Christian answering questions too!

[Nihilist Virus]

Wow, all very good points indeed.  Thank you for letting me off with answering only 1!  I will spend some time researching all three when my schedule allows.  I will take #3 and try and formulate a more comprehensive answer for 1 and 2 later.  I would first say that you have made some assumptions on God's motives for why we are here and the purpose of salvation.  These assumptions could put a person in a box when a much more comprehensive answer is required. 
 
 
 
Quickly on #1, I would not relate God to the law as you have in that is he subject to it himself.  Instead I would say that He is a perfect being and incapable of sin.  In fact he cannot even look upon sin.  That the law was given to man for a purpose, not so he could punish us if we didn't keep it.  However as you have presented it, it does appear to be a do as I say not as I do moment.  I would also point out that God struck the boy sick; he did not put him to death.  Although he did die.   
 
 
 
God is bound by himself and his own rules so to speak in that he is all powerful, all knowing, and without sin, so it would be a contradiction by the definition of what defines a god.  Like asking could God die.  The answer to me would be no.  Would that not mean he is not all powerful?
 
 
 
For #3 No, I don't think we will sin in heaven.  Yes I think we will have free will there too.  I think we were initially made sinless.  (Here was an example of how you phrased a statement that will elicit a response that is boxed in) God looked upon his creation and said it was good.  I take that as there was a time period without sin, when all was perfect as it should be.        
 
 
 
Again, all excellent and well thought out questions!  I am really looking forward to getting to these.
 
 
 
Lastly I would urge one not to cherry pick passages and apply them outside of their context.  Sadly, Christians make this mistake more than anyone.
 

V/R

Pete

Thank you for your reply and your intent to go deeper into the question(s).  I have a couple follow-up questions/remarks to your initial response.  You don't have to respond to this but rather I just hope you take it into consideration when drafting your in-depth response.

I would first say that you have made some assumptions on God's motives for why we are here and the purpose of salvation.  These assumptions could put a person in a box when a much more comprehensive answer is required.  

I was not aware I was doing this.  I was representing the Christianity I was born into.  I was a non-denominational evangelical Christian who believed that the book of Revelation described an imminent, literal, physical, global apocalypse.  If you feel certain things need to be clarified, go ahead and do it.

Quickly on #1, I would not relate God to the law as you have in that is he subject to it himself.  Instead I would say that He is a perfect being and incapable of sin.  In fact he cannot even look upon sin.  That the law was given to man for a purpose, not so he could punish us if we didn't keep it.  However as you have presented it, it does appear to be a do as I say not as I do moment.  I would also point out that God struck the boy sick; he did not put him to death.  Although he did die.

If God is not subject to the law then I don't know what sin means.  Also, if it is not the case that the law was given to us so that we could be punished for not keeping it, what is the point of Christ's sacrifice and the atonement?  Lastly, I find it difficult to accept that God did not put the child to death.  Look at the very beginning of the passage I'm citing:

13 Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has [a]taken away your sin; you shall not die. 14 However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die.”

If you want to contend that God did not deliberately and actively kill the infant, then you must pose one of the following:

1. The child was struck ill by God, not cured by God, and just happened to die while God was indifferent to the outcome.  Nathan predicted correctly that the child would die, but he was a false prophet because he falsely claimed that he divined this knowledge from God.
2. The child was struck ill by God, not cured by God, and just happened to die while God was indifferent to the outcome.  Nathan predicted correctly that the child would die, but did not know for sure and did not intend to suggest that he was divining this information from God.

God is bound by himself and his own rules so to speak in that he is all powerful, all knowing, and without sin, so it would be a contradiction by the definition of what defines a god.  Like asking could God die.  The answer to me would be no.  Would that not mean he is not all powerful?

This is baffling.  Which of these do you deny: that Christ was God, or that Christ died?

For #3 No, I don't think we will sin in heaven.  Yes I think we will have free will there too.  I think we were initially made sinless.  (Here was an example of how you phrased a statement that will elicit a response that is boxed in) God looked upon his creation and said it was good.  I take that as there was a time period without sin, when all was perfect as it should be.

You cannot compare the state of humanity in heaven to the state of humanity in the Garden of Eden because the humans in the garden sinned, yet you say we won't sin in heaven.  I don't see how your analogy applies in any sense whatsoever.