Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Free Will

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2015

    Free Will

    A central issue in philosophy and religion which probably was largely caused by those wishing to exert their will over the masses at a Mass, is Free Will and variations on destiny and the first cause or g-d. Pelagius and St. Augustine had a few battles and heresy trials resulted. Those debates were necessary if man was going to allow himself to be stripped of his responsibility for good acts and let priests decide who went to Heaven and how much they had to pay via special dispensations, confessionals and their estate or will which was often prepared by the local priest who was thus forced to become a legal celibate so he could not allow his estate to go to his children. John Duns Scotus is a key figure in this from the High Scholastic era to modernity in philosophical terms, before we got a dose of Critical Thinking or Theory. Here are some introductory thoughts from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, to get the ball rolling.

    "John Duns Scotus, along with Bonaventure, Aquinas, and Ockham, is one of the four great philosophers of High Scholasticism. His work is encyclopedic in scope, yet so detailed and nuanced that he earned the epithet “Subtle Doctor,” and no less a thinker than Ockham would praise his judgment as excelling all others in its subtlety. In opposition to the prevailing thought in metaphysics that the term “being” is analogical, Scotus argues that it must be a univocal term, a view others had feared would bring an end to metaphysics and natural theology. Scotus’s novel account of universals and individuation gained a wide following and inspired brilliant counterarguments by Ockham and Thomist opponents. Despite its flaws, his argument for God’s existence, perhaps the most complicated of any ever written, is a philosophical tour de force. Scotus’s distinction between intuitive and abstractive cognition structured much of the discussion of cognition for the rest of the scholastic period. In opposition to such thinkers as Aquinas and Godfrey of Fontaines, Scotus defends a moderate voluntarism in his account of free will, a view that would be influential into the modern period."

    John Scotus Eirugena is an earlier 9th Century philosopher who carried forward the thought of Pelagius who harkens back to the Druids in an era before the bounties were put on their heads and some sold out to Rome.

    "Doxastic Voluntarism

    Doxastic voluntarism is the philosophical doctrine according to which people have voluntary control over their beliefs. Philosophers in the debate about doxastic voluntarism distinguish between two kinds of voluntary control. The first is known as direct voluntary control and refers to acts which are such that if a person chooses to perform them, they happen immediately. For instance, a person has direct voluntary control over whether he or she is thinking about his or her favorite song at a given moment. The second is known as indirect voluntary control and refers to acts which are such that although a person lacks direct voluntary control over them, he or she can cause them to happen if he or she chooses to perform some number of other, intermediate actions. For instance, a person untrained in music has indirect voluntary control over whether he or she will play a melody on a violin. Corresponding to this distinction between two kinds of voluntary control, philosophers distinguish between two kinds of doxastic voluntarism. Direct doxastic voluntarism claims that people have direct voluntary control over at least some of their beliefs. Indirect doxastic voluntarism, however, supposes that people have indirect voluntary control over at least some of their beliefs, for example, by doing research and evaluating evidence.

    This article offers an introductory explanation of the nature of belief, the nature of voluntary control, the reasons for the consensus regarding indirect doxastic voluntarism, the reasons for the disagreements regarding direct doxastic voluntarism, and the practical implications for the debate about doxastic voluntarism in ethics, epistemology, political theory, and the philosophy of religion."
    Last edited by R_Baird; 02-11-2016 at 12:36 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    There are some so-called fundamentalists in Christendom who insist Faith requires no human thinking and their flocks of sheep eat it up, because it allows them to never have to work at knowing themself or to help other people. They can spout off their invective and hate or belief in the wrath of some evil creature up above as if it was they themself (as carriers of suicide bombs or weapons to kill abortion doctors) who are their God's agent.

    Because Paul/Saul was a Roman who the Empire used to create a larger Empire and then had him killed when he started to believe or behave as if what they were writing and attributing to him was true, we have issues to explore.

    (see first link) First we must ascertain what Paul actually wrote in the Gospels if anything. The same is true for all the rest of the Gospels which were written decades after the death of most of the apostles except perhaps Luke.

    (see second link) You should ask who benefitted from getting people to think good acts were no way to get into Heaven especially in light of the recent admission by Pope John Paul II that his ilk created Heaven and Hell. Catholicism did not exist when Paul was alive and Catholicism got and gets lots of money selling special dispensations and confessional exemptions from karmic bad acts. Pauline Christianity is in fact Romanism or Popery and it did not truly arrive in Christendom until the fifth or sixth Century AD. The Law of Retribution or karma was removed from the faith at this time. Easter and the Resurrection fiction took a couple of further centuries to invent or force upon all Christian denominations in places like Acre, Antioch, Alexandria and Bangor or Iona. When we stopped thinking of Jesus as a man we allowed interpreters for our soul to gain control of the Old World. Tom Harpur was the religion editor for the Toronto Star, and he stopped believing in the Resurrection fiction after I gave him three alternative explanations. He stopped calling himself Christian and you can too. When we were teenagers we ran a boy's club in his church's recreation hall. He has written extensively about these matters.

    My argument or paper for Tom focused on the purely Therapeutaeic medical knowledge of Belladonna as well as Intent and Yoga's ability to stop the heart and even brain from registering on modern machines as has been demonstrated. A better argument against Paul (The Resurrection on the road to Damascus was a fiction I say, because Jesus did not die on the cross.) or indeed the whole of Christianity as it is today comes down to Grace and good acts or the Augustine versus Pelagius debates. Augustine was suffering obsessions all his life according to the American Psychoanalytical Society input to the autobiography of Augustine (Confessions). One of his obsessions was trying to get Pelagius defrocked. I think part of this need Augustine felt had to do with his own guilt about his early life support for Manicheanism and how he sold out to join Catholicism due to it's greater potential to reward him. As a Manichean he ridiculed Bible writings as compared to Cicero - he called them children's stories. And that is a fair appreciation or review of the Bible compared to more ethical and moral standards such as Pelagius stood for. Mani was definitely ecumenical and a supporter of humans over gods or demons and angels. And in the end Tom Harpur lost his faith because he was a good man.

    It is not me putting my modern philosophy upon an earlier culture. The Pharisaic school of Gamaliel which Paul said he was a student at and which extant rolls of students prove otherwise, developed or played a role in developing what we call The Golden Rule. It is funny to see him also claim to be a Benjaminite if you know your Bible, these are the people given the monopoly on Usury which is what the Pharisees are accused of in most churches today. This rule speaks to good acts and karma as I see it. The Pharisees were no "inbred Temple idiots" or Sadduccees which James the Righteous leader of the essanoi (The word Essene came later.) railed against. The Pharisees were not what modern pulpit-pounders portray them as. Rather than greedy elitists they were respected throughout the Roman and Parthian Empires for their good deeds and support for indigents and women.

    Contrary to what my Ogham mentor thought as he told me about his work with the Dead Sea Scrolls at the Huntington Library before they released them to the world, I think these Scrolls do have insight to a far larger culture including Buddhist literature or influence. Dr. Norman Golb thinks the whole of Scroll research is politicized to present fictions in line with history. He says the scrolls are a repository of knowledge for a far larger culture than just Palestine.

    So, when we see The Law of Retribution or karma removed from Christology with the ascendancy of Pauline Romanism I say we saw the end of what Yeshua, his family of Merovingians, and most centers of Christian and pre-Christian thought entailed. I know Pelagius as a scholar of what I think Poseidonius's writings would have given insight to about the far greater early religion which St. Columba learned at Iona and lead him to say "Jesus is the new Druid." Good acts were central to the 'no fear' destiny of the Keltoi. Like me they did not believe the soul died and their Creed (on tablets found in Hittite lands in Anatolia dating to a millennium or two before Christ) proudly says they did not fear the opening of the heavens above or ground beneath their feet. I have a more Jungian collective insight and do not think the ego or personality which is what we are - continues.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    A man named Lewis Loflin has a positive take on Pelagius and the Original Sin. He spells Manicheanism different than I do and he is addressing a more Empire oriented Gnosticism as I see it. There are many issues one must consider including how people had to protect themselves and their families from heresy trials and later the fires of the Dominican Hounds of Hell when children were sent to the fires singing hymns to the living love of Jesus with their parents. I have many threads and books on the Gnostic Cathars who contrary to what this person says actually brought love and romance back to an equal state between the genders.

    "An examination of Pelagius Why He was Right

    by Lewis Loflin

    Pelagius (c. a. 354-418?) and his Christianity are more in line with the teachings of Jesus while those of Augustine are derived from a Gnostic cult known as Manacheism, a form of Mesopotamian Gnosticism. Augustine would define the Original Sin for the Latin Church, but Pelagius saw through this appalling nonsense. (Gnosticism claims all creation and flesh are corrupt and even sex within marriage was evil.) Like Arius who tried to bring the Christian church in line with Bible, Pelagius too would try to bring the church back to the moral teachings of Jesus. Both lost.

    The whole argument is over the question of original sin a concept invented by Paul and later expanded by St. Augustine in the West. Due to the politics of Augustine, Pelagius was convicted of heresy in the West, but was cleared by the Eastern Churches while Augustine himself was rejected later on.

    Pelagius was accused along with his disciple, Coelestius of the following beliefs:
    1.Adam was created liable to death, and would have died, whether he had sinned or not.
    2.The sin of Adam hurt himself only and not the human race.
    3.Infants at their birth are in the same state as Adam before the fall.
    4.Neither by the death nor fall of Adam does the whole race of man die, nor by the resurrection of Christ rise again.
    5.The Law introduces men into the kingdom of heaven, just in the same way as the Gospel does.
    6.Even before the coming of Christ there were some men sinless.

    Ref. Catholic Encyclopedia.

    Thus he claimed one could achieve grace through ones own free will without the church, its priests, and all its trappings. Many early Christians believed that following Jesus example and living life as He taught was the way to salvation, but this left nothing for the church to do and so this was declared heresy. Like the Arian Heresy, controversy would rage in the church for years and still haunts us today.

    After much theological and political maneuvering, pope Zosimus condemned Pelagius and Augustine's view of sin more or less became the official one. Later, a middle road was sought which would be somewhere between Pelagius and Augustine. John Cassian. (360? - c. 435?) produced what is known as Semi-Pelagianism. What this boils down to is Augustine claims man is corrupt/dead and only the elect are saved; Pelagius claimed all man were alive/good and could be saved; Cassian says were just sick and can be cured.

    While it's true Pelagius was convicted in the West for heresy due to politics and the urgings of Augustine, Pelagius was cleared in the Eastern Churches. (The Catholic Church claimed this was because of his accusers not being able to be at the trial.) To quote: immense impact that Augustine has had in shaping the landscape of Western Christianity; and the divergence of the Augustinian trajectory of theology from the Apostolic and Patristic Tradition has been carefully charted...

    Condemnations of Pelagianism were included in the ecumenical Synod of Ephesus only under Western influence...was actually tried at local councils in the East, the evaluation was positive. Pelagius was not condemned simply on theological grounds. Rather, Pelagius' teaching was seen as a threat... See Pelagius: To Demetrias by Deacon Geoffrey O Riada

    Both Martin Luther and John Calvin (founded Calvinism) would base their theology on Augustine and Paul, rejecting Jesus' moral teachings as irrelevant. This is the basis of most evangelical/fundamentalist Protestant churches. Some claim "Pelagius accuses Augustine and Jerome of being under the influence of Manicheanism. Their doctrine of original sin restored evil to a Manichean status, and their predestination was tantamount to Manichean fatalism."

    Semi-Pelagianism would influence both Celtic Christianity and later may have contributed to Arminianism, which says as follows:
    1.God has decreed to save through Jesus Christ those of the fallen and sinful race who through the grace of the Holy Spirit believe in him, but leaves in sin the incorrigible and unbelieving. (In other words predestination is said to be conditioned by God's foreknowledge of who would respond to the gospel)
    2.Christ died for all men (not just for the elect), but no one except the believer has remission of sin.
    3.Man can neither of himself nor of his free will do anything truly good until he is born again of God, in Christ, through the Holy Spirit.
    4.All good deeds or movements in the regenerate must be ascribed to the grace of God, but his grace is not irresistible.
    5.Those who are incorporated into Christ by a true faith have power given them through the assisting grace of the Holy Spirit to persevere in the faith. But it is possible for a believer to fall from grace.

    Arminius and his followers claimed they were not Pelagians, and they are certainly not.

    Arminianism is generally characterized by an emphasis on the fatherhood of God, the supreme moral and religious example of Jesus, the essential goodness of man and his infinite capabilities of growth in reason and freedom, the duty of doing something to correct all those conditions whether ignorance or social injustice-that stultified the being of man. Strongly indorse critical Biblical scholarship. Usually denies the existence of the wrath of God and equates God with love.

    This is what's followed by Mainline Protestant Churches today and sounds close to Pelagianism. For example, the evangelical tenets of Arminianism found a forceful expression in the teachings of John Wesley and the Methodists, with its emphasis on the moral responsibility of man, the need of a new birth, and the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit.

    Why Pelagius was Right

    Protestants claim the Bible is the sole authority on God, and considering the hostility of both Protestants and Catholics towards Pelagius, we must turn to the Bible and our God-given reason for answers. Let's take the issues Pelagius confronted one at a time and see if his claims are false based on Scripture.

    Adam was created liable to death, and would have died, whether he had sinned or not. There is nothing in Genesis claiming that Adam was immortal. In 2:17 we have thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. He didn't die of course from eating the fruit, but we find also this in Genesis 3:22, "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever..." Adam was expelled from the Garden for the express purpose he would not be made immortal. It seems God never intended humans to be immortal, which throws any idea of life after death (bodily resurrection) into question. Pelagius was right on this count.

    The sin of Adam hurt himself only and not the human race. Throughout the Jewish Scriptures God says over and over that only the sinner will die, not mothers, fathers, their children, etc. (See Deut. 24:16; 2 Kings 14:6; Ezek. 18:20; Ezek.33:20; etc.) One is held liable for his/her own actions, not that of others. If Adam was the "father" of the human race, we are not responsible for his actions. Thus God said clearly the innocent are not liable for the actions the guilty.

    The fact is Jesus Himself never mentions Adam or any "Fall" in any gospel. The Apostle Paul invented this entire concept of Adam causing humans to lose immortality they never had in the beginning because we are responsible for Adam. Romans 5:12, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" Romans 5:19, "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners..." Paul by the way never met Jesus in the flesh. The entire concept of God sacrificing His "Son" an innocent person just to make up for the "crime" of someone else is immoral in itself and contrary to God's words in the Old Testament.

    Even before the coming of Christ there were some men sinless.

    This brings up one of the most thorny issues for Christian dogma in that all of those prior to Jesus are burning in hell for the mere fact they were born before Jesus was ever "conceived." Thus they are punished for something they had no possible power to prevent. The Bible again proves Pelagius was right on this issue."

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    "The Bible is a wonderful source of inspiration for those who don't understand it."

    - George Santayana

    "All religion, my friend, is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination, and poetry."

    - Edgar Allen Poe

    This thread on Dharma and Karma might help a western person see the Theraveda Buddhist perspective which is akin to the Pythagorean Therapeutae who taught the Essenes at Qumran where the first leader of Christian thought was James the Righteous who I think scholars have established is the older brother of Yeshua. Both of them are entitled to the title Jesus (Iesa) as were others in their family including Solomon. I think most Roman Christians would agree if Jesus were here they would want him to be their earthly ruler or King. I do not think any Messiah (Christos or other spelling) ever truly existed and all people must strive on the Path of Perfection. It is of interest to note that the Cathars called their priests and Priestesses by words like Perfecti and Parfaits - and they included Buddhists, Sufis, Jews and Magians. That is why Rome burned them at the stakes in the Children's Crusade. After all, Rome wants sheep to shear and free education and free medicine (not sins and demons crap) was not to the liking of Rome.

    Karma is not Destiny in my opinion. Yes, there are forces and there are causal factors to affect what a soul must learn, but there are many ways to get there, from wherever you are. Do I believe in Divination? No I do not. Do I believe anything? Not much of anything would fall into the category of certainty for me, but I do believe or know many systems and forces which do influence the FUTURE POTENTIAL. There are alternate possibilities and free choice can overcome forces lining up to cause something different. I told my father this when I told him he would die when he was 65, and he replied something to the extent - 'If so, that is fine.' We buried him a day after his 65th birthday and he had just been given a clean bill of health to continue working past retirement. I am at that same point in life now. A few years ago I made some healthy choices that probably have extended my life a decade or so, but I don't fear death or meeting the future for my soul.

    Contra Celsum by Origen has value in the matters of God and intellectual awareness to offer from the Gnostic Library.

    "Origen: Contra Celsum - Book 6

    From: Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4.
    Edited by Alexander Robert, 1885

    BOOK VI.

    CHAP. I.

    IN beginning this our sixth book, we desire, my reverend Ambrosius, to answer in it those accusations which Celsus brings against the Christians, not, as might be supposed, those objections which he has adduced from writers on philosophy. For he has quoted a considerable number of passages, chiefly from Plato, and has placed alongside of these such declarations of holy Scripture as are fitted to impress even the intelligent mind; subjoining the assertion that "these things are stated much better among the Greeks (than in the Scriptures). and in a manner which is free from all exaggerations and promises on the part of God, or the Son of God." Now we maintain, that if it is the object of the ambassadors of the truth to confer benefits upon the greatest possible number, and, so far as they can, to win over to its side, through their love to men, every one without exception--intelligent as well as simple--not Greeks only, but also Barbarians (and great, indeed, is the humanity which should succeed in converting the rustic and the ignorant), it is manifest that they must adopt a style of address fitted to do good to all, and to gain over to them men of every sort. Those, on the other hand, who turn away from the ignorant as being mere slaves, and unable to understand the flowing periods of a polished and logical discourse, and so devote their attention solely to such as have been brought up amongst literary pursuits, confine their views of the public good within very strait and narrow limits.

    CHAP. II.

    I have made these remarks in reply to the charges which Celsus and others bring against the simplicity of the language of Scripture, which appears to be thrown into the shade by the splendour of polished discourse. For our prophets, and Jesus Himself, and His apostles, were careful to adopt a style of address which should not merely convey the truth, but which should be fitted to gain over the multitude, until each one, attracted and led onwards, should ascend as far as he could towards the comprehension of those mysteries which are contained in these apparently simple words. For, if I may venture to say so, few have been benefited (if they have indeed been benefited at all) by the beautiful and polished style of Plato, and those who have written like him; while, on the contrary, many have received advantage from those who wrote and taught in a simple and practical manner, and with a view to the wants of the multitude.

    It is easy, indeed, to observe that Plato is found only in the hands of those who profess to be literary men; while Epictetus is admired by persons of ordinary capacity, who have a desire to be benefited, and who perceive the improvement which may be derived from his writings. Now we make these remarks, not to disparage Plato (for the great world of men has found even him useful), but to point out the aim of those who said: "And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that our faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God." For the word of God declares that the preaching (although in itself true and most worthy of belief) is not sufficient to reach the human heart, unless a certain power be imparted to the speaker from God, and a grace appear upon his words; and it is only by the divine agency that this takes place in those who speak effectually. The prophet says in the sixty-seventh Psalm, that "the Lord will give a word with great power to them who preach." If, then, it should be granted with respect to certain points, that the same doctrines are found among the Greeks as in our own Scriptures, yet they do not possess the same power of attracting and disposing the souls of men to follow them. And therefore the disciples of Jesus, men ignorant so far as regards Grecian philosophy, yet traversed many countries of the world, impressing, agreeably to the desire of the Logos, each one of their hearers according to his deserts, so that they received a moral amelioration in proportion to the inclination of their will to accept of that which is good.

    CHAP. III.

    Let the ancient sages, then, make known their sayings to those who are capable of understanding them. Suppose that Plato, for example, the son of Ariston, in one of his Epistles, is discoursing about the "chief good," and that he says, "The chief good can by no means be described in words, but is produced by long habit, and bursts forth suddenly as a light in the soul, as from a fire which had leapt forth." We, then, on hearing these words, admit that they are well said, for it is God who revealed to men these as well as all other noble expressions. And for this reason it is that we maintain that those who have entertained correct ideas regarding God, but who have not offered to Him a worship in harmony with the truth, are liable to the punishments which fall on sinners. For respecting such Paul says in express words: "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-looted beasts, and creeping things." The truth, then, is verily held (in unrighteousness), as our Scriptures testify, by those who are of opinion that "the chief good cannot be described in words," but who assert that, "after long custom and familiar usage, a light becomes suddenly kindled in the soul, as if by a fire springing forth, and that it now supports itself alone.""
    Last edited by R_Baird; 02-11-2016 at 02:19 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    One author on the cult trail called newswithviews is Chuck Baldwin. He says what Augustine knew a long time ago and which has a catholic credo in honor of him: "Now, all of the church members out there who have been forgiving of their ministers for not speaking out on the issues by saying things like, “He really doesn’t understand what’s going on,” need to reevaluate their leniency--if they are intellectually honest, that is--and if they truly care about the future of their country.

    Church member, admit it: that pastor of yours who refuses to speak out on the issues KNOWS the Bible speaks to these issues, and he is DELIBERATELY refusing to teach those Biblical principles to you and your family.

    So, we are not dealing with IGNORANT pastors; we are dealing with DELIBERATELY DISOBEDIENT pastors. They are PURPOSELY CHOOSING to remain silent. Will that make any difference to the Christians in the pews who say they want their pastor to take a stand but are willing to overlook his “ignorance?” Probably not. But, at least, we now know what the real issue is, don’t we?

    The report goes on: “Why the disconnect? According to Barna, the answer is simple. He suggests asking pastors how someone would know if their church is ‘successful’--which he did.”

    "‘There are five factors that the vast majority of pastors turn to [when asked that question],’ he explained. ‘Attendance, giving, number of programs, number of staff, and square footage.’”

    There you have it: pastors are more concerned about being “successful” than they are being truthful. They believe if they tell their congregations the truth, their churches will not be “successful.” And it is so refreshing to see Barna directly ask pastors what “success” means to them. So, now we know (as if we didn’t know before; but, at least now there is definitive research to back it up). The vast majority of pastors believe church success lies in:

    • Attendance
    • Giving (money)
    • Number of programs
    • Number of staff
    • Square footage (of facilities)

    Shazam! Where did pastors come up with this definition of “success?” You know where: from men such as Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, et al.

    The megachurch phenomenon of the last several decades transformed how pastors think and behave. Pastors read the “successful church” books and publications; they attend the “successful church” conferences; they watch the “successful church” videos, etc. They, then, try to mimic the tactics and strategies they have been taught. And if there is one constant theme promulgated by the likes of Osteen, Warren, and Hybels, it is pastors must avoid controversy like the plague. Again, one must realize that the goal is NOT being faithful to Biblical principles; the goal is building a “successful” church as noted above."

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Many people have told me that I am a New Age guru selling nonsense. Those people are usually teacher types or people who listen to those who are not researchers or true scientists. I have always found the further up I go in the food chain that there are people with more knowledge, wisdom and an open mind. Of course, I am biased and no doubt people who I get no place in a discussion with will probably sometimes have actual scientific knowledge.

    The EPR study or agreement with Einstein was part of why I have found physics people do like my metaphysical inquiry process.

    "In 1935, Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) published an important paper in which they claimed that the whole formalism of quantum mechanics together with what they called a “Reality Criterion” imply that quantum mechanics cannot be complete. That is, there must exist some elements of reality that are not described by quantum mechanics. They concluded that there must be a more complete description of physical reality involving some hidden variables that can characterize the state of affairs in the world in more detail than the quantum mechanical state. This conclusion leads to paradoxical results.

    As Bell proved in 1964, under some further but quite plausible assumptions, this conclusion that there are hidden variables implies that, in some spin-correlation experiments, the measured quantum mechanical probabilities should satisfy particular inequalities (Bell-type inequalities). The paradox consists in the fact that quantum probabilities do not satisfy these inequalities. And this paradoxical fact has been confirmed by several laboratory experiments since the 1970s.

    Some researchers have interpreted this result as showing that quantum mechanics is telling us nature is non-local, that is, that particles can affect each other across great distances in a time too brief for the effect to have been due to ordinary causal interaction. Others object to this interpretation, and the problem is still open and hotly debated among both physicists and philosophers. It has motivated a wide range of research from the most fundamental quantum mechanical experiments through foundations of probability theory to the theory of stochastic causality as well as the metaphysics of free will."

    Gravitational Wave Theory promises to raise Metaphysics to acceptance as the true reality.

    Each soul or spirit has a potential and there are ways to activate personal and collective potential with care.

    But there be monsters! If one reads enough of the myths one will wonder what is clear and how much "LIGHT" is shed into shadows created by the imagination of people wishing to lord it over others. The Gnosis or wisdom tree has too many branches and it needs pruning. When one person imagines a great and fearful beginning another person argues it and so on. Eventually you get a whole corpus of corpulence and flatulence, as I see it. Archons and immortals or angels and demons, worms and serpents all about hovering and flying; out of chaos! But somehow there was something other than chaos or it's original darkness which god created the firmament from. Yes, that darkness was actually a shadow of something else! It really became quite complex, all these people imagining an explanation for nonsense created by others, rather than observing reality - Nature!

    The names became power and able to hypnotize and make people behave according to what the priests liked. Machiavelli wrote a handbook on management still in use - Il Principe. In it he says if you give people what they want you can have a lot more, because people really only need a little. ""Appeals to base human urges" means you only have to give the "base" or most simple things and if you call those things a sin (Self-Inflicted Nonsense) you can even keep them as well. If I call my mighty omnipotent master by the name Allah and you call it some other name does that mean there is really more than one all powerful entity or reality?

    Absurd as it may sound - yes. We have made a heavenly host of monsters because we do not observe "What IS"!

    "When Pistis Sophia saw him moving in the depth of the waters, she said to him, “Youth, pass over here,” which is interpreted as “Yaldabaoth.” Since that day, the first principle of the word that referred to the gods and angels and people has appeared. And the gods and angels and people constitute that which came into being by means of the word. Moreover, the ruler Yaldabaoth is ignorant of the power of Pistis. He did not see her face, but he saw in the water the likeness that spoke with him. And from that voice he called himself Yaldabaoth. But the perfect ones call him Ariael because he was like a lion. And after he came to possess authority over matter, Pistis Sophia withdrew up to her light.


    When the ruler saw his greatness, he saw only himself; he saw nothing else, except water and darkness. Then he thought that he alone existed. His thought was made complete by means of the word, and it appeared as a spirit moving to and fro over the waters. And when that spirit appeared, the ruler separated the watery substance to one region and the dry substance to another region. From matter he created a dwelling place for himself and called it heaven. And from matter the ruler created a footstool and called it earth."
    Last edited by R_Baird; 03-17-2016 at 09:24 AM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    To discuss Free Will with a religious scholar can take all of one life, and maybe more.

    Now we get to a more contentious issue as we consider the Cathars and Gnostics were forced into having to debate matters with those who were not intent on understanding but very much interested in control and power. I say the 13th C. scholar drafting the Book of Two Principles from earlier 2nd. C. (perhaps) Gnostic writings is Romanized and lost his understanding of Abraxas or the Oroborous and the Tao which harmonizes the feminine and masculine principles and makes for a truly androgynous at - one - ment. This is the true ONE - ness of "all that is" both within and without. If you question what I say please re-read the quotes from the other eminent sources in the first two posts of this thread. The Giza plateau has this knowledge through the Sphinx (feminine) and Great pyramid of Iesa (masculine) situated at the center (Harmonized) of the Earth's land masses. The Gnostics are thus traceable to at least the builders of the Great Pyramid which the Septuagint (Greek Bible) intimates when it says the family of Jesus and Joseph were "arch-tectons" or architects. This was the hardest thing to confirm from the writings of Conor MacDari along with the fruit of 'direct cognition' which comes from this harmony.

    I further say the very concept of Free Will would say a person can only be 'free' if they are free from BELIEF or subjugation to a BELIEF in a God or other entity of spiritual conscious origin - which the Gnostics certainly say is reality - all things that exist have consciousness.

    "The Book of the Two Principles

    Part 1. On Free Will

    [1] Here Begins the Book of the Two Principles. Since many persons are hampered in rightly understand the truth, to enlighten them, to stimulate those who do have right understanding, and also for the delight of my soul, I have made it my purpose to explain our true faith by evidence from the Holy Scriptures and with eminently suitable arguments, invoking to my efforts the aid of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

    [2] On the Two Principles. To the honor of the Most Holy Father, I wish to begin my discussion concerning the two principles by refuting the belief in one Principle, however much this may contradict well-nigh all religious persons. We may commence as follows: Either there is only one First Principle, or there is more than one. If, indeed, there were one and not more, as the unenlightened say, then, of necessity, He would be either good or evil.. But surely not evil, since then only evil would proceed from Him and not good, as Christ says in the Gospel of the Blessed Matthew: "And the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit." And the Blessed James says in his Epistle: "Doth a fountain send forth out of the same hole sweet and bitter water? Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear grapes; or the vine, figs? So neither can the salt water yield sweet."

    [3] On the Goodness of God. Now, our opponents are clear in their assertion that God is good, holy, just, wise, and true; that He is also called pure goodness and is above all praise, as they seek to prove by the following citations and many others of like nature. For Jesus the son of Sirach says: "Glorify the Lord as much as ever you can, for He will yet far exceed, and His magnificence is wonderful. Blessing the Lord, exalt Him as much as you can, for He is above all praise." And David says "Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised; and of His greatness there is no end"; and again, "Great is our Lord, and great is his power; and of His wisdom there is no number." And Paul says to the Romans: "O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are His judgments and how unsearchable His ways, and so on. And in the Liber de causis is written, "The first cause is far greater than can be described."

    [4] That God Knows All Things from Eternity. Whence they stoutly affirm that God knows all things from eternity because of the greatness of His wisdom; that all the past, the present, and the future are always before Him and He knows all things before they come to pass, as says Susanna in the Book of Daniel, "O eternal God, who knowest hidden things, who knowest all things before they come to pass." And Jesus, son of Sirach, says, "For all things were known to the Lord God before they were created; so also after they were perfected He beholdeth all things." And the Apostle writes to the Hebrews, "Neither is there any creature invisible in His sight, but all things are naked and open to His eyes.

    [5] On the Goodness, Holiness, and Justice of God. It is clearly demonstrated, moreover, that our Lord God is good, holy, and just, as is said above. For David says: "How good is God to Israel, to them that are of a right heart"; and again, "The Lord is faithful in all His words and holy in all His works"; and again, "The Lord is sweet and righteousness; therefore He will give a law to sinners in the way"; and again, God is a just judge, strong and patient; is He angry every day?" And in the Book of Wisdom it is written, "For so much then as thou art just, Thou orderest all things justly."

    [6] On the Omnipotence of God. For the Lord is called omnipotent, as our opponents avow, and He can do whatsoever pleases Him; nor can anyone resist Him," or say, "Why dost Thou so?" As Ecclesiastes says: For He will do all that pleaseth Him and His word is full of power; neither can any man say to Him: 'Why dost Thou so?' " And David says, "But our God in heaven; He hath done all things whatsoever He would," And in the Apocalypse is written: "Saith the Lord God, who is and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty." And again, "Great and wonderful are Thy works, O Lord God Almighty! Just and true are Thy ways, O King of Ages! Who shall not fear Thee, O Lord, and magnify Thy name? For Thou only art holy."

    [7] On the First Proposition, against My Opponents. At this point I take issue with the thesis (sententiam) of those who assert that there is only one First Principle. For I say: Assume that God—who is good, just, holy, wise, righteous, "faithful in all His words, and holy in all His works," who is almighty and knows all things before they come to pass, as I have shown above—created and arrayed His angels as He chose from the beginning through Himself alone and without any apparent extraneous compulsion from anyone; and assume, further, that that He knew the fate of all His angels before they came into being, because within His providence existed all the causes for which those angels must be found wanting in the future and must remain for all time things of evil and demons in His sight, as nearly all our opponents say: then, without doubt, it follows ineluctably that those angels could never remain good, holy, or humble with their Lord, in whose power of necessity all things occurred from eternity, except to the extent to which God himself had knowledge from the beginning. For one who knows fully all things that shall come to pass is powerless, in so far as he is self-consistent, to do anything except that which he himself has known from eternity that he shall do. This I prove."

    My argument on free will and destiny includes the debate on Pre-destination between Augustine the Hippo and Pelagius.
    Last edited by R_Baird; 03-16-2016 at 09:46 AM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts