I just thought after studying the Bible for a few months more intensively, that our purpose in life is not to be free.  It is an illusion generated by the “failed state” of America that we are to be free.  If our purpose was to be truly free then God- Jehovah would have surely told man that he could eat of the fruit of the the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, and also the Tree of Life.

“...life is not to be free.”
Pyotr

It sounds so simple. But is it?

What is “life”?  Biologically animated time-span from birth to death? Where and when is birth?  Birth of material entity or birth of spiritual being? Earthly death or Biblical death? Or perpetual existence generated through reincarnation?

What is “free”?  “To be free” does not say anything without “free for ...” or “free from ...”  An absolute freedom is called “anarchy”, which by its nature destroys freedom “for” and freedom “of”.

What does your Bible says about it, Pyotr?

Mr. L. L.

Good point, Mr. LL.

It smacks of what I have believed for a long time:  Our ministers- Latvian, American, etcetera, need to study this kind of philosophy, and our philosophers need to study this kind of religion.
And it reminds me of the goal of America:  A government “Of the people, for the people and by the people.”  This could be easily translated to Freedom of the people, for the people and by the people.  One perhaps needs an Army to protect against Communism, so that people can have the freedom to worship God in churches.  But, then again one also needs the freedom to vote for whatever party it is that one wishes to vote for, be it Republican, Democrat, Green, Independent, or Communist.  I believe in Freedom, but what kind of freedom can we ask for- exactly, that is the question.  For instance, if we have freedom to sell pornography, then we’ll have less freedom in keeping our will in submission!  If we don’t have the freedom to see prostitutes, then we’ll also have less freedom in doing what it is we want to sexually.  Do you see the kind of game this business of Freedom is.  Some of these answers were tongue-in-cheek humor also.

God created us with free will so that he could delight in watching us exercise it.  In the same vein, it is analogous to us preferring living flowers to plastic blossoms, even though living blossoms can fade, get sick or even die.

God created us with free will so that he could delight in watching us exercise it
Spectator

For God, in my opinion, to be a God, must be above good and evil.  To have a delight in watching humans exercising their “free” wills is to enjoy watching misery, pain, and suffering.

Starting with me being punished for Adam accepting his woman’s offer - was it apple or tomato? to trying to recognize free will in Latvian bodies tortured, mutilated, and killed by bolsheviks.  Was it our people’s free will being dragged to Siberian camps and forced to die?

Where is the power of my free will?

Mr. L. L.

Here we live to earn our rewards in Heaven.  Perhaps the sufferers are the lucky ones - their rewards will be great!

. . . the goal of America:  A government “Of the people, for the people and by the people.”

is a nice slogan.  Except government, any government, interferes with people’s freedoms. Governments are rulers, elected, appointed by God, whatever, governing = controlling by ukase enforced by police force.
This observation does not agree with translation of concept “Government” into “Freedom.”

One perhaps needs an Army to protect against Communism

clashes with the

freedom to vote for whatever . . . one wishes to vote for, be it Republican, Democrat, Green, Independent, or Communist

Communism, democracy, “green-ism” are by nature means toward dictatorship. An Army for protection against legally elected communism?  Does not sound reasonable.

this business of Freedom .

We cannot get away from business of defining from and for every time we use the most misused concept - Freedom.  Can we?

Mr. L. L.

Here we live to earn our rewards in Heaven.  Perhaps the sufferers are the lucky ones - their rewards will be great!
Spectator

Unless we are punished for something we did or did not do in a previous life on earth, I see no logic in your “Sunday school” line. The word “perhaps” puts it in “don’t know” mode.  How does, say, partial birth abortion earns rewards when life had not a chance for “free will” ?

Mr. L. L.

P.S. If I remember correctly, it was Count Bernadotte who said that if dogs are not allowed in Heaven, he is not going ;)
L.

The universal property of all life, from lowliest virus, to loftiest philosopher, is consciousness, an awareness of the surroundings, and a decision-making mechanism to respond to changes.  Human consciousness differs from animal consciousness in that humans are aware of their thoughts, and able to react to them.  “I think, therefore I am” can be said only by a self-conscious entity.

Ah, yes. Cogito ergo sum. Good old Rene.  Didn’t he got himself kicked out of the Church?

According to Kierkegaard, I believe,  the reasoning is shot down by ” the proper logical flow of argument is that existence is already assumed or pre-supposed in order for thinking to occur, not that existence is concluded from that thinking”

So, while “thinking” can define “You” for me, I think,  it cannot define “I”  for me other than “me” being an axiom.  Or one can apply a tautologycal reasoning: I exist therefore I am  In other words - dog chases his tail. :)

But I am getting out of my pay-grade, please don’t be too hard on me ;)

Mr. L. L.

Logic alone is not enough to analyze aproblem, proper intellectual tools must also be provided.  For example, Zeno’s paradox arises whwn we try to solve the conundrum by simple arithmetic.  To catch a front runner, the follower must first cover half the distance separating them, then he must cover half of the remainder, then half of the remaining remainder, etc.  Using simple arithmetic as the tool for solving this conundrum leads to the conclusion that it is impossible to overtake a front riunner, although we know that it is being dove every day.  The way out is using differential and integral calculus as tools for solving this problem.  Perhaps some day we are going to solve the problem of free will once the proper tools are developed.

Mr. spectator (or is it “Reverend”?):

Interesting. You make me think. 

Looking up Zeno of Elea I did not find what I was looking for.  It’s all Greek to me.  He was love-boy of his mentor, Parmenides.  Apparently many   ideas and musings ascribed to Zeno were Parmenides’ originals.  Pederasty was very popular in old Greece and probably led to feminization and final destruction of the original ethnic Greek DNA line.  But I shall leave this to forum members with tendency to accept unbridled free-for-all without being able to define the “free”, but insist   on “freedom”.   

Your statement:
———————————————-

To catch a front runner the follower must first cover half the distance separating them, then he must cover half of the reminder, then half of the reminder , etc.

The conclusion is that it is impossible to overtake a front runner,

———————————————-

It is obvious that we have two premises: “to catch” (to reach or get alongside) and “to overtake” (go past).  By solving the latter we obviously solve the first.

It cannot be calculated, at least I cannot :)  without Forward Motion which is Time and Speed.  I wrote a simple second-grade arithmetic calculation which shows me that a “half-point” is not achievable.  Because both “Rs” are moving in the same time frame but at different speed, the half-point recalculates itself at every time-motion application.  Only when R1 and R2 positions on a static line equal zero, the half-point becomes zero, therewith being without meaning to the original statement. One cannot halve a zero, I think.

Your opinion, please.

Mr. L. L.

In calculus, finding a moving midpoint is no problem.  That is why Isaac Newton had to invent calculus to be able to calculate the orbit of the Moon.  In fact, under the pull of gravity, Moon is continuously falling toward Earth, but because of the forward speed it keeps missing it.  That is why it stays in orbit.  By arithmetic alone, such orbital motion could neither be established nor proven.

Now he throwing a wormy apple at me :)

It would have been much easier for uncounted millions of school-children if Mr. Newton had eaten the apple, worms and all, instead to turning it loose on humanity.

I do not see a connection of gravity to our previous argument as stated by you.

Thank you for humoring me.

Mr. L. L.

Gravity has no connection to the previous argument, but calculus is.  I brought in gravity simply because I needed a familiar example for the application of calculus, and Newton’s descriprion of the motion of the Moon around the Earth seemed to be appropriate.

Newton, as well as Einstein, believed in God!