Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Free Will


xtify

Recommended Posts

Or maybe you should make the case from scripture that Adam and Eve DID have free will?

 

Please go for it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The actual points always seem to be sidestepped in these discussions. It's quite annoying and the opposite of DEBATE.

 

In a nutshell: FREE WILL is 'choice without duress or undue influence'. It's plain and simple. There is no getting around it.

 

What many christians fail to see is that there is no FREE WILL in christianity… it's about obedience, not choice.

Then by the story, here's your provisions A&E and here's what will kill you. Where did God violate said freedom?

 

 

Adam and Eve were never free in the first place to have their free will violated.

 

Ravenstar's definition only applies to every other human except Adam and Eve.

 

Cain and Abel and everyone else had free will - Adam and Eve did not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No, no, no, you can't have it both ways.....free means free according to Prof. Any "informed" would bias the freedom. OBJECTION!!

 

 

Please explain how I'm trying to have it both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
I argue for MY side.

 

Alas, End. Most of us have argued for that side, too. The arguments didn't hold water then and they don't now. Perhaps one day you'll come to the same realization; perhaps not. Either way, keep that Viking helmet polished!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rhetorical Adam and Eve… they were innocents, like children under seven, ignorant and incapable of making an INFORMED choice. Free will is not possible in that position. Try explaining to a small child what 'death' is. They just don't get it - it's outside their frame of reference.

 

BAA is right.. they did not have free will. (which also demands independence)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sheer stretches that christians go through in attempting to justify their religion amazes me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this...

 

"Free will would be allowing him to choose anything, literally anything, he wants without any strings attached or punishments threatened."

 

...what you're referring to as 'free according to the prof', End?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh good God people....y'all aren't stupid. I'm not going to explain how your position contradicts the Profs. <END3 dawns his Viking helmet and prepares for the tidal wave of abuse and watches the triggered non-believers reinforce their error with fellowship> <retreats under the bridge for another opportune day>....lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When BAA asks the christian the simple question "Is (RNP quote) what you're referring to"

 

The christian doesn't answer a straight "yes" or "no"

 

I thought I was done being amazed at how far End3 will go with his lunacy.  I guess I was wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's ok End!  You quit if you want to.  

 

Anyway, here's the error you made.

 

"No, no, no, you can't have it both ways.....free means free according to Prof. Any "informed" would bias the freedom. OBJECTION!!" 

 

If you stand by this, then you're saying that an informed decision isn't a free one - because being informed biases the freedom of the decision.

 

That being so, then no human being AFTER Adam and Eve was ever capable of making a free decision.  

 

You've just destroyed your own free will, End!  Congratulations!!!    

.

.

.

Unless, of course, you want to have it both ways (that sounds familiar silverpenny013Hmmm.gif) and claim that you freely chose Jesus, without being informed about your decision in any way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

 

 

 

 

 

This is NOT free will.  Free will would be allowing him to choose anything, literally anything, he wants without any strings attached or punishments threatened.  Narrowing his choices down to "do as I want or suffer" is not free will, even if the boy appears free to make either choice.

So you consider warning of death threat of punishment?

 

No.  I consider eternal conscious torment to be a punishment which far exceeds the choice.

 

Thank you, then the rest of humanity (per the story Roz), is subject to that free will, and unless we can define that it wasn't "perfect", then I rest my case.

 

 

No End.

 

The rest of the human race may be subject to free will NOW, but neither Adam nor Eve were subject to it, when it mattered most.

 

They couldn't make a free and informed decision about the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil because they didn't understand what Good and Evil were.  And if there had been no physical death up to that time, how could they understand what God meant when he said they'd die if they ate the fruit?

 

A decision made in ignorance is not an informed decision.  

A decision made without knowing or understanding the terms, benefits and penalties isn't a free choice either.  If you don't understand what you're being asked to choose between, that's not a free choice.  

 

It's setting a pair of innocents up to fail and then forcing every other human being after them to suffer the consequences of this so-called free choice.

 

No, no, no, you can't have it both ways.....free means free according to Prof. Any "informed" would bias the freedom. OBJECTION!!

 

Objection: hearsay and speculation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is NOT free will.  Free will would be allowing him to choose anything, literally anything, he wants without any strings attached or punishments threatened.  Narrowing his choices down to "do as I want or suffer" is not free will, even if the boy appears free to make either choice.

So you consider warning of death threat of punishment?

 

No.  I consider eternal conscious torment to be a punishment which far exceeds the choice.

 

Thank you, then the rest of humanity (per the story Roz), is subject to that free will, and unless we can define that it wasn't "perfect", then I rest my case.

 

 

No End.

 

The rest of the human race may be subject to free will NOW, but neither Adam nor Eve were subject to it, when it mattered most.

 

They couldn't make a free and informed decision about the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil because they didn't understand what Good and Evil were.  And if there had been no physical death up to that time, how could they understand what God meant when he said they'd die if they ate the fruit?

 

A decision made in ignorance is not an informed decision.  

A decision made without knowing or understanding the terms, benefits and penalties isn't a free choice either.  If you don't understand what you're being asked to choose between, that's not a free choice.  

 

It's setting a pair of innocents up to fail and then forcing every other human being after them to suffer the consequences of this so-called free choice.

 

No, no, no, you can't have it both ways.....free means free according to Prof. Any "informed" would bias the freedom. OBJECTION!!

 

Objection: hearsay and speculation. 

 

 

No! No!

 

Let the objection stand, Prof.

By his own objection, End never made a free choice to accept Jesus into his life.  Before he made that decision he was informed about it by reading the Bible.  Therefore, he made a biased decision, not a free one.

 

Let the objection stand and let it be seen how his own argument annihilates his own free will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

Maybe y'all should recess in order to make a plan....all of your witnesses Prof are losing your case for you.

End3, you can't continue trying to make points or speculations once you have rested your case.  You felt you had proven your case to the point of being able to rest it; that this turned out not to be the case is irrelevant.  Once again, it is the jury's turn to decide.  You already have two "Nays" and not a single "Aye". 

 

Moreover, no one is losing my case for me as my point still stands.  My son would not have free will if there were any strings attached.  However, if I gave him knowledge as to what various types of candy tasted like, it would not impair his freedom to choose; it would allow him to make a more informed decision.  Point by point, you are being refuted.  Doesn't seem like losing to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is NOT free will.  Free will would be allowing him to choose anything, literally anything, he wants without any strings attached or punishments threatened.  Narrowing his choices down to "do as I want or suffer" is not free will, even if the boy appears free to make either choice.

So you consider warning of death threat of punishment?

 

No.  I consider eternal conscious torment to be a punishment which far exceeds the choice.

 

Thank you, then the rest of humanity (per the story Roz), is subject to that free will, and unless we can define that it wasn't "perfect", then I rest my case.

 

 

No End.

 

The rest of the human race may be subject to free will NOW, but neither Adam nor Eve were subject to it, when it mattered most.

 

They couldn't make a free and informed decision about the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil because they didn't understand what Good and Evil were.  And if there had been no physical death up to that time, how could they understand what God meant when he said they'd die if they ate the fruit?

 

A decision made in ignorance is not an informed decision.  

A decision made without knowing or understanding the terms, benefits and penalties isn't a free choice either.  If you don't understand what you're being asked to choose between, that's not a free choice.  

 

It's setting a pair of innocents up to fail and then forcing every other human being after them to suffer the consequences of this so-called free choice.

 

No, no, no, you can't have it both ways.....free means free according to Prof. Any "informed" would bias the freedom. OBJECTION!!

 

Objection: hearsay and speculation. 

 

 

No! No!

 

Let the objection stand, Prof.

By his own objection, End never made a free choice to accept Jesus into his life.  Before he made that decision he was informed about it by reading the Bible.  Therefore, he made a biased decision, not a free one.

 

Let the objection stand and let it be seen how his own argument annihilates his own free will.

 

Objection will stand. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Maybe y'all should recess in order to make a plan....all of your witnesses Prof are losing your case for you.

End3, you can't continue trying to make points or speculations once you have rested your case.  You felt you had proven your case to the point of being able to rest it; that this turned out not to be the case is irrelevant.  Once again, it is the jury's turn to decide.  You already have two "Nays" and not a single "Aye". 

 

Moreover, no one is losing my case for me as my point still stands.  My son would not have free will if there were any strings attached.  However, if I gave him knowledge as to what various types of candy tasted like, it would not impair his freedom to choose; it would allow him to make a more informed decision.  Point by point, you are being refuted.  Doesn't seem like losing to me.

 

 

Exactly Prof!  goodjob.gif

 

End is confusing two things.

 

The cognitive ability to make an informed choice. (Which Adam and Eve did not have.)

The consequences attached to the decision.  (Which Adam and Eve could not understand.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello christian lurkers.  I know we have some in here.

 

Do you agree with what End3 has said here?  If so, register on this site, declare you're an authentic christian believer, and say just 3 words "aye" signifying you agree with End3.

 

Unlike your bible god, this choice is an example of free will.  You are entirely free to declare you stand with End3's remarks, or you can choose not to participate, or you can even sign up and disagree with End3 and present what you think of the subject.

 

You can do any of the above without any consequences such as death or everlasting hellfire or a divine gun to your head.  You are that child that RNP describes in his story:

"You can choose anything, literally anything, you want to do without any strings attached or punishments threatened."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the same faith that radical Islamist rely on. Tell me, how do you have faith without reason or emotion? What's left but guesswork? bill

 

 

 

No, it's not the same leap as a radical Islamist. I can take my leap with a ham sandwich

and a cold glass of beer. I'm not jumping into law, but grace.

 

I didn't guess...I just took the leap. ironhorse

 

 

 

ironhorse:

You still did not answer my question. If you did't use reason or emotion, on what did you base your decision to "leap"? And on what basis could you criticize radical Islamist

for their leap? bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Maybe y'all should recess in order to make a plan....all of your witnesses Prof are losing your case for you.

End3, you can't continue trying to make points or speculations once you have rested your case.  You felt you had proven your case to the point of being able to rest it; that this turned out not to be the case is irrelevant.  Once again, it is the jury's turn to decide.  You already have two "Nays" and not a single "Aye". 

 

Moreover, no one is losing my case for me as my point still stands.  My son would not have free will if there were any strings attached.  However, if I gave him knowledge as to what various types of candy tasted like, it would not impair his freedom to choose; it would allow him to make a more informed decision.  Point by point, you are being refuted.  Doesn't seem like losing to me.

 

By your own definition as stated above, did Adam have free will? You're going to have to pull a rabbit out of your hat sir on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Maybe y'all should recess in order to make a plan....all of your witnesses Prof are losing your case for you.

End3, you can't continue trying to make points or speculations once you have rested your case.  You felt you had proven your case to the point of being able to rest it; that this turned out not to be the case is irrelevant.  Once again, it is the jury's turn to decide.  You already have two "Nays" and not a single "Aye". 

 

Moreover, no one is losing my case for me as my point still stands.  My son would not have free will if there were any strings attached.  However, if I gave him knowledge as to what various types of candy tasted like, it would not impair his freedom to choose; it would allow him to make a more informed decision.  Point by point, you are being refuted.  Doesn't seem like losing to me.

 

By your own definition as stated above, did Adam have free will? You're going to have to pull a rabbit out of your hat sir on this one.

 

At least he has a hat, and a rabbit, among other things.  You…not so much.

 

Thanks for giving the lurkers yet another example of a self-absorbed Christian twisting in the wind while digging a deeper and deeper hole (doing both at the same time is quite a feat). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RNP wrote, and BAA quoted him:

 

"Free will would be allowing him to choose anything, literally anything, he wants without any strings attached or punishments threatened."

 

Now End3 is twisting RNP's words. 

 

I don't think the christian knows it's illegal in the court of human law to have someone sign anything while under duress.

 

If we humans think that's illegal, any notion of any god should be held to the same standards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RNP wrote, and BAA quoted him:

 

"Free will would be allowing him to choose anything, literally anything, he wants without any strings attached or punishments threatened."

 

Now End3 is twisting RNP's words. 

 

I don't think the christian knows it's illegal in the court of human law to have someone sign anything while under duress.

 

If we humans think that's illegal, any notion of any god should be held to the same standards.

Here's a challenge to you Roz or you sdel. Per Prof's words you quoted, please define how God violated free will. Please don't put it back on me because I will never satisfy that demand in you mind....so please help me understand where exactly the Scripture violates what the Prof has described as free will. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you cognitively challenged?  You can't make a choice using free will if you aren't sufficiently informed. Adam and Eve were not informed, they were disadvantaged in the knowledge department. 

 

It's like telling a toddler to not touch the candy because it will make him like mommy and daddy… and his entire future depends on his choice. He can not envision his future because his worldview is far too narrow - he does not have the information, knowledge or wisdom to make the right choice. Of course he's going to touch the candy… good grief, it's looks tasty and mommy and daddy are EXACTLY what he wants to be like.. it's all he knows… it's all he can envision himself as.

 

As I said before we restrict choices for minors and incompetent people… for good reason. We effectively become responsible for them because they aren't able to use their free will in a way that isn't potentially destructive, either to themselves or others… to grant them those freedoms would be irresponsible. We give them GUARDIANS, by law… your god, like any competent person, was RESPONSIBLE for his creations (children). You don't leave a hot iron near a child… or a potentially fatal fruit either. In psychology he would be deemed corrupt, chaotic and depriving and the 'family system' dysfunctional and cult like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's impossible for him to understand it.  He's not intelligent enough, and let me clarify that statement.  His religion is a self-imposed mental block that prevents him from understanding it.  Without it, I'm betting 5 oxen that he will get it instantly.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you cognitively challenged?  You can't make a choice using free will if you aren't sufficiently informed. Adam and Eve were not informed, they were disadvantaged in the knowledge department. 

 

It's like telling a toddler to not touch the candy because it will make him like mommy and daddy… and his entire future depends on his choice. He can not envision his future because his worldview is far too narrow - he does not have the information, knowledge or wisdom to make the right choice. Of course he's going to touch the candy… good grief, it's looks tasty and mommy and daddy are EXACTLY what he wants to be like.. it's all he knows… it's all he can envision himself as.

 

As I said before we restrict choices for minors and incompetent people… for good reason. We effectively become responsible for them because they aren't able to use their free will in a way that isn't potentially destructive, either to themselves or others… to grant them those freedoms would be irresponsible. We give them GUARDIANS, by law… your god, like any competent person, was RESPONSIBLE for his creations (children). You don't leave a hot iron near a child… or a potentially fatal fruit either. In psychology he would be deemed corrupt, chaotic and depriving and the 'family system' dysfunctional and cult like.

The Profs argument is if they are "informed" to some degree, then it AINT free will. I'm not stupid. So the question is AGAIN, how much informing is going beyond the ability of Adam to be free. The Prof is saying it's ok to tell the kid the candy is good, but if he warns him of consequences, then free will is compromised.

 

So AGAIN, Roz or Raven, feel free to elaborate on how much "informed" compromises free will? And be exact as both of you seem to have the answers.

 

And Roz, actually respond rather than say how bad I am. Go ahead and step out there yourself if you have the nuts....which you obviously don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The stupidity of the christian knows no bounds apparently.  Bless his heart, he's trying but he just can't grasp the logic.  It's both sad and adorable to watch him try and make the connection. 

 

Gen 3

But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

 

Adam and Eve had no idea:

1.  what death was

2.  what being 'like a god' was like

3.  what 'good' was

4.  what 'evil' was

5.  what 'having their eyes opened' was

 

That's all the information they were given.  It's like this:

Place a loaded gun in the middle of the room.  Place a 2 year old in the room.  Place toys in the room.  Tell the 2 year old not to play with the gun or else 'he will die.'  Place someone who will attempt to hand the gun to the 2 year old and then tell the toddler "go on!"  When the toddler has no clue what's happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.