[Storyrider]

Something has been bugging me about the concept of sin and free will.

If a parent says to a child, you are free, and it is up to you if you want to steal that cookie and eat it, but if you do, I will beat the cr*p out of you--how is that freedom?

Sure there are laws of nature that are unforgiving. Like, if you eat the cookie, you may rot your teeth. Or, if you eat the cookie, you may get fat. Those are simply facts.

But when the parent imposes a moral law for eating the cookie, it is meant to limit freedom and make the person scared to choose the "wrong" choice, is it not?

Like, if you don't accept Christ, you are going to hell. Then is it really a free choice for me to not accept Christ? This is not an attempt to provide freedom, it is an attempt to limit me and control me. If you say, you can choose A or B, but if you choose B, you will be destroyed--how is that freedom?

[quankanne]

free will is about being able to make a decision even as you know the ramifications of that decision. Eating that cookie may make mama mad because it spoils your dinner, but you also know that it's going to taste good whether she's mad or not.

you can drink yourself silly, then choose to drive, knowing that you're endangering someone's life by that decision, yet that doesn't mean you absolutely CANNOT decide to drive.

as for the whole religious question (in particular, Christianity), the same holds true. You need to be informed of what consequences your decisions will lead to so that when you DO choose, you do it knowing those things.

I don't believe in scaring people to God by threatining hell and damnation for not believing in Jesus. I love the guy, but who am I to say that God isn't more open-minded when it comes to believing in Himself? There are many, many souls out there who don't know Jesus, who don't know God, yet who follow a moral impetus to be good men and women in their lifetimes. Do they get condemned to hell because they haven't professed either God or Jesus with their lips? Somehow, I don't think so, because God is way more loving (and forgiving) than mankind could ever hope to be.

on the flip side, if you are acutely aware of God – be it Father, Son or Holy Spirit – and do your best to sabotage a relationship with him, then yeah, you're taking serious chances with your soul because you know what the ramifications are.

the Good News, though, is that God understands all this struggle and gives us every opportunity to join in the relationship; he is not like a spurned lover who refuses to give additional chances because he's upset or hurt by what's been said or done.

[Trialbyfire]

Everyone has free will but regardless, there's no safe haven for any action. Some examples:

You choose to convert people to Christianity because you believe this is their salvation. Try this in a primarily Muslim country and you may find that the consequences can be dire.

You choose to stand up for what you believe in, like self-control. You stand to be disliked because people prefer to be victims. Oh well.

[norajane]

Like, if you don't accept Christ, you are going to hell. Then is it really a free choice for me to not accept Christ? This is not an attempt to provide freedom, it is an attempt to limit me and control me. If you say, you can choose A or B, but if you choose B, you will be destroyed--how is that freedom?

I understand what you're asking, but make sure that you consider the difference between religion and Christ/God.

Religions are what tell you that you will go to "hell" if you don't accept Christ. Did Christ or God ever say that? How would we know if he did or didn't? Maybe that's written in the Bible, but the Bible has been written and re-written and interpreted by MAN so many times that the "word of God" may have gotten a bit lost in the translation.

I believe some religions say something like hell is not a fiery pit full of demons, but simply the absence of Christ in your life or absence of faith. You have the choice to believe or not; choosing NOT doesn't mean a fiery pit, but living life without Christ in it.

I'd say, free will matters a lot more in choosing your religion or how to have faith and what faith. You don't have to believe in mean, punishing daddy God.

[Touche]

If a parent says to a child, you are free, and it is up to you if you want to steal that cookie and eat it, but if you do, I will beat the cr*p out of you--how is that freedom?

Because he can still choose to eat the cookie...or not.

I can't tell you how many times our son has chosen the wrong thing knowing full well what the consequences would be. When I asked him about it, he said in so many words, that the consequences were worth it to him. (I obviously need tougher consequences at times.)

So he is free to choose the action. But by choosing the action he's also choosing the consequence.

All actions have an outcome..whether positive or negative. We're all free to choose one or the other...children included.

As for the whole Christ thing...well I don't accept Christ since I'm a Jew. But I don't believe in the consequence. So by not choosing Christ, in my mind, I'm not choosing eternal hell, since I don't believe that that's the consequence.

Did that make sense?

[marlena]

When religious fanatics say that God gave us a free will they only do so in an attempt to justify all the horrors of humanity. They do not want to hold God responsible for wars,famine,cancer, child abuse etc.... If they did hold him responsible, then, God would cease to be a benevolent diety who looked after his childen but a cruel and vindictive monster who let out all evil when he created the universe.

[Storyrider]

Well, I think I see what some of you are saying.

Are you saying that religious rules aren't so much designed to direct our choices, as to highlight consequences that are already there?

I'm having some grave doubts about taking religious doctrine seriously these days. I have certainly never been orthodox in my actions, but I have always had respect for people who are, and assumed they were doing things "right" and I was doing things "wrong".

For example, I don't attend religious services regularly. That is a basic, no matter what religion you practice. So I am exercising my free will to spend my Saturday or Sunday in ways that I find restful, but I am also paying the consequences.

Some of the consequences may be that I don't have as much order and peace in my life, I don't have a regular method for renewing my spiritual connection. Those are natural consequences, it seems to me. But I can choose to risk that.

And if I take the law seriously but choose not to follow it (one of the ten commandments) I am risking that I will be in sin for not keeping the sabbath.

If I choose to accept the rule that I should go to temple on Saturday, and do so each Saturday, then I'm choosing to restrict my own freedom for the sake of the law and for a greater spiritual good, or maybe because I think it will make me a better person. So it is either that I accept the premise that it is a greater good universally, or a greater good for me on a personal level.

If I think it is better for me personally to do what I feel like on the weekends, then I can choose that. But then I am rejecting the basic tenents of my religion.

So, is it that I don't take my religion very seriously, or is it that I do take it seriously but would rather be in sin than change my habits?

If I don't take it seriously, then I think I probably am not a believer, in which case I should question the validity of practicing that religion if I can only commit to doing it in a half-arsed way.

If I would rather be in sin than change my habits, then I think, according to what Quank said, I am probably on really bad terms with God right now.

So either way, I'm in bad shape.

[Trialbyfire]

Story, there are no easy decisions or safe havens, in life. That's what free will is all about.

If you don't believe in the tenets of a specific organized religion, it also doesn't guarantee that you'll go up in flames, for an eternity. Organized religion is flawed, as doctrine is based on human interpretation.

There are enough people that don't follow human interpretation but still believe in the Holy Trinity.

[Touche]

If I think it is better for me personally to do what I feel like on the weekends, then I can choose that. But then I am rejecting the basic tenents of my religion.

I don't get that. How are you rejecting the basic tenents of your religion by just not going to temple or keeping the sabbath?

I don't do any of those things personally but I don't feel like I'm rejecting the basic tenents as much as I'm just choosing to not carry out the rituals associated with it.

Religion/spirituality comes from within in my opinion. Just because I don't attend services or light a candle doesn't mean I don't believe in what Judaism stands for.

I don't get where the "sin" part of it comes in for you. How are we sinners?

[norajane]

Are you saying that religious rules aren't so much designed to direct our choices, as to highlight consequences that are already there?

I'm saying religious rules ARE designed to direct choices - that's their sole purpose, in my opinion. Religion has always been about controlling the masses and their behavior through 'faith' in the religion itself.

However, you have free will to choose what religion you have faith in. Or none at all. You may find a religion whose dogma is more in line with your own beliefs. Or you may choose to develop your own faith altogether. The 'god' I believe in is a faith in love and nature as guiding forces in my life. Hell and damnation need not apply.

[Storyrider]

Originally Posted by Trialbyfire

Story, there are no easy decisions or safe havens, in life. That's what free will is all about.

If you don't believe in the tenets of a specific organized religion, it also doesn't guarantee that you'll go up in flames, for an eternity. Organized religion is flawed, as doctrine is based on human interpretation.

There are enough people that don't follow human interpretation but still believe in the Holy Trinity.

Yes, I think I agree with you. That is certainly how I behave.

How do you feel then, about people who do try to follow organized religion? Do you respect them, or do you feel they are misled?

Originally Posted by Touche

I don't get that. How are you rejecting the basic tenents of your religion by just not going to temple or keeping the sabbath?

I don't do any of those things personally but I don't feel like I'm rejecting the basic tenents as much as I'm just choosing to not carry out the rituals associated with it.

Religion/spirituality comes from within in my opinion. Just because I don't attend services or light a candle doesn't mean I don't believe in what Judaism stands for.

I don't get where the "sin" part of it comes in for you. How are we sinners?

Well, Touche, I am very much like you. I practice my own brand of watered-down Judaism, or most days, I'm just a cultural Jew who does the God stuff when the urge hits me, not out of obligation or to conform to any laws.

You and I have a very modernist way of looking at religion, though. Keeping the sabbath is one of the ten commandments, so that is why I would say you and I are technically "in sin" if we believe in the ten commandments. What we are doing is picking the commandments we like and ignoring the ones we don't like. We're buffet-style Jews.

[marlena]

Are you saying that religious rules aren't so much designed to direct our choices, as to highlight consequences that are already there?

I think they are designed to do both. Control your actions/choices by stressing the consequences. Both are based on dogma.

So I am exercising my free will to spend my Saturday or Sunday in ways that I find restful, but I am also paying the consequences.

Only if you seem them as consequences.

And if I take the law seriously (one of the ten commandments) I am risking that I will be in sin for not keeping the sabbath.

Again, it depends on how much you hold the tents of your religion to be absolute.

[Storyrider]

[quote=norajane;1616239]I'm saying religious rules ARE designed to direct choices - that's their sole purpose, in my opinion. Religion has always been about controlling the masses and their behavior through 'faith' in the religion itself.

I believe this, too. In fact, I'm coming to believe that religion is an adaptive human behavior designed to boost the survival of the species. Many of the rules come down to maximizing procreation and ensuring the safety of children.

I think religion benefits societies more than individuals. If you were a woman before the advent of birth control, you had very little free will indeed. All for the benefit of the species.

[marlena]

If I don't take it seriously, then I think I probably am not a believer, in which case I should question the validity of practicing that religion in a half-arsed way.

Or maybe question why you question the validity of your religion.

[marlena]

So either way, I'm in bad shape.

No, you are just fine.