• August 2017
    S M T W T F S
    « Apr    
     12345
    6789101112
    13141516171819
    20212223242526
    2728293031  
  • Posts you missed

  • Categories

  • Pages

Discussion Zone

The page is meant to help consolidate discussions that may have gotten off topic at their previous post location….Or in the instance of the first entries here, a long conversation that went on under a friends About page!

14 Responses

  1. Rickr0ll wrote:

    It may be indistinguishable from it, but if our choices aren’t free, then our will isn’t free. even if we do what we want, we are pretdetermined to do what we want, ergo…

    This was regarding our offshoot discussion about free-will/predestination. You argued Choice does not equal will. I assume you meant free-will. You also wrote the above quote.
    As I understand it, your ergo… eluded to your belief that we do not really have free-will. Is this not contradictory reasoning? Even if we view it from my angle? If we do what we want, we have free-will, but if we are predetermined to do what we want, we do not have free-will etc. Does awareness play into it at all?
    The basic assumption being used is that omniscience means that no one has true free-will. So, it seems we need to better define free-will.
    Is free-will
    1) having the choice to do whatever we want as long as there is no omniscient being present or…
    Is free-will
    2) thinking we have the choice to do whatever we want regardless if there is an omniscient being present?

    Websters gives us:
    1. made or done freely or of one’s own accord; voluntary: a freewill contribution to a political fund.
    2. of or pertaining to the metaphysical doctrine of the freedom of the will: the freewill controversy.

    I guess we need to clarify this if we want to discuss it. If not, I’ll move on the another question I missed.

  2. Again, we make choices, but “We” aren’t the ones making them. Simply look up Free Will on Wikepedia if you are so inclined. You maintain that Free Will is the 1st definition, while i adamantly proclaim it to be a matter of being able to choosing what we want to want. An ability to shirk off the idea of a “self” would be one evidence of choice, as it would indicate our minds are free from the concept of identity.

    Free would be the ability to change our emotional states. We would be free from our psychology. But we aren’t. We are built with desires and natural states of wanting something already within us. It isn’t contradictory. It is basic observation that desire drives human behavior. It

    Will is just compulsion. Ours is determined by our nuerochemistry, our appetites, our personality, our social structure, et cetra. Choices are therefore not free. they aren’t free from determinism. Choices are determined. What we want is just a condition of humanity. It is a part of the equation. If we didn’t do what we wanted we wouldn’t be free, and if we could only do what we wanted, then we would never be free from that- our wants would be the be-all-and end-all. Based on the way this world works, i would say that free will is just a quaint idea. There is nothing that proves it’s existence.

    And here, fine, that’s my real email.

  3. Hey Rick,
    Thanks for the insightful reply. You’ve taken the idea of free-will to the next level. I like the depth of your explanation, it’s good. I agree. From the perspective you define, you are correct, there is no free-will of the type that could circumnavigate our biological desires and drives. Heck, we breath even when we don’t want to.
    In this discussion, I was defining free-will more along the lines of the ability of choosing between whether something is black or white, or real or unreal. So, choice would be a better word to use. In that context, I feel that choice is available even in a realm where an omniscient being is present. I believe that is where we differ.

    Oh, I didn’t mean to come across negatively when I noted your email didn’t work. Sorry that I did.

  4. i know email doesn’t work, it’s a protective measure. I have to protect the little amount of time i have in between classes and such lol.

    But the type of “free” you mention is brought up by notable philosophers -I think Kant- as simply being able to know what we are doing ahead of time. But that… is all thanks to “mirror neurons”- neurons that allow us to imitate activity we see- “monkey see, monkey do” neurons.

    Our entire discussion of will has to do with what scenarios our minds create based on the information we have- our only truly notable ability as a species is a higher level of abstraction with concepts than any other- and mirror neurons are exactly what allow mental pictures to be used over and over again.

    Most, if not all animals have these, but once again, our species relied on intelligence as it’s leverage to survive and thrive in the world- obviously it still does, in a very cynical, egoistic way, though, which is a shame. After all, we ought to be as gods with the powers that we wield, not beggars or despots.

    Alas, our animalian psychology still does indeed have the better of us. And once again, our brain may merely be an immensely complex biocomputer- who wouldn’t agree with that, i wonder?

    As such, we are programmed to behave certain ways- and we program each other, as higher intelligences are prone to do. “Just as iron, sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.”

    Will is simply the ability to augment our own programing as needed to survive- though this process is very much left out of our hands, for obvious reasons.

    The statement about breathing- controlled by the Madula Oblongata- one of the first brain section to evolve, and it was never gotten rid of (imagine that). And our speech center is Broca’s area, if you are interested in that as well.

    Ok, i’ll grant you, and omniscient being wouldn’t directly interfere with our choices. But, any “prime mover” aware of the consequences of its actions will ultimately only be using ourselves to express itself- both good and evil. So, metaphysically, Brahman in far closer to “God” that any Western/Pagan conception of a Creator.

    One more Important thing: Adonai (i assume, in this discussion) Himself has no free will. If He’s omniscient, then at what point does He change His mind, or think at all for that matter? He is similar to an endlessly running computer program Himself if such is the case, and in which case, why not take the stance of Baruch Spinoza, and simply confess that God is Nature? I hold no such qualms and make no distinctions.

    But remember, the personality of God is always going to merely be subservient to the Nature of God- which again, aren’t all parts of God equal? No, some are existential and some are personal- just like how the human mind is constructed, so let us address the more fundamental considerations of what it means for God to even have a nature at all.

    Nature Itself never was created, for if it were, whenceforth did Adonai get His own Nature if He had to create it first? Omnipotence, Omniscince, And Omnipresence (really, they are the same upon consideration) are all fundamental componants of God’s Nature, and without them, He is Not. Unfortunately for him, Omniscience is the negation of Omnipotence, Omnipotence the negation of omniscience, and Omnipresence an affirmation of both. But the only way to be Omniscient is literally to Be everywhere all at once, and the only way to influence whatever He Wills (and why again does He Will it so? Everything Is arbitrary and pointless compared to God by default, which means God is doing absolutely nothing of any worth.) is to Be everywhere at once as well. From that, we get the statement that God in any case, seems only to be controlling Himself- ironically in the same sense that “We” control our bodies. Free Will really isn’t a problem for humanity- the illusion of it is.

    Simply taking a greater look at God and you can see that freedom is something which is inherently impossible in this universe. After all, who Could be freer than God? Isn’t that more paradoxical than anything else?

  5. Hey, not a problem on the email, I was just going to email you about this Discussion Zone tab instead of post another comment in Morse’s About page…no biggie.
    If I may ask, what’s your educational background, you seem to have a bit of science studies or bio expertise….just a hobby? Your basic knowledge appears way beyond mine (but I’m not opposed to learning since my wife is a biologist and I can bounce stuff off her). I just wish I had more time to learn more…don’t we all.
    Anyway, I liked what you had to say above. I disagree with some of it, because of the basic premise that I believe in Creation etc.
    Alas, yes, we are an incredible bio-computer. There are still aspects of our biology that we cannot recreate. You are most likely very aware of this based on your bio knowledge. I just think we were created this way and didn’t evolve (but this is a different subject).
    You noted that the “prime mover” would, in essence, have a vested interest in manipulating our lives to make happen what “He” wants to happen…And, I would have to agree to an extent. The verse, “All things happen for the good of those who love him” would elude to this, however, I still contend that this doesn’t take away choice. God’s abilities, if Omin-xyz, would allow for him to simply use our choices as they occur just as easily as God “making” us do everything.
    If God is making us “do” our life, then it would make more sense to me that He would have made us all Believers to start with and not left it up to choice.
    I disagree that God has no free-will or God had to create His nature, as I think it’s incorrect to constrain a Creator to the limits of His creation. There are simply mysteries that may never be understood that lay outside our realm of thinking. Of course, we can choose to say we “know”, but in reality we do not. Whether we see them as some work of “nature” or God’s eternal-ness is our crossroad.
    As for a paradox, if there is one it’s man-made. As I see it, God is attributed with Omniscience, Omnipotence, and Omnipresence; however, if this argument inhibits His “freedom”, then something is in error. If He is not all of these Omni-xyz‘s then how could He be “God”? My logic leads to the idea that we have something incorrect with our thinking that must be explained otherwise if we can’t rationalize God’s freedom. Nice discussion.

  6. “If I may ask, what’s your educational background, you seem to have a bit of science studies or bio expertise….just a hobby?”
    –Only in my second semester of College. And i haven’t even had and bio classes and definately no nuerology classes. So yeah, it’s a hobby- i watch the science channel prodigously…

    You say you believe in Creation- but Creation is simply the statement that you think all of this Reality is merely an artiface. Again i must note that if we cannot tell the difference between a created reality and a reality sans God, why would someone make that illogical leap, totally disregarding Occam’s Razor?

    You also make another fallacious remark when you say “a ‘prime mover’ would, in essence, have a vested interest in manipulating our lives to make happen what “He” wants to happen”. I only said a hyperintelligent Prime Mover- that also happened to care- would have such “vested interest” (though i object to that term since God, by default, is just a Cosmic Hobbyist). God is in fact, the only entity with freedom as you see it, because he illogically lies Outside the determanistic universe- and is not a part of it. Again, what possible proof is there of even that?

    “I still contend that this doesn’t take away choice.”
    –And i still contend that that is irrelavant. Consider Pavlov’s dogs. Choices are psysiologically conditioned- they only occur with a certain reasoning behind them. Sometimes, as Dostoyevsky notes, Man’s only reason is trying to regain “freedom” from the clutches of Sanity and Order.

    This is a statement about how our ego has more say in our will than anything else; once all desires have been met, a crises of existentialism grips man. Certainly, there are many people who quickly achieve success in all walks of life- then proptly commit suicide due to the futility of the task of keeping oneself saited in such comfortable, lethargic state of mind.

    And what a Wasted effort on God’s part are all the evils of the world. Surely that pompous assertion “all things are for the Good” is unrealistic. Many hundreds of thousands of people are living and dying never once knowing happiness or God. Seriously, haven’t you ever read Candide?

    God is ouside of time; our chioces aren’t being used “as they occur.” Otherwise you must through out the Doctrine of election. And of course, you must throw out the idea that God is Superior to and separate from His creation- another statement that is rather absurd- certainly an artist is merely the voice of a certain set of preexisting ideas. I contend that there is no such thing as invention but merely discovery. After all, if the ideas Did exist with God, then once again we come to the realization that everything is merely being expressed by human intellect.

    “If God is making us “do” our life, then it would make more sense to me that He would have made us all Believers to start with and not left it up to choice.”
    –A direct contradiction with the Original Sin AND common sense. We are born “tabula rasa” as was said by Locke, with a blank state of mind- believing and knowing nothing. We are at birth Nontheists, that is, we hold no opinions about god. It is similar to saying a blind man is a noncritical- indeed unconcerned -about scultpure or artistry in general.

    “I think it’s incorrect to constrain a Creator to the limits of His creation.”
    –But Adonai holds himself to a standard, irregardless of our state of being. Now Yehweh is much less finicky…But that has its own set of problems associated with it.

    “There are simply mysteries that may never be understood that lay outside our realm of thinking.”
    –An assertion of incredulity, which, even if true, only means that we may never know anything. It is a non-sequiter to say that “I don’t know”= Goddidit.

    “As I see it, God is attributed with Omniscience, Omnipotence, and Omnipresence; however, if this argument inhibits His “freedom”, then something is in error.”
    –Exactly.

  7. –Only in my second semester of College. And i haven’t even had and bio classes and definately no nuerology classes. So yeah, it’s a hobby- i watch the science channel prodigously… It’s nice to see a smart young man engaged in society! You could be stuck behind an avatar in Everquest or Second Life…maybe you are?!?

    You say you believe in Creation- but Creation is simply the statement that you think all of this Reality is merely an [artiface]. I assume you meant artifice, with an “I”, and obviously, yes, I believe God created the universe and that takes a bit of skill as we would perceive it.
    Again i must note that if we cannot tell the difference between a created reality and a reality sans God, why would someone make that illogical leap, totally disregarding Occam’s Razor?
    Assuming God did it, is far fewer assumptions than science currently presents for it’s theories on creation…..although the assumption is nebulous. Since you brought up Occam’s razor, thought I would point that out. But really, just looking at creation, in all is beauty and ugliness makes for a compelling logical leap that it was created. Hence, our disagreement on much.

    You also make another fallacious remark when you say “a ‘prime mover’ would, in essence, have a vested interest in manipulating our lives to make happen what “He” wants to happen”. I only said a hyperintelligent Prime Mover- that also happened to care- would have such “vested interest” (though i object to that term since God, by default, is just a Cosmic Hobbyist). God is in fact, the only entity with freedom as you see it, because he illogically lies Outside the determanistic universe- and is not a part of it. Again, what possible proof is there of even that? We have no proof. We only have texts and faith, OR ramblings that the brain produces and faith produced from various biological processes in the brain (probably entailing neurons). You obviously don’t like the idea that you are not free? Choice isn’t enough? I could be wrong about that. In laymen discussion free-will and choice would be interchangeable, but since we have narrowed the definition I’ll grant that God is the only “free” being and we are just living for the choice. It’s completely logical for God to lie outside the universe He created as well as be completely surrounding it and permeating it as well. Let’s stick with the simply assumption that God can do anything. We wouldn’t want to muddy the water with any excess ideas. I know I’m being facetious as well as stretching the idea of Occam’s razor a bit. Our opinions diverge greatly on this subject.

    “I still contend that this doesn’t take away choice.”
    –And i still contend that that is irrelavant. Consider Pavlov’s dogs. Choices are psysiologically conditioned- they only occur with a certain reasoning behind them. Sometimes, as Dostoyevsky notes, Man’s only reason is trying to regain “freedom” from the clutches of Sanity and Order.Of course, reasoning is the very basis of choice. I’m no psychologist, though.

    This is a statement about how our ego has more say in our will than anything else; once all desires have been met, a crises of existentialism grips man. Certainly, there are many people who quickly achieve success in all walks of life- then proptly commit suicide due to the futility of the task of keeping oneself sated in such comfortable, lethargic state of mind. Which has often been used to point to the need for a Spiritual side of our existence that may be unmet.

    And what a Wasted effort on God’s part are all the evils of the world. Surely that pompous assertion “all things are for the Good” is unrealistic. Many hundreds of thousands of people are living and dying never once knowing happiness or God. Seriously, haven’t you ever read Candide?Seriously, I have not. Have you read Time and Again? Candide is a satire, it’s not historical nor is it anything more than political entertainment. You don’t know why I believe there is suffering in this world? Seriously, haven’t you read the Bible? You only have to get into it 3 chapters. Certainly, it’s not unrealistic. For if the contention is that God can do anything, then we could surmise a laundry list of potential good that could have come from all the bad that we could list along side it. However, you leave off the most important part of the verse! [And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.] You attempt to negate God based on your misguided feelings regarding sin and who deserves punishment. Christianity 101.

    God is ouside of time; our chioces aren’t being used “as they occur.” Otherwise you must through out the Doctrine of election. The point was that God could do both, not be limited to just one “method”. How does God being able to use our choices eliminate our ability to choose? I like this quote attributed to D. L. Moody: “God chose me for himself, but the devil chose me for himself. My choice is the tie-breaker.” (the Doctrine of election is controversial) And of course, you must throw out the idea that God is Superior to and separate from His creation- another statement that is rather absurd- Why must you throw this out? To me that is absurd. certainly an artist is merely the voice of a certain set of preexisting ideas. I contend that there is no such thing as invention but merely discovery. After all, if the ideas Did exist with God, then once again we come to the realization that everything is merely being expressed by human intellect. A contention that is quite similar to faith, since you are assuming there is no invention. Also, the artist does not become constrained in 2D once his creation is completed, nor the computer programmer constrained by his program once implemented. The examples fail though, since they are simple human examples that cannot stack-up to the idea of the God I am describing.

    “If God is making us “do” our life, then it would make more sense to me that He would have made us all Believers to start with and not left it up to choice.” I do not contend that God is making us “do” our lives absolutely.
    –A direct contradiction with the Original Sin AND common sense. We are born “tabula rasa” as was said by Locke, with a blank state of mind- believing and knowing nothing. Can you prove this? What is instinct? We are at birth Nontheists, that is, we hold no opinions about god. It is similar to saying a blind man is a noncritical- indeed unconcerned -about scultpure or artistry in general. I’d have to study this more, since it’s biblically stated that nature speaks of God, and that God’s law is written on our hearts.

    “I think it’s incorrect to constrain a Creator to the limits of His creation.”
    –But Adonai holds himself to a standard, irregardless of our state of being. Now Yehweh is much less finicky…But that has its own set of problems associated with it.
    What is your source for your opinion here? Would be an interesting if not odd read. I need to read it to better understand where you are coming from. Please don’t send me a link to the “angry man-child theory, that was a hoot. My understanding of the names of God come from similar sources as this:
    http://books.google.com/books?id=Jb5aRB7OxWsC&pg=PA66&lpg=PA66&dq=Adonai+Yahweh+meanings&source=web&ots=hJsOnPpqQo&sig=53wYH704mCHY2HMFA21MUepvdX0&hl=en&ei=9C2WSefkKoHWM9uU5PAB&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result#PPA67,M1

    “There are simply mysteries that may never be understood that lay outside our realm of thinking.”
    –An assertion of incredulity, which, even if true, only means that we may never know anything. Is it so hard to swallow the “idea” that we cannot or would not be able to fathom all the workings of the God I believe in? This idea is stated in the Bible It is a non-sequiter to say that “I don’t know”= Goddidit. It’s a non-sequitur to say, “I don’t know” = Goddidn’tdoit. Again, we cannot prove it either way beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    “As I see it, God is attributed with Omniscience, Omnipotence, and Omnipresence; however, if this argument inhibits His “freedom”, then something is in error.”
    –Exactly. Meaning, that he is free and the theories that say otherwise must be flawed.

  8. i’m amazed. It’s truly puzzling as to why you think your God has any identity outside the Bible- and if he does, then you seem to think that he is personable to you. Nothing in scripture seems to indicate God’s personability except to the patriarchs, which, if you know your archeology, were never real to begin with.

    If God is defined by one scripture- then why not more than one? Siddhartha Guatamma follows nearly the same life story as Yeshua- which can be transliterated as John (just one more!)- and he was born 400 years earlier! certainly Indian culture had mingled and suffused all of the Hellenistic culture established by Alexander the Great and maintained by the Romans and the Silk Road.

    But this is interesting… Eastern Religions have no gods. Hinduism has Incarnations of Brahman- but Brahman is just the Great Spirit- a sort of psychic backrop which all of Reality plays against. It isn’t even a God as such, more like a super-consciousness devoid of an ego. Taoism, Confuscionism, and Buddhism all subcribe to the “Less is more” philosophy of life and metaphysics.

    Given all that we can see in the universe- they were FAR ahead of thier time. I’m not surprised in the apostasy and “corruption” of New Ageism and Easter influence in Monotheism–they offer a radically Better conception of the universe. One where we are subject to life AS WE LIVE IT- not coerced from beyond by this Fake being called by many false names- Yehway, Jehovah, Christ (again, a title, not a name), Zues, Lilith, Adam, Thor, Odin, Quexllcoatl (i tried lol), the list goes on.

    Your God shouldn’t require this kind of complex sophistry if he is to be the fundamental being that controls all things, regardless of his methodology. Why split up the universe into it’s disseparate parts. It’s consitently untrue that there is a distinction between creator and the Created at the instance of Time’s beggining. you state that we were flawless, but if we were flawless, Luke 6:43-45 directly contradicts this statement. but again, you create all these lines between a god and man, and all of the time YOU are the one doing this!! God is nothing more than an abstract concept. It’s hubris to try and imagine for yourelf a cosmic champion that will do all he can to help you regardless of your behavior, simply becasue you desire his existance!

    Ugh, this is tiring. Being right in the face of absurd contradiction- the splitting of the primeval atom of god into 3 beings is #$!&*#$ stupid, the cotradiction and fundamental miscatagorization of “Will” and “Free”, the consistent denial of fact in favor of a beloved fiction, and the overall stupidity and hubris of assuming that “everything will be all right” regardless of your behavior- wears me through and through. There is a reason the worst educated industiralized society is also the one with the most religion- becasue one precludes the other. Ignorance fostors false hope, and institutionalized corporate fear mongering induces ignorance.

    My girlfriend is none the less xian than you sir (*gasp* i know, right ;) and she is willing to see the corruption and ignorance for what it really is- a sophisticasted psychological security blanket. It is the sign of an infantile, selfish society. Too bad there is no evidence that either of these claims i make are inacurate. religion ought to be the tool by which greatest good is developed the world over, but faith has no power over the failings of man’s behavior. The final nail in the coffin for theism: Belief in God does not produce Godlines- never has, never will, despite the whole of scripture to posit the opposite is true.

    Good day, treefan.

  9. Rick,
    Glad to hear back from you. You seem like you were having a bad day while writing your last comment? I hope not.
    I read through your comment and don’t really see any questions, so I’ll make some observations:
    1) The Bible is a book of 66 books that were written by 40+ authors over several thousand years. It’s what is called a collection of works. This need for “evidence” for God’s identity outside the Bible is kind of like saying give me evidence for the English language without using the English dictionary.
    Let me think, do a search for Christian blogs and see if they speak of a life that is affected by God. There you go.
    2) Any similarities within different world religions make complete sense. After the flood, people groups were separated during the Tower of Babel event. Thus, as they populated the world the people groups farther away from Mt. Ararat lost more and more of the true historical account described in Genesis. Language barriers as described in Genesis made any older written records moot except for any people groups that could still read them. It’s actually quite logical why there are many flood accounts preserved throughout history from different cultures on different continents. It’s doesn’t take much leap in logic to see it at all, it’s common sense. It takes far many more leaps in logic to believe in the evolution of life. Oh, and here’s a thought…it would seem logical for a people group that felt abandoned by God to move away from believing in one God. Hence, an idea of why we have many of the eastern religions.
    3) If this archaeology you mention is so obvious why does no one grasp it and rid us of all our errors? It only takes a minute amount of evidence to escalate and gossip about conspiracies involving JKF’s death and 9-11…why the silence about Biblical patriarchs?
    4) It’s your prerogative to believe God is fake. You are still so young. You seem impatient, no disrespect intended.
    5) How does Luke 6:43-45 contradict Genesis’ declaration that Creation was “very good” until the Fall of man due to sin? Flawless in this context simply means they were without sin. Jesus is speaking of those living after the Fall of man.
    6) God loves me, but he will let me screw up and he will let me go to hell. If God did all that He could, he would never have allowed me to sin in the first place. God did give a way out of the predicament, however, and that is faith in Christ.
    7) Yes, it is tiring to see such a gifted young man so blinded by frustration or maybe blinded by impatience that God didn’t answer a prayer in the way he had hoped. It’s tiring to “see through the mirror” at what I used to be like and to be seemingly unable to make a dent.
    8) Rick, you keep repeating ““everything will be all right” regardless of your behavior””, but this is completely anti-Biblical. If anything, this sounds like a line of thinking that has/had pervaded the Catholic Church over the years. I’m curious why you cling to this thought?
    9) Pride, pride comes to mind. The use of the argument that religion is a security blanket points back to the psychology of pride and its effect on decision making. If the idea that one shouldn’t need any help from another is distasteful, then pride is involved. There’s a reason why Satan’s sin was pride, and hence, why Satan preys on this attitude. It’s kind of like arguing that seat belts and parachutes are security blankets. You can consider them as such if you are absent of reason.
    10) Regarding godliness… In my life belief in God has certainly made a difference. I’m full of sin, so godliness is fleeting. What you speak of is better described as God will give you a new heart with new desires. The days of seeking out lust change to a realization that it is an adulterous act. The days of lying to get something, become a realization that honesty is a far better path. The days of theft on any scale change to a realization that the pens from work are not yours to take. These things happen with little or no effort in many cases, especially mine.
    And… we have the many hammers pulling out nails in your hypothetical coffin.

    Take care,
    Jeff

    P.S. We’re around half way through the contradictions list!

  10. Also, if your girlfriend simply sees Christianity as a security blanket, then she has missed the whole point. I’m curious what she considers herself? Christian, Catholic, Baptist, etc

  11. Link to Contradiction Review / Rebuttal PDF
    Here
    Thanks to Tom for helping out!

  12. Hey,

    This is a message for the webmaster/admin here at tree63fan.wordpress.com.

    May I use some of the information from this post right above if I provide a link back to your website?

    Thanks,
    James

  13. Free will can and will only happen within our limitations of nature. Free will will never be entirely without limits. If I have the choice to eat a medium rare prime rib with baked potato or a bowl of rotting maggots… I will always choose the prime rib and never choose the rotting maggots. As a depraved human, I will never choose God on my own without God first intervening… my nature does not allow it. With God intervening and working on my heart, I now can see things I never saw before and I will choose God. Same with the maggots… if they are later revealed to me that it is actually ice cream made to look like maggots, I can now freely choose to eat them because I see them differently.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: