Choice is not proof of free will. (If you want to get into the larger discussion of free will, it basically boils down to choices being made by the subconscious mind without any input from the conscious bit—decisions made automatically by the brain, rationalized post-hoc, creating the illusion of a free will.)

But relating more closely to the original post, assuming a priori the existence of a free will which can be violated, there are exceptions to the “rule” of indoctrination (such as a de-Convert like myself) because there is a variety of ways children are educated and raised. Some are raised in a liberal faith, some are actually given a real choice regarding religious belief, some are raised to think on their own. Some are indoctrinated as children, their “free will” is violated by raising them to believe a religion that they did not choice on their own, but then later assert their “free will” when they get older. Imagine someone forcing you, as a small child, to wear the clothes that they pick out for you. When you grow up, you can either continue to dress in that same style and color, or you can assert your “will” and change your mode of dress. You remedied the problem, but that doesn’t mean your free will wasn’t violated in the first place.

I completely disagree. I could reword your sentence to this: if there were no such thing as ‘fate’ (which is proof that there is no free will)…

“isn’t ‘sin’ all based on choice”

Not at all. What about sacrifices in the OT for unintentional sins?

“Predestination is not something we can prove.”

How then could the apostle Paul speak so adamantly about it?

“would say if this is true [predestination] – no one is guilty of a crime”

Perhaps not in the traditional sense, but if someone goes wrong and is harming society the rest of society will be compelled to do something about it out of self-defense and self-preservation.

You say ‘overwhelmingly’ as part of your answer to kids becoming the same faith as their parents – if there were no such thing as ‘choice’ (which is proof of free will) – shouldn’t the word used be ‘all’? How do you explain the fact there is exceptions to the rule you try to set out here without ‘choice’?

“If I have character traits that pre-dispose me to reject God, like rebelliousness, skepticism, or resistance to authority, wasn’t it God that instilled these traits within me? If God is omnipotent and omniscient, how can he impart “true” free will to his creation without actually predestining the outcome? And if predestined, how free is this will we supposedly have? I haven’t heard a good Christian rebuttal to this conundrum yet.” (Big House)

(a) The first part about having traits disposed to ‘reject God’ – this is not a factual statement whatsoever. Some Christians might believe this (from the original sin idea) but this by no means makes it fact. Judaism does not hold to an ‘original sin’ idea (which is where Christianity tries to claim this doctrine arises from).

But even if we born with traits of ‘sin’ – isn’t ‘sin’ all based on choice? How can one ‘sin’ without developing the thought, thinking it through, then committing the action? Isn’t it the brain that moves the hand each and every time – even if it seems like such a routine thing?

(b) Predestination is not something we can prove. It may very well be true – but what does that matter – no human being would actually be aware of that reality to live by it. So the human is left with the obvious – his ability to choose and determine his life. Who cares if God is all knowing – unless we verify that? Fact is – we cannot and we have to live with the basic reality we have – which includes choice. It’s a matter of focus.

Pre-destination makes no sense to me (maybe it’s just me) – the idea all things were ordained for you before your birth – and no matter what choice you make – you were supposed to make. I would say if this is true – no one is guilty of a crime – except for the person with the power to change it (God). Pre-destination if followed to it Nth degree – lets people ‘off the hook’ for any and all of their actions (and in that extreme sense is dangerous).

Have you ever read any Jonathan Edwards? He tries to deal with the conundrum you talked about by saying that God has two wills, a will of decree and a will of command. I will butcher this beyond recognition if I tried to explain it, but I’ve seen his explanation of it posted online before, so I could email it to you or post it here. I didn’t want to do it now in case you’ve already come across it. I’m not really sure what I think about it; it seems like a bit of a stretch to me.

This post was pulled from my personal blog, where I have disclaimer explaining that when I write about Christianity, unless specified, I am referring to popular American fundamentalist protestantism, and that I understand that the various generalizations I employ do not fit the broad spectrum of Christianity for the most part. That’s why I didn’t take the time to explain the sort of “Christians” I am talking about in the post.