HelenM

I have to untangle the negatives there...do my feelings of unpopularity cause me to avoid offending people?

Um, you're right - they don't. (Why would they?) My general desire not to offend people often does cause me to avoid offending them . I daresay it's not foolproof, though, iow it doesn't always outweigh other factors.

As I said, you INVARIABLY start these negative exchanges, and I do not get that your motive is discussion at all. [/b][/quote]

Well, maybe you're right. After all 'the heart is deceitful and wicked above all things', so I'm told...

Romans 14 is about not upsetting someone who thinks something is sinful, by trying to push them into doing it, because you think it isn't.

Feel free to point out where I did that...

Btw, are you saying you're a 'weaker member' or are you referring to what I posted to some other Christian?

Helen

Philosoft

You're absolutely right, my inductive argument doesn't hold. It's merely a way to evidentially support a belief. A 15 billion year old universe that has never had a bad SOA obtain is only evidence that bad SOAs can't obtain. The reason I brought it up was to demonstrate how your argument is different.

My argument does, because I intended it. Your argument makes a limiting statement about a thing whose existence is still in question. In other words, you are saying, "The concept of heaven includes the premise that people do not make bad choices so heaven, if it exists, includes this as well."

That's where I lose you. It cannot be true that there is "no internal or external constraint" on heavenly behavior. Granting for the moment the doctrine of Christian salvation, it is a plain fact that some people who do make bad choices here on Earth will cease to make bad choices in heaven. This sems to indicate a change of some kind in the nature of human decision making. But there doesn't appear to be any way you can guarantee that beings who once made bad free-will decisions will only make good free-will decisions in heaven unless you have a constraint of some kind.

If an "ability to choose" implies that there is some possible world in which no bad choices are made, then situation 1 is logically permissible. Parenthetically, this begs the question, if this possible world is available to God and requires no free-will limitations why didn't God simply instantiate this world to begin with?

If there is no possible world in which bad choices are made, then it is correct to say that we lack the "ability to choose."

It seems to me that situation 1 only solves your problem if you assume that the possible heaven/world that obtains does so by sheer serendipity - that all the beings in heaven make only good choices because, luckily, that particular heaven obtained. But this is clearly not a scenario you can make an a priori limiting statement about - you end up with something like, "Luckily, all the beings that will inhabit heaven will freely choose only good" which is absurd.

But this is what you must argue for, because as soon as you propose a supernatural act by God to explain why that particular heaven obtained, you have put a constraint on free human behavior.

But what you're proposing is, "I won't choose to buy a Ferrari at time T because by that time I won't like expensive sports cars anymore."

See my above argument about possible worlds and a priori limitations.

I'm sorry but I don't see any logical coherence in the above. What I see is, "We're constrained, but we're not constrained." I don't get it. Why are the "changes" you propose not considered constraints?

Constraints and enhancements are absolutely not the objective categories you suggest they are. What if you wanted to use your Miata as a lawn-mower or a shopping cart? The increased throttle response that is endemic to supercharging is going to make it more difficult to do either of those things. Making a bad choice may not be a desirable action, especially from God's perspective, but it is an action nonetheless, one which is somehow constrained in heaven.

Yes, but that is a hindsight analysis. "Person P will not do a bad action in heaven because P will not freely choose to do so," which you claim is not a violation of free will, is fundamentally the same as "It is true that P will not do a bad action in heaven" which certainly seems to be a violation.

Well, it's not impossible to sing "Do Wah Diddy" either but no raccoons will ever sing it in practice. Do raccoons still have the ability to sing "Do Wah Diddy"?

I think this distinction depends entirely on the possible worlds scenario.

Enhancement and constraint are entirely relative propositions, as I have shown.

I'm not so sure.

Maybe, but you'll have to make your argument substantially clearer and more coherent. You have a significant difference between earthly behavior and heavenly behavior to explain and the enhancement/constraint dichotomy isn't going to make it.

Rhea

And besides, Miatae don't come equipped with superchargers, so this would not be according to God's design. (and would bump you out of the stock class)

Christian

Stephen,

Yes. It's the general theme of redemption, and it applies to people as well as to this world. Rom 8 summarizes the idea well:

RO 8:18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
RO 8:22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? 25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

We probably share the same assessment of this flawed world. Our difference, I imagine, is what we attribute those flaws to.

Your contentment with a fundamental lack of purpose and meaning in life is something I'm afraid I can't understand. What kind of statement does it make to be content with all the pain and suffering and evil in the world around us? Are you content with the idea that unmerited pain and suffering (as Rhea has gone to lengths to describe) goes on in this world?

May I never be content with such a state of affairs.

Allow me to enlighten you ... I see no contradiction in my beliefs which needs to be reconciled, rather the beauty and truth I find in scripture has the opposite effect on my phychological makeup. And heaven and hell explain difficuties rather than creating them. The evil and pain and suffering around me is explained by the fact that this universe is a cursed one which is going through the process of being redeemed into something better. The beauty and joy and fullfillment I find in the world are tastes and suggestions of the goodness that lays ahead when creation is finally redeemed. And the God of the universe has actually taken notice of little old me and initiated an active relationship with me .... which is mind bogglingly awesome.

The world you describe sounds incredibly meaningless and shallow to me. That's not living.

As a Christian I admit to being an "alien in a strange land" so to speak. The alternatives simply seem shallow and false to me. I see truth and purpose, not comfort.

I think we just agreed on something.

Respectfully,

Christian

Radorth

1. Temptations are fewer without flesh.

2. You won't love money and won't need it, and a primary motive to lie or otherwise sin is gone.

3. Some are saved "though as through fire" so those who still want to make bad choices will soon stop. There is still suffering as appropriate and just.

4. You have better examples to follow and the "social constraints" atheists claim as a primary morals control.

5. You've discovered God saved you in spite of yourself- hardly a small motivator, at least for some.

6. You have to repent of your sins and pride to get there.

That enough for you?

Rad

Philosoft

1, 2 and 6 are constraints - external or internal changes that reduce or eliminate the likelihood of certain behaviors, the very things Christian said don't exist.

3 is another limitation on what people allegedly will do.

4 and 5 are hardly reasons enough to guarantee good behavior for eternity.

In any case, Christian's argument seems to assume that all these constraints and changes don't exist, that it's the human will alone that facilitates good decisions.

Christian

Rhea,

Why do you consider having fewer options as a "constraint?" Maybe we are simply defining the word "constraint" differently.

Webster says that constraint is "the act of constraining." And the following definition of 'constrain" (also from Websters) expresses what I mean by the term:

"To hold back by force; to restrain; to repress."

Noone is holding the soldiers back by force from becoming invisible. Noone is restraining them from becoming invisible. There is nothing holding them back by force (repressing them) from becoming invisible. That's simply an option that is not available to them. The soldiers are not being constrained, they just have fewer options.

How exactly are you defining "constraint?"

So you are saying that there are greater injustices in the world than what Jesus went through? The only perfect man ever suffering death for everyone elses sins scores pretty high up on the injustice scale, doesn't it?

I still don't see how a sense of justice or injustice would increase the amount of pain in an experience. Please elaborate.

My mom doesn't get novacain either. {{{brief shudder}}} So if I understand you correctly you separate the psychological aspect of pain from the physical aspect of pain ... and you refer to the mental element as "suffering." Would that be a fair assessment?

So your claim is that Jesus went through a relatively minor amount of pschological anguish. Is that what you are claiming?

They do both experience the same degree of physical pain. But I guess you are saying that one person might have a lot of psychological anguish over being hit and another person might not.

Have you ever met anyone who went through anxiety so severe that they sweated blood? It does happen, but it's extremely rare. And it only happens in cases of severe pscyological distress.

In what way is omnipotence and omniscience incompatible with wrath? Also, what do you mean by omnibenevolence ... I'm not familiar with that term. Are you simply saying that God is "good." I agree that everything God does is morally correct. But the idea of "all benevelent" calls to mind someone who is always nice and pleasant, and that does not seem like the Christian God to me, if i understand. I'm having trouble imagining what "all benevelent" would even mean. Can you clarify that first sentence?

I'm dubious that you have ever met any person who never feels anger or indignation (wise or otherwise).

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

Rhea,

Use your imagination! A hot air balloon or even an inflatable raft on a small body of water can fullfill your floating ambitions!

OK, you are constrained by gravity but still have free will (by my definition of the term.) In fact I agree that a person can be under all sorts of constraints and still make volitional choice between viable options with real consequences ensuing.

How does your point tie in to my understanding of heaven?

I still don't think that we will be forcibly prevented from making morally bad choices in the eternal state. And I still think it will be possible for us to make bad choices even though it will never happen in practice. We will simply be creatures who have both the ability and the desire to make morally good choices.

Respectfully,

Christian

HelenM

Interesting point...I think other Christians would suspect a Christian who claimed to be comfortable of failing to live up to some Biblical exhortation or other; after all the Bible says, amongst other things "Be ye perfect"

So, I think you're probably right...

In practice I think many Christians seek after their own comfort and they hope God wants them to be comfortable too so they can have a clear conscience about doing so

I admire people who have goals beyond their own comfort, as long as they are not being masochistic just for the sake of it - as long as they have some reason for seeking something that will not make them comfortable.

take care
Helen

HelenM

But I think the point is that they don't respond by taking out a machine gun or torture rack for the person who angered them...

The issue is whether it is justifiable for God to do that, in His anger.

It's not about the anger so much as the response it leads to.

(If I'm understanding correctly )

Anyway, hi Christian, I think you're doing a great job of patiently and courteously responding to people here, fwiw. That always impresses me. (Evidently most Christians who come here are unwilling or unable to be patient and polite here for very long. No, that wasn't directed at anyone in particular - it's just based on my general observations of Christians who post here, over the last couple of years)

Helen