If there is sin in the world because we have free will

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
Infinix
Newbie
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 1:28 am

If there is sin in the world because we have free will

Post by Infinix »

Then wouldn't Christians have to give up their free will(which for whatever reason they will freely practice it however they want ignoring God's inerrant word) in order to go to heaven? Even in confession, you are expressing your regrets out of free will which means no matter what you do, even if you believe in God, you would still go to hell as long as you still have free will(which is impossible to give up or at least no one knows how to) so there is absolutely no benefit in preaching God.

I do not understand how Christians can continue believing that they will go to heaven when their God has locked their fate from the very beginning.
User avatar
DDDx8
Newbie
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat May 17, 2014 9:23 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: If there is sin in the world because we have free will

Post by DDDx8 »

First, the thing that always stumps when thinking about freewill is what exactly does it mean in their context? It's not just choice, I don't think, if it was why not call it that. But anyhow I will try to think in a religious view point and come up with a answers.
Then wouldn't Christians have to give up their free will(which for whatever reason they will freely practice it however they want ignoring God's inerrant word) in order to go to heaven?
Yes, but then again we don't really know what it means to give that up, if you think about it heavens supposed to be perfect so how can it be perfect when people are so conflicting. So, I think people's minds would be even more altered somehow to align with what heaven is, I guess that would be no freewill, again I don't know what it means though.

If you think about it, really practicing religion, like in some places, is giving up freewill. You can only choose what the book and God says, you have to do what God says, if you disobey God you have to atone or die. So I think most religion, at the very least, is indirectly okay with having to give up your own choices and "choose" to do only what God says. Some softys might say "no you still keep freewill in heaven" but religion at it's core, I think, takes choice and free will away.
To find the world of shoulds so one day others might not have to suffer like the people in the world now.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: If there is sin in the world because we have free will

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Religious concepts of free will aren't coherent. It's more useful to focus on the incoherence of the concept than on easily answered doctrinal questions.

As to how an expert Christian apologist would answer your questions:

*apologist mode, activate*
Infinix wrote:Then wouldn't Christians have to give up their free will(which for whatever reason they will freely practice it however they want ignoring God's inerrant word) in order to go to heaven?
No, salvation is through god's forgiveness, enacted by the blood sacrifice of his son and embodiment on Earth, Jesus Christ. Christians are purified of sin, despite free will and the inevitability of constant sin, by that sacrifice; all they have to do is accept the forgiveness.

If they stopped accepting the forgiveness out of free will, then they would go to hell.

In heaven, people still have free will; they are just freed of the bodily temptations and physical sin, making all sins except for rejection of god/Jesus impossible.
Satan dwelt in heaven, and he had free will- and he rejected god.

A Christian in heaven, like any angel, can still fall. But in practice, this rarely happens.

Satan disobeyed god because god created man kind, and he was envious, because man was god's favorite creation.
Christians in heaven, being god's favorite, have no other being in the universe to be envious of- they have everything.

So, rejection of god would be unlikely.
They are free to do it, but they won't.
Infinix wrote:Even in confession, you are expressing your regrets out of free will which means no matter what you do, even if you believe in God, you would still go to hell as long as you still have free will(which is impossible to give up or at least no one knows how to) so there is absolutely no benefit in preaching God.
To the contrary, loving god has benefit only because we have free will. If we did not choose, then there would be no point of reward or punishment.

You can't give up your free will, but you can choose to accept Jesus' forgiveness, and absolve yourself of the sins you commit- you're automatically forgiven of everything you do if you accept him into your heart. So, it's impossible to die in sin if you are a Christian.

Free will does result in sin, constantly, and that's why Jesus' sacrifice was necessary to save the world from it. Now the only thing you need your free will to do is accept it.
Infinix wrote:I do not understand how Christians can continue believing that they will go to heaven when their God has locked their fate from the very beginning.
Fate is not locked, Jesus unlocked it. All you have to do is open your heart to receive the key. That's what free will allows us to do- it's a gift, not a curse.


*apologist mode deactivate*

Obviously that's all bullshit, but it answers your challenges fully.
That's why doctrinal challenges to theology are useless- sometimes, worse than useless, because it gives the apologist a platform and audience to preach to.

You have to challenge the foundational qualities of the deity in question on logical grounds, rather than unnecessarily accepting their inherently false premises and giving them the opportunity to make up internally consistent sounding explanations that make them look smart to the audience.
User avatar
DLH
Newbie
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:21 pm
Location: The Future: Laurasia, New Pangea

Re: If there is sin in the world because we have free will

Post by DLH »

Infinix wrote:Then wouldn't Christians have to give up their free will(which for whatever reason they will freely practice it however they want ignoring God's inerrant word) in order to go to heaven? Even in confession, you are expressing your regrets out of free will which means no matter what you do, even if you believe in God, you would still go to hell as long as you still have free will(which is impossible to give up or at least no one knows how to) so there is absolutely no benefit in preaching God.

I do not understand how Christians can continue believing that they will go to heaven when their God has locked their fate from the very beginning.
Hello, Infinix,

There has been some confusion over the years regarding many of the teachings of apostate Christianity. The church has adopted primarily pagan teachings that are contrary to the Bible. For example, the Bible doesn't teach hell. That comes from Babylon and was introduced to the church through Milton and Dante. The Bible also doesn't teach that everyone goes to heaven. The meek shall inherit the earth and live forever upon it.

To answer your question from my perspective, free will allows for the possibility of sin, but it doesn't insist upon it. Jesus demonstrated what Paul called the sacred secret, namely that it was possible for man to avoid sin. Adam didn't have to sin. He didn't have to die.
Image
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: If there is sin in the world because we have free will

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Jehovah's witnesses (and similar traditions) have another view, although it's uncommon among Christians (most of whom accept as doctrine cultural and mythological additions that go far beyond what the Bible says).
DLH wrote: To answer your question from my perspective, free will allows for the possibility of sin, but it doesn't insist upon it. Jesus demonstrated what Paul called the sacred secret, namely that it was possible for man to avoid sin. Adam didn't have to sin. He didn't have to die.
Why do you believe in free will at all? And what do you think it is?

What does the Bible really say about free will? Does it say absolute free will exists?
User avatar
DLH
Newbie
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:21 pm
Location: The Future: Laurasia, New Pangea

Re: If there is sin in the world because we have free will

Post by DLH »

brimstoneSalad wrote:Jehovah's witnesses (and similar traditions) have another view, although it's uncommon among Christians (most of whom accept as doctrine cultural and mythological additions that go far beyond what the Bible says).
DLH wrote: To answer your question from my perspective, free will allows for the possibility of sin, but it doesn't insist upon it. Jesus demonstrated what Paul called the sacred secret, namely that it was possible for man to avoid sin. Adam didn't have to sin. He didn't have to die.
Why do you believe in free will at all? And what do you think it is?

What does the Bible really say about free will? Does it say absolute free will exists?
The Bible basically indicates that the angels were created long before we were, and they had free will. That is they had the ability to do as they please. They could have sinned, but they matured to the point of being able to distinguish right and wrong according to their creator, who, of course, would know better than they. Man was created in a similar way but wasn't allowed to mature. This is why Bible said, at Genesis 3:22: "Jehovah God then said: “Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad. "" Meaning that man (literally, Adam) had chosen to decide for himself what was good and what was bad before they had accrued the wisdom to realize that it was wisest to grant that to his creator.

The tree of the knowledge of good and bad was simply a reminder, a representation, of Jehovah's sovereignty. The Jerusalem Bible, in a footnote to Genesis 2:17, puts it this way: "This knowledge is a privilege which God reserves to himself and which man, by sinning, is to lay hands on, Genesis 3:5, 22. Hence it does not mean omniscience, which fallen man does not possess; nor is it moral discrimination, for unfallen man already had it and God could not refuse it to a rational being. It is the power of deciding for himself what is good and what is evil and of acting accordingly, a claim to complete moral independence by which man refuses to recognise his status as a created being. The first sin was an attack on God’s sovereignty, a sin of pride.”

I don't know exactly what is meant by "absolute free will." If that implies free will without consequences, then that isn't very realistic. Perhaps you would be interested in an article I wrote on Determinism and Free Will, at Pathway Machine.
Image
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: If there is sin in the world because we have free will

Post by brimstoneSalad »

DLH wrote: The Bible basically indicates that the angels were created long before we were, and they had free will.
Does it really, or are you reading into it what you're looking for? Do you consider Elohim to be the court of angels?
DLH wrote: That is they had the ability to do as they please. They could have sinned, but they matured to the point of being able to distinguish right and wrong according to their creator, who, of course, would know better than they. Man was created in a similar way but wasn't allowed to mature.
It's an interesting interpretation, but it doesn't say any of that.
DLH wrote: This is why Bible said, at Genesis 3:22: "Jehovah God then said: “Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad. "" Meaning that man (literally, Adam) had chosen to decide for himself what was good and what was bad before they had accrued the wisdom to realize that it was wisest to grant that to his creator.
I think that's the meaning you're putting on it, but the meaning itself was never clearly discussed in the bible. I don't agree with your interpretation.

Rather, if you want to interpret it more reasonably, man acquired reason and was able to then tell right from wrong in basic principle - but he didn't acquire the degree of advanced and comprehensive knowledge needed to do so accurately.

If you know the basics of logic, you need correct reason AND true premises to reach a true conclusion. Man acquired only reason, which he fills in with whatever premises he wants in his ignorance.

Good and evil are based on logic alone, and they are inherent. It is only that knowledge is required to correctly reason these things to their proper conclusions- the more knowledge you have, the more correct you can be, and the fewer mistakes (unless delusion comes in, and corrupts that logical process of pure reason). With less knowledge, our views on good and evil are more fuzzy. Even with the knowledge we have now, some things are clearer than others.

If a being exists that is known for certain to be both:

A. Good
and
B. More knowledgeable than us

Then we should defer to its judgement on moral matters.

Not because a more powerful being arbitrarily declares something to be good. That's not objective morality, that's might-makes-right relativism.

In this sense, I see many Christians as nihilists who don't really believe in good and evil.
If you believe something is only good or bad because a god declared it, you don't believe in good or evil- you're just a moral relativist by another name.
If you believe something is good or bad inherently (regardless of the opinions of any being), and a god (being wiser and more knowledgeable) has a better view on that and can potentially impart that knowledge, then that's a different matter entirely - this is something I can relate to, and understand.

DLH wrote:Hence it does not mean omniscience, which fallen man does not possess;
Correct.
DLH wrote:nor is it moral discrimination, for unfallen man already had it and God could not refuse it to a rational being.
What makes them (or you) think that?
Unfallen man seemed a child; he could not reason on the level of a philosopher, and was easily beguiled. He knew only what he was told. He knew it was wrong to eat from the tree because YHWH told him it was, and then he knew it was OK because the serpent told him it was. He could clearly not discriminate.
DLH wrote:It is the power of deciding for himself what is good and what is evil and of acting accordingly, a claim to complete moral independence by which man refuses to recognise his status as a created being. The first sin was an attack on God’s sovereignty, a sin of pride.”
No, the first sin was, once man truly knew good from evil (after eating from the tree), the first knowingly wrong thing he did. Even, perhaps, something trivial- and more likely something trivial (I've heard waste suggested). Which is why he could not eat from the tree and stay in paradise; some trivial form of sin was inevitable once he obtained the ability to reason morality and know good from evil himself.

DLH wrote: I don't know exactly what is meant by "absolute free will." If that implies free will without consequences, then that isn't very realistic. Perhaps you would be interested in an article I wrote on Determinism and Free Will, at Pathway Machine.
No, not absent consequence, but absent determinism or randomness. Not absent what follows, but absent what precedes and forces it into one state, and absent determination by meaningless randomness.

I read the article; that mostly addresses the conflict between some interpretations of YHWH's foreknowledge and free will. I'm asking about the will itself.

Do you believe the will causes its own choices? Isn't the will just an expression of choice? If so, how do you believe a thing can cause itself?
Or is will random?
Or is will determined by the past, experience, memories, expectations?

Or is it a combination of these things?

I believe will is a combination of random and deterministic factors. I do not believe a will causes itself- this I see as inherently self contradictory, and indicative of a logical flaw at the foundation of any theistic worldview that asserts this. A theistic worldview without this component, however, cannot be criticized on those grounds, and becomes a "possibility" as far as I can tell.

I have to reject as inherently illogical any world view that asserts that a thing creates itself- whether that is a will creating itself, or a god doing the same.
User avatar
DLH
Newbie
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:21 pm
Location: The Future: Laurasia, New Pangea

Re: If there is sin in the world because we have free will

Post by DLH »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Does it really, or are you reading into it what you're looking for? Do you consider Elohim to be the court of angels?
Well, we know that, according to science, the Earth is billions of years old and the heavens (universe) is billions of years older. Linguistically Genesis 1:1, with it's use of the perfect state of the word bara (create) indicates completion. The heavens and the Earth were complete at Genesis 1:1, and the "days" of creation took place some time later. Each of those "days" could have lasted millions of years, the seventh day, a day of rest, which began upon the completion of creation, continues to this day. (Psalm 95:11 / Hebrews 3:11; 4:1-10) And then there is Job 38:4-7 where the angels joyfully cried out and applauded the completion of the Earth. Also we know that Jesus, in his pre-human form, was created before all of that. (Proverbs 8:12, 22-31 /Colossians 1:15-17)

As for Elohim, that is a Hebrew word translated god or gods. It comes from a root word meaning "be strong." Its applied to Jehovah, (Genesis 1:1) to angels (Psalm 8:5) to idol gods (Exodus 12:12) Dagon (1 Samuel 5:7) the goddess Ashtoreth (1 Kings 11:5) and Marduk (Daniel 1:2), also to men, as with the Judges of Israel (Psalm 82:1, 6 See John 10:34, 35)

As for your court of angels question, could you give scriptural reference?
brimstoneSalad wrote: It's an interesting interpretation, but it doesn't say any of that.
It kind of does. Regarding the rebellious angel later known as Satan we have the parallel reference with the King of Tyre. (Ezekiel 28:11-19) The demons, being rebellious, were obviously created without sin originally. Then the scriptures I gave where God says "Man has become like us."
brimstoneSalad wrote: I think that's the meaning you're putting on it, but the meaning itself was never clearly discussed in the bible. I don't agree with your interpretation.
You were not impressed by the quote from the 1966 Jerusalem Bible? 'Cause, that's about as good as it gets.
brimstoneSalad wrote:Rather, if you want to interpret it more reasonably, man acquired reason and was able to then tell right from wrong in basic principle - but he didn't acquire the degree of advanced and comprehensive knowledge needed to do so accurately.

If you know the basics of logic, you need correct reason AND true premises to reach a true conclusion. Man acquired only reason, which he fills in with whatever premises he wants in his ignorance.

Good and evil are based on logic alone, and they are inherent. It is only that knowledge is required to correctly reason these things to their proper conclusions- the more knowledge you have, the more correct you can be, and the fewer mistakes (unless delusion comes in, and corrupts that logical process of pure reason). With less knowledge, our views on good and evil are more fuzzy. Even with the knowledge we have now, some things are clearer than others.

If a being exists that is known for certain to be both:

A. Good
and
B. More knowledgeable than us

Then we should defer to its judgement on moral matters.

Not because a more powerful being arbitrarily declares something to be good. That's not objective morality, that's might-makes-right relativism.

In this sense, I see many Christians as nihilists who don't really believe in good and evil.
If you believe something is only good or bad because a god declared it, you don't believe in good or evil- you're just a moral relativist by another name.
If you believe something is good or bad inherently (regardless of the opinions of any being), and a god (being wiser and more knowledgeable) has a better view on that and can potentially impart that knowledge, then that's a different matter entirely - this is something I can relate to, and understand.
Interesting.
brimstoneSalad wrote: What makes them (or you) think that?
Unfallen man seemed a child; he could not reason on the level of a philosopher, and was easily beguiled. He knew only what he was told. He knew it was wrong to eat from the tree because YHWH told him it was, and then he knew it was OK because the serpent told him it was. He could clearly not discriminate.
Actually, that isn't entirely true. Eve was deceived, but Adam chose to disobey knowingly out of a fear that he would lose his wife and be unable to deal with that. 1 Timothy 2:14. "Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived and became a transgressor."
brimstoneSalad wrote: No, the first sin was, once man truly knew good from evil (after eating from the tree), the first knowingly wrong thing he did. Even, perhaps, something trivial- and more likely something trivial (I've heard waste suggested). Which is why he could not eat from the tree and stay in paradise; some trivial form of sin was inevitable once he obtained the ability to reason morality and know good from evil himself.
As you may know, to know something, in a Biblical sense, can involve various aspects of knowledge. Familiarity which might be acquired through being told, personal experience, study or observation. Adam had been told what was good and what was bad in a basic sense, but in order to observe or study what was bad Adam would have had to witness someone else experience it. To have a personal experience of what was bad Adam would have to do what was bad himself, and then you have to ask yourself, what sort of personal experience would Jehovah have with what was bad? None at all.

Most people look at the tree of the knowledge of good and bad as an allegorical tale of good vs. evil, a very simplistic but not entirely accurate interpretation.
brimstoneSalad wrote: No, not absent consequence, but absent determinism or randomness. Not absent what follows, but absent what precedes and forces it into one state, and absent determination by meaningless randomness.

I read the article; that mostly addresses the conflict between some interpretations of YHWH's foreknowledge and free will. I'm asking about the will itself.

Do you believe the will causes its own choices? Isn't the will just an expression of choice? If so, how do you believe a thing can cause itself?
Or is will random?
Or is will determined by the past, experience, memories, expectations?

Or is it a combination of these things?

I believe will is a combination of random and deterministic factors. I do not believe a will causes itself- this I see as inherently self contradictory, and indicative of a logical flaw at the foundation of any theistic worldview that asserts this. A theistic worldview without this component, however, cannot be criticized on those grounds, and becomes a "possibility" as far as I can tell.

I have to reject as inherently illogical any world view that asserts that a thing creates itself- whether that is a will creating itself, or a god doing the same.
What are you talking about? Free will isn't a philosophical metaphysical conundrum, its simply the ability to choose.
Image
User avatar
Volenta
Master in Training
Posts: 696
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 5:13 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: If there is sin in the world because we have free will

Post by Volenta »

DLH wrote:Actually, that isn't entirely true. Eve was deceived, but Adam chose to disobey knowingly out of a fear that he would lose his wife and be unable to deal with that. 1 Timothy 2:14. "Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived and became a transgressor."
Interesting reference you made there, I was literally just reading 1 Timothy 2:11-15. The quote you stripped from it was clearly made in the context of women's inferiority.

Excuse me for going off-topic, just noticed it. You can ignore it if you want, although I would find it interesting to know how you handle/think about such verses as someone who seems to know the bible very well.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: If there is sin in the world because we have free will

Post by brimstoneSalad »

DLH wrote:Well, we know that, according to science, the Earth is billions of years old[...]
Sorry, I meant mainly that they had "free will". It's a topic that isn't really addressed well in the bible.

I'm sure you know, in Islam, Angels don't have free will. Satan was of the Djinn; another class of being which may not be mentioned in the bible.

Can you find a direct contradiction to this in Christian Scripture?

Also, do you think YHWH created all of the angels? Why?
DLH wrote:As for your court of angels question, could you give scriptural reference?
By "court of angels" I mean YHWH's angels, as in his court (by analogy to a king). I didn't mean to imply anything special.

DLH wrote: It kind of does. Regarding the rebellious angel later known as Satan we have the parallel reference with the King of Tyre. (Ezekiel 28:11-19) The demons, being rebellious, were obviously created without sin originally. Then the scriptures I gave where God says "Man has become like us."
I'm only seeing that a particular kind of angel which was cast down was created without sin. It doesn't say anything about free will; it talks about cause and effect, and an inherent character flaw in the angel.
I'm also not seeing anything about right and wrong, or about it being arbitrarily defined by the creator.
DLH wrote:You were not impressed by the quote from the 1966 Jerusalem Bible? 'Cause, that's about as good as it gets.
It's just a commentary of a particular interpretation.

More problematic, it's an interpretation that is inherently relativistic and nihilistic.

There is no truly objective good and evil in the universe? It's just defined as the whim of whatever happened to create you? Could your creator turn around tomorrow and say eating babies is good, and then it would become so?
This notion makes it impossible to define any god as good in itself, but moreover, if you were created by Satan, good would then be for you whatever Satan wanted it to be.

Have you read Socrates' dialogue with Euthyphro?

This issue is one of circular reasoning.

Is it beloved by the gods because it is pious, or is is pious because it is beloved by the gods?

It is good because YHWH's whim, or does YHWH declare things because they are good?

If Christianity rests on this kind of moral nihilism, I have to consider it to have negative moral value, and thus to be without any legitimacy.

If, instead, as I mentioned, Good and Evil are objective and pre-exist, and YHWH is just a good being that happens to be much wiser than we are, and due to this conveys this information to us which is founded in something essential to reality, that's another matter.

Unlike most, I do my best to give Christianity the benefit of the doubt. If something doesn't seem to make sense, I challenge myself to make sense of it. If something seems wicked, I look for an interpretation which is not wicked. I look for an internal logic, and it is by this method I can try to understand things.

If that internal logic is be definition circular, that's the end of it- it's proven incoherent.
If that internal logic is founded upon an inherently wicked premise- likewise, that's all I need to know.

I try to assume otherwise, and find alternatives others may have missed.
DLH wrote:Actually, that isn't entirely true. Eve was deceived, but Adam chose to disobey knowingly out of a fear that he would lose his wife and be unable to deal with that. 1 Timothy 2:14. "Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived and became a transgressor."
I don't put much stock in Saul, and I don't consider him an authority on what the original authors of the old testament meant.

Do you consider Saul to be infallible in his interpretations of scripture?

On occasion he says something wise, and then he'll turn around and say something absurd.
If the credibility of Christianity rests entirely on Saul, that's not a good thing.

As I said, I try to give a belief system the benefit of the doubt, to try to understand it. The best way to do that for Christianity is to disregard the majority of this Paulinian nonsense.

DLH wrote:Adam had been told what was good and what was bad in a basic sense, but in order to observe or study what was bad Adam would have had to witness someone else experience it. To have a personal experience of what was bad Adam would have to do what was bad himself, and then you have to ask yourself, what sort of personal experience would Jehovah have with what was bad? None at all.
I don't know what you're answering here; maybe you misunderstood me.

I'm saying that eating the fruit could not have been a sin. Instead, it gave him knowledge of good and evil, with which some trivial action following that amounted to his first sin.

If it could have been a sin, then there are some logical problems in what the fruit did that result in other negative interpretations leading to moral nihilism (see my mention of Euthyphro above).
DLH wrote: Most people look at the tree of the knowledge of good and bad as an allegorical tale of good vs. evil, a very simplistic but not entirely accurate interpretation.
It's a tale of knowledge and moral responsibility.

Wild animals, and Man before eating the fruit, are amoral beings. As man can reason, and know good from bad, he becomes a moral being and acquires responsibility for his wrong actions.
DLH wrote: What are you talking about? Free will isn't a philosophical metaphysical conundrum, its simply the ability to choose.
What do you think ability to choose means?

Are you familiar with hard determinism?

Does a rock choose to fall? Does the wind choose to blow?
At what point does mere effect from a cause gain the name of "choice"? What if you could not have done otherwise?
Post Reply