Because I said I had a real choice, then you responded by saying I had *some* real choice. I presumed (maybe wrongly) that the contrast was meant to show that my choice was not as fully real as I thought it was, hence the asterisk emphasis on some.
I can't speak for Paul but I'm guessing he'd agree: all he says is that the threat of hell "limits my ability to choose". But it doesn't. My ability to choose in just the situation we're talking about wasn't limited. I made a choice, the choice that you're saying was limited. Yet it can't be limited because I made it.
Are you trying to say that actually the threat of infinite harm, versus the offer of infinite benefit, *doesn't* constitute a limit to one's ability to choose the other way? Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.
Do you never say things like "I can't do that, it's against the law" or "I can't go that way, there's a 100-foot cliff and I might die" or "I can't do that, I'd lose my job" or whatever? Yes I do. I do that because language is imprecise and when making offhand remarks like that I inevitably use imprecise and incorrect language. I would try to avoid doing that in a discussion like this of course.
A more accurate rendering of the things you portray would be: "I don't want to do that, it's against the law, and because of the consequences of breaking the law I'm choosing to not do it". The point being that the fact that there are consequences doesn't limit my ability to choose at all. It influences the decision I might make, but that's not a limitation.
If knowing that sin is so serious that we're going to burn in hell for an eternity (not the only possible reading of the Bible I think, but certainly the most stark one (and the one I think most likely, I'll add before you think I'm trying to wiggle out of things here)) makes us stop and consider if that's what we really want, then I'm really glad it influences our choices. If a criminal (or potential criminal) decision as to whether to commit a crime is influenced by the knowledge that he will be punished for committing the crime, then that's a great thing! That doesn't mean he has no choice (otherwise we wouldn't have any crime).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2008-05-29 12:29 am (UTC)I can't speak for Paul but I'm guessing he'd agree: all he says is that the threat of hell "limits my ability to choose".
But it doesn't. My ability to choose in just the situation we're talking about wasn't limited. I made a choice, the choice that you're saying was limited. Yet it can't be limited because I made it.
Are you trying to say that actually the threat of infinite harm, versus the offer of infinite benefit, *doesn't* constitute a limit to one's ability to choose the other way?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.
Do you never say things like "I can't do that, it's against the law" or "I can't go that way, there's a 100-foot cliff and I might die" or "I can't do that, I'd lose my job" or whatever?
Yes I do. I do that because language is imprecise and when making offhand remarks like that I inevitably use imprecise and incorrect language. I would try to avoid doing that in a discussion like this of course.
A more accurate rendering of the things you portray would be: "I don't want to do that, it's against the law, and because of the consequences of breaking the law I'm choosing to not do it". The point being that the fact that there are consequences doesn't limit my ability to choose at all. It influences the decision I might make, but that's not a limitation.
If knowing that sin is so serious that we're going to burn in hell for an eternity (not the only possible reading of the Bible I think, but certainly the most stark one (and the one I think most likely, I'll add before you think I'm trying to wiggle out of things here)) makes us stop and consider if that's what we really want, then I'm really glad it influences our choices. If a criminal (or potential criminal) decision as to whether to commit a crime is influenced by the knowledge that he will be punished for committing the crime, then that's a great thing! That doesn't mean he has no choice (otherwise we wouldn't have any crime).