Will Humans Have Freewill in Heaven?

[Rhondazvous]

Why do you assume that God would "sadistically enjoy" the fact that people are in hell?

Your posts and threads are interesting, Rhonda. Some people ask questions because they are looking for genuine answers. You ask questions because you want to make rhetorical points.

But in doing so, you continually reveal that your understanding of God and knowledge scripture and theology to be woefully deficient. It's not that you actually know what you're talking about and have disagreements or different interpretations...you simply have really screwed up ideas that result from real ignorance.

Have you ever actually read any decent books on theology or scripture? Or are you just cobbling all this together based upon your own ideas and those taken from atheist websites and forums?

Psalm 2:4
The one who sits in Heaven laughs: the lord shall hold them in derision.

The people god will laugh at are the nations who want to break the chains and shackles he has placed on them. The chapter goes on to say that he will come at them with his fury making it sound very much like the people in Revelations 14, people whose only “sin” was wanting to live a free life and refusing the chains the Church wanted to put on them.

My understanding of god is based on what he says about himself not what some Christian apologist like Atkins has to say. And my understanding of Christian history is based on what Christians have done throughout history

Your sad attempts at cutting remarks fail for lack of credibility.

[Jenny A]

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".

 If so, the words free will have little if any meaning.  And you are left with a contradiction, free will requires us to be allowed to hurt each other on earth, but not in heaven.  You really must choose one definition of the other.  Either free will allows us to do anything we are physically capable of or it doesn't.  Pick one.

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

No one, but it's very hard to imagine such a world, and if it could exist why isn't this world?

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.

Half points.  If the choice is as described in the NT, he values our decision to become Stepford Wives in order to avoid hell.   That, that is in order to avoid hell is important.  It's a stick that if real would preclude free will.  If you don't understand what people might do to avoid eternal punishment, you have not imagination.  People say all sorts of things under torture.  Threaten eternal torture and you really raise the stakes.

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

I skimmed it anyway.  Like your summary, half points for effort.

[Rhondazvous]

Oh, but it wasn't Catholics who told me god allows sin so we can have freewill. They were evangelical Christians who believed with relish that Catholics were going to fry when they die, just like the Catholics believed the same of them. If, as Randy says, god does this because he wants us to love him... well, somebody mentioned Stockholm in one of these threads.

Oh the Evangelicals are just as bad on that front, if not worse. I was thinking more about the Episcopalians, the Old Catholic Church, The Church of England, Euro Methodists (American Methodists are really different to the ones we have here). They do believe in hell but they don't seem to be as gleeful about the idea of anyone going there.

Where is "here" for you? I'm talking about Baptist, word of faith and Calvinists. I'm sure none of them would admit to being "gleeful." but among themselves they talk about who's going to hell with such a tone of vindication and no compassion whatsoever. The Calvinists are really horrendous, believing that god handpicks those who will be saved.

[Rhondazvous]

Yeah they always make it look good on paper, but in de facto I'm not wrong in what I say about what many Catholics think. The Catholic Church is not known for it's tolerance of what it views as heresy especially if the "Apostle construes it as damnable."

Oh, okay.

So rather than go with what the Catholic Church has published about its views of other Christians, it would be best to take the word of an atheist posting in an atheist forum on the Internet who is giving us the skinny on what she claims "many Catholics think."

That's about as authentic as it gets around here, I guess.

I said nothing about how atheist view you. Every group wants to be viewed by how it looks on paper Catholics and atheists alike. But you cannot deny the history of the Catholic Church and how it has treated those who call themselves Christians but teach doctrines the Catholics view as heresy. Atheists have nothing to do with that.

[robvalue]

Nonstamp always has the goods. These free will defences are rather pathetic.

http://youtu.be/aUtSM2oVy_E

[Randy Carson]

Why do you assume that God would "sadistically enjoy" the fact that people are in hell?

Your posts and threads are interesting, Rhonda. Some people ask questions because they are looking for genuine answers. You ask questions because you want to make rhetorical points.

But in doing so, you continually reveal that your understanding of God and knowledge scripture and theology to be woefully deficient. It's not that you actually know what you're talking about and have disagreements or different interpretations...you simply have really screwed up ideas that result from real ignorance.

Have you ever actually read any decent books on theology or scripture? Or are you just cobbling all this together based upon your own ideas and those taken from atheist websites and forums?

Psalm 2:4
The one who sits in Heaven laughs: the lord shall hold them in derision.

The people god will laugh at are the nations who want to break the chains and shackles he has placed on them. The chapter goes on to say that he will come at them with his fury making it sound very much like the people in Revelations 14, people whose only “sin” was wanting to live a free life and refusing the chains the Church wanted to put on them.

Again, you insert small bits here and there to twist the meaning of the scriptures to what you want them to say.

The people DO want to break the chains which they perceive to have them in bondage. And what are those "chains", Rhonda? God's commands not to sin in ways that are repugnant to Him. The nations want to engage in their adultery, prostitution, homosexuality, lying, cheating, stealing, etc. They want to do what they want to do when they want to do, and they don't want anyone stopping them. To this, God says, "No".

But you throw "the Church" into the equation when it was NOT in the original passage because YOU have a problem with the Church. The Church doesn't put chains on people, Rhonda. The Church IS the people. It's me, Catholic_Lady and a few billion other people some of whom are now in God's presence. WE are the Church.

My understanding of god is based on what he says about himself not what some Christian apologist like Atkins has to say. And my understanding of Christian history is based on what Christians have done throughout history

Akin. Not "Atkins". His name is Jimmy Akin. And if you had read more of what Akin has to say, you would be wiser for it.

You see, your "understanding" is not REALLY based on what God says about Himself. It's based on your very flawed interpretation of what God has to say about Himself. As Benjamin Franklin said, "He who teaches himself has a fool for a master."

You would benefit from finding a better teacher.

[IATIA]

Some of you know this, but for the newbies;

The theist rules of bible interpretation:

1. If the literal translation does not augment the argument, then it is a metaphor.
   
2. If the metaphorical translation does not augment the argument, then it is interpreted wrong.
   
3. Change the interpretation of any translation to suit the argument at hand.
   
4. If all else fails, ignore it or just pretend you missed it
   

This especially includes immoral acts of god, contradictions in the bible and vague or ambiguous wording.

[Randy Carson]

Some of you know this, but for the newbies;

The theist rules of bible interpretation:

1. If the literal translation does not augment the argument, then it is a metaphor.
   
2. If the metaphorical translation does not augment the argument, then it is interpreted wrong.
   
3. Change the interpretation of any translation to suit the argument at hand.
   
4. If all else fails, ignore it or just pretend you missed it
   

This especially includes immoral acts of god, contradictions in the bible and vague or ambiguous wording.

Scholars have listed nine kinds of literary forms in the narrative literature or historical books of the Old Testament:

fable,
parable,
historical epic,
religious history,
ancient history,
popular tradition,
liberal narrative,
Midrash (commentary), and
prophetical and apocalyptical narrative

Whatever genre is used, the question that must be considered is what the author asserted or intended to communicate by using this style of narration. The answer to this question will supply the literal sense of the passage.

[IATIA]

Which of those "nine" does your bible fall in?

[Randy Carson]

Which of those "nine" does your bible fall in?

If you read the post carefully, you will see that all of them are found in the Bible.