Christianity without freewill

[scourge99]

Lately I have engaged in many debates that revolve around the question of whether freewill exists. Its interesting to note that many Christians take the side that freewill does exist while non-theists often take the side that freewill does not exist. I want to forgo the debate of whether freewill exists and look beyond it. For this thread lets assume that freewill does not exist. The goal of this thread is to investigate, brainstorm, and debate about reasonable formulations of Christianity assuming there is no freewill.

For arguments sake let us assume that science has demonstrated a lack of freewill to the same extent that it has demonstrated the theory of gravitation and the theory of evolution. I would guess many Christians would reject the science just as many in the past and present reject science when it comes to heliocentricism, a world wide flood, and evolution. But ignoring the science-deniers, what sense can a science-accepting Christian make of the core concepts of Christianity in light of no freewill? For example:

1) Jesus atonement for sins by dying on the cross. If people are not genuinely in control of their choices--past, present or future--and thus the sins they make then how is the (alleged) death and resurrection of Jesus redemptive?

2) Believing in God and Jesus gets you into heaven. If people cannot genuinely choose their beliefs but rather come about them by means beyond their personal control then wouldn't entrance into heaven be by pure luck?

I think many of these problems are far easier for liberal Christians to resolve but what about fundamentalists and moderates?

I believe there are other interesting problems that can be examined or need to be reassessed if we lack freewill such as the problem of evil and the problem of non-believers. Feel free to bring up any other problems. But more importantly, try to provide or propose some reasonable solutions to the problems.

[Divine Insight]

I don't think "free to make a choice" is the same as a free will choice.

For me they are one in the same thing.

If you have conditions beyond this I would suggest that you establish precisely what they are in detail before you could have a meaningful conversation about them.

Ah, but how free from instincts are our decisions? That's kinda the point. How reasoned and "free" from instinctual biases are our decisions? Can we tell? Will we ever know?

Well, again, from my perspective you're running off in philosophical la-la land.

Of course we are in the human condition. So clearly any choice we make is going to have some dependency on that fact. But isn't that a given?

So what kind of "Free Will" are you even considering? Some sort of lofty "God-like" free will that is totally divorced from the human condition?

For me, that's not the question. The question is whether or not humans have free will choice. So my answer to that question within that context is yes.

You're taking the question and trying to remove it from the context and imagine some highly idealized philosophically perfect idea of what absolute perfect "free will" could possible mean.

To me, that just misses the point entirely.

For me the question is whether or not humans have free will choice within the context of the human condition. And from my perspective we do.

In fact, to believe otherwise, would force me to not be able to hold anyone responsible for anything they ever did. Because they would have had no free will choice in the matter.

In fact, as far as I can see, qualifying "Choice" with "Free will" is redundant.

If we have an ability to make a choice then the very existence of that ability is precisely what constitutes "Free Will".

Otherwise, it would be a misnomer to even call it a "choice".

So I'm simply looking at the concept from a very practical vantage point.

You say:

I find these questions fascinating and if you don't I suggest you ignore them. Smile

Just because I come to different conclusions from yours doesn't mean that I don't find the question interesting. I just see the answer as being quite simple is all.

I suppose the question is no longer "interesting" to me because I've already found my answer for this particular question.

But just because I've found my answer doesn't mean I can't still comment on the question when other people ask about it.

[scourge99]

I think before there can be any genuine discussion about "Free will choice", it might first be beneficial to recognize that not everything we do is a "choice", especially not in an intellectually sense of having been an evaluated response to something.

For example, some people simply "react". They aren't really making any choices at all. They are simply reacting to stimuli.

I agree.

Imagine that you're involved in a slight fender-bender accident. The other car is very expensive and brand new. The driver jumps out of his vehicle running toward you screaming all manner of obscenities and accusing of you of being a stupid idiot. It's clear that he's extremely emotionally distraught and can't even seem to calm himself down or be reasonable.

Did he "chose" to do that. Was that a "Free will choice"? I would say no, it was not. It was merely a primal reaction to stimuli. A brainless emotional reaction that serves no one any good including the man who is in this emotional state of primal ignorance.

Now imagine that this man finally comes to his senses and realizes that he reacts like this to emotion far too often so he seeks out counseling in some form, even if only via self-reflection and meditation. He finally decided to take more control over his life by actually taking advantage of his ability to make "Free will choices".

So he buys another brand new car and lo and behold someone bangs into his fender. His initial reaction is to "see red" and become extremely angry and distraught. But at the very moment he feels that coming on he thinks to himself, "No. I'm not going to do that. I'm going to calm down and just get this guys insurance information and try to be polite and sane about it as I can be."

So there you go, an example of making a free will choice as opposed to merely just reacting to stimuli.

The distinction you are trying to make between freewill choice and non freewill choice is not clear to me. It seems as though you are trying to make the distinction based on whether internal deliberation occurs but I'm not sure. Can you explain the distinction directly instead of using an example?

As far as I'm concerned humans absolutely have the ability to make free will choices, and it is the fact that we have a brain where logic can override instinct that provides us with this ability.

So that's my assessment of the situatoin.

Yes, we have free will choice.

And this arises because we can indeed chose between just reacting to stimuli or behaving in a more methodical well-thought out manner.

1) other organisms have brains and encounter circumstances where many options are available. Are these other organisms "choosing"? How do you know? E. G., chimps, dogs, birds, mice, ants, etc.

2) I find your claim dubious that you can choose to react to stimuli or "behave in a more methodical well - thought out manner." I find it as dubious as claiming that you can choose to believe in christ or not, or to choose to believe that the sky is red or choose to be attracted to the opposite sex. I don't think these are choices.

I believe that we can behave in a methodlogical manner or in an instinctual manner. But I do not agree that we simply decide when we do and when we do not. I agree that we can become aware that our actions or behavior is instinctual or reflexive and that awareness may cause us to change our behavior.

If we didn't have analytical brains we wouldn't be able to make analyzed choices. All we would be able to do is react. But clearly we can do more than just react, we can chose how to react.

We certainly plan ahead and can think about our situation but i don't think that demonstrates that we have freewill. E.G., squirrels store nuts for winter. Leopards hide food in trees to save for later. Are these animals acting purely on instinct? Are they making analyzed choices? E.G., eat it now or store it for later?

[Darias]

Lately I have engaged in many debates that revolve around the question of whether freewill exists. Its interesting to note that many Christians take the side that freewill does exist while non-theists often take the side that freewill does not exist. I want to forgo the debate of whether freewill exists and look beyond it. For this thread lets assume that freewill does not exist. The goal of this thread is to investigate, brainstorm, and debate about reasonable formulations of Christianity assuming there is no freewill.

For arguments sake let us assume that science has demonstrated a lack of freewill to the same extent that it has demonstrated the theory of gravitation and the theory of evolution. I would guess many Christians would reject the science just as many in the past and present reject science when it comes to heliocentricism, a world wide flood, and evolution. But ignoring the science-deniers, what sense can a science-accepting Christian make of the core concepts of Christianity in light of no freewill? For example:

1) Jesus atonement for sins by dying on the cross. If people are not genuinely in control of their choices--past, present or future--and thus the sins they make then how is the (alleged) death and resurrection of Jesus redemptive?

2) Believing in God and Jesus gets you into heaven. If people cannot genuinely choose their beliefs but rather come about them by means beyond their personal control then wouldn't entrance into heaven be by pure luck?

I think many of these problems are far easier for liberal Christians to resolve but what about fundamentalists and moderates?

I believe there are other interesting problems that can be examined or need to be reassessed if we lack freewill such as the problem of evil and the problem of non-believers. Feel free to bring up any other problems. But more importantly, try to provide or propose some reasonable solutions to the problems.

I imagine that the Calvinist would have no problem at all with this idea if demonstrated scientifically. Others would just have to do a lot of soul searching, figuratively speaking.

I tend to favor deterministic views. Everything we are is determined via nature and nurture. I could no more go out and murder someone in a rational state of mind than I could freely choose to go to the moon.

Just because, from the perspective of neuroscience, we don't have free will, does not mean that outside things in the environment have no impact. Indeed people, ideas, illnesses and injuries can have enormous impacts on our behavior and actions that flow from that.

Now, I personally like to think we are capable of making choices and decisions, but that those are extremely limited to the situation, and our personalities, morals, etc. It may be the case that we have no real choice at all, and that our reaction to any given situation is based off all previous interactions as well as genetic factors.

For example, someone who likes diet pepsi is less likely to stop drinking it unless he learns that it is bad for their health or whatever. Even then, they may continue drinking it for many other reasons.

An alcoholic might find it difficult to quit once he or she begins drinking. Addiction plays its roll in both of these situations but so do habits.

All of these things are consequential and based off previous actions. While free choice over every decision might be just as false as complete control over every thought that randomly enters our brains, the reality is, actions and habits have a huge impact on the canvas of our lives. And like a canvass, anyone or anything can leave an impact that may change our lives for better or worse.

[Divine Insight]

The distinction you are trying to make between freewill choice and non freewill choice is not clear to me.

I don't make a distinction between a 'free will' choice and a 'non free will' choice.

I hold that the very act of making a choice is symptom of free will.

Calling a choice "Free will" choice is redundant because, IMHO, there can be no other kind of "choice".

If you can make a choice, you necessarily have free will. That's my position.

It seems as though you are trying to make the distinction based on whether internal deliberation occurs but I'm not sure. Can you explain the distinction directly instead of using an example?

Sure.

If you have thought about alternative actions or responses and have chosen from those, then you have made an internal deliberation. And this is required to make a "choice". Because if you haven't thought about and considered alternative actions, then how can you claim to have chosen between them?

So internal deliberation is required to even make a choice possible. (i.e. you have to have a list of alternative actions to choose from before you can even speak about making a choice.)

On the other hand, if you haven't considered alternative actions and you just react without even thinking about what it is that you are doing, then how could that be called a "choice"?

What was it chosen over?

How can you claim to have made a choice if you haven't at least internally deliberated on various possible actions?

So internal deliberation is a fundamental essence of what is required for even speaking of having made a 'choice'. To speak of having made a choice without it seems meaningless to me.

I gave the example of the guy who gets irate without thinking of what he's doing because I seriously doubt that he's actually methodically choosing to be like that. He just isn't thinking at all. He's just dust in the wind. Pure reaction without deliberation.

1) other organisms have brains and encounter circumstances where many options are available. Are these other organisms "choosing"? How do you know? E. G., chimps, dogs, birds, mice, ants, etc.

I believe that animals make choices sometimes. I've owned many dogs over the course of my life and I've seen behavior that definitely appears to me that they are making a choice.

Take a dog who is attached to two different people. One person is getting in the car to go somewhere the other person is working on something else in the driveway, and the dog is looking back and forth trying to "choose" whether he wants to stay home or go for the ride.

In fact, sometimes the dog appears to have already made his choice and it's hard to coax him into changing his mind.

So yes, I believe that even dogs can make choices. And I imagine other animals do to.

I think people who study the behavior of primates have observed behavior that implies the animals are making choices too.

2) I find your claim dubious that you can choose to react to stimuli or "behave in a more methodical well - thought out manner." I find it as dubious as claiming that you can choose to believe in christ or not, or to choose to believe that the sky is red or choose to be attracted to the opposite sex. I don't think these are choices.

I think you can certainly choose to believe in Christ or not. I have definitely chosen not to. Of course, my choice in the matter is extremely well thought out. At this point in my life (because of information I have already learned of) I would indeed find it "impossible" to chose to believe in Christ today, simply because I have overwhelming evidence that it's not a worthy thing to believe in.

I could "chose" to believe that jumping off a 10-story building wouldn't be harmful to me. But that would be a really dumb choice that goes against everything I know about gravity and what happens to a human body that is accelerated toward the Earth at 32 ft. per sec².

Are you suggesting that knowledge reduces free will choice?

I think it helps us to make better informed choices, but is that the same as reducing our choices?

As far as being attracted to the opposite sex. I confess that this is a primordial innate instinct for me. And I have no desire or reason to override that. So I'm content with allowing my primordial responses to handle that one.

Just because we are capable of making alternative choices doesn't mean that we have too. And that's all the more reason to feel that they are indeed "Free will" choices isn't it?

I can chose not to make a choice that's different from my instincts as well.

How "free" do people expect choices to be?

I'm even free to chose or not chose. You can't get much "freer" than that.

I believe that we can behave in a methodlogical manner or in an instinctual manner. But I do not agree that we simply decide when we do and when we do not. I agree that we can become aware that our actions or behavior is instinctual or reflexive and that awareness may cause us to change our behavior.

Well, I certainly agree that awareness is a definite prerequisite for making a choice in the first place. The more we are aware of the more potential we have for making a choice. This is why humans no doubt make far more complex choices than dogs.

We're aware, not only of more choices, but we are also aware of the fact that we have the freedom to make choices.

A dog most likely doesn't even realize that it makes choices. So that limits the choices that it can make. In it's very primitive mind it simply "recognizes" in-the-moment that there are alternative actions it can take. It hesitates for a moment to "think about" which action it's going to pursue, and then it pursues the action it chose. It no doubt has no clue why it even made the choice it made. But something in that moment was evidently more attractive about one potential action than the other.

Who knows what kind of "deliberation" may have gone on inside the dog's mind?

It was no doubt very primitive to be sure.

We certainly plan ahead and can think about our situation but i don't think that demonstrates that we have freewill. E.G., squirrels store nuts for winter. Leopards hide food in trees to save for later. Are these animals acting purely on instinct? Are they making analyzed choices? E.G., eat it now or store it for later?

I personally think the case of squirrels storing nuts is purely instinctual. I don't think they are aware of the big picture well enough to actually make that kind of analysis. That would be a pretty sophisticated analysis. If they could analyze that deeply they'd probably be far more intelligent in many other ways as well.

[Coldfire]

Until there has been shown a reason to believe in free will, the claim that there is none is the most valid.

That kind of thinking is totally false, and not scientific at all.

If there is no evidence one way or the other than there is no reason to assume that either conclusion is "most valid".

So you're dead wrong about this in terms of this being supported by science or logic.

I will retract my statement.

Please allow me to reiterate: Until there has been shown a reason to believe in the existence of free will, not believing in it is the most logically valid position one could assume.

If there is no evidence in the existence of a thing, then a person has every right and reason to suspend belief in that thing until evidence is provided.

This is certainly supported by logic, it’s a standard shifting of the burden of proof fallacy.

There is no mention of free will or any concept like it in the Bible. On the contrary, there are numerous examples of determinism and pre-determinism in the bible.

From my perspective this is totally unreasonable.

Ok, stop. How is what I said “unreasonable?�

I’m simply stating a fact. There is literally NO MENTION of free will or any concept like it in the Bible. None.
Now, you can attempt to show me where in the bible it mentions free will or the concept thereof, but don’t tell me its unreasonable to point it out.

There would be no reason for God to "punish" people if they had no choice in what they do. The whole story of Adam and Eve having "fallen from grace", and God cursing them with punishments would be meaningless if they had no free will.

Determinism vs Free Will is not about choice vs no choice, its about cause or no cause. Determinists realize that choices are caused by various factors and events that led up to that point in time when a choice is being made. Free Willists believe that the choices they make are not caused by anything but their will.

You’re right that there would be no justified reason for God to punish people if they had no free will. My guess is that the people who wrote the Bible weren’t too bright, either that or the Bible wasn’t translated properly. Logic and Reason have always been religion’s Achilles Heel.

[Coldfire]

“choices are made based on preexisting things� does not mean “those things are the cause of a choice.�
Gotcha

I hope you're not being sarcastic here and that you really do understand the truth of this.

I was being sarcastic. If choices are made based on preexisting things then those preexisting things are the base of the choice. How is this hard to understand?

If I ask you why you did not chose to become a millionaire (assuming you're not one), you would probably say, "I didn't see that option as being a viable choice".

How about I just tell you what I would say instead of you presuming it.
I would say that being a millionaire is not incumbent upon my simply “choosing� to be one. There are limitations to just getting what one wants. I see it as a viable option, just one that is hard for me to do.

Well that pretty much proves that you have free will right there. You see many options before you, some will require what you believe to be "Hard Work" and others will be easier. So you exercise your free will to chose the easier road.

I didn’t say “hard work,� so don’t quote me on it. I said hard for me to do. I have no qualms against hard work at all; I’ve worked on my family farm for many years and can appreciate that line of work, its very labor intensive, but physically and mentally rewarding. I’m not choosing the “easier road� by not being a millionaire, and “hard work� has nothing to do with it; people work hard all their lives and still don’t become millionaires.

That's precisely an observational example of free will choice being exercised.

So now we have observational evidence for the existence of Free Will Choice.

If there are reasons and causes that led to me making a decision, then that is an example of determinism.

But other people may have chosen to become a millionaire in spite of the fact that it didn't appear at the time to be something that would be easy to choose, or even guaranteed to become manifest.

Ok, why did they do that? Perhaps they have a stronger resolve to work towards such a goal then I do. What are you getting at? Something caused them to make that decision, something caused them to have more determination and ambition to succeed. Some of them had it fall on their lap as babies, how is this anything close to being an example of free will decisions?

We can't just decide to grow wings and fly away for example. But that doesn't mean that we have no free will at all.

Sure it does. Your choices are limited, the choices you arrive at are affected by these limitations; that’s an example of determinism.

The people who chose the "Hard Work" over laziness in order to become a millionaire have indeed made a "Free will" choice.

No.
A choice is made to be a millionaire.
Free will states that there was no cause to that choice except for “will,� no events leading up to it, no environmental factors, no preferences, just will.
Determinism states that all of these causal factors played a role in the outcome of the choice being made.
One of these makes sense.

Unless you're suggesting that they had no choice in the matter and that they were predestined to become a hard-working person beyond their ability to choose.

No I’m not suggesting that. Determinism does not imply predestination.
It’s not about choice or no choice; it’s about cause or no cause. Free will would imply that nothing caused the choice except free will.

Yes they are, just because you can’t see what caused someone to arrive at a particular choice, doesn’t mean there wasn’t a cause to it. Choices themselves can be a cause for something else?… yea, that’s an example of determinism.

That's not an example of strict determinism. In fact, you mere "claim" that choices themselves can be a cause for something else. Where's your evidence for that?

I didn’t make that claim, I was reiterating what you originally said in post 21 (“On the contrary, the choices themselves can be the cause of how the future will unfold�)

I don’t understand what you are getting at here. Nobody is claiming that people base all their choices on what they believe is likely to manifest. That is not what determinism is.

Determinism means that you have no choice at all.

Wrong.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/determinism

Again, it’s not about choice or no choice; it’s about cause or no cause.

For if you have a choice, then it cannot be determined until you chose it. Unless you're claiming that choices themselves are false illusions. Which seems like what you must be claiming.

I wasn’t originally claiming that, but I will assert that choices are illusory, yes.

When you chose to bring things into manifestation that you don't believe are possible is when you're genuinely exercising free will.

I don’t know if you are trying to redefine the concept of free will or provide an example, but youre doing a poor job either way.

Let me put it to you this way.

Determinism doesn’t mean that we can predict everything we choose, or even discover all of what it is that led up to a particular choice that someone made. Such a feat would require knowledge of every causal factor leading up to that point in time; thousands, possibly millions, or factors. Environmental, physiological, chemical, familial, societal, etc etc etc. The task would be virtually impossible for one man to do in an entire lifetime, just to find the causes of ONE CHOICE.

That, my friend, is a purely hypothetical speculation, that could not possibly be proven for just ONE CHOICE, for the very same reasons that you've just given.

You've just given the very reason why your speculation can never be supported by any sort of evidence.

My assertion that choices are caused by various factors does not need every factor possible to remain valid, just a small sample. It is virtually impossible to establish COMPLETE causality, but causality can still be proven.

All determinism is is a belief in cause and effect. It states that everything happens for a reason. The concept of free will attempts to exclude humans from this relationship of cause and effect which encompasses everything in the known universe. It’s a non-biblical religious dogma that attempts to set humans apart from everything else and hold them accountable for things they have no control over. What makes humans so special that they are not affected by cause and effect?

Are you still living in a Newtonian Classical Clockwork world?

We no longer have any reason to believe that "Cause and Effect" can be reduced to strict determinism in a Classical Newtonian sense. In fact, to do so would require absolute space, and absolute time.

No. That’s not what I’m supporting.
Argue against Newtonian Clockwork world if you want, but that’s not what I’m referring to.

I don’t even know why you bring up science, as if the “free will� concept has any more of a scientific basis.

[Peter]

Ah, but how free from instincts are our decisions? That's kinda the point. How reasoned and "free" from instinctual biases are our decisions? Can we tell? Will we ever know?

Well, again, from my perspective you're running off in philosophical la-la land.

La-la land? Look, if some imagined god is going to punish me for eternity for a choice that is instinctual and beyond my full conscious control I want to know. Don't you? If you don't want to explore this question then stay out of la-la land.

The answer to the question is critical to christianity because without free will the christian god is simply punishing his children for how he made them and through no conscious fault of their own.

You have, apparently, convinced yourself that if you can simply make a decision then it's a decision fully under your conscious control. Frankly, I'm not surprised, a christian can come to no other conclusion on this and remain a christian. If you're not a christian you seem to leaning heavily in that direction.

[Peter]

If you can make a choice, you necessarily have free will. That's my position.

With that definition a coin has free will because it "chooses" to land heads or tails.

Simply making a choice cannot possibly be considered free will.

[Divine Insight]

If you can make a choice, you necessarily have free will. That's my position.

With that definition a coin has free will because it "chooses" to land heads or tails.

Simply making a choice cannot possibly be considered free will.

Based on what I had described as being required to even make a choice, a coin being tossed would not be making any choice of how it might land.

So I disagree that a coin is "making a choice".

If someone knocks you out and tosses your unconscious body into the backseat of their car, are you making a choice of whether to land heads up or face down?

I think that choice was already made for you by whoever tossed you into the car.

If you're philosophically considering that coins are "Making Choices" then you truly are lost in philosophical la-la land.

[Divine Insight]

La-la land? Look, if some imagined god is going to punish me for eternity for a choice that is instinctual and beyond my full conscious control I want to know. Don't you? If you don't want to explore this question then stay out of la-la land.

With all due respect Peter, the question of some imagined egotistical demon casting me into a state of "eternal damnation" for not glorifying his ego, is so unreasonable to me, that for me to even consider such a thing would require that I become unreasonable.

Why do you bother concerning yourself with such unrealistic scenarios?

No truly "benevolent" God is going to cast you into a state of eternal damnation. Especially if you aren't fully aware of what's going on.

Where are you getting this idea from? Christianity? If so please consider the following:

An angry mob of non-believers of Jesus, beat him, openly mocked him, humiliated him, and ultimately either nailed him to a pole or stood by and egged-on those who did, and what did Jesus have to say about this?

Well according to the gospel of Luke Jesus said, "Father forgiven them for they know not what they do".

So there you go. If there is any truth to the fables of Jesus, Jesus himself has proclaimed that he will forgive people if they don't know what they are doing.

So you need not have any fear of being condemned by Jesus if you have no clue what's going on. I'm sure you're not actively setting out to nail Jesus to a pole, and he forgave people who even did that. So you would have nothing to fear from Jesus whether you have free will or not.

The answer to the question is critical to christianity because without free will the christian god is simply punishing his children for how he made them and through no conscious fault of their own.

Well, obviously if there is no free will the fables of the Christian God are simply false fables. Otherwise the God would indeed be a demon.

Even with free will choice he would still be an evil demon if he's casting people into eternal damnation for merely not believing in the outrageous stories of the Bible.

Just like I said, even those fables have Jesus asking this God to "Forgive people if they know not what they do"

Well, if you reject the religoin because you believe it to be false fables, and it's NOT. Then guess what? You have rejected it because you "know not what you've done". You rejected it because you believed it was false when is was in fact true.

That qualifies as "Knowing not what you do". And thus Jesus would surely forgive you according to the Gospel of Luke.

So even if it's a true religion you have nothing to fear in not believing it if that's how you sincerely feel about it.

You have, apparently, convinced yourself that if you can simply make a decision then it's a decision fully under your conscious control. Frankly, I'm not surprised, a christian can come to no other conclusion on this and remain a christian. If you're not a christian you seem to leaning heavily in that direction.

My belief in free will has nothing to do with Christianity at all (as I've explained in previous posts)

The existence of free will does not automatically give Christianity any merit at all.

If I have the free will of whether or not to accept a truly benevolent God, then I most certainly accept!

So if there are any benevolent Gods around let them hear this free will choice!

The very reason that I reject Christianity is precisely because I see nothing benevolent about it. So my disbelief and refusal to entertain the Christian myths cannot in any way be twisted into a free will choice to reject a benevolent God.

That most certainly is not the free will choice that I have chosen to make.

And like I say, if I'm mistaken, then by Jesus' own proclamation, "Father forgive him for he knows not what he does".

In other words, there's no way I can "know" that I'm rejecting a "benevolent God" when I'm clearly under the belief that I'm merely rejecting a "non-benevolent" false mythology.

In other words, even Jesus was smart enough to recognize that there can indeed be sincere and honest reasons for disbelief. And evidently the Christian God wasn't bright enough to figure that one out on his own because Jesus had to point it out to him.

Why should Jesus have to explain that one to God? Shouldn't God have already been intelligent and wise enough to figure out on his own that disbelief does not automatically equate to rejection of benevolence?

So to me, the concept of Free Will, and Christianity aren't even remotely related.

I wouldn't believe in Christianity if I knew with absolutely certainty that we have free will. And I'm already convinced that we do.

It's my FREE WILL CHOICE to reject Christianity as a superstitious myth.

I openly confess this to the entire world and to any Gods who might actually exist.

If the Christian God does exist shouldn't I be TRUTHFUL to God?

And my TRUTH is that Christianity does not appear to me to be anything more than absurd superstitious rumors.

If it's not, then I plea for amnesty under Jesus' provision that those who know not what they do should be forgiven.

That's where I stand with that.

I see no rational reason to believe in the outrageous claims of the Christian religion. And that does not equate to a "Free will rejection of God".

No genuinely honest benevolent God could ever righteously claim that I have "rejected" him.

If he's truly all-wise and omniscient then he would know that I have simply rejected what I see as clearly non-benevolent and non-divine superstitions.

The Christian God (or any Abrahamic Version of God) would need to be seriously stupid in order to condemn me on charges that I have rejected "Divine Benevolence".

Nothing could be further from the TRUTH.

And isn't this just further proof that such religions have to be false?

These religions demand that their Gods will condemn me for merely being TRUTHFUL.

That's the ultimate oxymoron right there isn't it?

Proof positive that these religions have to necessarily be false misguided superstitions.

Whether we have free will choice or not is totally irrelevant.