Name: 基督徒不想讓你問的關於自由意志的 11 個問題 (11 Problems with Free Will Christians Don’t Want You to Ask)
Uploaded: 2025-08-31T23:28:22.000Z
Duration: 16 min

Number one, why punish thought crime if free will is about action?

第一，如果自由意志是關於行動的，為什麼要懲罰思想罪？

情態副詞

It's Jesus himself who famously elevates internal thoughts to the level of physical, actionable sin.

正是耶穌本人將內心的想法提升到了肉體的、可付諸行動的罪的高度，這一點非常有名。

Anyone who looks at a woman with lust has committed adultery.

任何人若以淫蕩的眼光看女人，就是犯了姦淫罪。

Any man that looks on his brother in anger has committed murder.

凡是怒視自己兄弟的人，都犯了謀殺罪。

If sin, if morality, the immorality that leads to sin is based off actions that are freely chosen, which we're going to get to that initial problem, how possibly could we be responsible for our thoughts?

如果罪，如果道德，如果導致罪的不道德是基於自由選擇的行為，而我們要解決的是最初的問題，那麼我們怎麼可能對自己的思想負責呢？

Does this God, do the people who wrote this not know that our thoughts are not really well within our control?

難道這位上帝，難道寫這篇文章的人不知道，我們的思想其實並不是我們所能控制的嗎？

For those even that believe in agency at all, you might say, okay, a thought popped into my head and now I'm choosing what I do with it.

對於那些甚至完全相信代理權的人來說，你可能會說，好吧，我腦子裡突然冒出一個想法，現在我要選擇如何處理它。

If you've ever done any kind of mindfulness meditation practice, if you've ever just sat and tried to observe what happens in your brain, you very quickly find out the onslaught of uncontrollable thoughts that pass through our mind at any given second.

如果你曾進行過任何形式的正念冥想練習，如果你曾靜坐並試圖觀察大腦中發生了什麼，你很快就會發現，在任何特定的時間裡，我們的大腦中都會有大量無法控制的想法。

I even like some of the scriptural concepts around this, capture every thought.

我甚至喜歡經文中關於 "捕捉每一個思想 "的概念。

That's after you've noticed it though, it's come in and now you have the choice for what you're going to do.

不過，這是在你注意到它之後，它已經進來了，現在你可以選擇要做什麼。

But the thought itself, if it's true that thoughts equal sin and sin separates you from God, then you have no free will in the fact that you are separated from God or not, which by the way is already obvious with the concept of original sin, but that's one of the more basic arguments within free will.

但就思想本身而言，如果思想等同於罪，而罪又使你與上帝分離，那麼在你是否與上帝分離的問題上，你就沒有自由意志。

I wanted to show you some nuanced versions here.

我想在這裡向大家展示一些細微的版本。

The second question I have for you is one that when you take it out of the doctrinal aspect, it's pretty easy to answer even for believers.

我要問你的第二個問題是，當你把它從教義方面抽離出來時，即使對信徒來說也很容易回答。

But as soon as it comes to their God, it's like they forget how logic works.

但一旦涉及到他們的上帝，他們就好像忘記了邏輯是如何運作的。

If someone has a gun to your head and says, give me your husband's credit card and they do it, no husband in their right mind is going to get mad at them and say, why did you do that?

如果有人拿槍指著你的腦袋說，把你丈夫的信用卡給我，而你丈夫照做了，那麼任何一個正常的丈夫都不會對他們發火，說，你為什麼要這麼做？

It's not really free will, a true free choice if the most massive consequence that is, is on the other side of it.

如果最嚴重的後果在它的另一面，那就不是真正的自由意志，真正的自由選擇。

Anyone who would argue otherwise is simply trying to defend the obvious implication that has for Christianity with a looming threat of hell or annihilation or whatever you believe about the afterlife.

任何持相反觀點的人都只是在試圖維護基督教的明顯含義，即地獄或毀滅或任何你所相信的來世的威脅迫在眉睫。

There's kind of a sub point on this one to not make it its own next, but as an example, if a kidnapper says, hey, love me or suffer forever, it's not just the point that I made that that's not really a free choice.

這個問題有一個分論點，不能把它作為下一個問題，但舉個例子，如果一個綁匪說，嘿，要麼愛我，要麼永遠受苦，這不僅僅是我提出的觀點，這不是一個真正的自由選擇。

So when that person says, yes, I love you because that's the only actual choice.

所以，當那個人說，是的，我愛你，因為這是唯一的實際選擇。

And so the sub point here is that I think that goes into how we love God or how we believe in God.

是以，這裡的次要點是，我認為這涉及到我們如何愛上帝或如何信仰上帝。

當受到威脅時，它真的是信念嗎？

The next question I have for you is, will there be a tree of temptation in heaven?

我的下一個問題是，天堂裡會有誘惑之樹嗎？

And this is actually a much bigger question or bigger point, I should say, on my biggest issue with heaven, which is that there cannot actually be free will in heaven if there is a guarantee of no death, tears, sorrow, or sin.

這實際上是一個更大的問題或更大的觀點，我應該說，這是我對天堂最大的疑問，即如果天堂裡保證沒有死亡、眼淚、悲傷或罪惡，那麼天堂裡實際上就不可能有自由意志。

What did we hear about the reason God had to put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden?

我們聽說上帝把善惡樹放在花園裡的原因是什麼？

What's the Christian apologetic for that when the skeptic rightly says how unfair for God to put this thing in front of them?

當懷疑論者理直氣壯地說上帝把這件事擺在他們面前是多麼不公平時，基督徒該如何為此辯護呢？

These moral toddlers that didn't even know the difference between right and wrong yet.

這些道德蹣跚學步的孩子甚至還不知道對與錯的區別。

The Christian answer is always, well, God had to give them free will.

基督徒的回答總是，上帝必須給他們自由意志。

Otherwise, perfection didn't matter because Eden was perfect.

否則，完美並不重要，因為伊甸園就是完美的。

Just the potential had to be there for sin so that God didn't have robots or slaves or all the other dumb things Christians say.

只是罪的可能性必須存在，這樣上帝才不會有機器人或奴隸，也不會有基督徒說的其他蠢話。

So then everyone goes to heaven and what?

那麼，每個人都會上天，然後呢？

You don't have to have the potential to sin in heaven.

在天堂，你不必有犯罪的可能。

It's not that there would have to be a tree for this.

並不是說一定要有一棵樹才行。

There could be many different ways, but I think it's very clear that if none have ever no human, by the way, of course, we have the fall of the angels, which is its own free will issue, but it's related.

可能有許多不同的方式，但我認為非常清楚的是，如果沒有一個人曾經沒有人類，順便說一下，當然，我們有天使的墮落，這是它自己的自由意志問題，但它是相關的。

But if in the history of time, no one individual has ever in heaven rebelled, it's not because no one chose to.

但是，如果說在歷史長河中，天堂裡從來沒有一個人反叛過，那並不是因為沒有人選擇反叛。

And if you're the person right now saying no, just when you're in the presence of God like that, you wouldn't want to insert Lucifer, insert Adam and Eve, all of which had been in the presence of God in a paradise and still chose to sin.

如果你現在說 "不"，當你在上帝面前這樣說的時候，你不會想插入路西法，插入亞當和夏娃，他們都曾在天堂裡與上帝同在，卻仍然選擇了犯罪。

So I think the inconsistencies between Eden and heaven show a ton of issues and should be its own episode, but not least of which is the issues with free will in heaven.

是以，我認為伊甸園和天堂之間的不一致顯示了大量的問題，應該單獨成集，但其中最重要的是天堂中的自由意志問題。

The next question is a bit more popular than some of the others we've done.

下一個問題比我們做過的其他問題更受歡迎。

Does the concept of omniscience eradicate the concept of free will?

全知全能的概念是否根除了自由意志的概念？

On one hand, you have the typical Christian answer that is just because someone knows something is going to happen doesn't mean they're taking away someone's free will.

一方面，你會得到典型的基督教答案，即某人知道某件事會發生並不意味著他剝奪了某人的自由意志。

And a popular analogy might be if I offer my kid an Oreo or a scoop of blue cheese, I know they're going to choose the Oreo.

一個流行的比喻是，如果我給我的孩子一個奧利奧或一勺藍紋奶酪，我知道他們會選擇奧利奧。

That doesn't mean they didn't actually have the free choice between the two.

這並不意味著他們實際上無法在兩者之間自由選擇。

But that's a false analogy because unless I created fully my child and instilled in them every little desire and thought and how their brain works and also made the Oreos and the world that exists and did it all with perfect foreknowledge of what would happen before I did it and I'm all powerful.

但這是一個錯誤的比喻，因為除非我完全創造了我的孩子，並向他們灌輸了每一個小小的願望和想法，以及他們的大腦是如何工作的，還創造了奧利奧和這個世界，並且在我做這一切之前，我就完全預知會發生什麼，我就是無所不能的。

It's the combination of foreknowledge with omnipotence.

That is very different than the parent who just knows the typical preference of the child.

這與只知道孩子典型喜好的家長截然不同。

That is complete and utter control over the situation.

這就是對局勢完全徹底的控制。

That is actually starting the situation, which I think absolutely does equal responsibility, which absolutely does take away the concept of free will.

這實際上就是開始了，我認為這絕對等於責任，這絕對等於取消了自由意志的概念。

God chose for us to be here knowing what we would do and doing nothing to change the outcome of that is the same thing as making it to happen.

上帝在知道我們會做什麼的情況下，選擇讓我們來到這裡，而不做任何事情來改變結果，就等於讓它發生。

My next question, why are characters like Judas and Satan and the devil blamed if they're fulfilling prophecy?

我的下一個問題是，如果猶大、撒旦和魔鬼等人物是在實現預言，為什麼他們會受到指責？

Maybe the bigger question at the end of that is doesn't prophecy alone, kind of like omniscience because it comes from that, eradicate the concept of free will?

也許最後一個更大的問題是，預言本身，就像全知全能一樣，不就消除了自由意志的概念嗎？

Judas is condemned for doing something he otherwise could have never done.

猶大因為做了他本不可能做的事而受到譴責。

He was born to literally be the one that betrays Jesus.

Jesus even says it would be better had you not been born, which is the most insane comment, maybe in the Bible, because if you actually follow through with the Christian belief that Jesus is God, that he is the father, that he was there at creation, that he's part of that trinity that knows every hair on the head of Judas as he's in the womb.

耶穌甚至說，你最好不要出生，這可能是《聖經》中最瘋狂的評論，因為如果你真正堅持基督教信仰，相信耶穌是上帝，他是上帝之父，他在創世時就在那裡，他是三位一體的一部分，知道猶大在子宮裡時頭上的每一根頭髮。

Jesus was there when he decided for Judas to enter into existence, and yet he is telling Judas it would be better that he was not born?

當耶穌決定讓猶大出生時，他就在那裡，而他卻告訴猶大最好不要出生？

Quite literally, no, it wouldn't have been better.

None of humanity could be saved via the atonement of Jesus without him.

沒有他，人類就無法通過耶穌的贖罪得到拯救。

So why do Christians condemn him if they need him?

那麼，如果基督徒需要他，為什麼還要譴責他呢？

This is straight up unbelievably irreconcilable.

And of course, the same goes for the devil and Satan and all the other concepts you might have of an enemy.

當然，魔鬼、撒旦以及其他所有關於敵人的概念也是如此。

You have an enemy with an all-powerful God.

You only have him because God wants him there.

你擁有他只是因為上帝希望他在那裡。

他是上帝大棋局中的一顆棋子。

You can't then get mad at the chess piece.

Why does God use visions and dreams and putting feelings in people's hearts to influence them?

為什麼上帝會用異象和夢境，以及把感覺放在人們心中來影響他們？

If free will is so important, can you have free will when you have a God that is influencing?

如果自由意志如此重要，那麼當你有一個影響你的上帝時，你還能有自由意志嗎？

And sometimes that influence is a lot bigger, right?

This point could have been about Paul or Saul when he runs into Jesus on the road to Damascus.

這可能是指保羅或掃羅在通往大馬士革的路上遇到耶穌時。

Did Paul choose Jesus or did Jesus choose Paul?

是保羅選擇了耶穌，還是耶穌選擇了保羅？

What choice did Paul then have when Jesus shows up so starkly?

當耶穌如此鮮明地出現時，保羅還有什麼選擇？

And if that sounds ridiculous, then you need to consider the excuses for divine hiddenness.

如果這聽起來很荒唐，那麼你就需要考慮一下為神聖的隱蔽性找藉口了。

Because the number one excuse is that, well, if God just showed himself to you beyond the shadow of a doubt, it would take away your free will, right?

因為首要的藉口就是，如果上帝毫無疑問地向你顯現，就會剝奪你的自由意志，對嗎？

Christians say that on one hand and then they point to Paul with no irony and tell the story about how Jesus showed up directly to him, spoke to him, called him, blinded him.

基督徒們一方面這樣說，另一方面又不無諷刺地指著保羅，講述耶穌如何直接出現在他面前，與他說話，呼喚他，弄瞎他的眼睛。

但這並沒有剝奪他的自由意志？

My next question jumps off of that one and it's this.

Are you interrupting people's free will when you pray for them?

當你為人們祈禱時，你是否打斷了他們的自由意志？

So then another part question, is it wrong to pray for other people in an intervening way?

那麼，另一部分問題是，以干預的方式為他人祈禱有錯嗎？