Hello again, newgenesisres; I recall you offering to answer any question. You did not answer mine, so here it is in the vernacular.
Given the idea of the ‘self-emptying of one’s own will’ in post-Judaic law within Christianity, that Christians should be as slaves, would you consider the freeing of slaves as: a) as far as we can know, an example of heresy b) dependent on the study of sacred texts or c) as an example of the Holy Spirit, in answer to prayer, inspiring solemn papal definitions, via the Holy See. Happy New Year, and I look forward to your reply.
Hello and a Happy Brand New Year to you to Dermot C,
Please accept my apologies for this long over due reply, I was taxed with preparing the content for a few posts. If I understand you correctly, you are equating self-emptying of one’s will to slavery. I can provide an answer that you can then contrast against any of your three conditions.
ANSWER TO THE QUESTION:
MAN IS ALREADY A SLAVE IN HIS OWN LIMITATIONS IN MUCH EVERY WAY; GOD HOWEVER IS NOT AND WOULD HAVE MAN BE AS HE IS
Self-emptying of one’s will is not entering into slavery; it is the exact opposite with respect only to where it relates to God as the alternative to self-will because that is what God is offering. In fact he has made that provision a gift—the gift of God; first given to Abraham and his seed (singular) and now in the fullness of time to we also who believe. In any other instance the exercise would be an exchange of prisons. The fundamental question here is, do you want to be man or God; and which is free, and which is limited?
We apply at once liberally and with a broad stroke the very narrow parochial definition of what man is to all things, and think all things must conform to the constraints of his narrow reality; even God who must be made over as man instead of all things to the contrary. Frankly Atheists and Christians are the same animal on different sides of the same fence. Neither of them can appreciate the sentient mass/energy self-aware personhood phenomenon of God’s complete dimensionality. On the one side the Christian finds it impossible to ponder God as the true mass/energy phenomenon that he is. On the other side you have the Atheist who equally cannot fathom the personhood dimension of mass/energy that is God, a complete sentient person without our familiar forms. That’s why it was not possible for God to render any other name to Moses beside I AM THAT I AM and still be true, or without limits. These are the very same properties as are peculiar to electron particles, a jumble of possibilities: never any one place or thing in particular until described or measured by you then the other properties are relinquished with the exception of your description. The invisible things of God’s power and person it is said, are clearly seen being understood by the things that are made even the very nature of the deathless, eternal godhead. In so many ways God has tried to tell us that he is power/energy and we still haven’t gotten it; even his name the Almighty (all power/energy—spirit…vis viva)
When physicists looked for waves instead of particles they saw probability waves that are considered imponderable, except as one or another but not combined, yet there it was right before them. How long actually do you suppose it might take science or man to comprehend another leap in this elegant refinement of the unification of all forces? God said there is no power but that is of God. Perhaps it may take them as long as it took them to arrive at the conservation of energy, e-mc2. To us the gift of speech is possible because of the vibration of our vocal chords making sounds we assign conceptual values to, much the same way elementary string particles vibrate in unison with the cosmos. If particle strings make as it were music, then the logical extension is to realize that speech is merely a form of music, and that is itself expressive of thought which isn’t possible without sentient intelligence. Is it not said that, in the beginning was the “word” which created all things, and maintain all things. Pantheists think that the cosmos in its entirety can be called God, but it cannot. Scripture reveals that the cosmos cannot contain God, though of man it is said in spirit can contain the fullness of the godhead bodily making him in spirit greater than the cosmos.
The concept of brute facts—(facts without meaning), are a near relative to the concept of brute energy—(energy without purpose), and that is what must be reconciled to their purpose and meaning the comprehensive entity of what God is. When reconciled we are as God puts it: “in league with the stones of the field”. All life is God, and nothing is estranged from him except where man exercises freewill be alienated from God in that parcel of his humanity. If we manage to make the leap and assign a name to the sentient personhood phenomenon of mass/energy and call it ahhhh, lets say God, then a lot might be cleared up for both science and religion. Just look at the forensic evidence of the trail we have traveled so far to get us to the conservation of energy, and just know that such is the inevitable conclusion of the matter entire. Not only is matter/energy sentient with the dimension of personhood, but it has the undeniable predisposition to morality as it goes to behavior, specifically human behavior. The mistake we often make is to think God wants to limit man when he desires man to experience existence without limitations as he is without limits.
Frankly I don’t think God cares much about religion, anymore than electromagnetic radiance is religiously inclined; he has no race, color, religious affiliations or for that matter any of the peculiarities of human limitations that we enshrine and have heavily vested so much divisive ideological value in. We can continue to see a population of seven billion different and individual life-forms on this planet or see instead what might appear as it were an organism of seven billion cells. Because we adhere to self-will/self-rule there necessarily this fragmented consciousness in which we muddle along.