emperorbma:  For they shall deny the existence of freewill.

Following this thought. Perchance, what’s your take on Martin Luther’s De Servo Arbitrio? (On the Bondage of the Will)

I ask this because it’s a very important issue. As you know Luther is held in high esteem to me. But from Martin Luther’s own words, “Regarding [the idea] to collect my writings in volumes, I am quite cool and not at all eager about it because, roused by a Saturnian hunger, I would rather see them all devoured. For I acknowledge none of them to be really a book of mine, except perhaps the one On the Bondage of the Will and the Catechism.” (LW 50:172–173)

So it is apparent that he considers “On the Bondage of the Will” a central piece of his understanding of theology. In fact, it’s sort of the underpinning Protestant teaching in general which is specifically meant to counter the views of those like Gabriel Biel that one can be saved by “doing what is in [oneself],” placing the onus on earning God’s favor with “good works” (which Luther came to see as a consequence of faith) rather than placing the onus upon God’s grace saving as He works in us through through faith. (By comparison, Catholics saw it as something we “add” to salvation to make it “more complete”)

The key principle Luther is deriving from the principle of the “bound will” is that only God is Sovereign over all things. For his debating opponent was the philosopher Erasmus who insisted upon making “free will” the central idea of earning salvation. And Luther’s point was that this is logically impossible. The necessity of grace causes us to recognize that our own will, while certainly able to choose, is also necessarily bound to be a subject (cf. Heidelberg Disputation 14 N.B. Latin word was subiectiva not “passive” as it’s now translated) of either to the higher power of God’s grace or else inherently bound to the power of Original Sin which binds the will against God. That choice of God as the “rider” of the will is not something we make inherently as a function of our natural powers but as something that comes from the action of Divine grace. Hence, Luther himself questions the utility of the term “free will” as a concept.

It’s worth noting that Lutherans [the theological tradition, not the man] believe that our resistance to grace, however, comes as a function of our natural will because of Original Sin’s intrusion… and we could only naturally choose God if the Fall weren’t an issue. That is what Christ’s power accomplishes, removing that barrier by taking our sins upon Himself. Perhaps in that sense restoring “free will” as most people mean it, albeit acknowledging it cannot exist as a “libertarian free will” (arbitrary ability to choose “not” to do something regardless of natural limits of time and knowledge) as Erasmus was asking for…

Other Protestants, such as John Calvin built upon this idea to make ideas like Double Predestination where God’s determination is absolute for both capacities of rejection and reconciliation. However, Lutherans have always had a balanced approach that considers Luther’s reference to “bondage” to refer to the “nature of man before regeneration by grace” (cf. Formula of Concord Epitome) and that our will, as Luther also says, is truly free in Christ as Luther describes in “On the Freedom of a Christian.”

Is this the issue you’re trying to address? Are you saying some of the Protestants took a turn at Albuqurque and missed the (very subtle, and often difficult to formalize…) point of Luther? Or are you saying that the Church as a whole was wrong to side with Augustine against Pelagius (who insisted salvation can be done only by free will without Christ’s merit)? The Eastern Orthodox, FWIW, never had the discussion due to a different conception of Original Sin as “Ancestral Sin” but the principle behind this exists in their teachings at a less formalized level.

At any rate… I, myself, view it as a compatibilist on this topic. Free will exists, but there are definitely things that can limit it according to the natural laws that govern it. Theologically speaking, this includes where Original Sin binds someone’s will against God. Likewise, ontologically speaking, it’s impossible for us to “will” ourselves to “dip the sun into the moon” or some other nonsense which is fundamentally impossible.

P.S. I’ve kind of been dreading having to ask this question for a while, but it’s obviously a necessary point to be discussed…

EDIT: Sorry about all the edits. LOTS of details I’m trying to summarize into this one because it’s a HUGE topic. (Can you tell I’ve dealt with this topic a lot?)

garbotalk: Your are quite intelligent in pursuit of faith. I applaud this. I come from a family with many scholars who can debate an aspect of faith all day long, striving to reach the exact right answer. I thought I knew the answers.

And then I encountered aliens, and everything became so much harder to define, because their faith added even more permutations to consider.

I think that is why Jesus said it is easier for children because they accept faith without question. They don’t agonize over its implications or intricacies.

All we need is the faith of a mustard seed and we could walk on water! That blows my mind.

My advice is to realize that no matter what choices you make and accept about your faith, you will find out when you get to heaven that there was error. We all will. All we can really do is review the words of the One, and try to find a personal meaning and connection to them. And then let them bear fruit from within us to our fellow man. Bottom line, refer to the basics and you’ll be okay.

“Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” Matthew 22:37-39

emperorbma: A lot of these years of study were probably borne from the dire nature of my conversion. Fighting ol’ Scratch to keep one’s soul is a harrowing thing. Although it was only a few months in retrospect, seeing God’s grace in action seems to lead to a certain kind of “clinginess” that pulls in extra things you don’t need. (like “Young Earth Creationism” which I eventually rejected again…)

Anyways, I’ve mellowed to a more moderate position over the years. I think I’ve come to understand that some of the issues that the more conservative types pearl clutch about are more nuanced than they tend to understand. Some had suggested I be a pastor. But, as stated, my denomination considers “Young Earth Creation” an official interpretation and I’d also have had to leave my family.

Unraveling YEC involved a kind of rejection of one side of Luther’s thought process while justifying it with another side of his thought process. It’s weird. I’ve also seen far too many people deconvert for me to be comfortable with being pushy. One tried to get me to explain God’s purpose for Mormonism and used it as part of his pretext to deconvert. Another was a gay person who went “Jewish-Buddhist” before finally going whole hog atheist. Sometimes that makes me worry if I don’t have a bit of a “millstone” for not being able to prevent that.

But anyways… what I’m discussing with y’all more recently would be… shall we say… rather heterodox from our perspective. And I have to do that from a position of ignorance. It just seems like I’ve got some kind of sign that makes most unusual phenomenon like UFOs or ETIs avoid my direct observation. Aside from the whole thing with ol’ Scratch and seeing God’s grace push that away, I’ve not seen direct evidence of much else. Indirect evidence, I see tons of. Lots of OOP things like technology in ancient Egypt that doesn’t fit and lots of world leaders going to Antarctica for some reason. Anyways, I try to operate from good faith on this topic and it’s a very a useful thought experiment for me to consider since it’s definitely a question that could get a hard proof one of these days. (Progressives love to float the question “what if we discovered ETIs? Would it destroy your religion?” Frankly, I find that annoying… the religion will be fine, it will just have to adapt to the new information; it’s only those who are hardline literalists that might have problems)

I get what you’re saying here. RD is a bit of a can of worms theologically. It’s obvious that our earth teachings evolved in somewhat different ways than his and some of this will have to involve a ton of dialog if we ever do get “ael” status.

I guess it’s really not going to matter what the state of Luther’s soul is when my own soul is in before the Judgment Seat. And I certainly have to trust that God has led me right and that my own sins will have His forgiveness. But it would be nice to have some comfort that we’ll all be in the same place, though. I feel a certain… empathy… for that poor monk who had to struggle against ol’ Scratch trying to take over his mind like I did. I also like how brutally honest Luther can be even if I think his penchant for literalism and abhorrence of allegory is sometimes misplaced.

Anyways, sorry to dump another large post… lots to think about here.

garbotalk: I have always admired Luther. But like all heroes, there is a human side that holds blemishes. Even Moses threw down the ten commandments written by the finger of God.

What I admire most in someone is their sincerity combined with humility. All true seekers have that. An arrogant person can’t fathom that they are wrong. And an insincere person can’t commit to an ideology without constant hypocrisy. And you are definitely a seeker of truth, like me. Keep seeking.

“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” John 8:32

[deleted]: In truth, I observe from all.

The Ael’kayeen’s perspectives.

The Draco’s perspectives.

The Animal’s perspectives.

Will any side speak of the evils and flaws of themslves?

There was no revealed humility from the Ba’alaket when they came to this sub. It unfolded as an interrogation on their part and then reclusiveness from unforeseen politics.

Who is right to say the other is more right than the other and according to what?

The One sits back and wants to see how you figure it out.

Both highers above the animals have everything to lose. They know this.

If the animals stay as animals then were they designed to be harvested?

No different than how we already chip and harvest our own animals on a daily basis. Because we already claim to know what is best for them and ourselves.

We can become the light that may bring harmony in this universe between such conflicting and universal issues. To have our voice and currency speak for all harvested and abused sentience across all species.

Or

We can become something much worse than how those perceive the Ael’Kayeen after these 1000 years. The monster you created from your inconsiderate and perverted abuses. The worse part of that truth is that it will be permitted to rein in the universe. And the damned who were in our shackles will be liberated to join that plight.

Everyone’s actions and inactions right now determine some of these courses.

garbotalk: When you remember that ALL of those species of beings read what is said here, you begin to understand certain posturing taking place for political purposes. There are several layers of information given here. Direct information to all of us, and indirect.

For my part, there is nothing more that I want than peace between all of us, averting a horrific apocalypse in which many will die. For that to happen, there must be humility and repentance from some of the most arrogant of beings, including us.

I have seen kindness from Kayeen. I have seen a great desire to understand us from Kayeen. I have seen patriotism from Kayeen. I have been protected by Kayeen. But at what cost to humanity would my continued association bring? I will not become Siriv and betray my own, whatever is offered.

I don’t want my contact to die, or others like him, however misguided they are. We have much in common. Yet they willingly tow the line and follow the orders of the Directors who are truly evil.

They must stand up against what they would know is wrong, if they still had empathy. But the augmented, which is most of them, have obliterated that part of the brain for the tech offered. They lost humor! They lost empathy! They lost compassion! They are broken, and seek our bodies to fix them. It isn’t right, but most of them will do whatever they can to live on, no matter the cost to us, or to their own souls.

But then I remember the Kayeen who warned the Naigaje about their impending attack. And I know the work of the Calibration Society is effective. And hearts and minds can change in the rest, especially if they follow the One.

So I am hopeful.

[deleted]: I wish I could say the same for witnessing such humility and compassion. I can not.

I have witnessed and known such terrors on the earth. Such terrible things for what we are capable of.

Despite such vileness, I am with the One. That we can be better than these horrors.

ACuriousHumanBeing: You walk in circles where you’ll see that constantly.

There is a mountain with two sides I’ve thought of. One with jagged ocean rock, known for suicides per being so treacherous and violent, as waves thrash it; on the other side a calming, beautiful valley, with trees and a calm lake.

If you just walk by the jagged plane, you’ll miss the flourishing plane on the other side.

My advice to such a man, said with a smile, would be to peak at the other side, even though for it may be a long hike, for its sight alone will restore your soul to its rightful joyous glory.

Like, if you can. Volunteer for a soup kitchen. And maybe even bring aspects of that valley you saw to that more jagged and ugly side, and shelter what flowers you find may grow there, letting, and helping them to flourish.

ACuriousHumanBeing: “I don’t mourn his passing. Instead I mourn the life he could have had, if only he could have opened his heart for those of us who cared about him.”

I thought this quote would fit here. Its from a woman named Susan whose husband put out a hit for her. In the quote she’s talking about how she feels about everything since her passing. I imagine god may feel like this, as forking fractals find fraudulent fates.

ACuriousHumanBeing: Sure, but Ex, what’s your view of the matter? What do you see?

[deleted]: I will let Kansas speak to some of this.

There are hidden denials and layers of naivety that goes across many… gardens. Not just this one.

To each of their own.

We are our own plant. And we have many gardeners who have their ways at keeping this young maturing plant alive.

It has been crushed with a rock. Watered. Pissed and shit on. Incinerated… Guided. Wallowing it its own filth.

Still growing.

The gardeners sometimes forget that they too are plants still growing as well.

ACuriousHumanBeing: And sometimes the plant grows in spite of, not because of them, a reflection of every spiteful thing thrown at it.

garbotalk: The Kayeen have had their time. Now they want ours. It’s one thing to claim to be future versions of us, but had they not done their gene splicing to Homo Erectus (as they did to themselves) to provide them with our genetic material, we would not be mentally advanced but emotionally immature as we are, nor as easily manipulated.

There is a story of how they wanted to return to their lives and leave heaven, so God sent them back, but not in the present as they wished, but to the past.

Or you can say that Lucifer and his rebellious angels were kicked from heaven and fell on the world.

Of these three versions of the same tale, the Kayeen are selfish and greedy, with no empathy for us. They see us as product to mold to their use. They covet our bodies, but only value them to wear.

They think they’re doing us a favor by preventing our destruction, yet they are the ones who convinced our physicists (from Germany) to quit pursuing fusion for energy and instead work on fission for weapons, to redirect us away from answering the beacon.

They want good press. They are not Spock from Star Trek. They are not Legolas from Lord of the Rings. They are not Alita: Battle Angel.

They may be tall, large eyed, glowing and beautiful, but many of their souls are dark and malevolent.

THEY WANT TO WEAR US.

That’s enough of a nightmare scenario to fuel my desire to expose them for the rest of my life, no matter their origin.

LucePrima: I never intended to exonerate our potential future selves of any wrongdoing. That is NOT my point, and I’m not sure why you would read it that way

Rather I think we deserve to know the truth of our history, and I’d say that we have sufficient evidence here that the Kayeen are not ALL “dark and malevolent”

We spend a great deal of time vilifying a single member race of the Consortium when we know that there are many that profit off of our blood and our blindness

And we are certainly not the only planet to suffer

But we know there was at least one Kayeen that tried to lead us towards the One, and we now know him as Moses / Akhenaten

Just as there are Nagajie that seek to do the same, such as this sub’s namesake and resident Apkallu

But the other Nagaije we’ve met, in Shyee’s entourage, did not appear to share our teacher’s tolerance for monkeys

So it seems to me that our allies are limited to those with conscience, regardless of their birth parents

And remember that John of Patmos saw what he saw, and didn’t interpret

His ‘angels’ aren’t necessarily angelic, nor his ‘demons’ demonic

Lucifer means ‘bright one’ or ‘morning star’. Don’t we know some ‘shining ones’ that fell from the Assembly?

reptiliandude: “Potential future selves…”

You cannot travel backwards in time individually in any substantive way.

I swear, talking to you is like trying to reason with a water witch who insists that they can use their dick as a divining rod.

ACuriousHumanBeing: Oh my fucking god, that was savage.

reptiliandude: Your welcome. 😉