Freedom of choice

[Gail]

Recently I listened to Dr. Tennyson Samraj as a guest speaker. This guy thinks so off to the side that he is a refreshing relief and challenge to the thought of the day for those thinkers out there.

He said many things through the course of the weekend, but I plucked one thought and did my own expounding on it.

He was talking about relationships and how, in order to have one, there must be some semblance of peerage between the 2 parties. There must be a level of equality for this to happen.

Okay- that's the background context of the following thought:

Peers allow for freedom of choice within the context of the relationship.

My thoughts follow...

[Gail]

Although it is a challenge to us, freedom of choice is what God allows us. He allows us the freedom to bring on ourselves the effects that our choices cause.

[Gail]

Samraj went even farther than that... and bless his heart he affirmed something that I have believed for a long time but have only timidly offered up to others.

Now I will be more bold, thanks to him.

When we are critical of others' actions and choices, we are denying them that freedom, in our heads if not in our reactions.

We are, in doing that, denying them peerage. We are setting ourselves as being higher or better than they. This becomes a damper on the relationship.

Does anyone else see that? Or should I just retreat to my own thoughts on that? Maybe it just makes sense in my own head (well, and in Tennyson's...)

[skyblue888]

You mean Samraj from the department of theology at the College?

[Gail]

You mean Samraj from the department of theology at the College?

Yes, also professor at the local secular college/university as well!

[skyblue888]

Last summer I met with one of his students who lives in Red Deer and he had some things to tell me he heard in his class that I was not too impressed with.

sky

[Gail]

I could probably say that about anybody... we all have our bad days!

But I would rather stay on topic here

[Kevin H]

Last summer I met with one of his students who lives in Red Deer and he had some things to tell me he heard in his class that I was not too impressed with.

sky

I've heard from other students things about nearly all my teachers and professors that I'm not impressed with, however when hearing the professor's point themselves I'd be impressed with them.

This does not even need to be done by someone who is trying to criticizse the person. I even remember that there was a pastor who a friend of mine really liked and was excited about and the way he discribed the ideas that he loved from this pastor hoping that I'd get excited about this pastor as well. However what he said did not impress me at all about the pastor and ended up prejudgisting me against this particular pastor, however once I met the pastor and heard him himself, while to this day I still hate my friend's discription of what this pastor taught, I found that I liked this paticular pastor.

Get all the facts before jumping to conclusions.

[Kevin H]

Samraj went even farther than that... and bless his heart he affirmed something that I have believed for a long time but have only timidly offered up to others.

Now I will be more bold, thanks to him.

When we are critical of others' actions and choices, we are denying them that freedom, in our heads if not in our reactions.

We are, in doing that, denying them peerage. We are setting ourselves as being higher or better than they. This becomes a damper on the relationship.

Does anyone else see that? Or should I just retreat to my own thoughts on that? Maybe it just makes sense in my own head (well, and in Tennyson's...)

As per my above post, I'd like to hear what this man is saying for himself. What I read here may be ok, but for now gives me a gut feeling that he might be going too much towards one side of a very narrow pathway that most of us are on one side or the other of.

We have the dragon in Revelation 12 and the beast in Revelation 13. The dragon represents the devil and demonic powers working directly and the idea of spiritualism. Mrs. White in describing spiritualism writes about it in two components. The first is occult activity, and the typical Adventist tends to stop there. We tend to miss the descriptions as to why she sees the occult as dangerous and the second aspect. What she describes as the second aspect is the philosophy of existentialism, the idea that all truth comes from our experience, that there is no ultimate truth but only subjective truth for me. Satan's idea that freedom is the absence of law, which the French Revolution was based on, when Satan told the angels that from their experience and exalted state they did not need a law.

The other side of the coin is the beast of Revelation 13 which represents any organized group that replaces Christ in our lives under the 7 heads of Babylon, Medio-Persia, Greece, Rome, The Holy Roman Empire, the Deadly wound (a short period where the crowns are on the horns instead of on a head, a time of independent nations rather than a great world unification) followed by world unification again by economic cooperation. The Reformers living under the 5th head, and Living from the change from the 5th to 6th head Mrs. White would put emphasis on an aspect of the 5th head, the Papacy to draw principles from. The Beast tends to tell people what to do and to think. Mrs. White says that when we see God as an arbitrary tyrant, which we find under the beast, that there is no safeguard from sin.

The secular mind tends to go towards existentialism, religious people, and Protestants and Seventh-day Adventists, are not exempt, especially the more conservative believers tend to go towards the beast. While Satan and the demons prefer existentialism, they find it a lot easier to work through the beast. During the French Revolution the demons were exhausted needing to come up with individual deceptions for each person, they saw it was a lot easier with a powerful church higharchy and so they experimented again with Adolf Hitler and find it a lot easier to have people think that it is to their advantage (existentialism) to simply follow the beast wither they agree with the beast or not.

While your post and his views may just be a criticism of our tendency as religious people to follow the beast in a one size fits all uniformity to the truth instead of the Holy Spirit working with us where we are and leading us towards the truth, but where we are making the better or worst choices based on our situation and background. However my reading of it just felt like it was a bit existential and spiritualistic. Be careful not to go to the other extream, but try to walk the strgight and narrow between these two deceptions.

[Gail]

You got all that from that? Wow! :)

[Woody]

You got all that from that? Wow!

Wow Gail. Look what you started.

[skyblue888]

Gail, I'll just give you an example of what I mean.

All are familiar with these words: "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

We all know this prophecy refers to the birth of Jesus.

Well, according to Samraj, this passage of Scripture does not refer to the birth of Jesus.

I mean, when a teacher of religion in our schools makes a statement like that to the students, that ought to raise a few eyebrows, don't you think?

sky

[Gail]

And I think I made a point that I wanted to keep to the topic at hand, which is not Samraj but his idea that when one criticizes another's choice that the person is putting himself above the other...

You can open up a new topic if you want

[Woody]

Quote:

his idea that when one criticizes another's choice that the person is putting himself above the other...

Let me have a crack at it.

It seems unfair to me because he is comparing apples with oranges. He is comparing an idea or thought or belief to - the person and esteem. He is making it a personal issue when it probably was not meant nor actually personal.

Let's compare issue with issue ... thought with thought ... belief with belief. We should keep the personal esteem out of the way. This kind of belief of his is just making matters personal. But then just my going against his belief places me on the level of putting myself above him according to his belief. It just means that no one dare to disagree with HIM.

Just my 2 cents for what it's worth. Please Please don't make it or take it personal. )

[CoAspen]

(You're trying...some doth not listen.)

I like your original thought and yes, it is something to think about. It is a relationship thing....(I still be learning), just like between husband and wife! God doesn't really critisize our choices but show us the outcome. Since we are not God, we can't always know the path someone elses choices may take the in. I do believe we can elevate ourself above the other with out even knowing that is happening, although the other person feels it immediatley!

[Gail]

LOL Thanks

But disagreeing is not the same as criticizing... or is it?

[Woody]

LOL Thanks

But disagreeing is not the same as criticizing... or is it?

Criticizing the idea or belief ...

or

Criticizing the person?

[Woody]

LOL Thanks

But disagreeing is not the same as criticizing... or is it?

I think there is nothing wrong with disagreeing OR criticizing a belief. Just not the person.

[Gail]

(You're trying...some doth not listen.)

I like your original thought and yes, it is something to think about. It is a relationship thing....(I still be learning), just like between husband and wife! God doesn't really critisize our choices but show us the outcome. Since we are not God, we can't always know the path someone elses choices may take the in. I do believe we can elevate ourself above the other with out even knowing that is happening, although the other person feels it immediatley!

Thanks, CoAspen!

God allows us the freedom to choose. He actually allows us that KNOWING what the effects of our bad choices will be.

Is that something that can and/or should be given/permitted in person to person relationships? What is the potential in doing so?

[CoAspen]

Hmmmm.....need to think......

[Woody]

Hmmmm.....need to think......

Let me join you.

[phkrause]

I see great smoke clouds coming out of the Ohio and Colorado areas.

[Gail]

Originally Posted By: CoAspen

Hmmmm.....need to think......

Let me join you.

Don't hurt yourselves!! :)

[Woody]

Quote:

Don't hurt yourselves!!

You bring up an interesting point Gail. I wonder if this is why there is so little thinking ... yet a lot of talking. People are afraid that if they 'think' it might hurt. :)

[Kevin H]

Gail, I'll just give you an example of what I mean.

All are familiar with these words: "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

We all know this prophecy refers to the birth of Jesus.

Well, according to Samraj, this passage of Scripture does not refer to the birth of Jesus.

I mean, when a teacher of religion in our schools makes a statement like that to the students, that ought to raise a few eyebrows, don't you think?

sky

Sky, may I share a few things with you before you get too concerned about this passage, and may I invite you to read Isaiah 7 for yourself.

There are two things that you need to know about inter-biblical exegesis.

1. Matthew would often use the methods of the Rabbis in applying the Old Testament. Using Biblical study methods that were commonly understood in his day.

2. The Bible in general has 3 ways how it uses it self. The first is the immediate context, sometimes called by our professors as exegesis. But being the living word of God the power of that word continues beyond the local application and can be reapplied to different situations that the same principles would fit, this has been called analogy. Then there is the use of the Bible where the words describe something wonderfully but is not really an analogy, a simple example would be Mrs. White saying that we are preaching the law until we are as dry as the hills of Gilboa. David was not predicting the 1888 general conference when talking about the hills of Gilboa, but the reference fit perfectly to the situation. This use of the words can be called a homological usage.

With these three correct ways of using scripture we can read how the Bible writers quote each other and see which it falls under. Now usually we see the prophets (both Bible and Mrs. White) doing analogies or homological quotes rather than exegesis. But if you do an exegesis on each text you can usually find a local application. Even the vision of Daniel 8 was given the year that included 2300 literal days until the fall of Babylon. Studying the ancient cycles shows how we can re-apply it to 2300 years.

Now let's look at Isaiah 7. We find that a group of kings had joined to attack Jerusalem and Ahaz was worried about them. God promised to protect Jerusalem from these people and Isaiah offered the king, who was not a faithful king, to ask for a sign that God would protect him from these kings coming against him for war. Ahaz refused to ask for a sign, so Isaiah gave him a sign, that a child would be born as an indication that God was with us (not saying whether God would be with us for good or bad, since this king was not faithful and Isaiah was hoping that the king would repent and start trusting God). And Isaiah tells Ahaz that before this child is old enough to know right from wrong, these kings that he was worried about would no longer be an issue.

Now Isaiah's ministry was about 740 something to 680 something BC, so this was sometime about 730 years before Jesus was born. What sense would the prophecy make if it's immediate context was the birth of Jesus? How comforting would have been Isaiah's words if he was to say "Hey, you know that you are afraid of being attacked by these kings and their armies, well your highness, you have nothing to worry about, in about 730 or so years those kings will be dead and you won't have a thing to worry about. All you need to do is hold on for about 730 years and then you can rest securely."

No, the immediate context was a child born about that time (while some argue that it was a child born in the king's palace, the text also talks about Isaiah going to his wife and having a child) before reaching the age of knowing right from wrong, these kings that Ahaz was worried about would be destroyed.

Once again this is the living word of God, a promise of a promised son as a sign is a part of reality, and through analogy (as well as traditional Rabbinical use of scripture in the time of Matthew) it can be re-applied to another promised son who was God with us. So while the text applies to Jesus and it is proper for Matthew to apply it to Jesus, Isaiah was not talking about Jesus when he gave the promise.