Does 'free-will' end at death?

[808Catholic]

This topic seems to come up a lot on here, Its my belief that free will is a gift from God to us, being that we are immortal beings upon creation, only our earthly bodies are temporary, after our death, they return to dust and have no importance anymore.

With the above said, really, our souls should still retain the gift of free will, if we do not, then free will, was just a temporary gift with limitations.

I’m not sure that’s a doctrinally sound position. While death marks the separation of physical body and soul, we will have made our choices at the point of death. We have either chosen God or rejected Him. Choosing Him, we are either in purgatory or heaven. Rejecting Him, we will be in hell. Our ability to chose good or evil, I believe, are removed (not that good and evil is removed, just our ability to choose) because we’ve already made that choice. I don’t believe a soul can choose to reject God in heaven although a case can be made against my opinion because Lucifer chose to reject God and subsequently fell from grace. I also don’t believe a soul can choose God while in hell though I don’t know this for a fact.

I like how you end your post with “free will” is “just a temporary gift with limitations.” That would describe our lives as well. It’s a gift from God and we know we’ll die at the end. The true gift is our free will that allows us to follow God or to turn away from Him.

 

[808Catholic]

Yes since religion is work of God and should be error free.

Yet religion is the human practice of worship of God. As you recognize, humans are flawed. By logical extension, our understanding and practice of worship is also flawed. God is not flawed. By faith and human definition, God is perfect in all ways.

 

[Bahman]

Yet religion is the human practice of worship of God.

For what purpose? What you gain when you worship God?

As you recognize, humans are flawed.

That is correct hence your understanding of reality and God could be incorrect as well if we accept your assessment. So we have no way to get anywhere unless we could improve our understanding reality and our intellects are the only things that we could strive to. This means that we have to put our believes under sharp investigation of critical thinking. Hence a system of belief is either error free or not after a full investigation. This means that the claim that a system of belief is from God is wrong once we find an error in it otherwise the system is human made hence it is not error free and always have the room for improvement.

By logical extension, our understanding and practice of worship is also flawed.

Please read previous comments.

God is not flawed. By faith and human definition, God is perfect in all ways.

Existence of God is only a claim unless we face Him. We however need to improve our intellectual abilities in order to test our experiences whether it is physical or spiritual otherwise anybody with supreme ability can claim that s/he is God.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

True, there are no agnostics in hell.

Nor are there any atheists in hell.

Come to think of it, there are no atheists either in heaven or in hell.

But more than you can count on earth!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Yes since religion is work of God and should be error free.

But what if the person who finds an error in the religion that is true should himself be in error?

What if he abandons the truth with the arrogance of thinking his truth is greater than God’s?

 

[Abba]

Existence of God is only a claim unless we face Him.

Says who?

Why, because you consider the knowledge obtained by the senses superior to any other? Or is it the intellect?

We however need to improve our intellectual abilities in order to test our experiences whether it is physical or spiritual otherwise anybody with supreme ability can claim that s/he is God.

Chang Tzu said one morning that he dreamed he was a butterfly and awake he wondered if he was a butterfly dreaming to be a man.

Do you think that an ant can work really hard to improve itself and come to understand human existence?
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/...vtOxumz0iG8r52o3fHsQXSNIKtQ9D4c9c5ZZLWnYlyF4e
Think hard now… come on now…you can do it.

http://img.thesun.co.uk/aidemitlum/archive/01488/ape--thinker_532_1488578a.jpg

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Bahman]

But what if the person who finds an error in the religion that is true should himself be in error?

We might be in error or not. Our system of belief could be in error or not. Hence the only conclusion is that we have to trust on ourselves knowing and believing that we are intellectual beings.

Moreover, Religion was sent from God for human hence we should be cognitively open to it. This means we should be able to understand and test the contents of the message because we are intellectual beings. Testing is prior to understanding and believing otherwise the approach is full blind obedience. This is useless approach because the claims could not be tested hence they do not carry any meaning.

What if he abandons the truth with the arrogance of thinking his truth is greater than God’s?

Arrogance is not involved if we are honest with ourselves. Hence honesty is the first step for finding and believing the truth.

 

[Michael19682]

Put me in the “free will ends at death” column.

I think God gave humans free will–the power to sin–because he wanted them to be independent. Once I gave the example of buying a puppy–would you want puppy #1 who would love you unconditionally, no matter how you treated it, or puppy #2 whose love you would have to earn by treating it well. You could substitute husband/wife for “puppy” if you like. I think most of us would want puppy #2, where we had to earn its love: i.e., give the puppy free will.

Free will is the reason we can’t “prove” the existence of God; if we could “prove” it mathematically or logically, everyone would be compelled to believe. So God made sure we had evidence, but not proof.

But at death, we have “proof” of the existence of God. So we “have” to believe in God. Thus no free will–or, to put it another way, no one would exercise free will by not believing in God.

Why Satan believed he was the equal of God is another question, and I don’t have an answer to that one except that clearly Satan wasn’t as smart as he thought he was.

Why do you say math and logic would compel people to believe? There exist plenty of illogical and not at all mathematical people who will not even accept without questioning the earth’s proven roundness. There is lots of mathematical support for God’s existence. That people don’t accept this does not invalidate the support.

 

[Abba]

How can someone stand before Jesus and choose to eternally suffer?

 

[Bahman]

Says who?

What does this ever mean!? We can make stories about how the spiritual world looks like using the power of our imagination but we cannot be sure whether any of these stories are right unless we face the reality.

Why, because you consider the knowledge obtained by the senses superior to any other?

I don’t understand what do you mean with other. Our senses are the only doors to experience the reality.

Or is it the intellect?

Yes, that is only our intellects which allow us to distinguish right from wrong. The sole act experience does not carry any weight regarding whether we are going somewhere or we are doing something meaningful.

Chang Tzu said one morning that he dreamed he was a butterfly and awake he wondered if he was a butterfly dreaming to be a man.

That could mean anything. Sometimes we need a correct interpretation of dreams. They might indicate something about truth. His dream could simply mean that we are all same regardless of how we look on the surface.

Do you think that an ant can work really hard to improve itself and come to understand human existence?
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/...vtOxumz0iG8r52o3fHsQXSNIKtQ9D4c9c5ZZLWnYlyF4e
Think hard now… come on now…you can do it.

http://img.thesun.co.uk/aidemitlum/archive/01488/ape--thinker_532_1488578a.jpg

https://patcegan.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/gorilla-and-butterfly.jpg?w=500

Any being is responsible in regards to the divine justice depending on the level of his/her intellectuality. The main problem is that how God could possibly convince us that s/he is the creator? Any being starts to have experience immediately after creation hence s/he is closed to what happened before the creation. This means that we are dealing with a serious dilemma: how any intellectual being could be convinced whether the act of creation is true or not? The story of creation of Eve and Adam is then paradoxical considering the facts that they were intellectual beings, there exist a supreme being so called God who created them and they were convinced that they were created by God considering the fact that they were intellectual beings and they could doubt. I think that is your turn to think hard!

 

[Elizium23]

How can someone stand before Jesus and choose to eternally suffer?

We won’t. Free will is revolutionized in Heaven. The holy ones only choose what is good, what is God’s will. But they are still free to choose. That’s all the difference.

But hey, the wicked thief hung right next to Jesus and mocked him. I don’t think there’s any doubt about where he ended up that day.

 

[tonyrey]

We won’t. Free will is revolutionized in Heaven. The holy ones only choose what is good, what is God’s will. But they are still free to choose. That’s all the difference.

But hey, the wicked thief hung right next to Jesus and mocked him. I don’t think there’s any doubt about where he ended up that day.

There is. He may have repented before or as he died. Only God knows who is in Hell. The rest is sheer speculation…

 

[tonyrey]

How can someone stand before Jesus and choose to eternally suffer?

They don’t choose to suffer. They choose to be independent knowing they will suffer but they are prepared to pay the price. Hell is not a divine trap but a diabolical invitation…

 

[Jelrak_TB]

They don’t choose to suffer. They choose to be independent knowing they will suffer but they are prepared to pay the price. Hell is not a divine trap but a diabolical invitation…

I am not prepared to pay such a price…

 

[Michael19682]

People who think that their choice to accept Heaven and Jesus is that which results in Heaven for them can answer either way, ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on the OP question. They feel safe in answering ‘yes’ because it does not affect their entrance to paradise; they feel safe in answering ‘no’, however, only to the degree that they do not mind sharing the gift of Heaven with those who did not only one hours worth of work, but none at all, (or with those who they think mocked them while they worked) but only to then receive the same pay as them.
The real value of the question is the same as for all questions: Does the question help people persevere until the end. Mt 20:1-16.

My personal retort is: It depends on whether free-will itself is all or nothing. Just because you wouldn’t expect to have one foot in Heaven and one foot in Hell – does this mean that free-will in life’s decisions is exercised all or nothing? I personally do not think so. Even in the act of speech, people sometimes can’t quite get out what they mean; the result of bad memory, confusion in moral dilemmas etc., all make “Well, that’s what you said!” unconvincing, as “proof” of an eternal lie.

 

[mikekle]

How can someone stand before Jesus and choose to eternally suffer?

Well, if they didnt know, or didnt like God in their earthly lives, why would they suddenly wish to live with him? Thats why its said people walk willingly into hell, hell is locked from the inside, people CHOOSE hell because they desire an existence without God in it, just like their earthly lives.

 

[Elizium23]

There is. He may have repented before or as he died. Only God knows who is in Hell. The rest is sheer speculation…

Eastern Orthodox tradition would disagree with you.

 

[Abba]

What does this ever mean!? We can make stories about how the spiritual world looks like using the power of our imagination but we cannot be sure whether any of these stories are right unless we face the reality.

Okay, you are saying that the only way we can be sure God exists is if we see Him face to face and use our intellect to discern right from wrong, correct?

My response to this position, and I obviously was not clear, is the following. Firstly, I think that the senses are not reliable and one of the ‘prophets’ of the pro-intellect crowd would agree - that being Socrates. Socrates did not think much of the senses and considered the information we obtain can be erroneous. He provided the example of when we see someone at a distance, the person can appears tiny but we know the reason but our vision does not make the adjustment. However, you are adding the intellect, so you would not solely rely on the sense to evaluate God given an opportunity to face Him.

Well, I mentioned Chang Tzu to note that even our intellect is not so reliable. It was not on account at all about the interpretation of dreams. The point is that we can not be 100% sure even when we are using our intellect that what we are observing and experiencing is in fact real or true.

You seem to not be considering really the fact that God does exist and if He exists the matter that if we face Him face to face our knowledge is not going to rely on our own system of discerning as if it was our imagination. You would be in front of and in the presence of a divine being…not a figment of your imagination that will do, act etc… only insofar as you can imagine…

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Arrogance is not involved if we are honest with ourselves. Hence honesty is the first step for finding and believing the truth.

I can certainly agree with this.

What I cannot agree with is the notion that we can always be honest with ourselves. Arrogance can slant our understanding to suit ourselves, and with arrogance, whether we like it or not, we are not likely to be honest.

Unless we are willing to submit to a higher authority than ourselves, we have made ourselves infallible with that very arrogance we might think is honesty.

.

 

[Bahman]

Okay, you are saying that the only way we can be sure God exists is if we see Him face to face and use our intellect to discern right from wrong, correct?

You didn’t fully address my comments. The main problem which was raised in the last post was that how God could convince us that we are part of his creation accepting two facts that we did not witness creation and we can doubt of any person who claims that he is God.

My response to this position, and I obviously was not clear, is the following. Firstly, I think that the senses are not reliable and one of the ‘prophets’ of the pro-intellect crowd would agree - that being Socrates. Socrates did not think much of the senses and considered the information we obtain can be erroneous. He provided the example of when we see someone at a distance, the person can appears tiny but we know the reason but our vision does not make the adjustment. However, you are adding the intellect, so you would not solely rely on the sense to evaluate God given an opportunity to face Him.

Our senses together with intellects are the only reliable things we can depend on. Of course there are supreme beings who they can disturb our senses and give shape to our thoughts so we could be easily mislead.

Well, I mentioned Chang Tzu to note that even our intellect is not so reliable. It was not on account at all about the interpretation of dreams. The point is that we can not be 100% sure even when we are using our intellect that what we are observing and experiencing is in fact real or true.

The only fact that we can be sure about it is that we are who we are and we have a sense of self. The rest, so called reality in simple word what we experience, is mere illusion. So one can put you in a disturbed state of mind so s/he wonders whether s/he is a butterfly or a man but no one can take your sense of self from his/her.

You seem to not be considering really the fact that God does exist and if He exists the matter that if we face Him face to face our knowledge is not going to rely on our own system of discerning as if it was our imagination. You would be in front of and in the presence of a divine being…not a figment of your imagination that will do, act etc… only insofar as you can imagine…

Whoever I am going to face whether if s/he God or not needs to convince me that s/he is God. This is logically impossible because we cannot witness our own creation so the door of doubts are always open!