Mageth

luvluv said:

It is the loss of free will that constitutes hell, it doesn't really matter what you lose your free will to.

My understanding is that there will be no "free will" in heaven. Do you agree with this position?

Didn't Jesus notably say "Not my will, but Thine?"

Isn't a key tenet of Xianity giving up one's will and yielding to God's will? So is losing one's free will to God "hell?"

[ April 15, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

Queen of Swords

"For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book : If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book." (Revelations 22:18).

Koyaanisqatsi

Oh, yeah, that argument again, too, eh SOMMS?

Let me finish it for you yet again, before addressing the overtly disturbing revisionist "cult-lite" crap luvluv is flinging.

The whole point of God is precisely that he can do the impossible, such as make a square-circle, so remove that qualification and you've removed the creation, since it, too, is not logically possible.

How is it logically possible to exist prior or concurrent with non-existence, which is what God's state of existence would have to be in order to create existence? Or resurrect from the dead? Or turn water into wine? Or create a human being out of dirt?

You lose, again, like you always do whenever you try to pull this already soundly defeated argument out for its annual dusting.

Luvluv--

We've all actually read the bible, too, and many of us were likewise indoctrinated into the cult. We know precisely what "hell" is used for and what the Bible says regarding it, but nice try.

It is entirely irrelevant what "most christians" today think regarding any revisionist, apologetic/theological doctrine, as that is entirely based on, as you mentioned earlier, the coercion of priests and preachers and has little to nothing to do with what is actually written.

Hiding behind a cult's own crimes is just dishonest. Hell (the pit; the lake of fire; the furnace, it has many names, but that fools no one) is the eternal punishment inflicted by God upon non-believers (primarily) and sinners.

Period.

This has been demonstrated ad nauseum here, so if you want to challenge it, I suggest you do a little digging around first.

Here are just a few examples of what I'm talking about and anyone who reads the words can see for themselves:
It is abundantly clear from these passages that hell is interchangeable with an eternal tormenting fire used and created by God in order to punish whoever God sees fit to punish and further that one does not go there of one's own free will or that one "becomes" in a state of hell or any other esoteric nonsense, but rather that one is cast or thrown into hell/the eternal tormenting fire by either God or by the angels of God as sent by the Son of Man.

It is active, it is violent and it is inflicted upon you by God as punishment.

It never ceases to amaze me that apologists are blind to the fact that the very existence of apologists reveals fraud in the exact same manner as the existence of "spin doctors" reveals political lies.

There is absolutely no question what the authors of the Bible considered hell to be and who casts one into hell, nor any question as to what is the purpose of such a place; it is for the exclusive punishment of non-believers and sinners as God so designates.

[ April 15, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Theli

luvluv...

Those things aren't necessarily bad or hurtfull for you. Hatred for example can feel really good sometimes. Haven't you ever felt the adrenalin rush of releasing your anger unto something?
I don't see why you should count lust in that list, but moving on...
Drugs are not necessarily a cause for depression, they might be a product though.

They loose their free will to their choices? I thought their ability to have a choice was their free will. But I suppose your ideal picture of a human is a braindead drone who can only serve, has no desires, no will, no feelings nor opinions.
Sitting on a bench obedient collecting dust, doing all that's in his power to swallow his own awfull humanity.

And if you are so addicted to religious dogma you are unable to question it, haven't you lost your free will then also?
Is that not hell?
Doesn't that contradict the christian teachings?
Are you a christian?

BTW, if someone is suffering from an eating dissorder and can't stop eating, is he a sinner also? Will he go to hell?

luvluv

Bear with me folks, I'll try to get to everybody:

zambo:

"Luvluv, we're not talking about murder, lust, gluttony, etc. We're talking about not believing god. It's that simple. Full Stop. Period. The End. Do you seriously believe that we're all rapists and drug addicts?"

No, as I said before it doesn't really depend on the content of your addictions, but on your control over them. You don't have free will if you cannot resist your natural desires. You cease to exist as a person, you are a living AUTOMATIC RESPONSE. It doesn't matter what it is that makes you this way, once you are this way you have ceased to be, in effect, a person.

But the tennent of salvation is that only God can redeem you from these consequences through faith and belief in Him. I believe that like repeated submission to drugs or alchohol or sex can gradualy lead you to an inablity to control yourself in these areas, continued submission to disbelief can entail a decreasing capacity for belief. By belief here I more mean trust than an acknowledgement of God's existence. I think folks here make the erroneous assumption that to believe in God means to serve Him, but even simply an acknowledgement of His existence is not the faith that Christians speak of. Simply to believe He exists is not to believe that His will is what is right for you. And even to believe that his will is what is right for you, in short to believe He is trustworthy is not the same thing as submitting to that trust. So the fact that you do not believe that God EXISTS is not what condemns you. The fact that you do not believe God exists keeps you from trusting Him, and that lack of trust will condemn you. So most of you folks problem would not be solved by a simple knowledge of God's existence (though, as I have argued, it would make your disobedience more difficult and more agonizing).

But it is possible that faith in God and allowing God to operate in your life is the only thing that can eventually lead you to self control rather than being desire-controlled. Faith opens up the avenue to that process and gets it going, but it does not complete that process. I believe we will still be learning self-control in Heaven. But to divorce yourself from God may be to divorce yourself from the only force capable of enabling you to overcome your desires.

Helen:

"You are a 'go-it-alone' type of Christian then? "Don't try to confuse the issue by pointing out that most Christians disagree with me" - is that it?"

"Most other Christians" like Catholics, Methodists, etc, also believe that the will of God can be determined through at least three avenues: the Bible, church history (or collective experience) and personal revelation. In this instance, I am not different from most Christians.

"There's really no basis whatsoever for saying hell is that way."

Again, personal revelation and Church history (the teachings of some of the saints) can provide grounds for many beliefs (such as the belief in free will) without it being expressly put out in the Bible. I don't see how a belief in hell as a natural consequence is a belief that is not in the sprit of the Bible. Can you explain 1) What the spirit of the Bible is and 2) How a belief in hell as a natural consequence contradicts that spirit?

ex-preacher:

"So are you admitting that the concept isn't there either? If you agree, then that ruins some of your other arguments. If you disagree, your point here falls apart."

Nope, because as I have already explained it is totally consistent with Christianity for Christians to have beliefs in excess of what the bible states, so long as those beliefs aren't in contradiction to what the Bible states.

"Enough jocularity."

There was jocularity?

"What are your exact criteria for deciding which parts of the BIble you will accept?"

What part of...

"If some parts of the Bible don't connect with the God I know (personal revelation) or the God that has dealt with the church throughout it's history (church history) I am inclined to believe that it is a mistake. "

... do you not understand, chief?

"What about other Christians who claim to be led by God but end up with radically different doctrines? Who is right?"

Me, silly.

Seriously, we don't always know who's right. And you know what? That's okay.

"What kind of a lame god would give his followers a book which is full of mistakes? And which many think is without mistake? And which others think has mistakes, but they can't agree on what the mistakes are?"

I guess a God who has to work with humans, who are imperfect, sometimes don't hear from Him correctly, and sometimes insert their own biases. But a God who doesn't have to deal with people? There's no telling how high that guy can go.


Pompous:

"No one here but you seems to think that there is any logical contradiction in a world where what might be called "free will" coexists with hatred that does not harm the hater. Why do think that such a contradiction exists?"

I think I answered this question on the Problem of Pain thread. If you read it and don't find it satisfying, I can answer some questions there. But you see why I would be reluctant to repeat multi-page threads for everyone who missed it, don't you"?

nixon:

As I said to others, Christians have always believed in excess of what was written in the Bible. That is not at all an unChristian thing to do.

Automaton:

"Good thing you don't live in the bible belt then."

Guess again.

"A very, very stoned individual? Your twisted world of corruption and decay doesn't exist, in fact, the majority of marijuana smokers give up their habit later in life. Does this sound like they have lost all free will?"

Don't remember saying anything about marijuana. And as I said, it doesnt matter what you lose your free will to, it still has the same result. It could be just the general lack of self-control over multiple areas.

Mageth:

"My understanding is that there will be no "free will" in heaven. Do you agree with this position?"

No, heaven is a place where only people who have deided to voluntarily do God's will are allowed to go. Everybody there is doing God's will, but they are doing it freely.

"Isn't a key tenet of Xianity giving up one's will and yielding to God's will? So is losing one's free will to God "hell?""

No because you cannot lose your free will to God without cultivating self-control.

QueenofSwords:

""For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book : If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book." (Revelations 22:18)."

Again, not a Biblical literalist. Even if I were, I would assume that by "book" the author was referring specifically to the Book of Revelation.

Koya:

"The whole point of God is precisely that he can do the impossible, such as make a square-circle, so remove that qualification and you've removed the creation, since it, too, is not logically possible."

Would you care to justify that statement? How did you arrive at the conclusion that doing the self-contradictory is the "whole point of God"?

"How is it logically possible to exist prior or concurrent with non-existence, which is what God's state of existence would have to be in order to create existence?"

Isn't that a good argument against the existence of matter itself?

I have already discussed on another thread that it is possible that HELL is a natural consequence and that the LAKE OF FIRE is a place God casts those in Hell into in order to prevent them from suffering eternally. I get this from a specific passage in Revelation in which God casts Hell into a lake of fire. If Hell and the Lake of Fire are actually two different places, none of what you have quoted really is relevant to my argument. But as I said on that other thread, I meant to look that up and come to a definite conclusion on that point but I haven't had time. But suffice it to say that Hell may be a different place than the Lake of Fire, and that while God may cast beings who have no chance of anything but eternal torment into the lake of Fire as a last mercy (it is perhaps better to not exist than to be tormented forever) the torment of Hell may be self-imposed. (I also intend to dig into the original languages to see whether there are actual different words for "hell" and the "Lake of Fire" or whether the two translations come from the same word.)

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Koy,
If you want to believe that God can do logically impossible things...fine.

I hold no such beliefs.

I think it is unlikely that a being of all-encompassing omniscience would make logical mistakes like self-contradictory, non-sensical machinations of philosophical whimsy.

We'll have to agree to disagree I guess.

Thoughts and comments welcomed,


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Typhon

That doesn't make a whit of difference.

If I am the OMNIPOTENT creator of Umple, and I create the universe (which by the way, I can by definition, make anyway I want, who are YOU, to define what is and is not possible in my created universe?), in which if one moves, one gets shot AND I give you the ability to move, if you get shot, it's because you moved, but more importantly, it's really because I set up the universe this way. I could have created it where you didn't get shot, you got a massage. Or one where you couldn't move, and in fact, had no concept of what "move" was and spent all eternity blissfully and actively involved in thinking, singing, talking, basking in the cosmic love my omnibenefice and that of your move-less breather. I could also create a universe where guns didn't exist, and you could run all over the place, much to my constant amusement and joy.

Free will only (and I disagree here as well with your very definition of such free will) "in and of itself necessitates that the abuse of free-will entails negative consequences" because you define it that way. Furthermore, in the hypothetical and HIGHLY unlikely situation that any creator god bothering to create such free will in this fashion, did so, there are only negative consequences because that creator MADE IT SO.
By human definitions (other than your own), this is NOT a free choice/free will requirement. There is no logic show here that requires free will to be a reward/punishment teeter-totter.
This is only so by your definition. Free will is merely "The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will. The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will." There is nothing inherent to "free will" that demands "consequences." If given a choice of two identical apples, from either my left hand or my right hand, each equally nutritious, from which you may freely choose, with neither a reward or a punishment, is still an instance of granting you free will. Just because I don't beat you to the ground or elevate you to kingship for choosing one over the other, does not negate the free will I've granted you to make a choice in this situation.

Furthermore, I have to seriously wonder if free will is truly that, should I tell you before hand, that choosing one apple over the other, will either punish you (the sinister apple), or reward you (the Dexter apple). Yes, you still have the free will to choose, but haven't I just affected that very choice, by offering you too very different consequences to your choices? You are not constrained true, unless by constraint " The threat or use of force to prevent, restrict, or dictate the action or thought of others." you mean the real threat of hell and/or reward of heaven. And if free will is intended to give you a choice, free of external demands, how is one "abusing" free will by simply exercising it?

It's like the very human (what a surprise, even strange non-Christian theist gods like the one you seem to follow display such remarkable "human" characteristics) tendency to offer a choice that is only poised in the wording of a free choice, but is really not in the spirit of what is desired from you.

Example:

You can have the last piece of pie, if you want it?

BUT

To actually take the last piece of pie (which I really want, and am just offering out of politeness in my example) will anger me.

OR

Having your spouse/partner/lover say you can either take them out to a pleasurable, romantic evening with just the two of you.

OR

Spend it with your friends/co-workers/random others, drinking/carousing/attending some sports event/etc. without them (your spouse/partner/loved one).

You may have the "free choice" but you'll be "damned" if you pick the WRONG one.
Please do explain. I don't see how any of these arise purely from an abuse of free will. Are you saying that free will is only not abused, if every choice we make is the "correct" one? Is that not a constraint in and of itself then? Aside from it being total BS when compared to REAL psychology, behavior, and complex interactions that cause all those emotions and situations, it makes no sense to say that these are the visible manifestations of "abused free will."
Really, do tell. How is free will suddenly the same thing as "sinful urges?" And what about the fact that according to Christian canon, all persons are born, with inherent sin, or in other words, these sinful urges? Is this what you think represents the free will granted to man by your hypothetical god? If so, what did for example Adam and Eve have before they first "sinned" in the colorful myth of the Christian creation story? Did they NOT possess free will until they were cursed with their sinful nature? I'm curious what you think about this.
Well, apparently then you can't imagine the canonical Christian heaven either. Unless, there is no free will in heaven, like perhaps, there was none before the mythic "Fall." If people ALWAYS choose the "right" choice, then by your definition, it's not free will. If somehow it remains free will, despite the fact that they can not ever choose to "abuse" their free will and give into "such urges" as "bigotry, hatred, revenge, etc." then why did not god just grant this free will + perfect nature to the mythic original humans who first fell from grace by choosing the fruit of one tree over the other?

Unless you can clear up these points, I have to say I find your interpretation of "free will" as strange, singular, and baffling as your non-Christian interpretation of "hell."

.T.

luvluv

I'm kinda in a hurry but I'll just say this:

I don't know that I believe that God "created" the consequences of abused free will. I believe that if God Himself were to act evilly that evil would corrupt and destroy God Himself.

If goodness implies simply doing what is best for others and what is best for oneself, then doing bad is doing something which is not best for others and not best for oneself. I think things that are bad are bad BECAUSE of their consequences, and consequences are the logical, inherent results of certain choices.

I don't believe that saying that bad consequences follow bad actions was as arbitrary a decision for God as deciding at what temperature water boils. As I've said before, I don't think the canvas for God is as blank as you folks assume. I think I explained this a lot more on the Problem of Pain thread.

For example, it is inherent in deciding to hate that one spends time hating, therefore depriving one of using that same time to laugh or watch a sunrise or listen to music or whatever. If certain actions are more enjoyable than others, then choosing to spend time in a less enjoyable activity would constitute suffering. If all activities are equally enjoyable, then choice is meaningless. There is no such thing as free will without choice, and no such thing as a meaningful choice without differing consequences, and these differing consequences would be meaningless unless we prefered one consequence to another.

To chose MEANS to chose FROM various options. If all options were equal, in reality, there would be no actual choice. If all actions lead to the same consequences, there would effectively be no choice between actions. To have free will MEANS to choose from options which have differing consequences. To chose from options which have identical consequences, or consequences identically favorable to us, would be the same as having no, or very little, free will.

[ April 15, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by luvluv:
<strong>Again, not a Biblical literalist. Even if I were, I would assume that by "book" the author was referring specifically to the Book of Revelation.</strong>

How do you know that by "book", the author was not referring to the future "book" called the bible?

And even if you were correct that "book" referred only to Revelations, would you not be adding to the Book of Revelation (which does describe hell), by saying that hell is a place where people cause other people suffering? Let's face it, does this Book, which goes into great details about human misery, mention what you have said? No? Then aren't you adding to its information?

Automaton

I appreciate that luvluv has to answer a lot of posters, but what I don't appreciate is this total evasion of pretty much all of my argument, even the section that she quoted! Again, the core point of that section of my post, am I suffering hellfire and the torment of other sadists because I have "lost my free will" to the internet?