free will paradox

[fr0d0]

Oh, not at all. People should be punished for crimes. I just don't feel like there's any measure by which the bad things I'm responsible for are worth the infliction of pain, or require punishment at all. I've suffered the consequences of my actions in this life, atoned to the people I should atone to, and learned from them. Why on earth should there need to be more? Moreover, by what measure does god assume he has the right to impart such punishment? My father had a hand in creating me too, he has no right to raise a hand to me, even so.

Wow you're obstinate! lol Do you think that your obstinance might limit your fullfilment of life? THAT's what I'm talking about. Your punishment, self inflicted, is you stunting yourself.
Posthumous justice is another subject. Lets try and keep this separate. Posthumously God exacts justice, so that in this life, we can reason with justice fully realised. That's it. Story over.

I do agree, and if it stayed at that level, without a hell after death, then that'd be about right.

Posthumous hel is about justice for everything. If you need to make up a bit to be perfect, then you don't go to perfect school. Christians have accepted the get out of jail card, that was freely offered. Likewise if they need stuff sorting out, they will spend some time in remand too. Only God knows this. Don't fret yourself about it. If you don't want the gift, then that's up to you.

By all means, if you want. The problem is that every religion makes similar claims about the ultimate good of their own religious texts; do you believe them too? After all, they wrote it. Self reported virtues are by design somewhat biased, don't you think?

If you read it it's more self reported put downs. Some say that is why it became so popular... because it matches the self depricating persona of modern man.
I look at every other religion. Essentially they all address the quest for meaning and purpose. None other, that I've found, take the last evolutionary step which is to make a way possible to solve humanities problem of fallability.

A lot of our laws have advanced beyond the bible too; we have a prohibition on slavery now that the bible doesn't have. Would you argue that this is more primitive than the biblical ideals about that? We also don't make rape victims marry their rapist, isn't this a good thing? I would argue that we have a more nuanced legal system now because of its secular nature.

The bible doesn't promote slavery. The bible shows God trying to change people into being fair with those in their charge. It's a historical document reflecting the practices of the times. To us it is foreign and hard to understand because we have a totally different setup now. I wouldn't like to say which one is best without fully appreciating their POV. I'd guess that there are strengths and weaknesses on both sides.
More adopted to the times than advanced I would suggest.

If it's harmful to you, do you not want to deal with that? This is your personal hell.

Sure, but I want to deal with it myself. I don't want to be compelled toward it by an outside force, that robs me of agency in doing so. Let me rise or fall on my own.

You are implored to deal with it yourself. The choice is entirely yours. Posthumously, when you as a non believer have no interest in it, god exactls justice. In this life, it rains on the just exactly the same as it rains in the unjust.

Of course people aren't perfect, but it doesn't necessarily follow that this requires punishment upon their death. Certain actions require punishment yes, but I don't think in my ground state I deserve hell, nor that the moderate immorality that a normal life accumulates should do so either; these things are necessary for us to learn, and I'd prefer to atone to the people I've wronged in these small ways, rather than just suffering meaninglessly until I've fulfilled the metric of some heavenly father.

The metric of this heavenly father is perfect justice. Why not use it? If you suggest an alternative would it be better? That would be illogical. you're objecting to a perfect judgement... I find it difficult to understand your logic there.
By who's standard are you judging yourself then? If you consider perfect judgement on yourself, then you are considering God. If you think you measure up to that, good for you. All anyone can do is try. Sometimes I find Christians quite immoral... they can fall back on the false idea that they can get away with immorality because of their get out of jail free card. That just doesn't work of course. Justice has to be served and will be. what's important to us now though is not limiting our potential. Those Christians don't mean well and limit themselves just the same as you might.

Personally, I feel that good actions should be done for the fact that they're good, not because there's some reward on the other side of life. Whether or not a god exists, we should do good because it's the right thing to do, no? My sole point at the beginning of this portion of the response was that one can disbelieve in god, without doing the same to goodness.

Like I've said, I think the point of posthumous judgement is for us to be abke to rationalise a just reality. When reality is unjust that becomes a problem, and one you have to address.
We do good because it bears reward. That's how good works. The reward can be unspoken, unknown to anyone but you, but still you gain.
So you can do good without belief in God, sure. But your rational universe doesn't support you. Hence Christianity/ the religious endeavour.

I just disagree with you, is all.

No problem with that.

why should there just be a single definition for the term? "Fortunate" and "lucky" can just mean "having come to a positive outcome through negative circumstances." It often does.

Yeah I know it's a difficult one. I pull myself up on it too.