PS I'm setting the scenario of the Adam and Eve account aside for now: that requires a higher-level understanding of the topic of free will, and we need to get the basics ironed out before looking at it.
TEC said-
If a person has the ability to choose... then they have free will.
This is like pulling teeth....
So if a mugger holds a gun to your head and says, "Give me your purse or your life!" do you have free will? Sure, you DO have a choice NOT to comply, but the mugger kills you and takes your purse after you're dead.... That's just absurb to claim you DO have free will in that scenario, since it's not about the CAPABILITY to decide. It's why you can refuse giving $ to a homeless person who has a sign and a can, whereas you cannot refuse a mugger with a handgun.
Two words: FREE and WILL. The 'free' term implies 'free from consequences/influence' of not just from your beloved deity, but from ANY other party, be it a family member, a mugger, etc.
That's exactly WHY the definition of 'free will' cites the typical legal use of the phrase as found in a will, "I Bob Smith, being of sound mind and body, and OF MY OWN FREE WILL by noting being under duress or influence of another party, leave my Worldly possessions to....."
It's NOT an issue of whether someone has the CAPABILITY to decide, but rather, when in reference to a Divine being who can punish them, whether they have the PERMISSION to decide; or in the case of another non-Divine entity interfering with their choice, whether they are being unduly INFLUENCED to decide on a certain outcome (as in the mugging scenario above).
In fact, if there were a question of their CAPABILITY to decide (eg a minor, or an elderly adult with Alzheimers) then they don't have a LEGAL RIGHT to decide; they are rendered as legally-incompetent to make decisions for themselves, and they need someone else to make those decisions for them, to act on their behalf.
But that's likely too broad of a concept for a concrete thinker such as yourself, so let's break it down, step-by-step; please answer the following questions in a YES or NO manner (cite scriptures, if you can).
1) Do you believe that God gives humanity His permission to sin (i.e. to violate His Divine Will)? YES or NO?
2) Do you understand that sinning entails a punishment from God, where He punishes sinners for their sins? YES or NO? (eg murder, if you need a specific sin).
3) If someone is thinking of murdering someone, might God's punishment for the sin of murder ("life for life") interfere with the person's free will choice to murder? YES or NO?
IF you say NO to any of those three, you are arguing AGAINST the VERY REASON that Mosaic Law was handed down by God: it served as a civil/criminal code to regulate the behavior of Israelites.
You're arguing against God's law, which means you're arguing against God's RIGHT to make rules; you're arguing against God.
Above you said:
If a person does not have the ability to choose... ie; God MADE them do it... then they do not have free will.
Shall we look back and see what TEC's position was on the issue of whether God interfered with Pharoah's free will then, since God told Moses he would harden Pharoah's heart so he would NOT let the Israelites go (where Pharoah was otherwise inclined to let them go), since God needed an excuse to put on a magic show (which included killing all Egyptian firstbornes) before leaving town?
The first occurance of hardening Pharoah's heart occurs BEFORE the magic show started, in Exodus 4:21:
- Exodus 4:21
-
- And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.
-
Pharoah had no control over the decisions he made: Jehovah used him like a ventriloquist works a dummy, and played him like a fiddle.
So using your own definition of free will above, are you willing to admit that God removed Pharoah's free will, by interfering with his CAPABILITY to decide?
Adam
