tariki]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Tariki!


Forgive me for beginning at the end. Thank you for being up front with your objective. I have no issues with this, so long as it is kept respectful, and I know you well enough to believe you will. However, if too much stink is raised, I might suggest we move the discussion to the liberal board so that others here do not feel pressed upon.


I am afraid this is foreign to me, and I mean no pun. I cannot envision a heaven where all is static, where we all sit around on clouds playing harps all day with nothing better to do. Not that I haven't tried, but I do not see it in the Bible. Perhaps some of your imagery holds a place in one form or other of orthodoxy, I cannot say. I distance myself from a great deal of the trappings of orthodoxy (traditions of men, and all of that). Matters such as purgatory are intellectual fodder for debates, but I have never seen anything of that nature from my first hand studies in the Bible. So I am struggling to understand quite what it is you mean by "it is possible that all are predestined to love without any denial of free will." I suppose anything is possible, but probable in accord with sacred scripture is another matter altogether. It is possible that the whole of the Bible is just some multi-millennial political con game, but the probability of that being so without coming to naught over the long term is pretty doggone low.


Ah, what a clever way to insert the concept of reincarnation and / or rebirth. While I have heard some interesting arguments in that regard, some even from Jewish quarters, I am still inclined to hedge my wager along with Pascal. I do not close the door to the possibility, but again, in my personal untethered studies I do not find such written. Besides, I have known a few persons in my life who come to take such possibility for granted...oh, if I don't get it right this lifetime, I'll make up for it next time. Me, I would rather not have that safety net beneath me to make me lazy and carefree (careless?) when I walk the straight and narrow high wire. In accord with my understanding of Karma...if I get it right this time, I step to a higher level next time. Conversely, if there is no next time, I still advance. The poor person who wagered their life on a next time and doesn't get one, is in for a rude surprise, no?


Those are command decisions, they don't pay me to make command decisions. I'm just a lowly grunt taking orders like just about everybody else.

I am thinking kinda like a basketball game (Go Gators, National Champs two years in a row!!! Whooo whoo!). You have to focus on the game you are playing right now, you can't be worrying about next week's game when your opponent is charging down the court right at you. If the whole Karma / rebirth thing turns out to be correct (and I am not one to say outright it is not), then so be it. I find I guide myself more diligently if I do not play my game by that assumption.

How rebirth factors in with predestination, love and free-will, I haven't got a clue. But I don't see love possible without free-will, otherwise it is not genuine love. It is forced, and love cannot be forced for very long at all, certainly not for eternity. I hesitate to say, but I don't think even G-d could do that. Besides, why would He want to? Which would you prefer...a forced love that lasts for a fleeting moment?...or a genuine and sincere love that lasts forever? Isn't it a wonderful feeling to love somebody or something, and have your love unquestionably returned? It's such a rush, such a positive feedback loop that feeds itself, like a perpetual motion machine. Forced love is like a windup toy, once it runs out or the spring breaks, it's no fun anymore.

Juantoo3,

Again a thank-you for your response. Its a pity we are not able to meet up over a pint in a pub (forgive the English slang!) where misunderstandiings could be sorted out in a connivial atmosphere. There are those here who appear ultra sensitive (not your goodself!), so I had better state explicitly that I am in no way - no way, I repeat no way - seeking to equate myself with Christ when I say that I understand just what He meant when saying .....the foxes have holes, the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head. On Buddhist forums I have argued against any form of explicit "belief" in karma or rebirth, and brought down wrath upon myself for doing so. I was in no way seeking to be "clever" in inserting it anywhere. I have even argued on Buddhist forums that a "one life scenario" is, existentially, more favourable for gaining "enlightenment" than a multi-life one..........though along the lines of Thoreau's answer to the question "What do you think of the world to come?" and his answer..."One life at a time please".

When I spoke of things being "frozen at death" I was only speaking in respect of the majority Christian view that the opportunity for salvation ended at death, not that further progress/change is no longer possible in the "heavenly state".

As far as the idea of "predestination to love" not being incompatible with free will, I thought I explained myself adequately based upon the words of St Augustine........that with all of eternity in which to work, each and every human being will eventually freely choose to love. And that this is God's intention and will. (Just throwing in another idea, based upon the ideas of the French existentialist Jean Paul Sartre, who argued that free will can never be truly free in a Christian context for the reason that in as much as God creates us - and thus chooses our essence - having not chosen our own essence we can never be ultimately "free" in the deepest meaning of the word.)

And as for my closing statement, it was more my words concerning certain terms I was using being problematic from a Buddhist perspective that was the point. (Yes, I am seeking dialogue and mutual understanding so I am throwing Buddhist pathways onto Christian roads..................but) This has to do with Buddhist teachings concerning "no-self" (anatta), which will always bring a fresh perspective and understanding to the Christian idea of "souls" being newly created at birth. However, this is far too complex for this to be raised here at the moment......once again, for the ultra sensitive.... ......not because of any lack of intellect on the part of anyone here, merely the factor of time!

I have further things to say, but have run out of time.

All the best
Derek

[Dondi]

Universalism presupposes that God will give second chances beyond the grave. I'd like to think God is fair in His judgement and will give consideration to those who are ignorant of His will or ignorant of Him for that matter. After all, life is relatively short as it is and not everyone even has a chance for a full life (assuming a 70 year average). One would think that with eternity at stake, there would be ample opportunity to "purchase their ticket and get into the stadium" as it were.

The problem I have is that it is not so clear cut for people where to go to purchase that ticket. Or that there is any ticket to purchase. Or maybe they don't even know there is a game on. Or maybe they show up at the wrong stadium.

Even among the different Christian denominations there are divers ways of getting there. And quite frankly us believers will bicker at one another whether our particular sect is exclusive to the other sects or at least believe that the other sects have it so detrimentally wrong that their chances of getting in are compromised by their doctines.

For those who are in error, at least honestly so, believers in God (or Something) of whatever religion or sect, I'd like to think that God will better their education and then allow them to decide who they rather serve before dumping them off into the eternal abyss.

Another thing is that many people go out hating God because of their circumstances. Maybe they were victims of abuse, or lost a loved one, or some other tragedy that has held them back from knowing who God is, perhaps blamming God for their misfortune. It's hard to blame people in these circumstances if one has not gone through the same. Many of these people have never known love, no one has shown them.

I do not condone this Cho fellow that shortened the lives of so many at Virginia Tech, but he was obviously lonely and depressed, and not in the right mind. I have no idea what kind of love was offered in his home growing, but I suspect it wasn't much, if at all. There had to be some deep underlying root cause in the center of his soul that made him the way he was. It may have all been a physical mental problem, I dunno. Granted, he didn't seem to try to reach out to people who reached out to him, being so closed off and isolated toward people, but I wonder if somehow he felt he couldn't trust people enough to open himself up. He definitely had a persecution problem, as evident in the videos he took of himself. The point is that he was in a desperate and depressed state of mind that over the years boiled to the point that in his anger and rage drove him to this kind of action. It would have been better if he just took his own life instated of all the ones he took with him. But it is interesting to hear that some families of the victims have forgiven him anyway.

I would love to believe in universalism. Problem is, is that there are those so bent against God that they probably won't be comfortable in worshipping God for eternity anyway. I have a feeling that even when everthing is crystal clear there will be those who will not choose to love God.

Sorry for rambling on, just needed to get some things out.

[earl]

Originally Posted by Dor

Hmm please show many anywhere it says he is. I cant find it.

During his career, Smith not only studied, but practiced Vedanta Hinduism, Zen Buddhism, and Sufism for over ten years each. He is a notable practitiner of autodidactism.
As a young man, Smith, of his own volition, after suddenly turning to mysticism, set out to meet with then-famous author Gerald Heard.
Heard responded to Smith's letter, invited him to his Trabuco College (later donated as the Ramakrishna Monastery) in Southern California, and then sent him off to meet the legendary Aldous Huxley. So began Smith's experimentation with meditation, and association with the Vedanta Society in Saint Louis under the auspices of Swami Satprakashananda of the Ramakrishna order.
Via the connection with Heard and Huxley, Smith eventually experimented with Timothy Leary and others at the Center for Personality Research, of which Leary was Research Professor. The experience and history of the era are captured somewhat in Smith's book Cleansing the Doors of Perception. In this period, Smith joined in on the Harvard Project as well, an attempt to raise spiritual awareness through entheogenic plants.
He developed an interest in the Traditionalist School formulated by Rene Guenon and Ananda Coomaraswamy. This interest has become a continuing thread in all his writings.



HMMM see nothing about Christianity in there so I wont say it but...

If you had followed the link I provided to his interview, you would have seen him discussing his beliefs about Christianity. Unfortunately, as I said recently elsewhere, more's the pity that "lunamothian" Christianity is the small minority. Definitely not optimistic that the "Twain" shall ever meet among factions of christianity. But as i said, I'll have the consolation of knowing that a great religious scholar who recently wrote his first book exlusively about Christianity, "The Soul of Christianity," is in the same boat I am. earl

[Dor]

Originally Posted by earl

If you had followed the link I provided to his interview, you would have seen him discussing his beliefs about Christianity. Unfortunately, as I said recently elsewhere, more's the pity that "lunamothian" Christianity is the small minority. Definitely not optimistic that the "Twain" shall ever meet among factions of christianity. But as i said, I'll have the consolation of knowing that a great religious scholar who recently wrote his first book exlusively about Christianity, "The Soul of Christianity," is in the same boat I am. earl

Ok I missed that second link.
I will still stand by what I said. Universalism, reincarnatiojn etc are unbiblical and it does not matter how many books you write. Benny Hinn has wrote books does not mean I want to be in the same boat. If they teach unbiblical stuff they should make up their own religion.

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by Dor

Benny Hinn has wrote books does not mean I want to be in the same boat. If they teach unbiblical stuff they should make up their own religion.

They are making up their own religion.

[Tariki]

dondi,

It's nice to read a ramble or two, and thanks for your honest appraisal of Universalism. I would just repeat that "eternity" is a long time and if the door never shuts from God's side (apart from a quote from the Bible followed by a particular interpretation of it, can anyone offer a reason why God would ever close the door on anyone at any particular time?)

However, bringing in my own particular "buddhist" ideas, eternity for me is just a deeper dimension of time.......past, present and future are held in eternities embrace. The rose that with my mortal eye I see flowers in God throughout eternity

and...

..the present has no extension but intensity Therefore it always sounds - and seems - perculiar to me that Christianity speaks of souls created at a point in time, and therefore having a "beginning", yet then become - and are - "eternal".

Anyway, just picking up a point made by Quahom1 concerning all having fallen short of the glory of God. For me this links to the idea that our acts of righteousness are "filthy rags" in the sight of the Almighty...........if performed outside of Christ.( A hard saying indeed! ) I think any attempt to understand the Christian concept of "salvation" without the acceptance that all have fallen - and indeed, have all fallen short of the glory of God - will result in misunderstandings.................just as a failure to understand that all is suffering -yes, all, including a good meal and a pint of ale, not to mention sex! - will seriously compromise any attempt to understand the Buddhist teachings on "enlightenment". For me an act done self-consciously will always, in subtle ways, include the stain of self-righteousness, which will in turn cause us to separate ourselves from others in "judgement". For me, to live "in Christ" is to act spontaeneously, to be an "empty" vehicle for the love of God that embraces the world. Quite where "free will" goes I have no idea, except that it seems to play some sort of part in the build up.........

The Christian mystic Meister Eckhart is sometimes seen as a "dharma brother" by Buddhists, and he has expressed this idea of emptiness/no-self in his sermon based upon the gospel verse.....Blessed are the poor in spirit. Eckhart speaks of the perfect poverty.....

........the great masters have said that we should be so free of all things and all works, both inner and outer, that we become the place where God can act. But now we put it differently. If it is the case that someone is free of all creatures, of God and of themselves, if God finds a place to act in them, then we say: as long as this exists in someone, they have not yet reached the ultimate poverty. For God does not intend there to be a place in someone where he can act, but if there is to be true poverty of spirit, someone must be so free of God and all his works that if God wishes to act in the soul he must himself be the place in which he can act, and this he is certainly willing to be. For if God finds us this poor, then God performs his own active work and we passively receive God in ourselves and God becomes the place of his work in us since God works within himself. In this poverty, we attain again the eternal being which we once enjoyed, which is ours now and shall be for ever.

This sets limits to the "scope" of freewill............at least, something to reflect upon. For me it brings to mind the description given to the moment of "enlightenment" within the Buddhist (Theravada) faith, that it is a moment when.........effort falls away, having reached the end of its scope. And also sets limits to the Pure Land notion that our good deeds should be expressions of gratitude, yet as the Pure Land "saint" Saichi has said.....

To be grateful is not faith confirmed;
Nothing happening is nothing happening.
To be grateful is a fraud -
'Tis true, 'tis true!

To say, "How grateful!" is a lie;
The truth is: there is nothing the matter with one;
And there is nothing more that makes one feel at home -
Namu-amida-butsu! Namu-amida-butsu!



P.S. And again I say, we are more chosen..........(than that we chose)

Anyway, I have taken the liberty of rambling on like this because I am now taking a rest. I may well post on the Buddhist section, but that will be it for the time being. It may not seem so, but some of this dialogue and attempted mutual understanding really takes it out of me...........

[earl]

Frankly Tariki I sadly have the same feelings about the impossibility or toll it takes out of one to attempt dialogue between more "liberal" or universalistic Christians and more "fundamental" ones. See ya around other boards. earl

[Dondi]

The whole precept of Christianity and Judiasm is what we do with that freewill. Do we use freewill selfishly, or do we give our will back to God and allow Him to conform us to His will. Even after one is "saved" we are constantly in that battle to hold that freewill up to God and say "use me for Your Purpose". Freewill is necessary if we are to show love. That's the difference between men and angels.

[juantoo3]

Yep.

[InLove]

Would it be too simplistic a concept to suggest that it is God's grace that freely offers us free will? Just thinking...and obviously not too deeply, I guess.

InPeace,
InLove

[InLove]

Would it be too simplistic a concept to suggest that it is God's grace that freely offers us free will? Just thinking...and obviously not too deeply, I guess.

Or how about this? That it is also that same grace that lovingly guides us in our free will?