Message from @PerformedShelf
Discord ID: 504748295579631618
“I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.” - Heinlein
Similarly there is no original sin, Humanity was just in eating from the Tree of Knowledge because it granted them consciousness and free will.
Because of that, Jesus Christ (Yeshua Ha'Notzri) was not seen as a figure meant to be the redeemer of Humanity, but as a Buddhic figure brought into the world to share divine insight and enlightenment.
The Christian argument is that it is because of free will that the decision to eat the fruit ocurred, not the result
Well the snake tricked Eve
She ate from the tree because she didn't have free will.
Eden was a false paradise.
Thats not necessarily the case
It was the idyllic bliss of Man living in Nature.
She ate from the tree because she had the free will to decide between the things that God told her and the things the snake told her
What I am saying is pretty subjective
And that is probably the more canonical interpretation
Her intent was to find out the truth, her actions were done under the supposition that the snake was telling the truth
Snake dindu nuffin
She has free will, but decided to act based upon an incorrect supposition
She lacked the knowledge to know that the snake was evil
Another argument would be that the existence of the tree and the snake prove that there was free will, because without the ability to explore those options, your will is not free due to being shackled through limitations
That is a more apt way of putting it
So according to that way of thinking, you do innately have free will
But, if your consciousness is joined by that of an external party, then surely you no longer have free will
If put into semantics it would be better to say you innately have 1/3 free will.
Your soul is your own, at least a normal persons soul is their own.
You're spirit is aspect of your consciousness that you do not control with free will, your subconscious.
And you're body is innately limiting, because its flesh and material.
To have full free will is to have absolute control over the nature of existence
That is not true
What you will becomes what is
Free will is the ability to manfest your intentions to the world
You're right, I should've said full free will is absolute control over your being
Which I would argue the regular person has
Can you control when you sweat?
Via my autonomic nervous system, yes
So you do not consciously do it
It is not your choice to sweat
But it is not my intent to overheat, therefore my body automatically does what it ca
I could sit in the heat, or move to the shade
I understand what you're saying, but I am being pedantic for the sake of nullifying deconstructionism. I am being as literal as possible when I say full free will, I am essentially talking about nirvana in a way, where your will and being transcend the environment around you.
If I intended to overheat, my free will allowing me so, I would sit in the heat regardless and sweat
Because as an example there are Buddhist monks who work to master control over their body. A notable case is of certain monks being able to regulate their body temperature through will.