Monty Hall's Production Crew: Arminian or Calvinist? Decision versus Outcome

Yes, sin is an act of free will
Sinlessness, however, is not

Of course it is. If I am tempted to steal and resist the temptation, I FREELY WILL not to steal.

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

EXACTLY! [Folks, is it possible this guy is about to have the truth dawn on him?]

It is on this basis that Christianity, despite claims to the contrary, denies the existence of free will

[Bummer. I spoke too soon, folks. Now watch. I'm going to ask him to scripturally support his dumb belief that Christianity denies the existence of free will, and he will come up empty-handed in his next reply. Watch:]

Quote book, chapter and verse in the Bible to support your belief that it 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

And you can choose to breathe or hold your breath, and to eat or fast countless times throughout your life.

What you cannot do, however, is choose to live a life of perfect sinlessness

And what you cannot do is choose to live a life of never breathing and never eating.

You're really a lightweight thinker, aren't you? I don't think you even realize how you constantly shoot down your own arguments.
But you just keep doing it. Watch:

God made it so that each and every one of us are inevitably compelled to sin at least once

Likewise, we are compelled to eat and breathe at least once.

God made it so that we are in need of Jesus Christ

You got that right.

God stole our free will

.......... he freely types.

The inability to be sinless IS the negation of free will, stiggy!

LOL. So you are contending that the inability to not be able to use your FREE WILL to sin negates free will. Got any other oxymoronic (with the emphasis on moronic) comments you'd like to make?

I think it's time we see that summary again which destroys your argument at its root for you to ignore again:

1. 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.
 
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?
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.
I mean that though, in your hypothetical, I will suffer the results of my action, I still won't know whether it was a free choice.
The extreme nature of your hypothetical gives us no more insight than if the example was "choosing" what to have for lunch.
It doesn't tell us that my choice was freely made and that in the exact same position I could make a different 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.
 
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.

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.
 
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. The question is how strictly that determines the course of your actions?
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.
 
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.

LOL. As if there are other kinds.

You are pre-programmed. You are pre-programmed by your genetics and every experience you have had in life.

Nonsense. Those influence my FREE WILL choices.

Why does the possibility that you lack free will throw your existence into doubt?

It doesn't. I have no doubt about either my existence nor about my free will.

Do robots not exist?

Not as free will creatures, no.

One doesn't just know. One just believes one knows.

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.
 
1. 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

6. Yes, we agree - we can choose not to sin at specific times
What you keep ignoring, however, is that what I am talking about is SINLESSNESS
We are not free to choose SINLESSNESS - therefore, we have no true free will
 
Last edited:
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

Yeah? And ....? Nobody said you weren't talking about it.

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

Absurd. We're not sinful because God chooses us to be. We're sinful because we sin.

We are not free to choose SINLESSNESS - therefore, we have no true free will

Do you have any idea how stupid that comment is? If we can't be sinless, it means we sin, i.e. we use our FREE WILL to sin.

We are not free to choose SINLESSNESS - therefore, we have no true free will

It is absolutely astounding that you could type something that dumb. Let me put it in bold for you:

If we can't be sinless, it means we all sin.
Sin is a free will act.
Therefore our inability to go sinless PROVES we have free will, the precise opposite of what you keep ignorantly typing.
 
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.
They are pragmatic about it. Believe one thing but live contrary to it. That way you avoid the paralysis of making illusionary choices.
 
If we can't be sinless, it means we all sin.

Yes, but it also means that we are not free to be sinless

If it helps you to understand any - feel free to substitute 'a state of grace' for sinlessness
Or 'in full communion with God'

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 and in need of sanctification
Were this not the case, there would never have been any reason for Jesus to come and die on the cross

We are not free to earn our own way into Heaven
We are not free to choose to be worthy in and of ourselves

This is the very basis of the Christian faith

1. An imposition of a problem
2. The presentation of a solution
3. Instruction upon the correct application of solution to problem

And what it all adds up to is an absence of free will
 

Yes, but it also means that we are not free to be sinless

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. Do you just not read my blowing away of your dumb points, or do you just ignore them?

And incidentally, the bold font is made for emphasis. When you bold everything, you emphasize nothing.

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

Remember the old silly Flip Wilson character who would sin and exclaim, "The Devil made me do it!" You're even sillier with your "God made me do it!" routine. Sillier, but not as funny a Flip.

From the very moment we are born, we are already corrupt

The fact that you think babies are corrupt should make us all grateful that you never had kids of your own.
 
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.
Talk about stupidity!

There is no correlative between
"we cannot sustain life without eating and breathing"
and
"we cannot live sinlessly"

The former is a biological, physiological exigency
The latter is not

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

You suck at equations, correlates, and analogies

And incidentally, the bold font is made for emphasis. When you bold everything, you emphasize nothing.
I didn't BOLD anything

All I did was click reply and typed a response

The fact that you think babies are corrupt should make us all grateful that you never had kids of your own.
Once again, you are confusing me with God/Christians...
 
There is no correlative between
"we cannot sustain life without eating and breathing"
and
"we cannot live sinlessly"

Of course there is.

I'm going to try yet again, and go REAL slow this time. I would say "stop me when you're getting confused or when you disagree," but since you've shown yourself to be incapable of learning how to format individual responses, that may be useless advice, but here goes:

1."We cannot live sinlessly" means that we cannot live without at times sinning.
Do you agree so far?

2. "We cannot live without breathing or eating" means that we must eat and breathe at times to stay alive.
Still with me?

3. We can at times choose not to sin, e.g. when we resist temptation.
Am I going too fast?

4. 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.

6. THEREFORE the fact that we cannot live without sinning, eating or breathing does not mean we have no free will.


But it's all even much more obvious if we just reflect for two seconds on your idiotic contention:

"The fact that we can't live sinless lives means there is no free will."

JUST THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE: The fact that we cannot live without using our FREE WILL to sin PROVES we have free will.

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

I agree. But no one said anyone NEEDS to do any of that. Who the heck claimed such needs exist?

You're really the lightest of lightweight thinkers. Now go ahead and ignore every point I made above and launch into another repetitive screed.
 
Last edited:
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.
That was not Jesus' motivation or his goal when he went to the cross.
That same evening he prayed NOT to have to go through the humiliation and suffering.
 
1."We cannot live sinlessly" means that we cannot live without at times sinning.
Do you agree so far?
Yep, agree

2. "We cannot live without breathing or eating" means that we must eat and breathe at times to stay alive.
Still with me?
Yep

3. We can at times choose not to sin, e.g. when we resist temptation.
Am I going too fast?
Nope - not too fast at all

4. 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?
Still with you

5. Breathing and sinning and eating are all free will acts.

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

Food and air, instead, are biological, physiological exigencies whereas sin is truly a matter of the will

A will that God perverted and retarded

6. THEREFORE the fact that we cannot live without sinning, eating or breathing does not mean we have no free will.
WRONG!

See #5
 
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

What do you mean "However?" The fact that none of us can live without breathing, sinning or eating is contrary to nothing I typed.

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

What? 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.

Robots don't choose to eat. Robots don't choose to breathe. Robots don't choose to sin.

Really man, you've definitely outdone yourself in terms of obtuseness on this subject matter. The sad thing about it is you don't even seem aware of how you are embarrassing yourself.
 
What? 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 to choose a life of never eating, stiggy
One is NOT free to choose a life of never breathing

Likewise, 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?

Simple!

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!

There is no such thing as an inherent, natural, biological, physiological compulsion to transgress against God's law {i.e. sin}
 
Last edited:
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

Ah, c'mon! Are you STILL struggling to understand something so simple? It's been days now. Don't tell me you've taken all this time trying to find some way to save face here till you've given up and decided to regurgitate the same nonsense that I have already thoroughly dismantled. Fine. Let's keep it going. Ready? OK:

What do you mean "only acts?" Eating is a completely free act. Not only can I FREELY CHOOSE what to eat and FREELY CHOOSE when to eat, I can FREELY CHOOSE NOT to eat, i.e. I can fast if I FREELY CHOOSE to.

one is NOT free {according to Christianity} to choose a life of never sinning

Good Lord, man! Do you see how with that sentence you just busted the living hell out of your own argument? Jeez, how can I penetrate something so clear into that fog enveloping your brain?

Look what you said. Sin is a free will act. If one cannot NOT sin, as you (and I) say, one therefore WILL commit the free will act of sin. ERGO: ONE HAS FREE WILL!

The proof, straight from your keyboard.

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?

None of the three do.

It's because eating and breathing are inherently, naturally, biologically, physiologically driven compulsions that are absolutely NECESSARY to the continuation of life

So? Nobody said they weren't. What's that got to do with free will? All three activities are acts of free will. The different motivations for enacting them obviously do not affect that. No one claimed that sinning is necessary for the "continuation of life."

You don't eat - you die
You don't breath - you die

Is the same true of sin?

You're asking if you'll die if you don't commit the ..................... [DRUM ROLL, PLEASE].....................

FREE WILL ACT OF SINNING?

Answer: NO. Are you really trying to make the case that all free will acts MUST have the same results if committed or not committed in order to be free will acts?

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!

Exactly. Who said you will die if you don't commit the FREE WILL ACTS of adultery or taking the name of the Lord in vain?

Why do you continue to ignore every point I make? Notice how I address what you say, sentence by sentence. Why can't you do the same? When you ignore my dismantling of your individual comments and just launch into reiterating the same comments, you simply necessitate my re-running my refutations for you to continue ignoring.
 
Nonsense. Those influence my FREE WILL choices.
Or are they just inputs which determine your action?
Given those same inputs would you be able to make a different choice?

It doesn't. I have no doubt about either my existence nor about my free will.
Let me rephrase. If you did lack free will why would that throw your existence into doubt?

Not as free will creatures, no.
And yet they still exist.

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.
It has nothing to do with confusion.
 
Or are they just inputs which determine your action?
Given those same inputs would you be able to make a different choice?

Yes. I can choose to do anything I am physically capable of doing. We all can. Input all you want. I am wholly other from the sum total of my conditioning and whatever the environment throws at me.

Let me rephrase. If you did lack free will why would that throw your existence into doubt?

If I doubt my existence, it is my will that doubts. Robots don't doubt.

And yet they still exist.

Robots? No. Not unless you feebly define existence. Machines don't have existential reality. They are real to us, but not to themselves. They have no selves.
 
Back
Top