The Will of God

[Mashie]

There is considerable emphasis within religious circles concerning the will of God. Aligning ones own will with with that of God's is encouraged almost universally.
The rub is in defining what the will of God actually is. Of course, this is where the church usually steps in to conveniently explain exactly what that will is.
My own belief is somewhat different. I figure if God gave us free will, then any imposition on that freedom would contradict this law.
In addition, if we are all part of "The One", and there is no real separation, then my will is an extension of God's will, no matter what it is.
If I leave things to "Gods Will", like many people do, who's to know what entity is going to step in and take charge of the situation. The lizzies may define themselves as gods and interpret any surrender of will as an open invitation to intervene.
I need some perspectives on this.

 

[anart]

There is considerable emphasis within religious circles concerning the will of God. Aligning ones own will with with that of God's is encouraged almost universally.
The rub is in defining what the will of God actually is. Of course, this is where the church usually steps in to conveniently explain exactly what that will is.
My own belief is somewhat different. I figure if God gave us free will, then any imposition on that freedom would contradict this law.
In addition, if we are all part of "The One", and there is no real separation, then my will is an extension of God's will, no matter what it is.
If I leave things to "Gods Will", like many people do, who's to know what entity is going to step in and take charge of the situation. The lizzies may define themselves as gods and interpret any surrender of will as an open invitation to intervene.
I need some perspectives on this.

Mashie, have you read the Wave Series in its entirety yet?

 

[Mashie]

Mashie, have you read the Wave Series in its entirety yet?

Yes, I have. I'm still curious about how others feel on this subject.

 

[anart]

Mashie, have you read the Wave Series in its entirety yet?

Yes, I have. I'm still curious about how others feel on this subject.

How do you think the concept of the "will of god" even vaguely relates to the Wave Series and the work we do here?

 

[Mashie]

Is it objectionable to talk about free will and how it applies to the Prime creator in the religion section here? Is this somehow offensive?
The C's are constantly referencing the abridgment of free will and I thought it might be interesting to talk about it. There are numerous other threads here discussing different aspects of God. What makes this particular angle unacceptable?

 

[Mountain Crown]

Is it objectionable to talk about free will and how it applies to the Prime creator in the religion section here? Is this somehow offensive?
The C's are constantly referencing the abridgment of free will and I thought it might be interesting to talk about it. There are numerous other threads here discussing different aspects of God. What makes this particular angle unacceptable?

Speculating on something like this contributes nothing to awakening, it's a distraction which keeps us asleep.

Kind of like throwing a boomerang and when it returns analyzing it for data about possible life on the planet Jupiter.

Increased awareness to serve others by acquiring knowledge and confronting our mechanical nature is the aim of this forum, it's not that anything about your question was offensive.

 

[anart]

Is it objectionable to talk about free will and how it applies to the Prime creator in the religion section here? Is this somehow offensive?
The C's are constantly referencing the abridgment of free will and I thought it might be interesting to talk about it. There are numerous other threads here discussing different aspects of God. What makes this particular angle unacceptable?

I'm merely asking you to get to the point. If you have a point to make about people's understanding of 'God's Will' and how that even vaguely relates (other than in complete opposition) to our understanding of Free Will, then please make it. This isn't a chat room - it is a research forum and there is a difference. If you have actually read the Wave Series then you should know that the whole concept of a monotheistic god is psychopathic horse hockey, so why waste time and energy discussing the illusions connected to psychopathic horse hockey?

To be clear, there is nothing "objectionable" about your desire to talk about the nuances of psychopathic horse hockey, in and of itself, you are certainly free to talk about whatever it is that you want to talk about - it's just that this is just not the best forum for it. Perhaps a fundie christian forum or religious studies would be more interesting for you?

 

[Mashie]

I think you both misunderstood my intent. I am not advocating blind acceptance to the will of God, quite the opposite actually. I just wanted to get a discussion going.
In my opinion, free will is one of the main tenets of this universe. It is at the core of who we are and how we are evolving. How we use our will has everything to do with what we are and what our life becomes.
Various religions, governments, corporations and others seek to subjugate our will for their own purposes. Developing the discernment to recognize these manipulations is all about the waking process.
Many people have been taught from a young age to accept these manipulations as the “will of God”. What people decide they can’t or won’t attempt to change is causally dismissed as the will of God.
This is exactly the attitude the manipulators want.
Part of waking up is realizing that everything that happens in the world is the product of someone else’s will, and not the will of some nebulous concept of the Prime Creator.
Once this is realized, it shifts the responsibility of our actions and thoughts from someone else to ourselves. This is a major change in direction for most people.
If some entity descends from the clouds tomorrow, performs a number of “miracles” and declares itself the second coming of Jesus, how many people in this world would blindly follow? How many people have the knowledge that these types of apparitions are not always what they seem?
Knowledge is useless unless one has the will to put it to use. Our “mechanical nature” is the direct result of abrogating our free will. Waking up is all about taking our will back from those we have freely given it to, including “God”.

 

[anart]

I think you both misunderstood my intent. I am not advocating blind acceptance to the will of God, quite the opposite actually. I just wanted to get a discussion going.

Why would you want to get a discussion going about a totally imaginary concept? That's like wanting to get a discussion going about pokemon.

Have you read any Gurdjieff?

 

[Esote]

Knowledge is useless unless one has the will to put it to use. Our “mechanical nature” is the direct result of abrogating our free will. Waking up is all about taking our will back from those we have freely given it to, including “God”.

I guess you are not familiar at all with Gurdjieff's work, about free will particularly ? He said for instance (from Ouspensky "In Search of the Miraculous"), that to begin the work on himself, a man must give up his own decisions and be controlled by another will which has already been strengthened.
"The fear of being subordinated to another's will very often proves stronger than anything else. A man does not realize that a subordination to which he consciously agrees is the only way to acquire a will of his own."

Not easy to grasp, even less to experience...

 

[Mashie]

I think you both misunderstood my intent. I am not advocating blind acceptance to the will of God, quite the opposite actually. I just wanted to get a discussion going.

Why would you want to get a discussion going about a totally imaginary concept? That's like wanting to get a discussion going about pokemon.

Have you read any Gurdjieff?

If I didn't know better, I might think you are trying to pick a fight with me. ;)
What's so imaginary about this concept? The concept of the "will of God" is very real for a majority of the people on this planet and is at the root of some very serious misconceptions.
I have read Gurdjieff, but do not take what he has to say as gospel by any means. I have read countless books on philosophy and religion and they all have a different take on this reality. I've learned to develop my own opinion as a result.
Perhaps you would care to provide me with a list of topics acceptable to you, so we can avoid any further rancor.

 

[obyvatel]

What's so imaginary about this concept? The concept of the "will of God" is very real for a majority of the people on this planet and is at the root of some very serious misconceptions.

Just because the majority considers something to be real does not make it real. Take the idea of "sleep" that Gurdjieff introduced; then look at history as well as the current state of society in any or all aspects - like religion, science politics, art etc - and try to discern if there was truth in the idea of "sleep". It is not easy to do - but that is the path that this forum follows.

[quote author=Mashie]
I have read Gurdjieff, but do not take what he has to say as gospel by any means. I have read countless books on philosophy and religion and they all have a different take on this reality. I've learned to develop my own opinion as a result.
[/quote]

We are not interested in personal opinions about reality here in the forum. The purpose of the forum is to learn about objective reality through research and cooperative networking among people who are interested in learning to discern truth from lies. Maybe rereading the forum guidelines would help you understand what others are trying to say to you?

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Mashie, as you've acknowledged, the "will of God" concept is full of misconceptions. First of all, what is "God"? That will color how one understands its Will. Gurdjieff used the term "Will of the Absolute". But then, humans are very far removed from that 'will'. In your first post you wrote: "I figure if God gave us free will, then any imposition on that freedom would contradict this law." So right away, by saying "if God gave us free will", you're accepting a dubious premise, and constructing a thought process based on it. Garbage in, garbage out.

Laura actually discusses these topics in the Wave, in discussions on polarity, STS/STO, "thought centers" and the "names of God" (probably others too). Since you've read the Wave, and haven't made the connection, I wonder if you're not putting your own misconceptions into the concept, thus clouding your thinking on the topic? A re-read of the Wave would be a good idea.

 

[anart]

Perhaps you would care to provide me with a list of topics acceptable to you, so we can avoid any further rancor.

Please re-read the forum guidelines and understand that if you cannot abide by the spirit and guidelines of this forum, your posting privileges will be removed.

 

[Tempus Fugit]

Hi, Mashie

I have read Gurdjieff, but do not take what he has to say as gospel by any means. I have read countless books on philosophy and religion and they all have a different take on this reality. I've learned to develop my own opinion as a result.
Perhaps you would care to provide me with a list of topics acceptable to you, so we can avoid any further rancor.

The 'rancor' that you seem to be perceiving to simple and honest questions is your predator being offended by having your beliefs and motivations called into question.

For instance, you believe that you have learned to develop your own opinions - yet you have also been programmed to be an opinion-generating machine. These opinions often become beliefs that you will feel you need to defend rather than examine and possibly have to admit to yourself or others that you do not know. The result of that is a being that clings to its lies all the more tightly and cannot see the motivations behind doing so.

Much of the work we do here is about confronting our subjective beliefs and opinions in order to objectively see the world as it is. This is a painful process that involves being honest with the self so as to see the lies we tell ourselves and subsequently develop the ability to stop. Stopping and internally questioning is more easier said than done at times because in doing so, one must 'pay' with the currency of one's own dearly held beliefs and ideas about the self.

The First Initiation comes to mind, fwiw:

The 'First Initiation' written by Mme Jeanne de Salzmann:


You will see that in life you receive exactly what you give. Your life is the mirror of what you are. It is in your image. You are passive, blind, demanding. You take all, you accept all, without feeling any obligation. Your attitude toward the world and toward life is the attitude of one who has the right to make demands and to take, who has no need to pay or to earn. You believe that all things are your due, simply because it is you! All your blindness is there! ...

You live exclusively according to "I like" or "I don't like," you have no appreciation except for yourself. You recognize nothing above you-theoretically, logically, perhaps, but actually no. That is why you are demanding and continue to believe that everything is cheap and that you have enough in your pocket to buy everything you like. You recognize nothing above you, either outside yourself or inside. That is why, I repeat, you have no measure and live passively according to your likes and dislikes.

Yes, your "appreciation of yourself" blinds you. It is the biggest obstacle to a new life. You must be able to get over this obstacle, this threshold, before going further.

This test divides men into two kinds: the "wheat" and the "chaff." No matter how intelligent, how gifted, how brilliant a man may be, if he does not change his appreciation of himself, there will be no hope for an inner development, for a work toward self-knowledge, for a true becoming. He will remain such as he is all his life.

The first requirement, the first condition, the first test for one who wishes to work on himself is to change his appreciation of himself. He must not imagine, not simply believe or think, but see things in himself which he has never seen before, see them actually. His appreciation will never be able to change as long as he sees nothing in himself. And in order to see, he must learn to see; this is the first initiation of man into self-knowledge.

... If he sees one time he can see a second time, and if that continues he will no longer be able not to see. This is the state to be looked for, it is the aim of our observation; it is from there that the true wish will be born, the irresistible wish to become: from cold we shall become warm, vibrant; we shall be touched by our reality.

Today we have nothing but the illusion of what we are. We think too highly of ourselves. We do not respect ourselves. In order to respect myself, I have to recognize a part in myself which is above the other parts, and my attitude toward this part should bear witness to the respect that I have for it. In this way I shall respect myself. And my relations with others will be governed by the same respect.

You must understand that all the other measures - talent, education, culture, genius-are changing measures, measures of detail. The only exact measure, the only unchanging, objective real measure is the measure of inner vision. I see - I see myself - by this, you have measured. With one higher real part, you have measured another lower part, also real. And this measure, defining by itself the role of each part, will lead you to respect for yourself.

But you will see that it is not easy. And it is not cheap. You must pay dearly. For bad payers, lazy people, parasites, no hope. You must pay, pay a lot, and pay immediately, pay in advance. Pay with yourself. By sincere, conscientious, disinterested efforts. The more you are prepared to pay without economizing, without cheating, without any falsification, the more you will receive. And from that time on you will become acquainted with your nature. And you will see all the tricks, all the dishonesties that your nature resorts to in order to avoid paying hard cash. Because you have to pay with your ready-made theories, with your rooted convictions, with your prejudices, your conventions, your "I like" and "I don't like." Without bargaining, honestly, without pretending. Trying "sincerely" to see as you offer your counterfeit money.

Try for a moment to accept the idea that you are not what you believe yourself to be, that you overestimate yourself, in fact that you lie to yourself. That you always lie to yourself every moment, all day, all your life. That this lying rules you to such an extent that you cannot control it any more. You are the prey of lying. You lie, everywhere. Your relations with others - lies. The upbringing you give, the conventions - lies. Your teaching - lies. Your theories, your art- lies. Your social life, your family life - lies. And what you think of yourself - lies also.

But you never stop yourself in what you are doing or in what you are saying because you believe in yourself. You must stop inwardly and observe. Observe without preconceptions, accepting for a time this idea of lying. And if you observe in this way, paying with yourself, without self-pity, giving up all your supposed riches for a moment of reality, perhaps you will suddenly see something you have never before seen in yourself until this day.

You will see that you are different from what you think you are.

You will see that you are two.

One who is not, but takes the place and plays the role of the other. And one who is, yet so weak, so insubstantial, that he no sooner appears than he immediately disappears. He cannot endure lies. The least lie makes him faint away. He does not struggle, he does not resist, he is defeated in advance. Learn to look until you have seen the difference between your two natures, until you have seen the lies, the deception in yourself. When you have seen your two natures, that day, in yourself, the truth will be born.

http://www.gurdjieff.org/salzmann3.htm

Also this thread on Self Observation may be of some assistance.