I asked if we are given free will (presuming the existence of the [Christian] God), how is it so many fundamentalists seek so often at so many levels to interfere with the free will of others? Particularly when the acts they condemn do not create Earthly emergencies, such as robbery, rape and murder do create.

A paradox happens when two statements are both true and mutually exclusive. The original paradox, namely we have free will and God is omniscient is a paradox because it would appear that having free will and having someone know everything we do before we know it are things that are supposedly mutually exclusive, yet both are also regarded as true.

Your question is not at all a paradox ...

I know what a paradox is.
There is no need, in this current portion of the discussion, to discuss whether there exists a supernatural being and whether that being exists paradox free.
We face them.
If you feel the word "conundrum" suits what is being described better, then go ahead and use that instead and focus on the question.

... because having free will and then using that free will to try and impose your views/will onto others is not at all mutually exclusive. Nor is it hypocritical or otherwise against the Christian teachings. There is no command in the bible that says you shall not try to impose your views onto others. In fact, in some parts its quite the opposite, basically saying 'convert or die' (mostly the old testament, which happens to be the testament most fundamentalist Christians like the most).

It is quite simple.
Certain people believe God gave them free will. Not just them. All humans.
Setting up laws against certain actions, actions which do not create Earthly dangers or at least immediate ones, restricts the free will of others. God says, essentially, "I give you free will. Choose. Live your way or live by my rules and have eternal life. But, go ahead and live your way for now if that's what you like." Some of his followers say, "No, we're going to make you live our way which we believe is God's way."
They attempt to nullify the choice offered by their own Most High.
It is quite simple.
Don't want to call it a paradox?
It's still a heck of a big conundrum.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/do-science-and-religion-conflict-its-all-in-how-you-see-it/2015/10/22/5fade828-78d7-11e5-a5e2-40d6b2ad18dd_story.html

Most Americans see a conflict between the findings of science and the teachings of religion.

But “see” is the operative word in a new Pew Research Center report issued Thursday (Oct. 22).

Examining perceptions leads to some unexpected findings.

While 59 percent of U.S. adults say they saw science and religion in conflict, that drops to 30 percent when people are asked about their own religious beliefs.

It turns out that the most highly religious were least likely to see conflict.

And those who said they saw the most conflict between the two worldviews in society are people who personally claimed no religious brand, the “nones,” according to the report.

“Our perceptions of others are often different than our perceptions of ourselves and this plays out here. It’s the most striking finding,” said Cary Funk, associate director of research and co-author of the report.

The report is an analysis of several surveys but chiefly relies on a 2014 survey of 2,002 U.S. adults conducted in collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science. In that survey:

* 40 percent of evangelical Protestants said their personal religious beliefs conflicted with science.

* 50 percent of highly religious adults (people who said they attend religious services at least weekly) saw science and religion often in conflict.

* 76 percent of religiously unaffiliated said they saw such conflict in society. But when asked about their personal beliefs, just 16 percent saw such conflict.

The analysis looked at 20 science issues and found that on most — including climate change, genetically modified foods and space exploration — religious differences were part of a matrix of influences that include age, gender, education, political affiliation and ideology.

Funk said the analysis found “only a handful of areas where people’s religious beliefs and practices have a strong connection to their views about science.”

The hot topics were views on the creation of the universe, on evolution and on whether religious congregations should take positions in debates over public policies on scientific issues.

Overall, half of Americans (50 percent) said congregations should express their views on policy decisions about scientific issues and 46 percent said they should not.

Catholics were the most divided, with 49 percent saying churches should not express their views and 45 percent calling for churches to speak up. (The main survey relied on an August 2014 analysis, one year before Pope Francis issued a powerful teaching document on the environment citing scientific voices calling for action on climate change.)

About 2 in 3 white evangelicals (69 percent) and black Protestants (66 percent) supported churches’ expressing views. But most of those with no religious affiliation (66 percent) were firmly against it.

On evolution, 31 percent of U.S. adults said humans and other living things “have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.” Most (65 percent overall) said that “humans and other living things have evolved over time.” This includes:

* 86 percent of the religiously unaffiliated

* 73 percent of non-Hispanic white Catholics and 59 percent of Hispanic Catholics

* 71 percent of white mainline Protestants

* 49 percent of black Protestants

* 36 percent of white evangelicals.

(The margin of error was plus or minus 3.1 percentage points for overall findings but higher for subgroups, ruling out analysis of Jews, Muslims, Hindu and other small religious groups.)

The Pew analysis found wide differences among major religious groups when it came to perceptions of scientists. People were asked whether they saw scientists as divided or united on the creation of the universe.

The nones were the only major group in which a majority (61 percent) said scientists were unanimous that “the universe was created in a single, violent event.”

That Big Bang theory doesn’t resound for most others, however.

Overall, 42 percent of U.S. adults perceived scientific consensus about the creation of the universe.

Most (52 percent) see scientists as divided, including nearly 7 in 10 (69 percent) of white evangelicals and 62 percent of Hispanics Catholics.

Americans did come together on one issue — strong public support for government investment in science. Overall, 71 percent of adults said government investment in basic science research “pays off in the long run,” while 24 percent said such investments are not worth it, the report says.

The AAAS, mindful of how attitudes toward science can influence society, just finished a three-year “Perceptions Project” through its Dialogue on Science, Ethics and Religion to engage religious communities, particularly evangelicals, in conversation with scientists.

The perception gap highlighted by the Pew analysis can be addressed by building bridges between both groups so that they don’t rely on “media stereotypes,” said Jennifer Wiseman, an astronomer and program director for DoSer.

“We found that everyone from the least to the most religious seems fundamentally interested and positive about science,” she said.

Although there were “a few areas where people stand apart,” Wiseman said, “we found a lot of shared desire to use science and technology for the betterment of the world and the human condition. There’s a lot of common ground.”

---

It is quite simple.
Certain people believe God gave them free will. Not just them. All humans.
Setting up laws against certain actions, actions which do not create Earthly dangers or at least immediate ones, restricts the free will of others. God says, essentially, "I give you free will. Choose. Live your way or live by my rules and have eternal life. But, go ahead and live your way for now if that's what you like." Some of his followers say, "No, we're going to make you live our way which we believe is God's way."
They attempt to nullify the choice offered by their own Most High.
It is quite simple.
Don't want to call it a paradox?
It's still a heck of a big conundrum.

Sorry, I was on a holiday break the past week.

Anyways, no thats not a paradox. Again, people supposedly have free will, so why is it either a conundrum or a paradox to use that free will to try and dominate other people? Its a valid choice, although other people may consider you a horrible person for making that choice.

If the problem is that they try to restrict the free will of others while free will is in your eyes a divine gift...well, at least according to the bible god itself never really bothered with it either. There are dozens of stories of him punishing people for making a choice God didn't like. He had his followers slaughter entire tribes of people because they worshiped the wrong Gods. Clearly to some religious fundamentalists, especially the ones that excessively focus on the old testament, have a good cause to think their God is fine with them imposing their will on others.

It is quite simple.
Certain people believe God gave them free will. Not just them. All humans.
Setting up laws against certain actions, actions which do not create Earthly dangers or at least immediate ones, restricts the free will of others. God says, essentially, "I give you free will. Choose. Live your way or live by my rules and have eternal life. But, go ahead and live your way for now if that's what you like." Some of his followers say, "No, we're going to make you live our way which we believe is God's way."
They attempt to nullify the choice offered by their own Most High.
It is quite simple.
Don't want to call it a paradox?
It's still a heck of a big conundrum.

Sorry, I was on a holiday break the past week.

Anyways, no thats not a paradox. Again, people supposedly have free will, so why is it either a conundrum or a paradox to use that free will to try and dominate other people? Its a valid choice, although other people may consider you a horrible person for making that choice.

If the problem is that they try to restrict the free will of others while free will is in your eyes a divine gift...well, at least according to the bible god itself never really bothered with it either. There are dozens of stories of him punishing people for making a choice God didn't like. He had his followers slaughter entire tribes of people because they worshiped the wrong Gods. Clearly to some religious fundamentalists, especially the ones that excessively focus on the old testament, have a good cause to think their God is fine with them imposing their will on others.

It is not "in my eyes" (not that we have it nor, if we do, where it came from). They believe they and all humans have free will and that it comes from the God they believe in. Choosing to dominate others is a choice they have due to their "free will", but then that goes against the very choice "He" gave others (the ones being dominated) as well. In so doing, they violate "His" will.

It is not "in my eyes" (not that we have it nor, if we do, where it came from). They believe they and all humans have free will and that it comes from the God they believe in. Choosing to dominate others is a choice they have due to their "free will", but then that goes against the very choice "He" gave others (the ones being dominated) as well. In so doing, they violate "His" will.

No, they don't violate "His" will because "He" never made it clear that it is "His" will that you don't use your free will to impose your beliefs onto other people and thereby restricting their free will. Again, God himself has on numerous occasions demanded the utter destruction of people who used their free will to worship a different God.

And clearly God quite from the start intended to put certain restrictions on free will. The Ten Commandments are proof of that as they clearly restrict what you can and can't do. And usually the punishment for violating such restrictions was death. Just think of the tale of the stick gatherer who was stoned to death for working on the wrong day. Sure, you could argue that God gave that person free will to do whatever he likes, including gathering firewood on whatever day he likes, and that the people who killed that guy on Gods orders ignored that person's free will. But again, God commanded that the guy got executed, thereby setting a rather clear precedent that its totally acceptable for his followers to ignore other peoples free will.

Your entire argument rests on the idea that God at some point said that peoples free will is sacred and should never be violated by anyone, but that idea is nowhere present in the old testament, which happens to be the testament fundamentalists like the most.

It is not "in my eyes" (not that we have it nor, if we do, where it came from). They believe they and all humans have free will and that it comes from the God they believe in. Choosing to dominate others is a choice they have due to their "free will", but then that goes against the very choice "He" gave others (the ones being dominated) as well. In so doing, they violate "His" will.

No, they don't violate "His" will because "He" never made it clear that it is "His" will that you don't use your free will to impose your beliefs onto other people and thereby restricting their free will. Again, God himself has on numerous occasions demanded the utter destruction of people who used their free will to worship a different God.

And clearly God quite from the start intended to put certain restrictions on free will. The Ten Commandments are proof of that as they clearly restrict what you can and can't do. And usually the punishment for violating such restrictions was death. Just think of the tale of the stick gatherer who was stoned to death for working on the wrong day. Sure, you could argue that God gave that person free will to do whatever he likes, including gathering firewood on whatever day he likes, and that the people who killed that guy on Gods orders ignored that person's free will. But again, God commanded that the guy got executed, thereby setting a rather clear precedent that its totally acceptable for his followers to ignore other peoples free will.

Your entire argument rests on the idea that God at some point said that peoples free will is sacred and should never be violated by anyone, but that idea is nowhere present in the old testament, which happens to be the testament fundamentalists like the most.

So, you think fundamentalists believe that there are things that come from God that are not sacred? Hmmm. Ummm, yeah, but no.

So, you think fundamentalists believe that there are things that come from God that are not sacred? Hmmm. Ummm, yeah, but no.

Show me proof that they actually believe free will is something that is sacred. The Bible sure as hell doesn't say such a thing. In fact, there is plenty of stuff in the bible, the source of the Christian religion, that suggests the exact opposite. You just claim its sacred because its a gift from God, according to you. But you aren't the bible incarnate, and therefor, what you claim is irrelevant to Christian fundamentalists.

And even if you were the personification of the bible and your word had authority, well there is a good chance that said Christian fundamentalists would ignore every part they found inconvenient anyway. I mean, we are talking about a group that has displayed some of the most awesome examples of sheer hypocrisy possible. This is a group where anti gay bigots are routinely caught having sex with male prostitutes. This is the group that produces people like Josh Duggar, who both molested his little sisters and was cheating on his wife. These are the people that turn a book that is mostly about forgiveness and love and turn it into the manifesto of a doomsday hate cult like the Westboro Baptist Church.

Even if you were right and free will was a divine gift that God has made very clear is something everyone should stay away from, you can be sure that there would be Christian fundamentalists somewhere who somehow would have turned that message around and used it as an excuse to try and dominate other people.

@Мишель, you don't quite understand. Fundamentalists have their own personal bible. It isn't one you can buy and read. It tells them the order in which everything is sacred. Being an anti-gay bigot isn't quite as sacred as proving a male prostitute is a gay male prostitute and should be stoned.

After all it doesn't matter anyway, just confess and be born again and all transgressions are absolved. That is the real issue with a lot of fundamentalism. You can be Pol Pot and if a microsecond before you die you accept "gOD" all is forgiven and you are saved! See how their "morals" work! Isn't it brilliant!

---

@Мишель, you don't quite understand. Fundamentalists have their own personal bible. It isn't one you can buy and read. It tells them the order in which everything is sacred. Being an anti-gay bigot isn't quite as sacred as proving a male prostitute is a gay male prostitute and should be stoned.

Well no, that was my point all along. Sarge claims that fundamentalist *should* find the free will of other people sacred as he claims its a gift from God, I'm saying that fundamentalists (as well as the bible itself) don't look at free will that way.

@Мишель, you don't quite understand. Fundamentalists have their own personal bible. It isn't one you can buy and read. It tells them the order in which everything is sacred. Being an anti-gay bigot isn't quite as sacred as proving a male prostitute is a gay male prostitute and should be stoned.

Well no, that was my point all along. Sarge claims that fundamentalist *should* find the free will of other people sacred as he claims its a gift from God, I'm saying that fundamentalists (as well as the bible itself) don't look at free will that way.

Their free will (the saved) or other people's free will (the damned)?
The damned aren't human in their eyes.

The answer to this thread , just look at what happen'd in IRAN ,Indonesia or any other country where religion controls government .

Governments must be secular and only tolorate religion but never let it be the deciding factor for policy

---

@Мишель, you don't quite understand. Fundamentalists have their own personal bible. It isn't one you can buy and read. It tells them the order in which everything is sacred. Being an anti-gay bigot isn't quite as sacred as proving a male prostitute is a gay male prostitute and should be stoned.

After all it doesn't matter anyway, just confess and be born again and all transgressions are absolved. That is the real issue with a lot of fundamentalism. You can be Pol Pot and if a microsecond before you die you accept "gOD" all is forgiven and you are saved! See how their "morals" work! Isn't it brilliant!

Why is Forgiveness immoral?

What forgiveness? Christians do not allow the possibility of non-forgiveness, forgiveness is mandatory! Last time I checked the person/thing doing the forgiving had to have free will to make the choice. Essentially they are committing robbery from their God of the gift of eternal life. They do not allow that their God may refuse to forgive or refuse to grant. Without that it isn't forgiveness. As we have established it isn't forgiveness their religion teaches, then your question is nonsense in relation to the discussion.

So in direct answer to your non-sequitur, there is nothing inherently immoral about forgiveness, but Christians don't have forgiveness, they have robbery from their God, which is immoral in the maximum.

---

Exactly what is your problem with Roman Catholic Italy?

hehehehehehe I bite

now where to start mmmm

Child abuse , money laundering , the devil worshiping symbols inside the Vatican , crusades , not giving me a annulment of my marriage (yes I married a catholic and to make it worse she was Maltese) which only changed the laws for annulment in 2011 I separated from her in 1990 so I'm still married to her as far as the church is concerned
links to the mafia mmm i'll get back to you later when I can think of a few more things :)

---

Wouldn't you prefer the Modern Roman Catholic Church having influence, or possibly control, over many Muslim Countries?

Well I spose you got me there , Yes It would have been better

---

Exactly what is your problem with Roman Catholic Italy?

hehehehehehe I bite

now where to start mmmm

Child abuse , money laundering , the devil worshiping symbols inside the Vatican , crusades , not giving me a annulment of my marriage (yes I married a catholic and to make it worse she was Maltese) which only changed the laws for annulment in 2011 I separated from her in 1990 so I'm still married to her as far as the church is concerned
links to the mafia mmm i'll get back to you later when I can think of a few more things :)

Wouldn't you prefer the Modern Roman Catholic Church having influence, or possibly control, over many Muslim Countries?
Citing what is happening during this Islamic Civil War, and by inference, Modern Christianity, is:
Apples and oranges.

Life expectancy
Italy 83 years.
Syria 68 years.

@Мишель, you don't quite understand. Fundamentalists have their own personal bible. It isn't one you can buy and read. It tells them the order in which everything is sacred. Being an anti-gay bigot isn't quite as sacred as proving a male prostitute is a gay male prostitute and should be stoned.

Well no, that was my point all along. Sarge claims that fundamentalist *should* find the free will of other people sacred as he claims its a gift from God, I'm saying that fundamentalists (as well as the bible itself) don't look at free will that way.

It might be nitpicking, though I don't think Sarge claimed that free will is a sacred gift from God, the claim is that the bible (which is presumably a foundational text of fundamentalists) states that free will is such a gift.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

@Мишель, you don't quite understand. Fundamentalists have their own personal bible. It isn't one you can buy and read. It tells them the order in which everything is sacred. Being an anti-gay bigot isn't quite as sacred as proving a male prostitute is a gay male prostitute and should be stoned.

Well no, that was my point all along. Sarge claims that fundamentalist *should* find the free will of other people sacred as he claims its a gift from God, I'm saying that fundamentalists (as well as the bible itself) don't look at free will that way.

As I have stated before, I defend the right of people to be believers and there several posts I make to that effect from 2006-2008 in particular. (I also defended the right to be a non-believer, even though at that time I was agnostic and thought there was a possibility that something might possibly sway me back.)

Мишель, at this point in time you seem to often fill that same role, attempting the right to be a believer. (Let's battle over who defends that right better, ha ha!)

At first, I thought you might be a Christian. As you have posted more, I suspect you are not, but you do believe in a God of some sort. (You have that right.) But, if you have not been and are not now a Christian, and did not know that I was (specifically, a Lutheran), then I believe your ability to speak for those of the Abrahamic faiths is limited.

I said elsewhere (in this thread, I believe) that I was not attempting to meaninglessly debate philosophy. I believe you have turned a point of the discussion into some meaningless tangent. The point was "Could it be that the reason, or one of the reasons, fundamentalists impose Earthly restrictions on others is because they believe they will face punishment in the afterlife otherwise." (This is not a direct quote, as I am not going to waste even more time scrolling back to find my exact words.)

One more attempt and that's it:

Granted, some do not believe in free will. Some of those also believe they are God's chosen and therefore they could never do anything wrong in God's eyes. Fine. Whatever. Leave them out of the discussion.

There are others that believe in free will. Some of them are Christians. (Quite a lot, I believe. Here, in the US, a small percent that do not believe in it are called Calvinists.)

For those that believe in free will, Christian or some other religion that believes in a Supreme Being that created them, where else could they believe their free will comes from??? If it comes from God, how could it be anything other than sacred or some suitably similar word?

Of course, those of the Abrahamio faiths believe God gave them the 10 Commandments. In that set of belief systems, then, yes, of course God has his will for us and our behaviors. And we know that, according to that set of belief systems, how that turned out: God had not created robots that mindlessly obeyed. They did not always obey and we know the stories of how God responded to those instances.

http://www.tedmontgomery.com/bblovrvw/C_2c.html

The "repeating cycle of 'acceptance and rejection'" of God mentioned in the above link is not something I learned of today, but years ago because I was raised as a Christian.

Indeed, how can there be any meaningful judgement of humans by God if we are not given the choice to follow His rules or not?

To further my claim, I point out that I heard a few years ago the etymology of Israel is "against God".

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Israel

Israel
Old English, "the Jewish people, the Hebrew nation," from Latin Israel, from Greek, from Hebrew yisra'el "he that striveth with God" (Gen. xxxii.28), symbolic proper name conferred on Jacob and extended to his descendants, from sara "he fought, contended" + El "God." As the name of an independent Jewish state in the Middle East, it is attested from 1948. Compare Israeli, Israelite.

Perhaps other interpretations are possible, but it does look like it could mean "has fought against God", as part of the historical cycle of acceptance and rejection of God. Anyone raised as a Christian that paid the slightest bit of attention knows that, without looking at the first link I provided, the Israelites had the ability to choose and, if a choice was made that God didn't like, they believe God punished them directly or allowed them to face hardships. They made those choices despite believing they were God's chosen people. If they could make choices against God's will, they had free will.

I can't think of a single thing you've said here that isn't just nit-picking word choices. I still think my question and suggested answer is an interesting one: "Could it be that the reason, or one of the reasons, fundamentalists impose Earthly restrictions on others is because they believe they will face punishment in the afterlife otherwise."

Others have suggested other reasons, such as enjoying having power over others, including you (by pointing to the Old Testament). Speaking of the Old Testament:

http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-17.htm

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

(NIV = New International Version.)

For those that do believe in free will that also believe in God, particularly, the Christian God (again) where else could they believe their free will has come from? If they believe in free will and are Christians, where does it say that only they were given it?

Again, nothing you've said here has stopped me from thinking, for those Christians that believe they have free will that also seek to inhibit the free will of others in instances that are not causing immediate dangers, that they are going against God in doing so. In the Abrahamic set of belief systems, God has His will, then let's his people choose to either accept or reject Him and the rules of life He puts forward and He reacts in the manner He sees fit when his rules are rejected.

As for some terms Clyde has recently used, "tolerant" and "intolerant":

1) That exists on both sides.
2) Thus, it is no surprise, since Christianity and other religions have been around far far longer, that if they have often showed intolerance (and some continue to do so) that some atheists show intolerance in return.
3) Most people posting here that have admitted being atheist state that they were not raised this way, but were raised Christian.
4) I suspect that they, as I, have family members, loved ones and friends that are Christian. It's a bit hard to lob around the term intolerant in that case, as I imagine most of them have remained close to family members, loved ones and friends. Even fundamentalist friends.

fundamentalists (as well as the bible itself) don't look at free will that way

fundamentalists , Comunists , Dictators , Kings , Queens , presidents , Chancalers , whatever have all used the Bible even the Churches them self's and that is why you leave religion out of Governments .

As for Free will and the Bible !!!

Why don't you read it first . it does say we have choice AKA: Free will !!

---

It is quite simple.
Certain people believe God gave them free will. Not just them. All humans.
Setting up laws against certain actions, actions which do not create Earthly dangers or at least immediate ones, restricts the free will of others. God says, essentially, "I give you free will. Choose. Live your way or live by my rules and have eternal life. But, go ahead and live your way for now if that's what you like." Some of his followers say, "No, we're going to make you live our way which we believe is God's way."
They attempt to nullify the choice offered by their own Most High.
It is quite simple.
Don't want to call it a paradox?
It's still a heck of a big conundrum.

Sorry, I was on a holiday break the past week.

Anyways, no thats not a paradox. Again, people supposedly have free will, so why is it either a conundrum or a paradox to use that free will to try and dominate other people? Its a valid choice, although other people may consider you a horrible person for making that choice.

If the problem is that they try to restrict the free will of others while free will is in your eyes a divine gift...well, at least according to the bible god itself never really bothered with it either. There are dozens of stories of him punishing people for making a choice God didn't like. He had his followers slaughter entire tribes of people because they worshiped the wrong Gods. Clearly to some religious fundamentalists, especially the ones that excessively focus on the old testament, have a good cause to think their God is fine with them imposing their will on others.

It is not "in my eyes" (not that we have it nor, if we do, where it came from). They believe they and all humans have free will and that it comes from the God they believe in. Choosing to dominate others is a choice they have due to their "free will", but then that goes against the very choice "He" gave others (the ones being dominated) as well. In so doing, they violate "His" will.

The words blasphemy and apostate belie that fundamentalists are willing to allow others to practice free will. I might point out Deuteronomy 32:35 and Romans 12:19. Perhaps if I may, an example of free will and domination.

Person uses free will to practice Wicca. Church prohibits that. Church murders the person by burning them alive at the stake to dominate them, others who might use free will, to prevent the practice of Wicca. I will point out ISIL's burning alive of the Jordanian pilot as a more modern action of an Abrahamic religion where a religion forbids free will and the punishment it imposes if it is used.

If I'm understanding Sarge right, a God isn't going to give free will and then insist that the people he gave it to, prevent others from using it. Yes, I know my examples are from the Abrahamic religions, so if you have an example from a different religion, please post.

---

As I have stated before, I defend the right of people to be believers and there several posts I make to that effect from 2006-2008 in particular. (I also defended the right to be a non-believer, even though at that time I was agnostic and thought there was a possibility that something might possibly sway me back.)

Мишель, at this point in time you seem to often fill that same role, attempting the right to be a believer. (Let's battle over who defends that right better, ha ha!)

Well you'll have to excuse me for not knowing what you posted almost 10 years ago, given that I only joined the project only a few years ago :)

Whether I'm defending the right to be a believer or not better than you doesn't really interest me all that much. Its not a competition, at least, not for me.

At first, I thought you might be a Christian. As you have posted more, I suspect you are not, but you do believe in a God of some sort. (You have that right.) But, if you have not been and are not now a Christian, and did not know that I was (specifically, a Lutheran), then I believe your ability to speak for those of the Abrahamic faiths is limited.

No more limited than your ability to speak for those of the Abrahamic faiths. So you were a Lutheran (I was raised as a Catholic btw), that means you know about one branch of the many branches in Protestant Christianity. The Christian religion roughly encompasses 2.2 billion people. Not a single person will ever be qualified to speak for all of them.

I said elsewhere (in this thread, I believe) that I was not attempting to meaninglessly debate philosophy. I believe you have turned a point of the discussion into some meaningless tangent. The point was "Could it be that the reason, or one of the reasons, fundamentalists impose Earthly restrictions on others is because they believe they will face punishment in the afterlife otherwise." (This is not a direct quote, as I am not going to waste even more time scrolling back to find my exact words.)

If thats the question you want answered then the answer is yes, some will undoubtedly think that. An other reason might be that they consider hell to be a real place and simply hate to see friends, family and other loved ones end up there because they haven't accepted Jesus Christ. It can be a blunt, annoying but genuine attempt from their side to help people and save them from eternal damnation.

For those that believe in free will, Christian or some other religion that believes in a Supreme Being that created them, where else could they believe their free will comes from??? If it comes from God, how could it be anything other than sacred or some suitably similar word?

I think you are overestimating how much the average fundamentalist actually engages with his or her own belief system.

I can't think of a single thing you've said here that isn't just nit-picking word choices. I still think my question and suggested answer is an interesting one: "Could it be that the reason, or one of the reasons, fundamentalists impose Earthly restrictions on others is because they believe they will face punishment in the afterlife otherwise."

Nitpicking your word choices? You were talking about this in terms of a paradox. Thats not nitpicking your words, thats you making an entirely different argument, namely the suggestion that Christians can't just accept free will as divine gift and yet seek to impose restrictions on it. That was, and has constantly been the main focus of my argument, my point being that its doubtful whether the bible itself actually treats free will as such, its only logically inferred. And furthermore, we are talking about fundamentalists, they tend to be people who have a very curious understanding of what the bible actually says (for example, did you know the majority of Americans believe that the bible contains the phrase "God helps those who help themselves"?).