The search for the Will Neutral Proof is vain

Submitted by timothy on Sat, 03/01/2008 - 11:47am. Tags:

Meta

Prove otherwise.

Evidence in the mind of one deceived they have free will is presupposed to be something that does not effect the one who beholds it and indeed to be a mere part of an overall environment that mandates free will. It is presumed to be will-neutral to the whole human being and specifically to be a tool that will allow a choice to gain new truth to the exclusion of the old paradigm, even as the new event in a long chain of such events even on the same subjects as throwing out former "will-neutral certainties".

That evidence cannot be evidence unless it is will neutral to the observer or even, the "end user" is a mere presupposition to support the overall deception of free will which is already the meta paradigm in which proof is sought for those deceived they have free will.

As seekers of truth, free willers can do no other than seek and at least pretend to find perpetual will neutrality. Thus, the lie of free will mandates that they not understand:

1. the distinction between Jesus Christ as Creating Speech and non-creating speech

2. that non-creating speech/sin is a living creature

3. that there is a total lack of free will for creatures ( zero free will, not 1% or 30%, etc. None. )

At all times, free willers must see and feel that the environment in which they live mandates free will and as such remain locked in a circle of finding supposed will-neutral evidence that they have free will and a will-neutral truth set as a whole. That is, in the past, present and future they will have and understand nothing else other than a "truth" that keeps supposedly proving to them that they have free will.

Plainly, rather than ever proving they have free will, free will is a lens on everything they see.

The inability to prove or disprove they lack free will is seen by them not as evidence they lack free will to do so, and so a proof they lack free will, even as it plainly is, specifically because it is not the will-neutral evidence that even in their most honest moment they look through the lens of the lie of free will to see concerning all of their 'truth'. In seeing a lack of will-neutrality in the evidence no matter where they look, they see a lack of proof that they do not have free will, in keeping with the lie that binds them.

Lacking evidence and answers and appealing from a present in which they presume to have free will to a future in which they are presumed to have free will and yet will encounter the sought after evidence of any particular is an appeal to ignorance to uphold the lie of free will. It is not a "neutral" state of being. It is darkness and the comprehension of that darkness.

I would like free willers in particular to respond and address the will-neutral aspects of what they would call evidence concerning anything. I.E. How does truth effect being?

The answer is Jesus Christ as Creating Speech. But the speech of free willers in denying Jesus Christ cannot appeal to God and must at least pretend to be will-neutral at all times to uphold the lie of free will.

After living a life wherein no word genuinely changed their being and thus demonstrated the speech they have already got as non-creating yet non-will-neutral as a general characteristic of it on them, but instead manipulated them here and there in darkness, they expect to see nothing that does change their being. They expect will neutral truth.

They expect to see all truth as a will-neutral widget --even that change of being when it is told to them by Creating Speech/Jesus Christ. Their old speech has constrained what even in their own minds would require a pro-active Savior who is all-knowing, all-powerful and omnipresent to know them personally before they knew Him to save them ( and to know what they needed to be changed into and out of..) to a will-neutral asker who stands idly by and saves them not while they supposedly investigate whether or not they need to be saved, in what manner that salvation ought to present itself to them while they are vested in staying the same being, not changing at all and thus supposedly are ideally maintaining their will-neutral environment to keep up the lie of free will.

It that not so?

Isaiah 43:8-13 Bring forth the blind people that have eyes, and the deaf that have ears. Let all the nations be gathered together, and let the peoples be assembled: who among them declareth this, or causeth us to hear former things? let them bring forth their witnesses, that they may be justified; or let them hear, and say, It is truth. Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am HE: before me there was no *God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, I am Jehovah; and besides me there is no saviour. It is I that have declared, and have saved, and have shewed, when there was no strange god among you; and ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, that I am *God. Yea, since the day was, I am HE, and there is none that delivereth out of my hand: I will work, and who shall hinder it?

In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen
--

timothy's blog
Login or register to post comments

I grow tired and angry of your take on Christianity and Will. (#82508)

by BlaiseP on Sat, 03/01/2008 - 8:37pm

You can say whatever you want, I don't have the right to ban you. I don't inflict my Christian viewpoint on others here.

I believe in free will. Psalm 42:1. As the deer pants for the water brooks, So my soul pants for You, O God. I believe man's soul longs for meaning and fulfillment. I have found mine in the person of Jesus Christ.

Are you going to tell me I didn't have the free will to choose? Are you going to call anyone else who doesn't believe exactly what you do about the nature of man's will a heretic? It very much seems to be the case.

Mark 2:14 As He passed by, He saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting in the tax booth, and He said to him, “Follow Me!” And he got up and followed Him.

και παραγων ειδεν λευιν τον του αλφαιου καθημενον επι το τελωνιον και λεγει αυτω ακολουθει μοι και αναστας ηκολουθησεν αυτω

και λεγει αυτω ακολουθει μοι : and is-saying to him, be-following me. αναστας ηκολουθησεν αυτω and here it gets interesting, that's masculine past tense second aorist accusative -- and he stood up (volition) and followed-after him.

I'll put it to you plainly, you need to get past your anti-Arminian viewpoint. Furthermore, you need to be more tolerant of others' viewpoints.

But I want you to answer this question, being a Christian myself.Is my walk any less valid than yours, just because you believe you've got no will in the matter of your walk? You are not a robot. I am not a robot. You offend others with your constant raving and boldface scripture quotations.

(

)

Of course it's vain - so why are we talking about it? (#82494)

by Trickster on Sat, 03/01/2008 - 7:20pm

Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.

What profit hath a man of all his labor which he taketh under the sun?

One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.

(

)

You don't seem to understand (#82428)

by HankP on Sat, 03/01/2008 - 1:46pm

that if you propose a philosophy that most people consider far removed from everyday experience, the burden is on you to prove it, not for others to disprove it.

Plenty of words have changed my being - they are known as books and conversations.

I blame it all on the Internet

(

)

I'm not proposing a philosophy or anything will neutral (#82432)

by timothy on Sat, 03/01/2008 - 2:25pm

Your speech is the one who has yet to address the truth that everything you find in what its says is truth must be will neutral by definition.

I'm telling you, as God does it through me that makes you blind to reality.

What is the connection between truth and being?

If you have no answer then admit it.

But if you have no answer then even in your own system of "logic" you have no justification for saying God doesn't exist.

Matthew 21:23-27 And when he came into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to him as he was teaching, saying, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority? And Jesus answering said to them, *I* also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, *I* also will tell you by what authority I do these things: The baptism of John, whence was it? of heaven or of men? And they reasoned among themselves, saying, If we should say, Of heaven, he will say to us, Why then have ye not believed him? but if we should say, Of men, we fear the crowd, for all hold John for a prophet. And answering Jesus they said, We do not know. *He* also said to them, Neither do *I* tell you by what authority I do these things.

In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen

(

| parent )

No, Timothy, *you* prove it. (#82460)

by tomsyl on Sat, 03/01/2008 - 5:39pm

You encapsulated your views in a nutshell with this:

Your speech is the one who has yet to address the truth that everything you find in what its says is truth must be will neutral by definition.

Science and logic by definition are neutral. Your rejection of that simple fact is fine with me, but it is not a "truth" to reject what five hundred years of scientific advances have brought us (tellingly including the computer you are posting on). Are you imagining that your computer works? If you stop believing that, will it disappear in a poof of faux non-neutral smoke? Will that happen if I can't prove scientific truths to you without them illogically being rejected? OK, there's my proof: I don't believe in your computer,and I reject the concept of electrons traveling down your internet connection to your server and thence to here. If I'm right, you'll suddenly be unable to post here. Bets?

If you consider the overall theme of this site, you will find many very intelligent and rational people who have well-developed philosophies and are skilled debaters. It is a tough audience for sure, but the forvm member who will at least consider a world view diametrically opposite to their own is hardly a rare beast.

I also find your many comments derogating every other religion but your own quite offensive and frankly, bigoted. As I've said, I was raised a strict Catholic, forcibly exposed for twelve formative years to the simplistic and uncompromising philosophies of that religion. Catholics believe that the Pope speaks to God directly, and relays through papal bulls His instructions to us. If you study the lives and the Church instructions and dogma (iin the literla sense of the word), you will find a tolerance for, not rejection of, the world's religions. Catholics don't believe those religions are right in what they teach of their Gods, but they don't condemn them as wrong. Based on the "been there, done that" rule, I say this with authority equal to anything you can claim for your own religion.

Finally, you obviously can structure your comments any way you want, But personally I find your extensive use of bolded Biblical quotations to be an ineffective way of making your points. I used to read all of them until that practice convinced me that your scriptural quotes you apparently think support your comments are elliptical at best. And speaking only for myself, I find people who take scripture as literally as you do, as wisdom received, unquestionable and unassailable, to be characteristic of a certain American religious mindset that I have often experienced first-hand and reject, for many reasons I won't recite here to avoid the rule against attacking the poster instead of the post.

Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius

(

| parent )

That's interesting. I went to a school run by Catholics too. (#82513)

by mmghosh on Sat, 03/01/2008 - 9:08pm

A Salesian school. I always found Catholics very open to discussion, probably more so than Protestants I met later, and they also encouraged debating. Perhaps this is true of Catholic missionaries as a group - maybe some one else could expand (or expound)?

Although very few of us went on to become Catholics, I noticed that the missionaries didn't seem to be too concerned about that.

Perhaps a straw poll of forvm commenters is indicated (Survey Monkey?) to see how many went to Catholic schools? Or maybe a diary on Catholicism and education? I certainly have a lot of time for the Catholic viewpoint (however much it may be criticised).

(

| parent )

That's sort of odd, wasn't until I met Jesuits (who I admire) (#82515)

by BlaiseP on Sat, 03/01/2008 - 9:18pm

did I meet Catholics who could discuss their beliefs in depth. I don't have much experience with the Salesians, I know they're all about the education of children, so they'd discuss things in depth, too.

I'm a Protestant, but I have nothing against Catholics: it's a false premise. Luther never wanted to separate us, it would be lesser men on both sides of the fight who tore us apart.

The Jesuits are debaters, I admire the hell out of those boys. They have a large number of scientists, especially astronomers among their ranks. I met my first Jesuit in Nigeria, he was well-liked by the Protestants, and was a welcome guest at dinner, for Father Albert was witty, gentle and thoroughly capable of a good discussion without offending anyone. Wish I was more like him.

(

| parent )

And you have no justifcation for saying it does (#82435)

by HankP on Sat, 03/01/2008 - 3:05pm

as I've said repeatedly, quoting a book of ancient myths doesn't prove or disprove anything. You don't understand that "can't prove it's not true" does not equal "it's true".

As far as I'm concerned, the belief that God is speaking only to you is a delusion, or "non-creating speech". You're free to believe in whatever you want, and so am I. I will say that it's a neat trick to say that everything everyone else believes in is false by definition, although it does tend to make for rather pointless conversations.

I blame it all on the Internet

(

| parent )

It is an appeal to (#82440)

by timothy on Sat, 03/01/2008 - 4:30pm

ignorance to consistently seek to twist what has been written.

My justification is God Saying it through me.

You can't prove anything in the Bible is myth. In fact, it is rather amazing what you can't prove by your own admission, yet your speech consistently seeks to appear as if you already had proved them and that proof were the basis for some further logic. Merely dogmatically stating it does not make it so.

You can't address anything outside the circular reasoning of your own dogmas of free will, act as if you had ( or as if somebody somewhere had ) and then want to move on to more dogma when challenged on it. In truth, not only does Jesus Christ answer and have answers as to Himself as truth but as to everything else as well: why lies exist, what evil is, what Truth is, the connection between language and measurements, between language and being, what is proof, lack of free will existing and the lie of free will existing simultaneously, why morality, why immorality, the origins and end of all things, justice, injustice, old creation, new creation, eternity, love, hate, salvation, life after death, ...everything.

-----------

A lack of ability is a lack of ability. A lack of free will is a lack of free will. If you cannot prove you lack free will or have free will, that at least proves you lack free will to prove either. You cannot do what you cannot do. The lack of free will is obvious.

You also have an inability to admit that all the evidence you demand to see from God for His Truth must be will-neutral in character as a presupposition to maintaining the lie of free will in the guise of saying you are open to see evidence that disproves it.

Everyone wants to believe their best honesty has a chance at being absolute, that they at least know one real thing. But those in non-creating speech are deceived.

Job 40:6-14 And Jehovah answered Job out of the whirlwind and said, Gird up now thy loins like a man: I will demand of thee, and inform thou me. Wilt thou also annul my judgment? wilt thou condemn me that thou mayest be righteous? Hast thou an arm like *God? or canst thou thunder with a voice like him? Deck thyself now with glory and excellency, and clothe thyself with majesty and splendour. Cast abroad the ragings of thine anger, and look on every one that is proud, and abase him: Look on every one that is proud, bring him low, and tread down the wicked in their place: Hide them in the dust together; bind their faces in secret. Then will I also praise thee, because thy right hand saveth thee.

In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen

(

| parent )

Ha! (#82528)

by HankP on Sat, 03/01/2008 - 10:54pm

you're accusing me of dogmatism? That's a good one, as I haven't seen anything but your own dogmatism for several diaries.

You can't prove your beliefs, just as I can't prove mine. I do, however, have a large body of results that seem to indicate there's a basis for my beliefs. Without scripture, you have none.

I blame it all on the Internet

(

| parent )

I know it's silly of me to try, but... (#82444)

by stillnotking on Sat, 03/01/2008 - 4:41pm

You can't prove anything in the Bible is myth.

Joshua 10:12-13

10:12: Then spoke Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD gave the Amorites over to the men of Israel and he said in the sight of Israel "Sun, stand thou still at Gibcon and thou Moon in the valley of Ai'jalon."

10:13: And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.

The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.

(

| parent )

I've always enjoyed that bit of Joshua. (#82557)

by BlaiseP on Sun, 03/02/2008 - 12:12pm

In a firefight, time really does stand still. Ever been involved in a serious accident? Or waited for bad news? Everyone knows that feeling.

A myth, according to Joseph Campbell, is a story of beginnings. They always start out, like the old stories from the Balkans, "there was, or there wasn't", where we'd put "once upon a time".

Is the Bible full of myths and miracles? Well sure. But I don't deny the miracles: something happened to inspire that myth. Was it of supernatural origin? It really doesn't matter to me if you believe or not, and it would be silly to pound my little pulpit. Hectoring the unbeliever is the height of folly.

I look into the Bible and see a remarkable set of unvarnished heroes. Not one of the Biblical heroes, not even Joseph, who comes as close to a perfect life as anyone in scripture, is gussied up to superhuman perfection. Even Jesus Christ is seen as human, he becomes angry, he cries, he is disappointed, he sleeps, he loves, he moves in a landscape we can walk today. Nowhere else in ancient literature do we see such raw humanity. Oh, sure, the miracles give the rationalists indigestion, that's okay. But a myth is different than a lie, I hope you'll grant me that much.

(

| parent )

Of course (#82563)

by stillnotking on Sun, 03/02/2008 - 12:46pm

That's how I'd interpret the story, too. But I'm pretty sure it's not how timothy sees it.

The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.

(

| parent )

The Book of Jasher mentioned in Joshua (#82568)

by BlaiseP on Sun, 03/02/2008 - 1:11pm

was a book of songs, called The Scroll of the Upright, though there's a pun in there, for there's the word "shir" ( = song ) in there.

Now what you have there in Hebrew sounds like this: