Is there a nature of sin in free will?

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

cicero117
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue May 12, 2020 2:38 pm

Is there a nature of sin in free will?

Post by cicero117 »

God gave Adam the right to choose, freedom of choice to do right or wrong, the freedom of sinning and not sinning.

Does this mean there is a nature of sin in our free will?
If we are really "perfect" when we were made, doesn't that mean we should only know to do the right thing?

If a human is made perfect, then shouldn't we have "true knowledge" , hence should only do the right thing?

More so, what of the free will that angels have?
If they have a tint of sin in their free will then how are they able to exists besides God, who can't bear the existence of it?

When Lucifer sins, doesn't that means he knows that angels can, indeed, sin?
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Is there a nature of sin in free will?

Post by jayjacobus »

Humans don't function on instinct but think about what they are doing or plan to do, If animals sin because of instinct, humans are doomed to evaluate their actions in the context of sin which can be against their natural instincts.

Sin comes from societal norms, not from free will. Human instincts are constrained by these norms.

The seven natural instincts are called sins in order to control the behavior of people for the good of society.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is there a nature of sin in free will?

Post by Immanuel Can »

cicero117 wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 12:48 pm God gave Adam the right to choose, freedom of choice to do right or wrong, the freedom of sinning and not sinning.

Does this mean there is a nature of sin in our free will?
Do you mean to ask, "Is there a nature of sin in human beings?"

Or "Is it sinful to have free will?"

Those are quite different questions, of course. Empirically, we can say that the first one's obvious: there's something wrong with human beings, something that enables them to create pollution, genocides, torture chambers, oppression, greed, and so on. That stuff doesn't come from nowhere, obviously. And if human nature were free of any propensity to evil, such things could not exist at all.

But is "free will" itself sinful? Is that the question?

If so, we can ask what the term "free" can possibly mean. Can it mean "able to do only one kind of thing"? Can a creature be said to be "free" if it only can ever make one move in any given situation? Or does "free" imply that the creature in question can say "yes" or "no" to each option, or perhaps choose a different option altogether?

I think it's pretty apparent that "free" has to mean the second thing, not the first. A creature that has no option, ever, but to do the one thing it is assigned to do is an automaton of some kind. We can't intelligibly speak of it having "chosen" to do what it did, since it never had any other option anyway.

So "free will" has to entail at least the genuine option or possibility of the creature in question having chosen to do other than one thing. If it says "yes" to the good, it can only be because it had the option to say "yes" to the evil. Or if can be thought to have chosen to say "no" to the good, it can only be because it had the possibility of choosing to say "no" to the evil.

"Free will," then, is neither itself the good nor the evil, but it a condition of suspension or equipoise between them, from which position either the evil or the good can be selected volitionally.
If we are really "perfect" when we were made, doesn't that mean we should only know to do the right thing?

If a human is made perfect, then shouldn't we have "true knowledge" , hence should only do the right thing?
Correct. You're saying here, in a more concise way, what I have laboured to say above.
More so, what of the free will that angels have?
Well, we have so much built up confusion about this topic that I doubt we can make progress with it. For one thing, many people do not even believe in angels, so your question will seem to them like, "Can unicorns have free will?" But for another, even among those who do believe in angels, their angelology is not harmonious with, say, the Biblical account of what an angel is or does. So it's going to be very hard to get at free will by speculating based on beings believed mythical or on presuppositions not disciplined by the Biblical account.

So we might be best to focus on the case about which we actually do know something, which is the human case. We at least all think ourselves to be real, and we at least thing we have some basis of experience with free will ourselves, and some ability to observe it empirically in others.
cicero117
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue May 12, 2020 2:38 pm

Re: Is there a nature of sin in free will?

Post by cicero117 »

jayjacobus wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 2:45 pm
Sin comes from societal norms, not from free will. Human instincts are constrained by these norms.
How can there be a "norm" when Adam has no predecessor, hence no one to compare himself to?
cicero117
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue May 12, 2020 2:38 pm

Re: Is there a nature of sin in free will?

Post by cicero117 »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 3:42 pm
But is "free will" itself sinful? Is that the question?
Quite, but more specifically,

Is there a sinful "percentage" in the form of free will, say for example;

Free will consists of two aspects, 50% good and 50% sin, Adam choose the latter

Doesn't that mean when God gave human free will, He also gave them "sin" ? (I know this is not true, but I'm sure you get what I mean).

In the second coming of Christ it is said that we will never sin, then that means we have a different kind of free will, one that doesn't have the option for us to choose to sin, I know that this is a pointless question because we can't understand God fully, but why didn't He gave us that kind of free will since the beginning?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is there a nature of sin in free will?

Post by Immanuel Can »

cicero117 wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 4:54 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 3:42 pm
But is "free will" itself sinful? Is that the question?
Quite, but more specifically,

Is there a sinful "percentage" in the form of free will, say for example;

Free will consists of two aspects, 50% good and 50% sin, Adam choose the latter
I'm suggesting that's not how it is at all. Free will is a faculty.

Let me explain. A "faculty" is just an ability one has, a capability, if you will. "Eyesight" is a faculty. Eyesight is not evil. "Hearing" is a faculty...but it can be used to shut out the truth or to receive it. "Speaking" is a faculty...but it can be used to bless or curse.

However, eyesight and those others can be employed to DO evil. That does not mean we ought not to have eyesight: God has made us all with two eyes to see, and they can be used for good or evil. We all have ears to hear and tongues to speak. These are faculties.

Free will is a faculty. It makes it possible that you can choose evil. But it also empowers you so that you can genuinely choose good, since you can also reject the evil. So free will itself is not bad or good...it's a faculty.
Doesn't that mean when God gave human free will, He also gave them "sin" ? (I know this is not true, but I'm sure you get what I mean).
No, because free will is a faculty. It's not bad or good in itself, but can be employed for either. Like your eyes.
In the second coming of Christ it is said that we will never sin, then that means we have a different kind of free will, one that doesn't have the option for us to choose to sin, I know that this is a pointless question because we can't understand God fully, but why didn't He gave us that kind of free will since the beginning?
Let me paraphrase what you're saying, using a different case, one that you will identify with.

Let's suppose you had written, "In the marriage ceremony, it is sworn by my groom and I that we will never love another again. Does it mean, then, that my groom never had an option to choose me? Does it mean he's lost his identity, his free will, his choice?"

Now, I doubt that you are perplexed by my paraphrase the way you're perplexed by your earlier question, right? I know what you'll answer: you'll say, "But IC, it's not really important that once my groom is married to me he does not take other lovers. In fact, the more happy, content and devoted to me he is, the more real is our commitment to each other." And you're right.

It's not a violation of free will that we are "married" to God eternally. It's the fulfillment of the commitment made by our free will. It's the confirming of our our personal choice, the solidifying of what we have committed to do.

See it?

So the Bible says that we will be with God as free will beings, but no longer plagued with sin. The fact that we DID once have a choice, is all that is necessary for free will to be real and genuine.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

minor point

Post by henry quirk »

Free will is a faculty.

I think it's sumthin' else

a man loses his eyes (the faculty of sight) he's still a man, still himself, still his own

a man loses his free will, he ceases to be, as a person, as an indvidual

that's why I often say man is a free will

personhood, free will, ownness, these, and others, are at least part & parcel, at most, synonymous

man is not an assemblage, but instead is a seamless whole

god didn't give man free will, he created man as free will

anyhow: carry on... ✌️
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: minor point

Post by Immanuel Can »

henry quirk wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 6:53 pm Free will is a faculty.

I think it's sumthin' else

a man loses his eyes (the faculty of sight) he's still a man, still himself, still his own

a man loses his free will, he ceases to be, as a person, as an indvidual

that's why I often say man is a free will
I see the reasons for saying that. Volition is so central to who we are, that we couldn't actually be "persons" without it. That is, of course, the necessity of free will. And I'm not the only one to think so, nor are you, Henry.

John Locke thought that volition, freedom of conscience and will, are actually unalienable. That is, you can't actually lose them. Even surrendering responsibility for one's own choices is a choice.

The Existentialist Sartre said man is "condemned to be free." That is, his condition is freedom, whether he likes it or not; and denying it only makes one "inauthentic," but cannot actually relieve one from the burden of freedom.

We do occasionally speak of people having "lost" or "surrendered" their wills, by joining a collective or ideology. But I think this can only be metaphorical language; for they do make a choice as to whether they will surrender or fight. So they really haven't avoided the choice, so much as they have indulged in a bad and irresponsible choice. And all choices can be answered for.

And if those guys have a point, then I think your point is even more powerful, Henry, in the sense that a person who gives up his/her will is acting in a way that is contrary to facts, contrary to reality, as well as contrary to good sense and authentic personhood.

God made man, and charged him with free will. There is no evading that.

Locke thought the biggest demonstration of that fact is the impending Day of Judgment, or "The Great Day," as he calls it in his writings. He pointed out that God calls every man to account individually. So as much as many people might wish their church or political party, their priest or their lawyer, their community or their ideological group could be with them when they stand before God, they will not have the luxury, as Locke points out: ever person stands alone before God. There are no group subpoenas to the Great Judgment.

As Locke put it, it is "neither safe NOR POSSIBLE" to surrender one's free will. A man who gives up his responsibility for his own decisions and actions has given up the struggle to come to an authentic relationship with God, and left his own moral condition to chance. But he will not escape accountability, says Locke, for all of that.

That's why it's not a "safe" thing to do, to hide in the pack. Eventually, God will pluck each of us out of there, and make each of us answer for ourself.
User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 2964
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: Is there a nature of sin in free will?

Post by Greatest I am »

cicero117 wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 12:48 pm God gave Adam the right to choose, freedom of choice to do right or wrong, the freedom of sinning and not sinning.

Does this mean there is a nature of sin in our free will?
If we are really "perfect" when we were made, doesn't that mean we should only know to do the right thing?

If a human is made perfect, then shouldn't we have "true knowledge" , hence should only do the right thing?

More so, what of the free will that angels have?
If they have a tint of sin in their free will then how are they able to exists besides God, who can't bear the existence of it?

When Lucifer sins, doesn't that means he knows that angels can, indeed, sin?
First, Satan is female in the Christian tradition. Have a look at the Vatican's expulsion painting.

Why do you think they embrace misogyny so much? They like to hate Satan/women.

To your main question.

I do not see Yahweh giving A & E a free willed choice, because they could not know what they were choosing as they had no clue as to what good or evil was, or even what those terms meant in terms of being desirable or not.

The bible does let Adam choose otherwise the story would stall, but it is not a real free willed choice of known variables.

To see the sin natures you seem to hint at us having, you are dead on. What follows is how I try to explain it in this old OP.

Let me know if it makes sense to you. Know that where I wrote evil, I could have written sin.

-----------

Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?
And if you cannot, why would God punish you?

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by putting forward their free will argument and placing all the blame on mankind.
That usually sounds like ----God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy. Such statements simply avoid God's culpability as the author and creator of human nature.

Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all do evil/sin by nature then, the evil/sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not do evil/sin. Can we then help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?

Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil and sin is all human generated and in this sense, I agree with Christians, but for completely different reasons. Evil is mankind’s responsibility and not some imaginary God’s. Free will is something that can only be taken. Free will cannot be given not even by a God unless it has been forcibly withheld.

Much has been written to explain evil and sin but I see as a natural part of evolution.

Consider.
First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created. Without intent to do evil, no act should be called evil.
In secular courts, this is called mens rea. Latin for an evil mind or intent and without it, the court will not find someone guilty even if they know that they are the perpetrator of the act.

Evil then is only human to human when they know they are doing evil and intend harm.

As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil, at all times.

Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.

This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.

Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, you should see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us. Wherever it came from, God or nature, without evolution we would go extinct. We must do good and evil.

There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.

This link speak to theistic evolution.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-new ... 66/?no-ist

If theistic evolution is true, then the myth of Eden should be read as a myth and there is not really any original sin.

Doing evil then is actually forced on us by evolution and the need to survive. Our default position is to cooperate or to do good. I offer this clip as proof of this. You will note that we default to good as it is better for survival.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBW5vdhr_PA

Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?
And if you cannot, why would God punish you?

Regards
DL
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: minor point

Post by henry quirk »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 9:07 pm
henry quirk wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 6:53 pm Free will is a faculty.

I think it's sumthin' else

a man loses his eyes (the faculty of sight) he's still a man, still himself, still his own

a man loses his free will, he ceases to be, as a person, as an indvidual

that's why I often say man is a free will
I see the reasons for saying that. Volition is so central to who we are, that we couldn't actually be "persons" without it. That is, of course, the necessity of free will. And I'm not the only one to think so, nor are you, Henry.

John Locke thought that volition, freedom of conscience and will, are actually unalienable. That is, you can't actually lose them. Even surrendering responsibility for one's own choices is a choice.

The Existentialist Sartre said man is "condemned to be free." That is, his condition is freedom, whether he likes it or not; and denying it only makes one "inauthentic," but cannot actually relieve one from the burden of freedom.

We do occasionally speak of people having "lost" or "surrendered" their wills, by joining a collective or ideology. But I think this can only be metaphorical language; for they do make a choice as to whether they will surrender or fight. So they really haven't avoided the choice, so much as they have indulged in a bad and irresponsible choice. And all choices can be answered for.

And if those guys have a point, then I think your point is even more powerful, Henry, in the sense that a person who gives up his/her will is acting in a way that is contrary to facts, contrary to reality, as well as contrary to good sense and authentic personhood.

God made man, and charged him with free will. There is no evading that.

Locke thought the biggest demonstration of that fact is the impending Day of Judgment, or "The Great Day," as he calls it in his writings. He pointed out that God calls every man to account individually. So as much as many people might wish their church or political party, their priest or their lawyer, their community or their ideological group could be with them when they stand before God, they will not have the luxury, as Locke points out: ever person stands alone before God. There are no group subpoenas to the Great Judgment.

As Locke put it, it is "neither safe NOR POSSIBLE" to surrender one's free will. A man who gives up his responsibility for his own decisions and actions has given up the struggle to come to an authentic relationship with God, and left his own moral condition to chance. But he will not escape accountability, says Locke, for all of that.

That's why it's not a "safe" thing to do, to hide in the pack. Eventually, God will pluck each of us out of there, and make each of us answer for ourself.
:thumbsup:
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Is there a nature of sin in free will?

Post by Walker »

I see the reasons for saying that. Volition is so central to who we are, that we couldn't actually be "persons" without it. That is, of course, the necessity of free will. And I'm not the only one to think so, nor are you, Henry.
If a man is arrogant enough to be brave with another man’s blood, he has to do that.
We only do what we must do, and folks sometimes surprise themselves with what that is.

The word “volition” doesn’t explain why a particular action is taken.
The understanding of “why” removes choice and reveals the real need.
If the need is not understood, it’s called choice.

- Everyone does what they must.
- Free will is a term that describes the ego’s rationalization for doing.
- Folks say, “I didn’t have to do (whatever), but I chose to.”
- That’s a rationalization.
- If you’re doing it, or if you did it, you had to.
- Chubby makes a resolution to lose 30 and instead gains 10; it’s because she had to.
- She doesn’t know why, but she has theories as to why gaining the 10, and not losing the 30, was her real need.

- Mr. Lucky blows the college fund in Vegas.
- He didn't choose to do that. He had to.
- If he figures out why he had to do that, then he is on the road to "Know Thyself."
Last edited by Walker on Wed Jan 27, 2021 11:45 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Is there a nature of sin in free will?

Post by henry quirk »

- Folks say, “I didn’t have to do (whatever), but I chose to.”
- That’s a rationalization.
- If you’re doing it, or if you did it, you had to.


can't agree, W
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Is there a nature of sin in free will?

Post by Walker »

henry quirk wrote: Wed Jan 27, 2021 11:42 am - Folks say, “I didn’t have to do (whatever), but I chose to.”
- That’s a rationalization.
- If you’re doing it, or if you did it, you had to.


can't agree, W
Yeah, I kinda figured that out.

But that doesn't address the reasoning.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Is there a nature of sin in free will?

Post by henry quirk »

Walker wrote: Wed Jan 27, 2021 11:44 am
henry quirk wrote: Wed Jan 27, 2021 11:42 am - Folks say, “I didn’t have to do (whatever), but I chose to.”
- That’s a rationalization.
- If you’re doing it, or if you did it, you had to.


can't agree, W
Yeah, I kinda figured that out.

But that doesn't address the reasoning.
my own experience, of myself, in the world, tells me I choose...I'm not obligated to any path...yes, reality is deterministic, and -- yes -- in many ways I am a deterministic system, but plunked down in the middle of all that cause & effect is sumthin' else, a peculiar sumthin' that sets *me apart from the fallin' dominoes...I'm not an event, in a chain of events but am, instead, an agent




*and every other person
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Is there a nature of sin in free will?

Post by Dontaskme »

Sin can only be recognised as intention.

Intention is the rider of the will.

In the words of a Zen poem: The wild geese do not intend to cast their reflection; The water has no mind to retain their image. When a mountain stream flows out of a spring beside the road, and a thirsty traveller comes along and drinks deeply, the traveller is welcome.

The mind is like the water, it does not intend. However, where there is a will there is a way to intend an action or inaction. Actions have consequences. Inactions don't.
Post Reply