Will Humans Have Freewill in Heaven?

[Metis]

As Jimmy Akin opines here, there are two options:

1. We are no longer able to choose sin. This still allows for free will in that we may choose between different "goods".

But to choose anything but the option that produces the maximum Good would be a bad, a sin. So there can only ever be one option, which contradicts the notion of free will.

2. Your (3). While choosing "bads" might still be possible, who would want to do so?

Shotgun Blackmail: "Do what I want or else!"

Akin's 2/Your 3 does not call into question why this world was created. God created us to know and love Him, and it is here in this life that we are given an opportunity to make a free commitment--or not. Akin draws this analogy:

"While there are many situations in this life in which we freely make commitments to each other, a particularly striking one is the case of a marriage.
We would not value the love of a robot. Stepford wives are just creepy. And we would not want to impose marriage on someone against their will. That would involve the abomination of rape, among other things.

"We want our mates to freely choose us. This is true even in societies that have arranged marriages. There must be a fundamental, free consent on the part of both spouses or the marriage will not be valid. (Not from the Catholic Church's point of view, anyway.) But marriage isn't a momentary choice that involves no commitment. It's a life-long commitment. What we value, then, is a free choice that leads to a permanent commitment."

God values it, too.

I hope you will take a couple of minutes to read Akin's article in its entirety.

1) How is the love from a hostage at gun point any more real than a Stepford wife? I'd suggest it would be less so, since at very least the Stepford Wife cannot experience fear unless you want her to.

2) I don't know about you, but when I met my partner I just asked him out, I didn't suspend him over a lake of fire by his ankles waving a book at him screeching "Love me or Burn!!!"

[Randy Carson]

1. We are no longer able to choose sin. This still allows for free will in that we may choose between different "goods".

So wanting to be as god and getting kicked out of heaven was good?  Taking the earth women was good?

Your post is vague, but if you are referring to the fall of the angels then two points:

1. Note that God has given all rational beings that he made free will.
2. Angels are intellectually superior to humans and had the benefit of seeing the Beatific Vision of God prior to making their choice. Consequently, they only needed (and were given) one shot at their ultimate choice.

[Randy Carson]

duplicate post.

[Randy Carson]

As Jimmy Akin opines here, there are two options:

1. We are no longer able to choose sin. This still allows for free will in that we may choose between different "goods".

But to choose anything but the option that produces the maximum Good would be a bad, a sin. So there can only ever be one option, which contradicts the notion of free will.

2. Your (3). While choosing "bads" might still be possible, who would want to do so?

Shotgun Blackmail: "Do what I want or else!"

Akin's 2/Your 3 does not call into question why this world was created. God created us to know and love Him, and it is here in this life that we are given an opportunity to make a free commitment--or not. Akin draws this analogy:


God values it, too.

I hope you will take a couple of minutes to read Akin's article in its entirety.

1) How is the love from a hostage at gun point any more real than a Stepford wife? I'd suggest it would be less so, since at very least the Stepford Wife cannot experience fear unless you want her to.

2) I don't know about you, but when I met my partner I just asked him out, I didn't suspend him over a lake of fire by his ankles waving a book at him screeching "Love me or Burn!!!"

Before I address any of this, have you read Akin's article in full?

[Rhondazvous]

Why would they?

Because if they are still people after resurrection, they will still behave like people.

If heaven is without sin: either:  (1) people are changed upon entering heaven so that they lack the capacity or the will to sin (a violation of free will and rather Stepford Wife like--ick); or (2) heaven itself must be designed in such a way as to prevent sin (a violation of free will rather Big Brother Like--ick); or (3) everything is so wonderful that no one will want to sin (really, really hard to imagine and calls into question why this world was ever created); or (4) god changes the rules so that nothing is a sin any longer (making the idea of morality completely arbitrary).

In the first two possibilities free will is the ultimate thing god must not deprive people of on earth and the thing he must deprive people of in heaven.  Very puzzling that.  In the third we have to wonder why this world was created at all since a much better one is possible (if it is indeed possible).   In the fourth, morality is completely arbitrary calling into question any need for hell let alone Jesus' sacrifice.

What this puzzle says to me is that heaven is one more deeply flawed idea of christianity, right up there with the remission of sins by the sacrifice of a third party, and punishment for the sins of one's remote ancestors.

3.) Heaven will be so wonderful

In the book of the Revelation we are told that the smoke of the torment of those in hell will rise up before the lord forever. How wonderful a place can it be for anyone when everyone there will see god gloating over the torment of someone they knew? Will the people in Heaven have their compassion and empathy so removed that all they can think of is "Well, I'm glad I'm here. Fuck mom and too bad for my boss."

I'd rather be my own sin-capable self than to be changed into such a cold zombie.

[Metis]

But to choose anything but the option that produces the maximum Good would be a bad, a sin. So there can only ever be one option, which contradicts the notion of free will.


Shotgun Blackmail: "Do what I want or else!"


1) How is the love from a hostage at gun point any more real than a Stepford wife? I'd suggest it would be less so, since at very least the Stepford Wife cannot experience fear unless you want her to.

2) I don't know about you, but when I met my partner I just asked him out, I didn't suspend him over a lake of fire by his ankles waving a book at him screeching "Love me or Burn!!!"

Before I address any of this, have you read Akin's article in full?

Indeed. I know he tries to explain away the inability to choose evil by impeccability but let me ask you this. Supposing I was to preform some brain surgery on you now, and I removed your capacity to feel anger and jealousy. Now, you may be a far nicer person for it but it's not due to any merit of your own, you have been forced to submit to my free will arbitrarily. You aren't "good", you're just being prevented from my power from doing "bad" things.  I am controlling you and forcing you to be calm and passive simply because it pleases me. You may like the result afterwards, but had you the capacity to feel anger you might be more than a little upset that I just decided to reprogram you like that.

It all comes back to the same problem Randy, other Christians manage to escape the loop but Catholicism is just one big hostage situation. You've got a controlling parent with a shotgun and it's his way or you're fucked. You're actually worse than fucked, at least a controlling parent can't actually torture you after you die.

If this controlling parent actually had any interest in preventing or discouraging evil or improving creation this would be one thing, but while it does condemn murderers (sometimes, we all know it enjoys a good roast heretic according to Aquinas and Tertuillan) there is no interest in correction, not even retribution since there comes a point where fair payment has been reached. There is just an interest in senseless never ending sadism, just for the fun of it.

I've always been astounded how nice Catholics can be on a ground level, but on how sadistic their theology is.

[Rhondazvous]

So wanting to be as god and getting kicked out of heaven was good?  Taking the earth women was good?

Your post is vague, but if you are referring to the fall of the angels then two points:

1. Note that God has given all rational beings that he made free will.
2. Angels are intellectually superior to humans and had the benefit of seeing the Beatific Vision of God prior to making their choice. Consequently, they only needed (and were given) one shot at their ultimate choice.

First of all, you dodged dealing with what I said by directing me to go all the way back from post #1333 to post #127. You guys are so good at this. Remember, You're the evangelist here, not me. When you dodge my points you only prove that you have nothing compelling to say.

Second, if the angels were superior, how can we mere humans expect to do better than they did in resisting evil. They had one shot, you say so did god wait until after Satan rebelled to remove all the bad stuff from Heaven, so it will be a different place when humans get there?

[Randy Carson]

Because if they are still people after resurrection, they will still behave like people.

If heaven is without sin: either:  (1) people are changed upon entering heaven so that they lack the capacity or the will to sin (a violation of free will and rather Stepford Wife like--ick); or (2) heaven itself must be designed in such a way as to prevent sin (a violation of free will rather Big Brother Like--ick); or (3) everything is so wonderful that no one will want to sin (really, really hard to imagine and calls into question why this world was ever created); or (4) god changes the rules so that nothing is a sin any longer (making the idea of morality completely arbitrary).

In the first two possibilities free will is the ultimate thing god must not deprive people of on earth and the thing he must deprive people of in heaven.  Very puzzling that.  In the third we have to wonder why this world was created at all since a much better one is possible (if it is indeed possible).   In the fourth, morality is completely arbitrary calling into question any need for hell let alone Jesus' sacrifice.

What this puzzle says to me is that heaven is one more deeply flawed idea of christianity, right up there with the remission of sins by the sacrifice of a third party, and punishment for the sins of one's remote ancestors.

3.) Heaven will be so wonderful

In the book of the Revelation we are told that the smoke of the torment of those in hell will rise up before the lord forever. How wonderful a place can it be for anyone when everyone there will see god gloating over the torment of someone they knew?  Will the people in Heaven have their compassion and empathy so  removed that all they can think of is "Well, I'm glad I'm here. Fuck mom and too bad for my boss."

I'd rather be my own sin-capable self than to be changed into such a cold zombie.

One solution for this apparent problem is that in heaven, people will have a complete picture of the horror of sin. Consequently, they will understand that those who rejected God - to such a great extent that they DESERVED hell - have been punished justly given the seriousness of the sins that they committed.

Additionally, it is thought that people CHOOSE hell rather than enduring the pain of being in the white-hot presence of a pure and holy God when they themselves are stained with sins. If so, then the people in heaven may simply understand that those in hell are there because they want to be.

I suspect that YOU have a problem with this because you don't think sin is really any big deal. Let me know if that's incorrect.

[Drich]

Drich speaks where the bible Speaks and remain silent where the bible is silent.

Moosecock! The Bible says nothing about your stupid monkeyman theory.

Do I teach 'The Monkey man theory' as if it were the word of God? Do I even demand that one must accept it in order to be counted among the saved? No.
As far as my monkey man theory and the bible are concerned I simply point out that the bible is indeed silent between the last day of creation and the fall of man.

I also point out that in that time their could have been an hour, a day, a week, a year or the hundreds of bazillion years needed to satisfy any 'monkey man theory you d-bags want to worship instead of God.

I also point out that the Garden was huge 2/3's the size of North America, according to the 4 rivers that defined it. and we know that A&E were allowed to eat from all the trees in the garden except the tree of knowledge, which meant they could eat from the tree of life meaning they were immortal, which is another puzzle piece that would allow them to live in that garden the bazillions of years needed for evolution to happen outside of the garden.

Then I also point out that life/natural law was also going on out side of the garden as witnessed by the cities and spouces the sons and daughters of adam took..

All that said I never once said all of this was mandatory biblical doctrine. I only have ever pointed to the evidences in and out of the bible and show you how to connect the dots.

[Rhondazvous]

But to choose anything but the option that produces the maximum Good would be a bad, a sin. So there can only ever be one option, which contradicts the notion of free will.


Shotgun Blackmail: "Do what I want or else!"


1) How is the love from a hostage at gun point any more real than a Stepford wife? I'd suggest it would be less so, since at very least the Stepford Wife cannot experience fear unless you want her to.

2) I don't know about you, but when I met my partner I just asked him out, I didn't suspend him over a lake of fire by his ankles waving a book at him screeching "Love me or Burn!!!"

Before I address any of this, have you read Akin's article in full?

Reminds one of Mitt Romney, doesn't it? He doesn't have anything worthwhile to say so he refers us to a website or book. This is really insulting if he thinks we are such dolts that we can't see through this rouse. For a cover, this is two inches thinner than wet tissue paper.
.