Aw right, sae here's the scenarios. Imagine yirsel a bank, nice, normal, roond five o clock or sae. Ms. Teller is standin there, ay coontin her cash ir whae nae, when in walks this radge in a ski mask un such, wavin aboot a gun. He demands Ms. Teller takes the money oot ay her drawer, n gives it aw tae him, lest he blow her brains oot, ken? Sae Ms. Teller, she gives the guy the money, an he leaves. Afterwards, the bank manager, he comes oop tae her an says Ye aw right, Ms. Teller? An she says yea, I ken I is. An the manager, he tells her tae take tomorrow off, cause ay the stress ay whae jest happened tae her an aw...
Second scenario. Same bank, same Ms. Teller, same time. A guy walks in, walks oop tae her, n he says Hey, Honey, an she says Hello; it's her hubby, ken? An her awld man, he says, Darlin, why do ye nae give me the money in yer drawer. An she waits till she thinks that no one isnae watchin, an she slips her awld man ay couple a hundreds, an he leaves. Later, her drawer comes oop short, an they checks the security camera tapes an they sees her givin the cash tae her hubby. Naturally, she is fired, an they Bank Owners, they calls the cops an she is taken off fir stealin.
Here's me question: why is it thae in the first scene, the woman is nae only nae fired fir followin the robber's instructs n giving the robber aw the cash, this woman, she's comforted by the manager? But in the second, the woman, she's nae only fired fir givin away the cash, the manager has the burd arrested? Why is that? Both Ms. Tellers did the same thing, more or less. In both scenes, this guy comes in an asks fir the cash, an in both scenes, the guy, he gets it. So why is the first nae fired, nor prosecuted? In both situations, the woman hud a choice: she could aw said no. Both times, the woman could ay opted tae give nae cash away. Ah, you say, but in scene one, the guy hud a gun, an threatened her, an she hud nae choice. In scene two, the guy wis her hubby, an she most certainly could ay said nae.
Wrong. In both situations, the woman could ay said no. In scene two, the woman wis fired fir nae saying no tae her hubby; why nae in scene one also? Why in scene one did nae the manager say Ms. Teller, you should ay said Nae cash fir you tae the robber, an nae lose our money? Why wis nae the woman in scene one fired? She hud a choice, I tell ye!
Welcome tae the world ay Fundamentalist Logic.
Both women hud freewill. Both hud the ability tae choose yea ir nae. Obviously, though, in the first scene, the woman, she hud nae much ay a choice. Nae sane, rational person would ay said no tae the robber.
This is the thing: freewill is more than simply the ability tae choose.
Here's another example fir ye: Yer in a diner, an is dessert time, ken? An the waiter, he comes tae ye all an he says Ye got two choices aw dessert: a bowl ay ice cream, ir a bowl ay nails. Naturally, everyone at yir table chooses the ice cream; nay sane person would choose a bowl ay nails over a bowl ay ice cream. Sae soon after, yer aw sittin thar, eatin yir ice cream, when oot walks the chef, tears streamin doon his face. An ye awl, ye say, Whae fir are ye crying thar, chef? An the chef, he says he's crying cause he's so happy. Whae? ye says. He says he's sae happy, cause he must be sooch a great chef, cause every time, everyone always orders his ice cream fir dessert...
Freewill. It's more than the ability tae choose; it's more than jest havin a choice. Freewill is the ability tae FREELY choose. A man holds ay gun tae a woman's head an rapes her; later, he's convicted ay rape. Why? Cause the sex wis nae consensual. Yes, the woman, she could ay said no; but that's not important. She hud the ability tae choose, but nae tae FREELY choose; the guy hud a gun tae her head, sae he is convicted.
Here's the story, as related tae mysel by the Fundamentalists: First, there's God. But he's lonely (Yes, I realize the contradiction ay an awl-powerful, perfect being which is lonely), sae God, he makes the angels, creates them sae that they have nae choice boot tae serve him (yes, I know, Lucifer rebelled, which contradicts that; I'm merely relating what I heard). But eventually, God realizes (Yes, I know; how can an omnipotent being "eventually realize"?) that of course the angels love him; they hud nae choice, an there love is meaningless.
Sae God, he creates the humans tae love him, except God gives the humans FREEWILL, the ability tae choose tae love God ir nae, sae when the humans choose tae love God, it means somethin. An later, after sending plagues an floods an other such stuff fir awhile, God sends his son doon, tae get nailed tae a tree. An this happens, an sae the Choice is set oop.
Here is the choice, accordin tae the Fundamentalists: ye either choose Jesus, an are Saved, ir ye burn in eternal torment. Many people take eternal torment, but ay few, they choose God. Sae there is God in heaven, watchin his followers comin in, an droolin aw over his Godly self an sayin to hisself: Wow! These humans, they really do love me! They aw chose Me over Eternal Torment! Wow!
It's aboot as stupid as a chef sayin Wow! They really do love my ice cream! They aw chose it over a bowl of nails!
Why was Ms. Teller nae fired in scene one? Cause she did nae have the ability tae FREELY choose, whereas the second one did. For a choice tae be meaningful, it must be a FREE choice. It must be between, say, vanilla ir chocolate ice cream, nae ice cream ir nails. Fir God's gift ay freewill tae have meanin, we must be able tae have a FREE choice, nae a choice between God or Eternal Torment in Hell. If that's aw there is, then God isnae better than a rapist, standin on the witness stand saying "But she chose tae boink wi me! She chose it! I mean, sure, her only other option wis fir me tae shoot her" - an personally, I thinks Eternal Torment is worse than gettin shot, which makes God actually worse than the rapist - "but still, she chose me!"
Fir someone tae choose God an it be a meaningful choice, the person must be able tae FREELY choose; God ir hell is nae more meaningful than ice cream ir nails. Sae, if this Lonely Awl-Powerful Being wants us tae love him in a meaningful way, he'd have tae give us a meaningful choice; say, love God ir spend eternity as an immortal in an afterlife world not unlike the earth, ir somethin (an Awl-Powerful should nae have nae trouble coming up wi somethin'); that is, spend the afterlife in heaven wi God, ir, if ye dinnae like God, then spend eternity on a planet an in a life essentially the same as this, except that you won't die; or perhaps reincarnation fir those that believe in that...
Ever see the movie Schindler's List? Watch it, an say this tae yirsel at the end: despite everythin these poor Jews have been through, they're goin tae hell, accordin tae the Fundamentalists. Why? Cause the Jews, they knew of Christ (after all, those Nazis that captured them etc did CLAIM tae be christians) and yet they did not become Christians, and only Christians go tae heaven. As ye watch the end, lookin at the people puttin flowers on the graves, sae tae yirself "I am a Fundamentalist, and every one a these Holocaust survivors are goin tae hell, cause they did nae accept Christ as their savior..."
Sae, why are the Fundamentalists tryin tae turn God intae a Giant Omniscient Eejit? Why do they want tae, like an eejit virus, infect a supposedly loving God an turn him intae somethin nae better than a rapist? I thinks they must have some sort ay deep, unconscious Exclusion complex, an they have projected this complex on tae God. It makes sense; most cultures, it seems, create God in the image of themselves; if they are a bunch of vengeful, whining, drooling morons, then accourse they're gonna see God that way, too.
An then there's an even better question: what does Jesus Christ, the guy these Fundamentalists claim tae follow absolutely, have tae say aboot their system ay Be a Christian Or Suffer Forever In Hell? I will address that next week.