Willing Heart

Thomas O’buck’s first video deals with the willing heart. The whole video is presented from a biblical perspective; however, it is more definitive and applicable than it is doctrinal. Everything we do in life is determined by how willing we are to do the things we do. We may make excuses to excuse ourselves from responsibility, but basically we are just not willing to do what is necessary from time to time. This willing heart is the basis for a great many of the teachings I have delivered over 30 years of my life. It has taken me that long to recognize what I was doing.

www.youtube.com...

newnature
Thomas O’buck’s first video deals with the willing heart. The whole video is presented from a biblical perspective; however, it is more definitive and applicable than it is doctrinal. Everything we do in life is determined by how willing we are to do the things we do. We may make excuses to excuse ourselves from responsibility, but basically we are just not willing to do what is necessary from time to time. This willing heart is the basis for a great many of the teachings I have delivered over 30 years of my life. It has taken me that long to recognize what I was doing.

www.youtube.com...

Responsibility is perspective and further more self and culturally defined based, therefore we don't make excuses to excuse ourselves from objective responsibility but prod at if something is in fact our responsibility. If one was to get past if something is their responsibility (given they deduced it was not) it becomes a choice of "self" or will, on how they will act. Therefore it's not a matter of if we are not willing… but if it's our individual will to act. Just my perspective anyway, thanks for prompting a topic that felt like it was worth my reply (despite how nonsensical it may appear).

reply to post by Strayed
I understand your premise that responsibilities vary from culture to culture and even time to time; however, from what you said, I gather that in the end any one of us acts according to his or her own will. The man who made the video comes to the same conclusion. His approach is that, regardless of the action, a person has to will to perform it. From his perspective, it is a person's responsibility to accept that he performed an action as he himself willed. I appreciate your candor and would be glad to here more from you once you have time to watch the video.

Cliff notes: The video starts out with a valid objective not singular religious basis but seems to corner itself into speaking on adherence to a specific faith. The objective message that I pull is we are responsible for our actions which are/should be motivated by our honest wills, which I could agree with. In relation to if you choose to honestly accept the gospel the man in the video has, he to me seems to be right and the projection of the “the faith” seems to be #ed up in the way many people seem to project it based off of gospel; If you choose to accept said gospel it entails having the will to act as such as presented/recorded.

Non Cliff Notes:

In my scotch inspired non-sobriety I must admit I missed the link(!) and contributed the entirety of the post simply to the speakers own self discovered perspective…


I now did watch the video (which killed my scotch inspired erection (over-share?)) and it seemed to speak a basic empirical truth… that we are responsible for our chosen conscious wills and actions and the actions are greatly ideally (should be) rooted in our chosen wills but didn’t speak objectively (how I read the original post) that I could perceive much more than that.


The video seemed to simply draw examples from gospel that insisted our actions should align with our will which was very much seen in different places of said gospel. I must admit I stepped into the religious forum accidently via the “New” thread button as I normally mainly look at the philosophy section. If I was to hold the perspective of someone who had in their “heart” that the gospel was an objective truth and something to be adhered to/lived, I could agree that based off of words of the man in the video which are based off his selected examples and my religious research it seems that many people don’t adhere to the picture (example) of what is painted in their bible. (this seemed to me from this specific video despite the initial presentation the root of his message).

This is less interesting to me personally than what I perceived as the original bit of text that hooked me because it’s fairly clear based off reality, what the man in the video references and infers and from my personal research that what is presented in the gospel of his faith now a days seems to often skew from what might be fairly directly/plainly taken from said gospel (Ignoring the WTF in The Old Testement).

Hope that was coherent/relevant as I've since drank much more scotch and cannot be sure.

Without having watched the video but having read the posts, I'll say that any action I take I should own. I should own both the act itself and the consequences of said act. I made the action of my own will.

There are plenty of people who like to foist responsibility off on someone of something else. "I had no choice!" is a common and popular phrase, but you always do have a choice. The reality is that you weren't willing to contemplate the alternative to your action. Either the alternative consequence was truly unthinkable or you just didn't take the time to think it through or you aren't willing to own what happened as a result of your action.

I'll give an example:

I was watching Helix last night. One character put another character in a choice dilemma. In one room is his daughter and in the other room is his adopted son. Both have bombs on them. The first character attempts to force the character to choose which he will save, promising he will let the other go free. The first character no seems to have two choices: daughter or adopted son. He opts for third. He does not choose, saying he can't. The first character ups the ante by turning on a timer for 30 secs. Now the choices are to choose one or the other or lose both in 30 secs. Btw, both the son and the daughter can see and hear what is happening the whole time. Still, he refuses to choose. At this point, the son chooses for him. Telling him that he loves him and tries to remove the collar, triggering the bomb.

Even no choice was a choice, and the character made it freely. He could have chosen either the son or daughter, and fallen back on "I had no choice." However, he did have a choice - no choice.

I guess my point with this is that people are often quick to plunge ahead on one course of action. Then, they decide they don't like the results and blame something else in an attempt to disown their own responsibility for the results even though they were fully willing at the time.

ketsuko
Without having watched the video but having read the posts, I'll say that any action I take I should own. I should own both the act itself and the consequences of said act. I made the action of my own will.

There are plenty of people who like to foist responsibility off on someone of something else. "I had no choice!" is a common and popular phrase, but you always do have a choice. The reality is that you weren't willing to contemplate the alternative to your action. Either the alternative consequence was truly unthinkable or you just didn't take the time to think it through or you aren't willing to own what happened as a result of your action.

I'll give an example:

I was watching Helix last night. One character put another character in a choice dilemma. In one room is his daughter and in the other room is his adopted son. Both have bombs on them. The first character attempts to force the character to choose which he will save, promising he will let the other go free. The first character no seems to have two choices: daughter or adopted son. He opts for third. He does not choose, saying he can't. The first character ups the ante by turning on a timer for 30 secs. Now the choices are to choose one or the other or lose both in 30 secs. Btw, both the son and the daughter can see and hear what is happening the whole time. Still, he refuses to choose. At this point, the son chooses for him. Telling him that he loves him and tries to remove the collar, triggering the bomb.

Even no choice was a choice, and the character made it freely. He could have chosen either the son or daughter, and fallen back on "I had no choice." However, he did have a choice - no choice.

I guess my point with this is that people are often quick to plunge ahead on one course of action. Then, they decide they don't like the results and blame something else in an attempt to disown their own responsibility for the results even though they were fully willing at the time.

Like Sophie's Choice, but in her choice or no choice to act, either way her children were doomed. But different situations dictate different choices.

We can choose to buy gas at this convenience store or that convenience store, it's easy to make that decision, but how many people go through much anguish in choosing clothing to wear for a night at the club?

The greater the risk, the greater the outcome.

reply to post by newnature

This willing heart is the basis for a great many of the teachings I have delivered over 30 years of my life.

What sort of teaching do you do?

reply to post by WarminIndy

Like Sophie's Choice, but in her choice or no choice to act, either way her children were doomed. But different situations dictate different choices.

I was just going to say that; it reminds me of Sophie's Choice.

You beat me to it!!

reply to post by BuzzyWigs
I teach a very unpopular topic. I teach responsibility and accountability to Christian leaders who are quite willing to tell others what to do while, at the same time, they are unwilling to do the things they require of others. Not many want to hear that they are to lead by being a servant to their congregation rather than a leader who expects to be served by their congregation. We as Christians can never know how to treat non Christians with respect until we learn to treat one another with respect. After all, we are taught to give respect where respect is due and honor where honor is due...or are we?

reply to post by Strayed
What may be misleading is that I focus on the willingness of the leaders to properly instruct their congregations. The references I use are from materials the leaders already know and use in various ways themselves. My whole premise is that you can't teach people to serve one another unless you are willing to teach by example by serving your congregation rather than ruling over them and requiring them to serve you.

reply to post by plowhand

I teach a very unpopular topic. I teach responsibility and accountability to Christian leaders who are quite willing to tell others what to do while, at the same time, they are unwilling to do the things they require of others.

Well, I'd like to know what you are teaching as well, but; I asked the OP.