Did Christ have free will?

[brianbbs67]

Did Jesus/Yeshua/whateverhisname have free will. We see him quote" the son can only do as the father has instructed". Or was he so devoted to the father it never was an issue?

So, was he locked into the doctrine? Or could he act of his will? I can see examples of both. What do you all see?

[marco]

[Replying to post 78 by marco]

Jesus in fact recommended that we should all give up our free will. Pray thus:
"Thy will be done on Earth as it is in heaven."

In context, that is about realigning personal will with the greater mind of GOD in order that systems of parity can replace the systems of disparity.

Seriously? God gives us free will. Jesus recommends we send the gift back unopened. When one surrenders one's will so completely, one no longer has free will. The intention behind surrender is irrelevant.

[William]

[Replying to post 81 by marco]

Seriously?

Yes - seriously.

God gives us free will.

Yes.

Jesus recommends we send the gift back unopened.

No. The GIFT is already opened. It is even being used.

When one surrenders one's will so completely, one no longer has free will.

This may appear to be the case. People have been noted to give up all appearance of willfulness, through brutal methods used on them in order to achieve this, so that they can get on with their predicament without attracting anything more negative.
In some cases the brutal methods used on them in order to achieve this have also proven to be ineffective.

For example, a slave of the Roman Empire might have been so degraded by his masters as to appear to have lost all sense of self and will to express as an individual and only express what the masters demand, like a robot just doing whatever it is told.
In the case of a human being, what happens is not that they actually become a robot, but that they mostly disengage their will to self in order not to attract anything negative which will cause them to suffer brutal consequences.
In this, they act a part which circumstances force upon them and this is an aspect of survival technique in the face of adversity.
For some this might equate to doing acts their masters demand, to which such acts effectively ruin them as a self respecting individual human beings and they become no better than their masters.
For others, they WILL not go to those extremes and eventually are caught out and suffer the consequences.

Some slaves and prisoners during one period of time in Roman history, thought it better to be wrapped up in animal skins and placed in an arena to be shredded to death by wild animals whilst entertaining Roman citizens, than to completely lose their humanity and become the same brutal savages as their oppressors.

It could be argued that those who 'surrendered their will so completely, they no longer had free will' were - in this case - the Romans themselves - the oppressors. But even so, they all had free will and chose how they would use or abuse that GIFT.

But is free will really a GIFT?

In the case of giving free will to GOD, one is assigning support for the idea of the GOD one believes in.
If free will is to be seen as a GIFT, then it is one which can be given while still being retained by the giver.
If GIFT is not an appropriate analogy for 'free will' (due to oxymoron) then one is not giving their free will, one is lending it to support something which is greater than the individual. In that sense, one is sharing their personal free will to a thing greater than themselves.

Thus - in relation to your expression "Jesus recommends we send the gift back unopened.";

IF
Free will is not a GIFT from GOD, but something GOD loans to each of us.
THEN
We are using the loan GOD gave us by investing it back into GOD as a way of acknowledging that this is the best way to use it.

The intention behind surrender is irrelevant.

The intention behind the surrender, is ALL that is relevant. It is the very thing which acts as the rudder to the ship of personal experience in the sea of free will, compelled by the winds of life lived.

But
IF
Free will is not a GIFT from GOD, but something GOD loans to each of us.
THEN
We are not surrendering (giving up) the loan. We are investing it in something we believe will give us greater returns in the long run.

Therefore it would read something like;

"The intention behind the investment, is ALL that is relevant. It is the very thing which acts as the rudder to the ship of personal experience in the sea of free will, compelled by the winds of life lived."

[marco]

No. The GIFT is already opened. It is even being used.Therefore it would read something like;

"The intention behind the investment, is ALL that is relevant. It is the very thing which acts as the rudder to the ship of personal experience in the sea of free will, compelled by the winds of life lived."

Well expressed; well argued.

We are arguing about free will here and it is obvious, despite the glorious contribution of Spartacus and the Christians who were lion-meat, that the gift has not been universally given. Some specimens of humanity have no mental ability to exercise free will. But that's not the subject.... it is relevant, however, in demonstrating that SOME humans do not have free will. Was Christ one of them? Possibly.

His metaphoric struggle with Satan simply shows he was programmed to follow a course of good, sacrifice, glory, humiliation or whatever it was. When he attempted to escape from this captivity he was reminded he could not. Another will operated on him.

Did he deviate from his programmed course? It seems not. Therefore there is little difference between Christ and a mechanical robot or a computer programmed to beat Kasparov.

[William]

[Replying to post 83 by marco]

Therefore there is little difference between Christ and a mechanical robot or a computer programmed to beat Kasparov.

In the case of the argument re free will and did Jesus have it, your expression "there is little difference" simply implies 'little difference in appearance' rather than shows that there was actually no difference, because a mechanical robot or a computer programmed to beat Kasparov are not a self conscious autonomous beings, and a human is.

Some specimens of humanity have no mental ability to exercise free will.

Please give some examples of such humans and we can study them in more detail, in relation to whether Jesus would also fit the script.

[marco]

In the case of the argument re free will and did Jesus have it, your expression "there is little difference" simply implies 'little difference in appearance' rather than shows that there was actually no difference, because a mechanical robot or a computer programmed to beat Kasparov is not a self conscious autonomous being, and a human is.

This ignores the idea that Jesus was sent by God and underwent a miraculous incarnation. He may well have acted as a programmed computer. The circumstance of his incarnation is relevant to whether or not he had free will.

Please give some examples of such humans and we can study them in more detail.

How would you propose to study examples of human retardation? Do we wish to use a torch to determine some residue of will power? There are unfortunately human beings who can do nothing for themselves.

[Divine Insight]

Attempting to use free will as a justification for Christianity is a major fail.

To begin with, there would be absolutely no justification for the suffering of innocent people. Them having free will does nothing to justify that.

Secondly, if our eternal fate is based on our own free will choice, then Jesus cannot be our "savior". Only we could save ourselves via our own free will choice. So there's no need for Jesus in any religion that claims that human free will is paramount.

Finally, free will cannot be desirable since free will cannot possibly exist in heaven. Therefore it ultimately needs to be revoked in the end anyway. Thus it could not have ever been important or valuable at all.

So any attempt to use free will as an apologetic excuse for Christianity necessarily fails in an extremely profound way.

[William]

[Replying to post 85 by marco]

This ignores the idea that Jesus was sent by God and underwent a miraculous incarnation.

No it doesn't - but if you want to elaborate...

He may well have acted as a programmed computer.

What he 'may have' done is not here nor there. A programmed computer does not have autonomous attributes, and there is nothing in the story which implies that he 'may have' been a programmed computer.

It is an exciting concept, but at that rate we could also argue that none of us have any actual free will and all of us exist in a simulation. It is an interesting concept, granted, but is it relevant to the OP question?

The circumstance of his incarnation is relevant to whether or not he had free will.

In what regard?

That he had a choice before he incarnated, and that he retained full knowledge of a prior exists after his incarnation?

There are unfortunately human beings who can do nothing for themselves.

In that case, comparing these with what the story says about Jesus, we can discount the idea that Jesus could do nothing for himself.
Thus, attempting to compare those who have no apparent free will with Jesus as presented in the story, is fallacy.

[marco]

In that case, comparing these with what the story says about Jesus, we can discount the idea that Jesus could do nothing for himself.
Thus, attempting to compare those who have no apparent free will with Jesus as presented in the story, is fallacy.

Let me take this first. I wasn't saying Jesus was retarded; I was saying that people are born without free will, that free will is NOT given to all people, for whatever reason.

This ignores the idea that Jesus was sent by God and underwent a miraculous incarnation.

No it doesn't - but if you want to elaborate...

You mean you don't understand how it ignores the incarnation. You were discussing everyday human beings, most with free will. The OP asks whether Jesus had free will and one way of arguing is to suggest he was born artificially (incarnated in fact) and this would give a reason to suppose he was not like the other humans you mention. If he was born for the sole purpose of carrying out a job, then it is reasonable to say he was void of free will. Your counter that all people have free will is negated by pointing out that some people demonstrably have no free will, though that does not suggest Jesus was otherwise like them, just born in a peculiar way.

He may well have acted as a programmed computer.

What he 'may have' done is not here nor there. A programmed computer does not have autonomous attributes, and there is nothing in the story which implies that he 'may have' been a programmed computer.

Yes, you misunderstand. I am saying that if he was artificially created, as we may suppose from the gospels, then his actions in life may well have, ipso facto, resembled one who has been programmed to act in a particular way. I wasn't entering science fiction, simply looking at the Christ's life and apparent purpose.

The circumstance of his incarnation is relevant to whether or not he had free will.

In what regard?

That he had a choice before he incarnated, and that he retained full knowledge of a prior exists after his incarnation?

No. He was artificially created to carry out a purpose from which he was unable to deviate. Incarnations don't happen every Thursday.

I think I've made a reasonable case for Christ's absence of free will. Can you find any examples that demonstrate he employed free will?

[ttruscott]

I think I've made a reasonable case for Christ's absence of free will. Can you find any examples that demonstrate he employed free will?

Since all perfect obedience to a plan can be had by a free will decision to obey the plan, I contend that the only proof that a person has a free will is if he rebels.

Therefore we must arrive at who has a free will another way. The guilty are punished which implies they really are guilty by their own choice, not just GOD playing out a game of mental gymnastic semantics.

Also the righteous are rewarded which again implies their choice must have been real. So, since He was raised to the Father's right hand for His work here, I assume it was by His own free will. Especially since none of the proofs of His not having a free will are accepted because they can all be accounted for by His free will....unless I missed something.

[marco]

Since all perfect obedience to a plan can be had by a free will decision to obey the plan, I contend that the only proof that a person has a free will is if he rebels.

And he didn't rebel, so he didn't have free will?

You assume that Christ initially was asked whether he wanted to have a crown of thorns, be mocked and then crucified and he agreed. I haven't read that bit of the Bible. God so loved the world that he provided his only begotten son to be tortured and put on a cross. God did.

When Abraham so loved his God that he set about preparing to kill Isaac it would not have mattered too much if the boy had said: "No way!" His free will wasn't an issue, nor was Christ's and Christ is often compared to Isaac.

And Jesus did as he was told. The imagery of the lamb to the slaughter suggests that the lamb wasn't asked. He did say "This is not my will, but my dad's." He might have added: "I've no choice. It is written."