Life for itself

[wynnejj]

The way that the opening post reads is that the eternally damned are paying the price of freedom fighters for individual choice to live their own lives the way they choose, laying down their eternal lives for the cause, thereby raising Lucifer’s status among the freedom fighters.

It paints God as a Dirty Harry…
“I know I have a gun to your head. And you are wondering if I really exist. But since I am God and I can merely think you into Hell to be punished for all eternity, you got to ask yourself one question. Do you feel lucky?”

So is that Justice? Is that “free will” offering?

If Hell were a place where one simply burned long enough to pay for their crimes for harming others, and then you slipped into non-existence, then Heaven or Hell would be viable alternatives.

That is, if you are willing to price of admission to Heaven by limiting yourself by keeping God’s commandments, no matter how impractical it may seem, then you have proved your love to God. If you want to take your pleasures now, if it harms others, then you will have to meet justice, but otherwise you will get your wish to live your life for now, and then slip into non-existence without a care.

It is like an engagement period, where the price of marriage is proving your love to your intended spouse for the right and privilege of a marriage covenant.

Many atheists and agnostics live their lives by the Golden Rule and the Silver Rule. It just makes sense. But, there are many actions that are defined as sins that are harder to swallow, such as masturbation, because it begs the question of who does it really harm.

If Christians really followed the Lord’s words literally, there would be a lot of one-eyed, one-handed teenagers. Yet the words were not meant to say mutilate yourself to prevent sins against impurity or go to Hell, but rather if you don’t fight the sins against impurity you will end up with acting out your thoughts and going to Hell.

So the idea of Hell to punish for all eternity for a limited set of crimes on earth, many of which are questionable because “Who does it harm?”, then just how good & merciful & just a God is He?

That is why I reason that the punishment of Hell is only long enough to pay for your crimes, then those who reject God’s Love slip into non-existence for all eternity.

 

[James1215]

wynnejj,

I think you’ve given a good explanation of how wolf packs work, and by linking it to evolutionary and environmental pressures via biology/genes, how norms of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ could have evolved to give meaning to advantageous and disadvantageous behaviour.

The difference is that wolves have limited or no self-conception and narration, a limited language and presumably limited thought - so they don’t think with our moral language. Where social animals like wolves do have all of these things, it is logical enough that they might bundle them together in an emotive way and call it morality. That is what I think morality is - real enough but constructed and evolved. I don’t think it’s necessary to say that in this scenario no-one has choice, they can rebel against the aplha and likely get beaten; morality is a way to shape people’s actions

As to power, I don’t think we have the power to do anything if power is understood as a means of achieving an end. There are no viable ends outside of God (these are called sin), and God has total power. If we had any degree of power, God would not be absolute. We can love or kill, but we cannot achieve anything of any theological substance without obedience.

 

[tonyrey]

There are no viable ends outside of God (these are called sin), and God has total power. If we had any degree of power, God would not be absolute.

 

[James1215]

Interesting idea about sharing power. I guess it’s like a CEO having an executive assistant with whom he/she shares power. But it’s another matter entirely whether that assistant can do anything the boss doesn’t like on a permanent basis. If their actions are not in line with the boss’s aims, they will have their power revoked. This is the situation on earth, at best: temporary ‘power’ to cause your own punishment.

Also, it is fine to say ‘If you love me, follow my commandments’, but what God really means is: ‘You’ve got no choice but to love me’. How can love be solicited by the threat of punishment? That’s neither loving nor capable of producing love, in my opinion. Love is superfluous, obedience is key, so is it really: ‘If you are to obey me, you will need to follow these commandments’?

 

[wynnejj]

Heaven? What, are you trying to buy my love?
Hell? What are you trying to threaten me so that I will love you?
Love me or die? That’s my options!
Love me my way and I’ll give you whatever you want? That’s my options!
You don’t want someone to love, you want someone to own and dominate.
To be or not to be, that is the question?
But the question has a qualification… Must it according to God’s Will only?

The fact is that when one marries someone, or someone reaches a very deep friendship level, there is the very strong deep-rooted sense of mutual self-giving. You can’t buy it, although you might earn it somewhat even as you may fail at times. You can’t threaten for it, although you might threaten to remove your offer of marriage or friendship.

God’s love is not bought, but there has to be a good faith intent to respect His wishes, to seek to please Him, to want His Love. You have to love him more that life itself. And, you are marrying into a family, so you have to love his kids at least as much you love yourself. That is, as much as your own life. This kind of love cannot be bartered.

The question is… What does God give you in return? My theory is exactly “mega dittos”. Because love is mutual - a mirror reflection of each other. But hold onto your seats, though, it is a patriarchal marriage! God’s Will be done!

 

[wynnejj]

Let me add something to the question…
To be or not to be according to God’s Will ONLY, that is the question?

We have saints. Catholics pray to saints to intercede on our behalf. Saints have feelings too. They emote to those praying for intercessions in ways that the person praying has a connection to something To which a saint can particularly emote. That is why they are patron saints of some particular aspect of the human condition. And God listens?!?! I thought HE was a bull-headed “My way or the highway” kind of guy. No, God is patriarchal and respects the saints desires where it is appropriate to the rules of His House. Wanna be part of His House?

 

[paul_c]

Interesting idea about sharing power. I guess it’s like a CEO having an executive assistant with whom he/she shares power. But it’s another matter entirely whether that assistant can do anything the boss doesn’t like on a permanent basis. If their actions are not in line with the boss’s aims, they will have their power revoked. This is the situation on earth, at best: temporary ‘power’ to cause your own punishment.

Also, it is fine to say ‘If you love me, follow my commandments’, but what God really means is: ‘You’ve got no choice but to love me’. How can love be solicited by the threat of punishment? That’s neither loving nor capable of producing love, in my opinion. Love is superfluous, obedience is key, so is it really: ‘If you are to obey me, you will need to follow these commandments’?

You miss the point about Love. Love is doing things for others without expecting anything in return. If two parties are in love, they are mutually self giving. That’s how it is with God. God has given you everything you have, including the choice to shun him, which you do when claiming to be an athiest. But God continues to call to you and to shower you with all that you have without expecting anything in return. This is to teach YOU how to love. If you LOVE God, you will WANT to do what pleases HIM. It will not be burdensome in the least. But you have to look beyond your own self interests first to begin to understand this. If you can’t start by loving God, love your neighbor. Do things for them out of the goodness of your heart. You will find that Love begets Love and eventually, you will be able to see God in others…

 

[tonyrey]

Interesting idea about sharing power. I guess it’s like a CEO having an executive assistant with whom he/she shares power. But it’s another matter entirely whether that assistant can do anything the boss doesn’t like on a permanent basis. If their actions are not in line with the boss’s aims, they will have their power revoked. This is the situation on earth, at best: temporary ‘power’ to cause your own punishment.

 

[James1215]

I like tonyrey’s comparison: ‘When we love children don’t we expect them to obey rules which are for their own benefit? We warn them to avoid being selfish because we know it will make them unhappy and alienate them from others.’ In this analogy, our parental love translates into law-making so as to protect our children from alienation. What is different between this analogy and God’s offer is that the alienation does not come about from the actions of others but from God Himself – He provides Hell. Also, parental punishment for being selfish is dished out contemporaneously to the ‘sin’, whereas Hell is not pedagogical, but final.

If love is selflessly doing things for others, we would not stop loving if those others were ungrateful, would we? Even if they turned out to be our enemies and hated us; if they hurt us we turn the other cheek and continue to love them. Christians are supposed to ‘love the sinner and hate the sin’. So why would diverging from God cause Him not to love us? Is our love more principled than His because at least we try to have unconditional love, whereas His ebbs away for sinners in Hell? That’s what I think about love, anyway: we can do it better ourselves.

Wynnej deals with this in a way by conceiving of Hell as finite punishment followed by non-existence. This is certainly less harsh than eternal suffering, but still way short of the kind of forgiveness we are supposed to show each other. It is like favouritism – turning one’s cheek more to those in Heaven, and forgetting about the rest.

The key point is still this:

(wynnej) ‘if you are willing to pay the price of admission to Heaven by limiting yourself by keeping God’s commandments, no matter how impractical it may seem’ then you will have demonstrated free will and earned eternal life.

However, no-one who believes in Heaven thinks that they have any sacrifice to make. What is the price to pay? If one believes in God, likes good and dislikes bad, what choice does one have? That is partly why some people are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice: because it is logically no sacrifice. Given this, and the fact that God provides no valid alternative to complete submission, is it still accurate to say that we have free will? My question might seem pointless, as if I’m looking in a box of chocolates half of which are laced with poison, and saying that I don’t have free will when I merely lack choice, not the ability to choose. But when every single thought and action is this box of chocolates, where one is either with or against God, we never have choice and this seems necessary for free will.

 

[paul_c]

I like tonyrey’s comparison: ‘When we love children don’t we expect them to obey rules which are for their own benefit? We warn them to avoid being selfish because we know it will make them unhappy and alienate them from others.’ In this analogy, our parental love translates into law-making so as to protect our children from alienation. What is different between this analogy and God’s offer is that the alienation does not come about from the actions of others but from God Himself – He provides Hell. Also, parental punishment for being selfish is dished out contemporaneously to the ‘sin’, whereas Hell is not pedagogical, but final.

If love is selflessly doing things for others, we would not stop loving if those others were ungrateful, would we? Even if they turned out to be our enemies and hated us; if they hurt us we turn the other cheek and continue to love them. Christians are supposed to ‘love the sinner and hate the sin’. So why would diverging from God cause Him not to love us? Is our love more principled than His because at least we try to have unconditional love, whereas His ebbs away for sinners in Hell? That’s what I think about love, anyway: we can do it better ourselves.

Wynnej deals with this in a way by conceiving of Hell as finite punishment followed by non-existence. This is certainly less harsh than eternal suffering, but still way short of the kind of forgiveness we are supposed to show each other. It is like favouritism – turning one’s cheek more to those in Heaven, and forgetting about the rest.

The key point is still this:

(wynnej) ‘if you are willing to pay the price of admission to Heaven by limiting yourself by keeping God’s commandments, no matter how impractical it may seem’ then you will have demonstrated free will and earned eternal life.

However, no-one who believes in Heaven thinks that they have any sacrifice to make. What is the price to pay? If one believes in God, likes good and dislikes bad, what choice does one have? That is partly why some people are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice: because it is logically no sacrifice. Given this, and the fact that God provides no valid alternative to complete submission, is it still accurate to say that we have free will? My question might seem pointless, as if I’m looking in a box of chocolates half of which are laced with poison, and saying that I don’t have free will when I merely lack choice, not the ability to choose. But when every single thought and action is this box of chocolates, where one is either with or against God, we never have choice and this seems necessary for free will.

James,
you are the perfect example of free will in action. You have been exposed to God and are called by God daily., although you may not consciously acknowledge it . That’s is why you have been drawn to this website. We have explained to you that the purpose of this life is to decide whether you are willing to live for other’s benefit and ultimately be rewarded with heaven or you can live for your own selfish purposes and be condemned to hell. So far, you describe yourself as an athiest so you are choosing the pain of separation from God versus eternal bliss. You have chosen the posion chocolates in your example. And why would you make such a choice? Only you can answer that Have you thought about it? Most likely, you are not even aware that you are making such a choice. You may have simply dismissed the presence of God as “unscientific” or " legend" without any thought to why you exist. You may be prideful as most people are, unwilling to submit to God or to anyone else.

AS for why God allows a Hell, he is simply honoring your wishes. You don’t want to be with him, so he accomodates you. Since God is the Fountain of all that is good, when you leave his presence, all that is left is evil. If you hang out with evil people, they will do evil to you, even if you are their associate. That is their nature. So it is in hell, a place populated with the selfish. all looking out for their own interest at the expense of others…

Iin contrast, In heaven you will be with people who’s first inclination is to serve those around them. Imagine if you can how wonderful it would be to live in a place where everyone has your back and wants to serve you. That’s heaven. But you can only be there if you also want first and foremost to serve them. Heaven only works if there is mutual service which in the Catholic definition is mutual love.

Learn to love. That’s the purpose of life. And when you reallize how perfect this is,ou will honor and love God who made this possible by giving you everything you have…

 

[James1215]

Ignore me and take it as simply a set of arguments. I represent a stage in it - I’m on track to go to Hell, therefore by my ‘power’ and ‘choice’ I am heading towards oblivion.

How therefore have I acted with any power (if power means ability to achieve an end) and what choice am I faced with if there is nothing viable outside God?

If this scenario was compressed into an instant, it would look like this:

Either you ‘choose’ x or y. If you choose y you’re obliterated instantly. Do you have free will? X just happens to be complete obedience of God; it is not even like once one has submitted to God one gains options - it is forever God’s will or nothing.

 

[paul_c]

Ignore me and take it as simply a set of arguments. I represent a stage in it - I’m on track to go to Hell, therefore by my ‘power’ and ‘choice’ I am heading towards oblivion.

How therefore have I acted with any power (if power means ability to achieve an end) and what choice am I faced with if there is nothing viable outside God?

If this scenario was compressed into an instant, it would look like this:

Either you ‘choose’ x or y. If you choose y you’re obliterated instantly. Do you have free will? X just happens to be complete obedience of God; it is not even like once one has submitted to God one gains options - it is forever God’s will or nothing.

you see the problem now, right? You are unwilling to submit to anyone else, even God who made you and always looks after your best interests. This was Satan’s view as well. He preferred to lead in Hell than to serve in Heaven.

The problem in Hell is that EVERYONE wants to be his own master and that leads to continual conflict and hatred. In Heaven, everyone is content to serve unconditionally and because EVERYONE is looking out for EVERYONE else, EVERYONE is in bliss. This is what love is all about.

A life well lived is one of love and service to others. This is what drives true happiness and contentment. As you know, this is not what popular culture celebrates. It celebrates wealth, power, fame, and instant gratification of all sorts - exactly the opposite of what is really needed. That is because Satan drives popular culture. But are those that achieve what the world sees as success truly happy? You only need to look at how many celebrities end up in rehab to find your answer. in fact, as an occupation, the Clergy are far and away the happiest people on earth: www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/07/pdf/070417.jobs.pdf

 

[wynnejj]

James,

If power means ability to achieve an end, and that end is heaven, then you are indeed correct to say that you have no power of yourself to achieve the end of heaven.

With our fallen nature, a nature that is suspicious about the nature of God and His Love for us, we are incapable of repairing that breach on our own merits. With baptism, God forgives us our original sin completely and wipes our slate clean to start anew in our relationship. Baptism is not our apology to Him, it is God’s one-time only acceptance of us as His Children for Jesus sake where He does so without apology from us, as no apology is ever adequate for that original sin.

From that point on, we are expected to obey His Ten Don’ts (commandments) in cooperation with the Spirit and the practical application of His Two Do’s (love of God & Others) with all of its ramifications as interpreted as infallible first principles by His Church. Where we fail, we are expected to apologize in Confession minimally for all grave matters that we understand & deliberately breach anyway to be restored to God’s good graces.

And we are expected to actively ask, seek and knock to know what is the complete & accurate set of Good and to pray for the wherewithal to attain that Good in the form of and in cooperation with the graces God gives us to attain this impossible mission.

Due to our fallen nature and how its various deviant forms manifest in each unique individual, we are blind to discernment of the full Truth of what is the complete & accurate definition of Good. Each individual derives theories upon theories based on a set of flawed first principles that produce deviant views of good as varied as politics and weather predictions. Each and everyone of us don’t know what is good, and our blindness to some first principles comes up with some very weird interpretations.

With the practice of exercising virtue and eliminating vice, we embark on a mission of purity control to correct our weird interpretations of God & Good. We train & condition our responses to life’s predicaments in manners that accord with the True North of an Accurate Moral Compass, and not the Magnetic North of our Fallen Nature and Secular Values.

The fact is each & every one of us don’t know what Good is. We are blind & deviant as varied as our unique individuality in our perception of Good which mitigates our culpability where we act in wrongly but in good faith.

No Persons, with the exception of Mary, the Mother of Jesus, left this world to attain heaven because they were Good.

All saints enter heaven with a marred track record. Few saints enter heaven where their swan song performance in their latter years were so refined by prayer and purity control and good works that their every action in those latter years represented the True North of a Good Moral Compass. Only Mary, the Mother of Jesus, entered heaven with an un-marred track record.

 

[wynnejj]

(wynnejj) ‘if you are willing to pay the price of admission to Heaven by limiting yourself by keeping God’s commandments, no matter how impractical it may seem’ then you will have demonstrated free will and earned eternal life.

However, no-one who believes in Heaven thinks that they have any sacrifice to make. What is the price to pay? If one believes in God, likes good and dislikes bad, what choice does one have? That is partly why some people are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice: because it is logically no sacrifice. Given this, and the fact that God provides no valid alternative to complete submission, is it still accurate to say that we have free will? My question might seem pointless, as if I’m looking in a box of chocolates half of which are laced with poison, and saying that I don’t have free will when I merely lack choice, not the ability to choose. But when every single thought and action is this box of chocolates, where one is either with or against God, we never have choice and this seems necessary for free will.

I think that there is much in Jesus’ New Law whose values are contrary to most secular values, as the most common subject of moral debate, and described in Matthew chapters 5 & 6 that represent a true price of admission - just as not eating the “forbidden fruit” was a price of rent for the Garden of Paradise - that is contrary to the secular understanding of GOOD.

When I was a teenager, I fell into the sin of “self-abuse”. It seemed to be natural, not disordered, and it harmed no one. Most importantly, somehow I had escaped my Catholic primary school education without ever knowing that it was a grave matter, that if understood would constitute a mortal sin. When I found out, you can be sure that I was shocked to see how it was verified by Matthew 5:27-30.

"You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into Gehenna. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go into Gehenna.

It was even more shocking to open my “Catechism of Catholic Church” copyright 1994 and find an picture right in the middle of the book whose captioned read:

The central section of the sarcophogus of Junius Bassus, discovered underneath the “Confessio” of the Basilica of St. Peter in Rome and dating from the 359.

Christ in glory, portrayed very young as a sign of his divinity, is seated on the throne of heaven, with Uranus, the pagan god of heaven, as his footstool. The apostle of Peter and Paul stand on either side of Christ, toward whom they are turning and from whom they receive two scrolls: the new law."

…

Jesus’ right hand appears to be cut off and burned (cauterized?) in the sculpture.

It looks to be vandalization of the sculpture, but it sure was a shock to me who was considering the literal aspects of the Matthew 5:27-30.

Now I’m 60 and celibate, but to this day I consider “the sin” of “self-abuse” my right that I have given up as a price of admission into heaven. I consider it an act of sacrifice to prove my love of God, the first principle, above all other principles, most especially “the right to do anything that abides by the golden rule and adheres to the silver rule of not harming others”.

PS: I still have my right hand and right eye.

 

[James1215]

Paul,

I apologise for my unnecessarily provocative statement that I’m going to Hell, as this is a core part of your belief the reality of which would not be comforting to dwell on.

Aside from whether I am submitting or disobeying God, my questions are on whether it is accurate to say that humans have free will.

If free will is the term signifying resisting earthly/bodily/sinful pleasures in favour of true good, then I can accept that. But free will in this specific sense applies only after one is educated about the nature of sin. Once one knows what sin is, free will is clearly not a term signifying real choice, because it follows the revelation that there is always and forever only one valid option - obeying God.

In the state of ignorance prior to revelation, it does seem like we have free will in the sense that there seem to be several or many valid things to do in life.

It may be consensus that it is perfectly legitimate that obedience is the only proper response to God once He is known, and I can accept the theoretical identification of good with God. But what I think is that it is not accurate to say that we truly have free will, and whilst it may be an attractive part of Christianity to have a theological defense of the freedom of the will, I don’t think there is one. Free will is the disturbance of our senses so that sin appears to offer viable paths in life, when there is only one.

 

[wynnejj]

Free will is the disturbance of our senses so that sin appears to offer viable paths in life, when there is only one.

This last sentence comes off to me as utter babble. Pretty much all that you stated up to this statement seemed to make sense. Could you further elaborate? How is free will a “disturbance of our senses”? Given that the idea of eternal punishment in Hell is such a nuclear deterrent to pay for a defined, limited set of sins, I concur with you that we are not offered a “free will” alternative with such a gun at our head. However, I do think that if the alternative is “Celebrate Life Now, Non-Existence Later” or “Celebrate Life Now with Limitations, Gain a Good Eternal Life”, then I think that you are indeed given a viable alternative. What you sound like you are saying is… Give me prize #1 for obedience; give me prize #2 for disobedience. What God is saying is … I’ll give you various levels of prize for obedience and final intent to obey; I’ll give you nothing for final intent to disobedience.

 

[James1215]

Wynnejj,

Ok well I think we agree quite a lot that choice has to mean choice between viable options. You suggest the choices are celebrate now+non-existence vs celebrate moderately now+eternal life. My only reservation is that while the word ‘celebrate’ is used on both sides, it is not the same thing. Everything is either with God or against Him, so if any kind of mistaken celebration is sin, a moderate amount will not do: it has to be renounced totally on the Heaven-side if it is present on the Hell-side. We do not get a choice between a lot or a little of earthly pleasure if it is distracting. So even with this example, I think that the earthly pleasure weighing on one side is illusory, and does not contribute to a viable option that provides an alternative thereby enabling choice.

On your specific question, I meant that the existence of viable earthly choices is a prerequisite to meaningful free will, yet if all the other options are sinful therefore illusory, one would have to be deluded to think one had free will. If we think we have free will, it is a blight: our perception is bad/damaged etc, and this is a symptom of it. Hope that makes sense.

Thank you for your earlier posts btw, I have read them and appreciate being generally informed, though I didn’t think they addressed the specifics of my questioning.

 

[wynnejj]

Ok well I think we agree quite a lot that choice has to mean choice between viable options. I do too. You suggest the choices are celebrate now+non-existence vs celebrate moderately now+eternal life. My only reservation is that while the word ‘celebrate’ is used on both sides, it is not the same thing. How so? Everything is either with God or against Him, so if any kind of mistaken celebration is sin, a moderate amount will not do: it has to be renounced totally on the Heaven-side if it is present on the Hell-side. - This presupposes that the individual who has mistakenly commited sin (or intentionally commited serious sin with later repentance, for that matter) during his lifetime will not go through a preparation period to purge all elements of sin before entering heaven. There is a purgatory after earthly death to prepare / cleanse the soul before entrance into heaven. We do not get a choice between a lot or a little of earthly pleasure if it is distracting. So even with this example, I think that the earthly pleasure weighing on one side is illusory, and does not contribute to a viable option that provides an alternative thereby enabling choice. Not true, I suggest. No one would make it to heaven if the final analysis was based on whether the person engaged in pleasure that was distracting. You/Jesus wouldn’t be able to attend a wedding banquet at Cana enjoying good wine and good friends. You/Jesus wouldn’t be allowed the luxury of having your head and feet anointed with expensive oil because of the pressing needs of money for the poor. You are theologically mistaken on this point, I believe.

On your specific question, I meant that the existence of viable earthly choices is a prerequisite to meaningful free will, yet if all the other options are sinful therefore illusory, one would have to be deluded to think one had free will. If we think we have free will, it is a blight: our perception is bad/damaged etc, and this is a symptom of it. Hope that makes sense.It doesn’t make sense to me, I’m afraid.

Thank you for your earlier posts btw, I have read them and appreciate being generally informed, though I didn’t think they addressed the specifics of my questioning. My earlier posts tried to suggest that your questions can only be answered if understood in the framework of God and man going through an engagement period where both decides whether or not they will select each other for a future life together. God has His Standards, and each individual man has his standards. Both have free will to choose or not choose the other. God is willing to accept your faults if you are willing to acknowledge them and apologize for those where there is understanding and agreement, but to actually enter heaven one has to be re-made anew through the interim process of purgatory to be made perfect for a future life together.

 

[wynnejj]

With that, I think I’m going to have to conclude my replies. I have offered some ideas that I felt were germane to the opening post and to some of the ideas that James offered which are very valid lines of inquiry in my opinion. I enjoyed developing some of those ideas as the brainstorming session was very worthwhile to me in pulling together snippets of ideas that I’ve had over time to work on this puzzle. Frankly, I’m just a person who questions like every one else, and I come up short and some times dead wrong on some of my conclusions. The only thing for which I can confidently attest is: Jesus is Lord, despite my witness. So help me God.

Diolch yn fawr (Thank you very much) to Jonesboy from Wales for the hours of coffee and donuts on the riddle put forth. And thank you, James, for the interesting POVs.

 

[paul_c]

Paul,

I apologise for my unnecessarily provocative statement that I’m going to Hell, as this is a core part of your belief the reality of which would not be comforting to dwell on.

I didn’t feel like it was particularly provocative but thank you for your considerate apology.

Aside from whether I am submitting or disobeying God, my questions are on whether it is accurate to say that humans have free will.

Why do you doubt whether you have free will? Don’t you recognize that you have choices?

If free will is the term signifying resisting earthly/bodily/sinful pleasures in favour of true good, then I can accept that. But free will in this specific sense applies only after one is educated about the nature of sin. Once one knows what sin is, free will is clearly not a term signifying real choice, because it follows the revelation that there is always and forever only one valid option - obeying God.

Free will refers to every individual’s ability to choose his ultimate destiny. While you think it is a no-brainer to obey God, the fact is many if not most people prefer to follow their own whims instead and in fact, you don’t even acknowledge God as an athiest. As for knowing what sin is, God tells each one of us what is sinful through our consciences.

In the state of ignorance prior to revelation, it does seem like we have free will in the sense that there seem to be several or many valid things to do in life.

post revelation, we continue to have the same choices - it just makes the ramifications a little more clear

It may be consensus that it is perfectly legitimate that obedience is the only proper response to God once He is known, and I can accept the theoretical identification of good with God. But what I think is that it is not accurate to say that we truly have free will, and whilst it may be an attractive part of Christianity to have a theological defense of the freedom of the will, I don’t think there is one. Free will is the disturbance of our senses so that sin appears to offer viable paths in life, when there is only one.

There is only one set of choices that leads to heaven, but there is a a second path that leads to hell that many, many people take. And you are right, this path is typically desguised in half truths by SATAN to look attractive. After all, as you point out, no one would choose a path that led to hell without some perceived benefit

I’ll point out some of those half truths:

God can’t be proven by science (True but irrelevant)
you can be saved by Faith alone, you don’t need to do anything
Sin is cool
Only the Good die young.