I'm not sure how that helps in our discussion of free will. If someone is owned by someone else, it would seem implicit that they don't have the right and therefore the capacity to leave of their own free will.
Legally, in specific places in the world and in specific time periods in history, you can be owned by another human being, but only legally.
I am talking about something that surpasses legality. Think about it like this:
A country can control its people, but people can still revolt and take over.
Someone can own a slave, but that doesn't nessesarraly mean that the slave can fight back or run away.
No offence meant in that, but ownership must mean something. Including the right to transfer. Hence, North Korean people might have the ability to leave, and perhaps that is a sort of capacity, but is it legitimate? AND if its not legitimate, is it therefore free will?
No offense taken.
Ownership is a legal right to own something. Again the word legal is very important here.
We don't even have to use the word legal though. I belive you could say that ownership is one's ability to keep an object or person in one's possession.
And the law helps people with that ability to own that thing whatever it is.
Also, if you can make any type of decisions by your own will to any extent, that is an example of free will.
Hmmm. that's a surprising response. Would you care to explain what you think the difference is between a person who is born in sin, and someone who was not born into sin? Your last question is intriguing. If someone is born into sin, it must mean something. What do think it means?
There is no one person not born into sin.
It's like going in a pool. You are placed into the water. Think of it like that.
So every person that has ever lived has been born into sun, but only one didn't succumb to the sin. That man was Jesus Christ.
Being born into sin means that you were born into a sinful world. A world full of sin.
Evidence for this assertion please.
Animals know what to do from birth. It's instinct. Animals live their lives off of instinct. Some animals don't even get parental guidance.
Humans are very different though.
Humans cannot just survive without heavy guidance. And it's not just survival skills that humans have to be guided through. It's morals as well.
Says you? I think it is quite feasible to say rape is an instinct. It occurs within the animal realm all of the time. It is clearly due to the instinct to have sex and reproduce. What makes the animal instinct to rape - distinct from the human sense to rape for whatever reason?
Animals have that instinct.
Humans don't.
Because human emotion and human trauma is more heavy and complex than animals.
Rape isn't a human instinct.
Again this is why free will is only a human trait.
Animals will get the instinct to rape and do it.
Humans will get that instinct and make the choice.
Now animals make that choice to, but it isn't based upon morals its based upon situation.