Clete:
You haven’t said anything. All you’re doing is stomping your foot. I said, where there is a law, there is no free will. I didn’t say there was “no” law, or that the law is bad, or that I want a world where I can do whatever I want with no consequences. You are quoting yourself and attributing it to me. Is that how you “win” all your arguments? By pulling the string attached to the side of your neck and squawking, “Repent, or burn! Repent, or burn!” like a Chatty Cathy Doll?
If a will is limited, it’s not free. I said that the law limits man’s will. If limiting man’s will is not the point of law, the law is pointless. I am saying that where there is a law, there can “be” no free will. Threats of punishment are not only the basis of our legal and prison system, it is the basis of the Christian religion. Adam’s will was not “free” if exercising his will cost him his life.
Would you agree that the law is by nature “coercive”? Why is a law necessary? Most laws are obeyed voluntarily. Most of us don’t need a “law” against stealing in order to not steal. If we are obeying the law voluntarily, the law has no affect. Honest citizens are, literally, above the law. The law against stealing only affects thieves. The thief may “choose” to steal, but there is no way his decision is “free’ if the “price” is five-to-ten with no chance of parole. For those contemplating theft, but deterred by the law, obviously their wills have been “hindered” by the law. A will compelled by the force of law, and the threat of punishment, cannot be free. The will is only free if acting without fear of reprisal.
You are implying that if the Godfather holds a gun to my head, and makes me an offer I can’t refuse, that I’m free to choose to submit and live or free to resist and be murdered. The “choice” to live or die is mine, therefore the Godfather’s offer is valid. The freedom to die is not much of an offer, but history is full of heroes and patriots and even martyrs making such “choices” when forced to choose between slavery and freedom. Even Christians can admire those who on principle choose death over life, except when exercising the same “right to choose” when “crossing” the Christian Godfather.
Having a “choice” is not the test of free will. Free will can only exist if choices are made without fear of reprisal. Is the Pepsi Challenge “free” if choosing Coke (perhaps your preferred beverage) is made a capital crime? It is sheer stubbornness to maintain that a law forbidding Coke has not influenced your decision to choose Pepsi. It is likewise folly to insist that Adam was in any way “free” to choose between eating and not eating “forbidden” fruit, any more than you are “free” to choose “forbidden” soft drinks in a Pepsi-controlled police state. Paying our federal income taxes is, supposedly, “voluntary,” too. We don’t “have” to pay our taxes, but we understand that “voluntary” does not mean we are “free” to not pay our taxes. “Voluntary” in this case means we are free to go to jail.
If God’s offer to Adam was legitimate, and Adam’s will was free, Adam’s decision to eat or not eat would have carried no threat of reprisal. True freedom, like true love, is unconditional, or it isn’t free. Did the Christian god create a free man, or a slave? If he created a race of slaves, he is worthy of neither our obedience or our love.
This is not a critique of the nature of the "true" god, but of the mythological "gangster"-god of Christianity.
You haven’t said anything. All you’re doing is stomping your foot. I said, where there is a law, there is no free will. I didn’t say there was “no” law, or that the law is bad, or that I want a world where I can do whatever I want with no consequences. You are quoting yourself and attributing it to me. Is that how you “win” all your arguments? By pulling the string attached to the side of your neck and squawking, “Repent, or burn! Repent, or burn!” like a Chatty Cathy Doll?
If a will is limited, it’s not free. I said that the law limits man’s will. If limiting man’s will is not the point of law, the law is pointless. I am saying that where there is a law, there can “be” no free will. Threats of punishment are not only the basis of our legal and prison system, it is the basis of the Christian religion. Adam’s will was not “free” if exercising his will cost him his life.
Would you agree that the law is by nature “coercive”? Why is a law necessary? Most laws are obeyed voluntarily. Most of us don’t need a “law” against stealing in order to not steal. If we are obeying the law voluntarily, the law has no affect. Honest citizens are, literally, above the law. The law against stealing only affects thieves. The thief may “choose” to steal, but there is no way his decision is “free’ if the “price” is five-to-ten with no chance of parole. For those contemplating theft, but deterred by the law, obviously their wills have been “hindered” by the law. A will compelled by the force of law, and the threat of punishment, cannot be free. The will is only free if acting without fear of reprisal.
You are implying that if the Godfather holds a gun to my head, and makes me an offer I can’t refuse, that I’m free to choose to submit and live or free to resist and be murdered. The “choice” to live or die is mine, therefore the Godfather’s offer is valid. The freedom to die is not much of an offer, but history is full of heroes and patriots and even martyrs making such “choices” when forced to choose between slavery and freedom. Even Christians can admire those who on principle choose death over life, except when exercising the same “right to choose” when “crossing” the Christian Godfather.
Having a “choice” is not the test of free will. Free will can only exist if choices are made without fear of reprisal. Is the Pepsi Challenge “free” if choosing Coke (perhaps your preferred beverage) is made a capital crime? It is sheer stubbornness to maintain that a law forbidding Coke has not influenced your decision to choose Pepsi. It is likewise folly to insist that Adam was in any way “free” to choose between eating and not eating “forbidden” fruit, any more than you are “free” to choose “forbidden” soft drinks in a Pepsi-controlled police state. Paying our federal income taxes is, supposedly, “voluntary,” too. We don’t “have” to pay our taxes, but we understand that “voluntary” does not mean we are “free” to not pay our taxes. “Voluntary” in this case means we are free to go to jail.
If God’s offer to Adam was legitimate, and Adam’s will was free, Adam’s decision to eat or not eat would have carried no threat of reprisal. True freedom, like true love, is unconditional, or it isn’t free. Did the Christian god create a free man, or a slave? If he created a race of slaves, he is worthy of neither our obedience or our love.
This is not a critique of the nature of the "true" god, but of the mythological "gangster"-god of Christianity.
