If I have free will, then I can choose never to sin. If, for whatever reason, you say I cannot, that it is impossible, then you deny my free will, you say something is preventing me from excersizing my free will, whether it be the Devil, temptation, ignorance, stupidity, what have you. You cannot have it both ways.
How do you recognize something as a sin or non-sin?
Limited free will. (Soft determinism.)
That might solve your apparent connundrum.
No, free will does not include flawless execution of that will.
Lucis - I can claim that you cannot choose never to sin. There’s no such thing as sin. You can’t choose it or unchoose it.
Just as a point of logic.
Mandy shares a desk with Pippa at the agency. Pippa has popped out to see a client. Mandy sees an individual chocolate cake on the desk, and supposes that Pippa didn’t finish her lunch. She carries on with her work. But the cake looks so nice. So her eyes glance furtively around, her hand reaches across, and soon the tasty morsel is no more.
Pippa returns, panting just a little, after the stairs. “How did you get on?” enquires Mandy. “Oh, they signed the contract, no problem.” She paused. “Did you enjoy the cake?”
“Cake?” Mandy looks unknowing, innocent.
“The choccy cake I left you. I told Alec to tell you it was for you.”
“Oh yes, thanks, it was gorgeous.”
So Mandy got away with it. The cake was hers all the time, and she did not steal it, but her conscience was compromised. Mandy didn’t have to take the cake. She did not have to sin. Sin only ocurs when conscience is compromised.
Let’s say for the sake of argument, sin is disobeying God’s law. Also for the sake of argument, let’s say God’s law is the ten commandments and the laws of leviticus.
Then we’re only partially responsible for our sins, so who or what else is responsible? Satan, our flesh? Since God created Satan and our flesh, then God is partially responsible for our sins. Perhaps we need to forgive him, as he has apparently forgiven us. “Judge not lest ye be judged”. Maybe Yaweh was taking his own advice when he forgave us and sent his son to die on a cross.
It does not guarentee perfection, but it does not guarentee imperfection either. Let me ask you another question. Did Yeshua have free will? If so, why didn’t he sin? Was it because he was omnipotent, omniscient? Then he had an unfair advantage.
Only inasmuch as the Wright Brothers are responsible for the crash of a Boeing 747.
Let’s assume there is for the sake of argument. I want to explore the absurdity and the fallacy of Jewish, Christian and Islamic doctrine.
Interesting point Ochaye. I have nothing to add or subtract from that.
That sounds deterministic. I want us to put aside determinism for now. Well, I suppose we could get into it a little. Did Schopenhauer offer any proofs for his assertion? Why can’t we will what we will?
It’s actually Compatibalism. “Free will” is interpreted as “freedom to act” based on different conception of Will.
He did not believe the Will is a matter of “freedom” or human choice. A person is free to act insofar as he is not coerced, but our motives are determined. The choice becomes whether or not one acts on those motives. He saw the concept of “free will” more akin to an occasional liberty than a total freedom of volition, motive, and intent.
That assumes two things:
-
That not-sin is a default state.
-
Free will is unlimited.
To be capable of sin requires the capacity for free will. Where freedom is born, “sin” is also there born. To contradict one’s essential nature, to take action in a void of meaning, at the expense of one’s past requires will, capacity for willing in a vacuum of sufficient freedom from being-determined-by. The extent of one’s sins is tied to the strength one’s soul has for bearing these sins – does one make oneself into a vessel for his Will, or is one subjugated by willing as such? How much sin can your soul bear upon itself without breaking?
Just like truth - internally. Unless it’s an obvious, eternal, set-by-society sin.
If “sin” is so arbitrary, what does that make God?
Why, to you, does the notion of internal recognition imply arbitrariness…?