Real Christianity = not being a Christian

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen

 

You're just arguing semantics. Of course "Gnostic Christianity" arose after the death of Jesus, because Christianity didn't exist until after the death of Jesus. That doesn't mean that Jesus didn't teach Gnostic ideals.

Also, the promotion of Christianity for the masses, through the Catholic church, denied Gnosticism from it's core beginnings, ignoring the facts that Jesus, John and Paul used Gnostic philosophy in their teachings. The Catholic church invented their own version of Christianity, not based on the teachings of Jesus, but on their own interpretations and necessities of controlling the masses. Early Canons prove this.

I have always acquainted Gnosis with Nous.

I would be interested in knowing what John and Jesus taught about Aeonology.

www.philaletheians.co.uk...(Notes).pdf

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by adjensen
And how did he convince them not to stone the adulteress? By telling them "you're not supposed to stone adulterers"? Or by showing how they were wrong in themselves and had no right to judge her?

What difference does it make how or why? He was ignoring certain laws, and the pharisees called him on it.

Please re-read what I wrote. How is he "ignoring that law"? He told the woman that she was a sinner (had broken the Law) but that he wasn't going to condemn her, either. That's called mercy, not "ignoring the law."

Justice is getting what you deserve, mercy is not getting what you deserve, and grace is getting what you don't deserve.

There is a giant leap between saying Christ showing mercy or rebuking the Pharisees on dietary or cleanliness laws is on a par with teaching polytheism or dualism.

Jesus taught Jewish mysticism. In my opinion, Jesus believed that the Torah had become corrupt, and he was "reteaching" it in it's originality.

Where does Jesus teach Jewish mysticism? And I agree with your assessment of Jewish Law, though in it's implementation, not its original existence. But, again, that doesn't make it mysticism or Gnosticism.

However, I know that you are loathe to watch videos, so here's a link to his foundation, which contains some very heady papers on Jewish mysticism, and mytical Hebrew traditions.
www.meru.org...

Thank you, I'll have a look at it later this evening.

If you check out the link, you'll see it is nothing more than a lposting of the Laodicea Canons. No SDA opinion, just the Canons.

Well, there's a bunch of commentary at the top of the page, and some "extra" books added to #60 that aren't really there.

Oh, sorry about that, when I click on the link it takes me to the middle of the page, go figure, and I didn't see or pay attention to anything other that the original cannons.

No worries -- SDAs are batty for that Council, because that's when the official date of worship was switched from the Jewish Sabbath to Sunday (though there is some evidence that it had been that way unofficially for a long time,) so a site that refers to it usually has their slant to it.

reply to post by windword


Jesus did not teach the Torah was corrupted. What he did teach was that the pharisees erected ridiculous fencelaws around the Torah to keep anyone from getting close to breaking the law, and they wouldn't even practice what they preached but expected everyone else to follow what they taught when they wouldn't even follow it themselves. This is where the saying "practice what you preach" comes from.

This is why Jesus said:

Matthew 23:1-4

Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe,[a] that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. 4 For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

Which ties into:

Mattew 11:28-30

28 Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”

Because Jesus is the living Torah, the Voice of God to Man which is why Jesus said:

Mattew 22:34-40

34 But when the Pharisees heard that He had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying, 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”

37 Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

The first greatest law addresses the first 4 of the Decalogue commandments and the second greatest law addresses the last 6 commandments on the Decalogue.

And before some pesky SDA Saturnalian jumps in and says "sunday worship is the mark of the Beast" The 4th commandment to remember the sabbath deals with the Rest which was paid for at Golgotha that entered us into a perpetual state of rest, and honoring the sabbath means honoring Christ and remembering what he did for us which is the purpose for the symbolism of communion. Symbolizing taking the bread of life which is the Word of God into our hearts so that we can have life and have it more abundantly.

reply to post by adjensen

That's all well and good, except that Christ was not a mystic,

I'll choose the freedictionary dot com definition of mysticism:

a. Immediate consciousness of the transcendent or ultimate reality or God. b. The experience of such communion as described by mystics. 2. A belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly accessible by subjective experience.

If your saying Jesus was not a mystic, then you are saying he did not have any of the above definitions applied to him. That's an uphill battle for you then.

and he most certainly did not come to "abolish Judaism".

thats just your idea and definition. I don't see Christianity in America or in Europe be anywhere near to what Judaism in Israel is. I see Judaism as a spiritually dead religion and much of Christianity as Spiritually dead too, except for a small percentage who get the Holy Spirit and Mystical awakening. Everything else is semantics.

It was me getting the Holy Spirit that allowed me to Love all and Transcend labels and religions and remember pre-existing as a soul and seeing that ultimately we are all souls and seeing "Soul" and not Christian or Jew or whatever ...and this Universal seeing came to me from the Holy Spirit.

So if you take 2 Corinthians 3:6 "The letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life." And then add to that the fact that once someone receives the Holy Spirit, they are taught additional Mystical and Spiritual things which even your own Bible says in 1 John 2:27 "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."

So you can go be words or you can go by the Spirit, which ultimately inundates you with the gifts of the Spirit, being various Spiritual faculties (which no man can teach) ...one these being timelessness, another being Universal Love devoid of Labels,and many many more.

You seem to walk a fine line of being a westernized fundy ....

Christianity is not a "new religion", it is a sect of Judaism, and Christ specifically says that he didn't come to "abolish the Law".

yet it is abolished ....he simplified it. His yoke is easy. Trying to follow all the rule of the OT is madness and craziness and extremely difficult to abide by. Are we stoning adulterers and are we in sin for wearing clothing with mixed fabrics? Eating kosher? Not working Sundays?

Jesus came and changed it all ...... he's fulfilling the law because in the OT he is preicted to come and to change everything. He did that.

In other words, Judaism still exists, and the Law still exists, for Jews. With that in mind, neither of your explanations makes any sense, sorry.

Yea of course all of that still exists for Jews. We are talking Christianity here. I am saying in this thread, that ultimately, as a Christian, having received mystical insights from the Holy Spirit, I now see everything Spiritually and without labels ...including no longer labeling myself or anyone else as Christian and instead loving all equally as Souls.

My explanations make perfect sense, your just not seeing it Spiritually, but seeing it instead fundamentally and western adamic mind based version

Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by adjensen

 

That's all well and good, except that Christ was not a mystic,

I'll choose the freedictionary dot com definition of mysticism:

a. Immediate consciousness of the transcendent or ultimate reality or God. b. The experience of such communion as described by mystics. 2. A belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly accessible by subjective experience.

If your saying Jesus was not a mystic, then you are saying he did not have any of the above definitions applied to him. That's an uphill battle for you then.

I am a Christian. Jesus was not the "consciousness of God", he was God. Not a mystic, not a magician, not a soothsayer or a prophet, he was God.

and he most certainly did not come to "abolish Judaism".

thats just your idea and definition. I don't see Christianity in America or in Europe be anywhere near to what Judaism in Israel is. I see Judaism as a spiritually dead religion and much of Christianity as Spiritually dead too, except for a small percentage who get the Holy Spirit and Mystical awakening. Everything else is semantics.

See it the way that you like, but Christ specifically said that he had not come to abolish the Law. If you want to say otherwise, you make a liar of him, and I'm sure that's not your intent.

Christianity is not a "new religion", it is a sect of Judaism, and Christ specifically says that he didn't come to "abolish the Law".

yet it is abolished ....he simplified it. His yoke is easy. Trying to follow all the rule of the OT is madness and craziness and extremely difficult to abide by. Are we stoning adulterers and are we in sin for wearing clothing with mixed fabrics? Eating kosher? Not working Sundays?

Yes, you're just not getting it. There is a new covenant under Christ, but that doesn't mean that the old one doesn't still exist. God doesn't break his promises or go back on his word. You don't need to follow the Law, but it is still there, for any Jew that wishes to follow it. They will be judged under the auspices of the Mosaic Covenant, you will be judged by Christ's.

Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by adjensen

 

That's all well and good, except that Christ was not a mystic,

I'll choose the freedictionary dot com definition of mysticism:

a. Immediate consciousness of the transcendent or ultimate reality or God. b. The experience of such communion as described by mystics. 2. A belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly accessible by subjective experience.

If your saying Jesus was not a mystic, then you are saying he did not have any of the above definitions applied to him. That's an uphill battle for you then.

and he most certainly did not come to "abolish Judaism".

thats just your idea and definition. I don't see Christianity in America or in Europe be anywhere near to what Judaism in Israel is. I see Judaism as a spiritually dead religion and much of Christianity as Spiritually dead too, except for a small percentage who get the Holy Spirit and Mystical awakening. Everything else is semantics.

It was me getting the Holy Spirit that allowed me to Love all and Transcend labels and religions and remember pre-existing as a soul and seeing that ultimately we are all souls and seeing "Soul" and not Christian or Jew or whatever ...and this Universal seeing came to me from the Holy Spirit.

So if you take 2 Corinthians 3:6 "The letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life." And then add to that the fact that once someone receives the Holy Spirit, they are taught additional Mystical and Spiritual things which even your own Bible says in 1 John 2:27 "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."

So you can go be words or you can go by the Spirit, which ultimately inundates you with the gifts of the Spirit, being various Spiritual faculties (which no man can teach) ...one these being timelessness, another being Universal Love devoid of Labels,and many many more.

You seem to walk a fine line of being a westernized fundy ....

Christianity is not a "new religion", it is a sect of Judaism, and Christ specifically says that he didn't come to "abolish the Law".

yet it is abolished ....he simplified it. His yoke is easy. Trying to follow all the rule of the OT is madness and craziness and extremely difficult to abide by. Are we stoning adulterers and are we in sin for wearing clothing with mixed fabrics? Eating kosher? Not working Sundays?

Jesus came and changed it all ...... he's fulfilling the law because in the OT he is preicted to come and to change everything. He did that.

In other words, Judaism still exists, and the Law still exists, for Jews. With that in mind, neither of your explanations makes any sense, sorry.

Yea of course all of that still exists for Jews. We are talking Christianity here. I am saying in this thread, that ultimately, as a Christian, having received mystical insights from the Holy Spirit, I now see everything Spiritually and without labels ...including no longer labeling myself or anyone else as Christian and instead loving all equally as Souls.

My explanations make perfect sense, your just not seeing it Spiritually, but seeing it instead fundamentally and western adamic mind based version

I wanted to quote this again as this is the same way I feel as well..... and said very well I may add!

Thank you !!!!

reply to post by adjensen

I am a Christian. Jesus was not the "consciousness of God", he was God

Jesus never directly said anywhere that he was God, but that he and the Father were One. This Oneness you would never understand unless you experience it for yourself, which coincidentally, we are called to also be One with the Father.

John 17:21"I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one--as you are in me, Father, and I am in you. And may they be in us so that the world will believe you sent me."

Jesus was not the only one to say that he and the Father are one. Other Mystics, desert fathers, monks, and hermits whole also were One with the Father, also claimed this Oneness.

As far as Consciousness goes ...... I remember myself to have existed prior to being born in a body ....this body which wil one day pass away, is not who I really am nor is it who anyone really is. The real me is a single unit of Consciousness. Obviously me as Consciousness or Soul, had to have come from somewhere and be made to exist by someone.

How do you know that Jesus was not the "consciousness of God"?

Not a mystic, not a magician, not a soothsayer or a prophet, he was God.

"Mystic" has nothing to do with magician or soothsayer. You sure got your understanding of semantics twisted into whatever you think will work, instead of following a universally accepted model of meaning.

See it the way that you like, but Christ specifically said that he had not come to abolish the Law.

Technically he fulfilled the law, because the Law said that he would one day come and abolish it, change it, restart it, and save it.

If you want to say otherwise, you make a liar of him, and I'm sure that's not your intent.

I personally don't go by or agree with many things in the OT. But I Love and agree with what Jesus taught. I see a HUGE difference in OT vs NT and have also found truth in the Thomas Gospel.

Say what you will about my intentions, as I really don't care cause God knows my heart and in my heart I know that there is a huge Schism between OT and NT

Yes, you're just not getting it. There is a new covenant under Christ, but that doesn't mean that the old one doesn't still exist.

If the OT is still in place, if you have broken any of the 10 commandments (which who hasn't), then your supposed to be stoned.

God doesn't break his promises or go back on his word. You don't need to follow the Law, but it is still there, for any Jew that wishes to follow it. They will be judged under the auspices of the Mosaic Covenant, you will be judged by Christ's.

How do you know that they will be judged by the Mosiac Covenant? Since Jesus changed everything and the OT really doen't apply, then why would God judge the jews by OT. Then we can say God will judge Muslims by their covenant, and Buddhists by theirs.

Have you ever looked into NDE's? People across all sorts of different religions are entering and seeing the heavens. Yes some see hells, but still, to not take certain things into consideration based on recent discoveries, is like being the group of christians who condemned the first scientists who considered the earth round and the earth revolving around the sun instead of vice versa.

Originally posted by dominicus
If the OT is still in place, if you have broken any of the 10 commandments (which who hasn't), then your supposed to be stoned.

I'm not Jewish, why would anyone stone me for that?

How do you know that they will be judged by the Mosiac Covenant? Since Jesus changed everything and the OT really doen't apply, then why would God judge the jews by OT. Then we can say God will judge Muslims by their covenant, and Buddhists by theirs.

Well, if you think that the Muslims received a covenant from God, I guess you can make a case for that. Good luck with the Buddhists, though, lol.

Have you ever looked into NDE's? People across all sorts of different religions are entering and seeing the heavens. Yes some see hells

I am a Catholic, and Catholic doctrine has a reasonable explanation for that, which doesn't dismiss Christ, and doesn't say "do whatever you want, because in the end you'll be saved anyway" (universal salvation.)

reply to post by adjensen

I am a Catholic, and Catholic doctrine

Thats all i need to hear. While i know spiritually that you are soul, and love you regardless, i know now that you are biased and programmed towards certain trains of thought that can make it impossible to make certain points.

For example, i find much of Buddhism entirely beautiful and compatible to many teachings of Christ. When Jesus taught that for example' the kingdom of heaven is within you, ........well then the Buddhists have the richest texts in the world on what happens when one "goes within". They were scientists of the contemplative inner life and have left behind compelling and beautiful writings and teachings.

If you ever want to have the ego death holy spirit experience and possible glimpses of union w God (theosis/deification) as taught in orthodoxy prior to the great schism where Catholicism corruptedly broke itself off from the original pure orthodox format, i suggest you study the mystics within your denomination, st. John of the cross, teresa of avila, meister eckhart, and many others......... other wise you risk the possibility of forever remaining an exoteric outsider to the living and breathing truth of the lord and of God that can only be known experientially.

reply to post by dominicus

You do realize you have all of the scientific community that will claim a newborn child is a blank slate right?

This is not true, dominicus.

A child is NOT a blank slate. I don't know what you consider "all of the scientific community" to be, but in the field of brain-training and early childhood development, it s very clearly established that children are born with innate qualities; styles of learning, interests, personalities, sensitivity to stimulus, temperaments....

Their brains contain billions of neurons waiting to be fired, depending on the circumstances and stimulus they receive. There are "windows" of opportunity to activate various centers, and if those centers are not activated, they are pruned off or re-routed to areas that need them instead. (For example, the language centers are able at birth to acquire ANY language; but after a time, if a sound is not heard, the ability to hear that sound disappears.

Have you any children of your own?

Have you worked in a neonatal unit and dealt with brand new-borns? Have you spent time watching the development of dozens of babies into preschoolers, and learning their distinct tastes, levels of tolerance, general temperaments, interests, talents, and so forth and so on?

I have. And also am part of the "scientific community"; I was a presenter at the Prevent Child Abuse Association's national conference in 2006 on the very topic of baby brains. Please do some more research.
Here's a starter from psychology today, about a year ago:
Mythbusters II: We Do NOT Begin as Blank Slates
(and, no, I am not the author. I did a simple Google Search and this was the very first hit)
So, your premise is void.

reply to post by wildtimes


I agree. For instance, children operate on a number of assumptions that we simply presume to be naivete, but if you look closer, you can see a suspicious degree of certainty in their assumptions - they came into the world already aware of the existence of certain parts of nature.

In fact, one could say they are more awake than we are, because we've been conditioned to ignore certain aspects of reality that, at this point in time, might very well prove to be useful. Awareness of other planes of existence, for instance, or the awareness of the emotional state of surrounding creatures, or perhaps creatures they've formed a bond with. There are many things we dismiss as imagination that, in a child, are as real as their own hand.

Children are not born blank slates. That are simply born with natural gifts that we cannot relate to, because we have long ago graduated from squashing these talents with what society calls "critical thinking". Can it be poked with a stick? No, because science isn't that far yet. Can it be quantified? No, for the same reason listed before. Is it useful? No, because society is obsessed with things it can touch. Well then, there's no reason to have it, is there?

So in many ways, a child can be more wise than many adults wandering the world today, if only because they have a deeper psionic/psychic connection, mind to mind, heart to heart, than most of our world leaders do. I don't call that a 'blank slate'.

From my understanding, their definition of a blank slate is something that hasn't built up the fortress of memories and emotions that influence and filter the truth of reality, which is only possible with lack of awareness. With awareness, comes processing. With processing, comes the development of filters and bias. And in this way, again, children are more intelligent than us adults, because they don't judge.

Oh, to be a child again!

reply to post by wildtimes

This is not true, dominicus. A child is NOT a blank slate. I don't know what you consider "all of the scientific community" to be, but in the field of brain-training and early childhood development, it s very clearly established that children are born with innate qualities; styles of learning, interests, personalities, sensitivity to stimulus, temperaments....

Both sides can be argued for. For example in your own link that you provided it says:
Mythbusters II: We DO NOT Begin as Blank Slates

Temperament has a big genetic component. We are biological creatures, after all. Some of us are more naturally aggressive than others. Some are more shy. We vary in how smart we are, how athletic, how musical, how sensitive, how optimistic, how resilient, how emotional, how relational. Ask anyone who has experience with babies and they will tell you that a baby's basic personality is evident from the get-go—as psychoanalyst Melanie Klein would say, from the beginning.

we're back to nurture vs. nature. WHile I would agree that we are biologically predisposed to certain things, I would still argue, there is still the initial free will to choose. I would still argue we are blank slates that have predispositions that are superimpose on us based on nature.

Yale Study

But Dr. Nadja Reissland of Durham University told the Mail that while she believed that babies begin to learn the difference between right and wrong from birth, she said the Yale psychologists work does not conclusively show that a moral sense is hardwired into the body.

I think this whole argument on blank slates is filled with too many holes over all. Anyone can argue that babies show neurons firing at the site of their mother, choose cute versus ugly, etc ....but many of these things could be built in safety nets provided by nature, which doesn't necessarily discredit the blank slate theory.

I can speak from experience and say that when I was a child, I had an awareness and sense of wonder and awe (which I see in all kids), which eventually went away, and then was gained back due to various spiritual exercises and mystical experiences. The problem here is that in Spirituality, there is an acknowledgement of the Soul and Awareness, while science does not yet fully understand these things, let alone know everything about consciousness

Have you worked in a neonatal unit and dealt with brand new-borns? Have you spent time watching the development of dozens of babies into preschoolers, and learning their distinct tastes, levels of tolerance, general temperaments, interests, talents, and so forth and so on?

All of this you have stated, "development, learning", implies a point in time where there wasn't "tastes, tolerance, temperaments, interests, talents, and so forth"

So, your premise is void.

yeah ....i don't think so. Awareness and free will to choose. I think this theory is skewed in that scientists are yet to establish the existence of a soul, and that they are seeing Neurons firing and choices being made a certain way, and are therefore saying children aren't blank slates.

reply to post by dominicus

we're back to nurture vs. nature. WHile I would agree that we are biologically predisposed to certain things, I would still argue, there is still the initial free will to choose. I would still argue we are blank slates that have predispositions that are superimpose on us based on nature.

Nurture trumps nature, unquestionably. Clockwork Orange vs modern military. Given the right conditioning, you can overcome ANY kind of nature unless the biological structure is invariably designed to fulfill that purpose. In that case, all you're doing is setting the person or animal up to go through hell, because it's meant for one thing but avoids that one thing with a vengeance. Have you ever been starving, but were repulsed by the mere thought of food?

That's the only time nature has priority. And if that nature simply cannot be accepted, and the greater good demands that such a nature be prevented from fulfilling itself, the only reasonable solution is to end it. End it, so that it may become something else, something more constructive.

Other than that, we have mastered the mind to the point that we can reprogram just about anything. Hence, nurture is superior to nature. When you can use one to change another, you have your answer. Given time, the other may revert the former, but it only has one possibility. One possible schematic that reacts to situations in a prescribed manner. Nurture has a greater variety of possibilities, and this is more potent. Therefore, the more potent has the more influence, the more influence has the greater effect. Nurture > nature. One can change, the other cannot...and in a world of change, which do you think is more useful to have? Exactly.

Any questions?

reply to post by dominicus

there is still the initial free will to choose.

No, there is not. The baby is by definition influenced by the "nature" of what his or her circumstances are. The baby's brain adapts to what-have-you in the environment, even while still having innate temperament, disposition, interests, talents, soul-wisdom (Yes, I DID go there)......and genetics.

To say that babies are "blank slates" is backward. No, they are OPEN SLATES.....and will be influenced by the circumstances into which they are born. Therefore, your argument that "morality" is only available to those children of "church-goers" or the "religious" is wrong.

reply to post by dominicus

I think this theory is skewed in that scientists are yet to establish the existence of a soul, and that they are seeing Neurons firing and choices being made a certain way, and are therefore saying children aren't blank slates.

Dude!!
What does a baby's brain and temperament (&tc) have to do with whether or not they have a soul?

You didn't answer the question: Have you had children, and raised (reared) them? Have you worked with countless newborns and 0-3-years-old kids?

Gha

reply to post by adjensen

"do whatever you want, because in the end you'll be saved anyway" (universal salvation.)

Aliester Crowley had a teaching just like that:

"Do as you will, shall be the whole of the law".

I wonder how many universalists ever figured that one out?

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


Do you think that free will is an evil thing? Don't you think that if a person truly and purely is aligned with their free will that they are also being aligned with God's will?

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

Do you think that free will is an evil thing? Don't you think that if a person truly and purely is aligned with their free will that they are also being aligned with God's will?

How is someone "aligned with their free will"? That's kind of a contradictory term.

Free will means independence from God's will -- God might want you to do some sort of action, but you don't have to, because you have free will, so you can act in accordance with his will, or contrary to it.

Maybe I'm misreading you, but you seem to be saying that, if something is in my will, it is also in God's. That negates free will, it doesn't support it.

reply to post by adjensen

How is someone "aligned with their free will"? That's kind of a contradictory term.

How so?

Free will means independence from God's will

So, you think that free will is a bad thing then?

See, I think that if we are true to ourselves, we are doing God's will. Don't you think that God speaks through free will, making one desire what is the right thing to do?

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen

 

How is someone "aligned with their free will"? That's kind of a contradictory term.

How so?

Free will indicates a choice. If the question was "Is someone aligned with their free will choice", that would make sense. Free will itself doesn't have a conclusion.

Free will means independence from God's will

So, you think that free will is a bad thing then?

No, it's neutral. Free will is an infinitude of possibilities -- in and of itself, it is meaningless, simply and open stage, on which one writes their choice. The choice is the "good" or "bad", not the fact that the choice exists.

Don't you think that God speaks through free will, making one desire what is the right thing to do?

No, unless you ask him to reveal his will to you, your free will is your own, God has nothing to do with it.