Freewill versus Laws*

[manifold]

Is there any such thing as a man-made law that does not circumvent the concept of God-given freewill?



* Acknowledgment to M14 Shooter for inspiring the thread concept.

 

[Ravi]

I can't think of one.

Not that I'm convinced a God-given concept of freewill exists.

 

[Care4all]

Is there any such thing as a man-made law that does not circumvent the concept of God-given freewill?



* Acknowledgment to M14 Shooter for inspiring the thread concept.

Freewill to choose right from wrong....we were given the KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL when the forbidden fruit was eaten from the tree

it has NOTHING to do with man made laws or a ruling government....

We are told to support our government for the MOST PART by the Bible....it tells us that our Leaders are put in to place via the will of God, and brought down by the same....

So then you can bring out Hitler and saddam and alot of others....and i wouldn't know how to honestly answer the valid questions regarding that...just that these bad leaders were eventually brought down...though many innocents were killed in the mean time....

Care

 

[manifold]

Freewill to choose right from wrong....we were given the KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL when the forbidden fruit was eaten from the tree

it has NOTHING to do with man made laws or a ruling government....

We are told to support our government for the MOST PART by the Bible....it tells us that our Leaders are put in to place via the will of God, and brought down by the same....

So then you can bring out Hitler and saddam and alot of others....and i wouldn't know how to honestly answer the valid questions regarding that...just that these bad leaders were eventually brought down...though many innocents were killed in the mean time....

Care

Thanks, but a simple "no" would have sufficed.

 

[Care4all]

Thanks, but a simple "no" would have sufficed.

sorry...but a simple no would not suffice.... you asked a question that deserved a full answer!

Care

 

[ReillyT]

Is there any such thing as a man-made law that does not circumvent the concept of God-given freewill?



* Acknowledgment to M14 Shooter for inspiring the thread concept.

Sure. Think about it as a cost associated with action. A law says "Do not do X" but what the law really means is "Do not do X... or else." As long as you are okay with taking the "or else" consequence, then you remain free to do what you like.

Actually, I am iffy on the whole concept of "free will," but this would be one way to conceptualize the law.

 

[Care4all]

Sure. Think about it as a cost associated with action. A law says "Do not do X" but what the law really means is "Do not do X... or else." As long as you are okay with taking the "or else" consequence, then you remain free to do what you like.

Actually, I am iffy on the whole concept of "free will," but this would be one way to conceptualize the law.

if you know right from wrong....which the Bible teaches that we ALL KNOW RIGHT FROM WRONG, inately....then freewill is just choosing right from wrong...good over evil....

or on the otherside of the coin, evil over good.

For example, for many, laws allowing women to choose abortion are evil....

But just because something that they think is wrong legally, does not stop them from knowing right from wrong or doing something that they just know is wrong...

basically, regardless of the LAW, they can still choose right from wrong if they are faced with the situation of an out of wedlock pregnancy, as example.

care

 

[manifold]

laws allowing women to choose abortion are evil....

I'm not familiar with any such law.

I'm familiar with a court decision relating to laws that forbid a women to choose abortion. But a law that specifically allows it? Nope.



In fact, I can't think of one good reason why any law would ever be required to allow anything. If there isn't a law forbidding a thing, doesn't that mean it is allowed?

 

[Care4all]

I'm not familiar with any such law.

I'm familiar with a court decision relating to laws that forbid a women to choose abortion. But a law that specifically allows it? Nope.



In fact, I can't think of one good reason why any law would ever be required to allow anything. If there isn't a law forbidding a thing, doesn't that mean it is allowed?

huh? The laws on the books and the SC decisions at this point, allow women to legally have an abortion if the choose to do such?

my point is that they do not have to have an abortion just because the LAW now allows it.... and even if the Law did not permit it, they still could choose to abort their child....and get the back street abortion....

OR they can choose to keep their child and not abort....the law permitting legal abortions does not, imo, hinder a person from making the right decision.

care

 

[ReillyT]

if you know right from wrong....which the Bible teaches that we ALL KNOW RIGHT FROM WRONG, inately....then freewill is just choosing right from wrong...good over evil....

or on the otherside of the coin, evil over good.

For example, for many, laws allowing women to choose abortion are evil....

But just because something that they think is wrong legally, does not stop them from knowing right from wrong or doing something that they just know is wrong...

basically, regardless of the LAW, they can still choose right from wrong if they are faced with the situation of an out of wedlock pregnancy, as example.

care

Yeah... sorry... I don't put much stock in that mumbo-jumbo.

 

[manifold]

The laws on the books... at this point, allow women to legally have an abortion if the choose to do such?

What laws?


The absence of a law, is not a law.


Edit:

If you rephrase your statement as follows...

"The laws on the books... at this point, DO NOT FORBID women to legally have an abortion if the choose to do such?"

...then you'd have an accurate statement. The distinction may seem subtle, but it is very very important.

 

[Care4all]

What laws?


The absence of a law, is not a law.


Edit:

If you rephrase your statement as follows...

"The laws on the books... at this point, DO NOT FORBID women to legally have an abortion if the choose to do such?"

...then you'd have an accurate statement. The distinction may seem subtle, but it is very very important.

but that is not true either manifold, some laws do not permit abortion, for example the partial birth abortion law does not permit abortions doen in that manner?

Care

 

[manifold]

but that is not true either manifold, some laws do not permit abortion, for example the partial birth abortion law does not permit abortions doen in that manner?

Care

My point exactly. Laws restrict what is allowed, they do not allow.

 

[Care4all]

My point exactly. Laws restrict what is allowed, they do not allow.

hahahahahahaha.... ding ding ding.... sorry...I FINALLY got your point...a little slow today!

care

 

[frazzledgear]

Is there any such thing as a man-made law that does not circumvent the concept of God-given freewill?



* Acknowledgment to M14 Shooter for inspiring the thread concept.

You are confusing laws with free will -laws don't remove free will and do not circumvent the concept of God-given free will. Man's laws merely detail the punishment government will mete out in the event a person decides to use their free will to violate that law. It is against the law to murder -but I see no evidence that law has stripped an individual of his free will if he chooses to kill someone. The Ten Commandments are also God's Law -some of which are also man's law -and neither strip the individual of choosing to violate any of them. Because plenty of people do.

That isn't the same as a government that so heavily taxes an individual on the pretext those taxes are necessary in order to provide for the welfare of others -because that money that was taxed was given straight to government by his employer and was never in the hands of that individual to begin with. He has no choice in the matter -he earned the money but it was never in his hands and therefore has no say about where a huge chunk of it went.

Worst of all, it is a fact that under systems where people are so heavily taxed on the grounds it is necessary in order for government to provide for the welfare of others -that charitable contributions by individuals drop off sharply. People naturally assume there is no need for them to act because government is already doing it combined with the fact they are so often left with little more than what covers their own living expenses. Nowhere in the heavy taxation in the name of providing for the welfare of others does free will exist.

In this country, people are not so heavily taxed because we don't have a government that has assumed primary responsibility for the welfare of the individual -and most people don't want it to either. The individual is still assumed to have primary responsibility for his own welfare unless physically or mentally incapable of doing so. (Frankly I see no valid argument that the individual should NOT assume primary responsibility for his own welfare if capable of doing so.)And no country comes anywhere close to the individual charitable contributions by citizens -particularly noticeable after a major disaster either at home or elsewhere in the world. The private donations from this country after the tsunami a few years ago exceeded the GOVERNMENT contributions of nearly every country in the world. Combined with what our government also donated -the next closest nation with their government and private donations combined, gave a little more than half. Yet even though US citizens provided by far and away the greatest level of aid -it was criticized for its donations. US citizens privately and through their government gave a HUGE amount -but it was criticized because what private citizens CHOSE to give wasn't first taxed from them in the first place, filtered through the government -and then a smaller total amount donated. Because had it first been taxed away from us -the amount donated by our government would never have equalled what was given by our private citizens and government combined. The ultimate RESULTS are only what matters here -not whether government first had its own hands on the money of private citizens or not.

I would think true humanitarians would want to foster that kind of care and concern that is so readily visible in this country -yet so lacking elsewhere in the world. And rather than mistakenly focus on the false premise that unless a government assumes primary responsibility for the welfare of citizens, it is a less "moral" form of government -focus on the end results which should matter far more.

It just like how the US is sharply criticized for its (correct) refusal to sign the Kyoto Treaty. But nations that did sign it have INCREASED their CO2 output since doing so -while the US reduced theirs by 14% in that same time period. Sometimes I wonder if many people even know which is more important. RESULTS or the superficial and totally meaningless act of signing a piece of paper -while not abiding by it in the least.

The fact we have a system of government that acknowledges the inherent traits of man while trying to exploit that for the greater good -instead of pretending that altruism (forgoing one's own best interests for the sake of others) is an achievable goal and represents the ultimate morality that all people are capable of -is not what matters most. RESULTS matter most -and our system achieves far more for the greater good than any system that insists it can re-make mankind and strip them of the survival instinct all living creatures have. Altruism is rare and it is rare because it is not and never has been an inherent trait of mankind. PEOPLE are not capable of it -it is a rare, rare trait of an individual only.

So if you have a government system that actually fosters the desire of more people to make charitable donations and there is undeniable proof that far more people do make charitable donations under our system that in sum exceeds the government donations of nations with governments that assume primary responsibility for its citizens -then why the heck would you want to kill that except to admit that it isn't the results that matter to you. Only the superficial but totally meaningless APPEARANCE matters. But it is exactly that kind of thinking that results in systems where the results are only an increase in the level of human misery in the world. Only an idiot would pat himself on the back for admiring such a flawed system as communism instead of facing reality that there must be something wrong with the underlying premise and accepting the truth -that under such systems results don't match up with expectations -while they exceed expectations under the system you denounce as being less "moral".

 

[manifold]

That isn't the same as a government that so heavily taxes an individual on the pretext those taxes are necessary in order to provide for the welfare of others -because that money that was taxed was given straight to government by his employer and was never in the hands of that individual to begin with. He has no choice in the matter -he earned the money but it was never in his hands and therefore has no say about where a huge chunk of it went.

OK, Fair point.

However, if this is the basis upon which you, M14 & ArtardBaba conclude that Jesus would oppose welfare, there is still a slight sticking point. According to this logic, Jesus would oppose all taxes, period. That means no funding for defense, offense, law enforcement, infrastructure, education, etc. But of course that contradicts the whole "Give unto Caesar..." quote that has been bandied about during the course of this discussion. Is it your position that all taxes are evil because Jesus says so?