Tiburon
Well-known member
Semantics. For the victims of rape their life, as it was, is destroyed.Obviously not. If X is destroyed, X no longer is. Elementary. What you SHOULD have said is, "your life can be RUINED without you being dead."
Semantics. For the victims of rape their life, as it was, is destroyed.Obviously not. If X is destroyed, X no longer is. Elementary. What you SHOULD have said is, "your life can be RUINED without you being dead."
Yes, sin is an act of free will
Sinlessness, however, is not
You are free, here and there, to sin or not to sin countless times throughout life
You are not free, however, to live a life of perfect sinlessness
It is on this basis that Christianity, despite claims to the contrary, denies the existence of free will
Yep, just like I have been saying all along - you can choose between sinning and not sinning countless times throughout your life
What you cannot do, however, is choose to live a life of perfect sinlessness
God made it so that each and every one of us are inevitably compelled to sin at least once
God made it so that we are in need of Jesus Christ
God stole our free will
The inability to be sinless IS the negation of free will, stiggy!
It has nothing to do with being an idiot. It has to do with being unaware of the millions of variables that come to bear on a particular moment in your life.Where? Show me.
You mean if you're an idiot you won't. You'll realize that you were not a robot when you did.
And do you really think putting quote marks around the word "choice" makes it no longer a choice?
Yes the quote marks around the word "choice" are to indicate that though we may see it as a choice, that doesn't make it so.
No, only when we are actually discussing whether our actions are actually choices.So in your opinion, every time the word is used it should include quote marks, right?
If one questions whether he has ever made a choice in his life, he is pondering whether he might be essentially a robot. Robots have no self awareness, so he questions his own existence. After all, what makes us real other than our will? Our knowledge? Robots have that.
No one can convince me that I am pre-programmed. If I am, then my very existence is in doubt. But solipsism does not tempt me in the slightest. Existence has a way of intrinsically validating itself. The elements of that validation cannot be expressed in words. One just knows.
No, only when we are actually discussing whether our actions are actually choices.
How do you know robots can have no self awareness? Your basis for saying this is limited to the robots created by humans so far.
You are pre-programmed. You are pre-programmed by your genetics and every experience you have had in life.
Why does the possibility that you lack free will throw your existence into doubt?
Do robots not exist?
One doesn't just know. One just believes one knows.
1. Yes, we agree - sin {on an individual, case by case basis} is an act of free will1. Sin is an act of free will.
2. Eating and breathing are acts of free will.
3. No one can make it through life without sinning.
4. No one can make it through life without eating and breathing.
5. Yet we can choose not to breathe (hold our breath) and not to eat (fast) at specific times.
6. LIKEWISE WE CAN CHOOSE NOT TO SIN AT SPECIFIC TIMES.
1. Yes, we agree - sin {on an individual, case by case basis} is an act of free will
What you keep ignoring, however, is that what I am talking about is SINLESSNESS
3. Yes, we agree - no one can make it through life without sinning {i.e. being SINLESS}
And this is by the Hand of God
God chose that it be impossible for us to be SINLESS
We are not free to choose SINLESSNESS - therefore, we have no true free will
We are not free to choose SINLESSNESS - therefore, we have no true free will
They are pragmatic about it. Believe one thing but live contrary to it. That way you avoid the paralysis of making illusionary choices.If one is confused enough to doubt that he can ever even make a single choice in life, excuse me, I mean "choice," (LOL), then it must paralyze all of the poor guy's activity.
If we can't be sinless, it means we all sin.
Yes, but it also means that we are not free to be sinless
The idea, stiggy, is that God chose {of His own free will} that we be behind the 8-ball, so to speak, from the moment we come into the world
From the very moment we are born, we are already corrupt
Talk about stupidity!We've already dealt with that bit of stupidity, remember? Did you forget that I reminded you that just like we can't go without ever sinning, we also can't go without ever eating or breathing and how that hardly means we have no free will.
I didn't BOLD anythingAnd incidentally, the bold font is made for emphasis. When you bold everything, you emphasize nothing.
Once again, you are confusing me with God/Christians...The fact that you think babies are corrupt should make us all grateful that you never had kids of your own.
There is no correlative between
"we cannot sustain life without eating and breathing"
and
"we cannot live sinlessly"
No human being NEEDS to take the name of the Lord in vain
No human being NEEDS to commit adultery
No human being NEEDS to take any action labelled as sin in order to live
That was not Jesus' motivation or his goal when he went to the cross.The question is, if you thought that a crucifixion would buy you an eternity of ruling the universe, would you do it?
I would.
In a heartbeat.
Yep, agree1."We cannot live sinlessly" means that we cannot live without at times sinning.
Do you agree so far?
Yep2. "We cannot live without breathing or eating" means that we must eat and breathe at times to stay alive.
Still with me?
Nope - not too fast at all3. We can at times choose not to sin, e.g. when we resist temptation.
Am I going too fast?
Still with you4. We also can at times choose not to eat, e.g. when we fast, and not to breathe, e.g. when we are swimming underwater.
Still with me?
5. Breathing and sinning and eating are all free will acts.
WRONG!6. THEREFORE the fact that we cannot live without sinning, eating or breathing does not mean we have no free will.
On an individual, case by case basis, yes - breathing, sinning, and eating are all free will acts
However, we are NOT free to live lives of breathinglessness, eatinglessness, or sinlessness
Why the inability to sustain life without breathing and eating does not rise to the level of a negation of free will, while the inability to live sinlessly does, is because the sustainment of life via food and air has never, ever been, in it's totality, an act of the will
Breathing and eating are only acts of the will in the sense that one is free, as you say, to choose whether or not to eat dinner tonight and whether or not to hold their breath for a limited period of timeWhat? That makes no sense. Obviously breathing and eating ARE acts of the will. No one made me eat dinner tonight. No one is making me breathe right now. I can hold my breath if I wish.
Breathing and eating are only acts of the will in the sense that one is free, as you say, to choose whether or not to eat dinner tonight and whether or not to hold their breath for a limited period of time
one is NOT free {according to Christianity} to choose a life of never sinning
Why, though, does our inability to choose sinlessness rise to the level of a negation of free will, but an inability to go through life without eating and breathing does not?
It's because eating and breathing are inherently, naturally, biologically, physiologically driven compulsions that are absolutely NECESSARY to the continuation of life
You don't eat - you die
You don't breath - you die
Is the same true of sin?
Will I die if I don't take the name of the Lord in vain?
Will I die if I don't commit adultery?
No, of course, not!
Or are they just inputs which determine your action?Nonsense. Those influence my FREE WILL choices.
Let me rephrase. If you did lack free will why would that throw your existence into doubt?It doesn't. I have no doubt about either my existence nor about my free will.
And yet they still exist.Not as free will creatures, no.
It has nothing to do with confusion.No, THIS one, i.e. myself ...........knows.
If one is confused enough to doubt that he can ever even make a single choice in life, excuse me, I mean "choice," (LOL), then it must paralyze all of the poor guy's activity.
Or are they just inputs which determine your action?
Given those same inputs would you be able to make a different choice?
Let me rephrase. If you did lack free will why would that throw your existence into doubt?
And yet they still exist.