Will Humans Have Freewill in Heaven?

[Metis]

No, we are not called to sell all of our possessions. This is not a requirement that Jesus placed on all beleivers.

Luke 21 with the story of the widow with the two coins would strongly suggest otherwise. Those who give all they have willingly are the most holy, provided they give their all the quantity or quality is irrelevant.

I bet you were expecting the standard retort of the rich boy, the camel and the needle right?

Wrong again. And I do grow weary of these loooooooong posts which contain error after error. Where did you say you went to school again? Damn.

I attended both an Anglican and Greek Orthodox Seminary, as a matter of prudence I won't be any more specific. I don't need to be contacted at work.

Since I was a candidate at a Trappist monastery, I think I can speak a little of the monastic vocation despite the fact that it was not actually my ultimate calling. We are not ALL called to the ascetic life of the cloister, and not embracing the life of Franciscan poverty does not mean that people do not believe. If we were all monastics, there would be no future generations! If I am "tinged by avarice" this imperfection will be dealt with in purgatory but it does not disqualify me from heaven.

The scriptures are clear that not everyone is called to a life of celibacy. If you are ignorant of the verses, I can point them out to you.

May I direct you to the red letters you seemed to have skimmed over in Matthew 19:12? Jesus appears to agree with Paul that not all are built for celibacy, but unlike Paul he suggests people can despite this choose to live like Eunuchs for the sake of Heaven.

You may not be forcibly called, but it is very clear within Catholic religious life with the continual calling for prayers for religious vocations to increase it is very, very, very strongly encouraged to discard a potential vocation to marriage and take up orders or a religious rule.

To not give it all up is selfish, I have one older female co-worker who is a Catholic who testifies at her all girls school her Nun teachers made it very clear the religious were above the laity. I can find little in Catholic theology or in actual practice that would disagree with this notion, it's almost reminiscent of the Gnostic Cathars and their priestly class of "Perfects".

Because as the scriptures point out, the celibacy of the monk or the holy orders of the priesthood are vocations - just as marriage is a vocation. God calls some to the former and many more to the latter. It is a mistake to try to grasp the more ascetic vocation when the grace has not been given.

Actually the scriptures make no mention of the monastic life at all, it was a much later Egyptian innovation that sprang up in the desert regions in the early fourth century. As a former Protestant surely you would know this is why Martin Luther condemned them as unbiblical and they do not exist in Protestantism for this reason with exception to the Anglicans (who don't consider themselves Protestants but "Reformed Catholics").

It should be no surprise the scriptures do not address this. Marriage was not a vocation in the Early Church Randy, it was seen as lesser and dirty, there are several Early Church writers who actually condemned Marital sex as fornication. Marriages didn't even take place in a church or with a cleric leading the ceremony until the Middle Ages.

Well, if I am God's slave then I am so happily. But sure, we begin our lives as baby Christians considering the reward and gain because we do not yet know God or His love. This matures over time, and as I have said elsewhere, there are saints who have written that they would willingly go to hell for eternity if that was what their Beloved asked of them. He won't, of course, but there is that evidence of the mature Christian love that is indifferent to the suffering or reward of which you speak.

There are also Japanese women who visit a Shrine at a Railway station in Tokyo to pay their respects to their beloved recently deceased and also recently deified Cat Goddess.

People can feel love towards all sorts of things, there are plenty of women who have died from domestic abuse because they loved their husbands and wouldn't flee, it doesn't make it sensible or right.

It is my greatest desire to throw so much wood onto the fire that the brightness of the blaze would finally pierce into the corners of some truly darkened minds.

All you've done so far is create a lot of smoke, darkening the area further. The debates you've partaken in here while informative for many have also regually unearthed the "dark side" of Christianity, you've attempted to justify rape, murder, genocide and much more.

If anything you're attempts to fuel the fire have given people more reasons to dislike Christianity if they didn't have one already.

Ah, yes. Exactly as I have written elsewhere...even citing Hitchens to the same effect.

I'm actually not that big a fan of Hitchens, he makes perfectly valid points but I much prefer those apologists and critics who don't just point out the obvious but bother to take a pair of tweezers to and pick every last stitch of the opposition apart like the sedevacantist Diamond brothers.

If God appeared like a flaming behemoth in the sky, you would not acknowledge Him AS GOD because you simply don't want to. This is how and why people go to hell...BECAUSE THEY WOULD RATHER BE THERE THAN IN GOD'S PRESENCE so great is their hatred for Him. And I would also suggest that for those that feel no "hatred for God", they are driven by a great love for self. So, the end result is the same.

Uh, if the creator deity of the universe appeared like that I think it would be a preeety good confirmation of its claims being likely to be correct. You're not very familiar with assessment techniques are you?

Then again, if we were to use your own book I would have to call such a creature Satan, Anti-Christ or the Beast because less we forget the infernal powers can appear as or claim to be divine.

As for going to hell willingly let me pose a similar situation; your wife decides to dump you but she's got nowhere to stay for the night, what do you do?

1) Let her sleep on the couch, this may not be very appealing and some would understand you not wanting to do this.

2) Let her leave and find her own way.

or....

3) Sit down, plan, invent and build the most terrifying torture chamber ever created, boot her inside and begin pouring hot lava over her while other assorted acts of unspeakable brutality take place?

1) Would make you a pretty cool guy, 2) Would be neutral, 3) would make you a psychopathic and vindictive.

But I'll here from others about how no one hates God, blah, blah, blah.

FOLKS, I GET THAT YOU HAVE DIFFERING VIEWS, OKAY. NOT EVERYONE IS AT THE EXACT SAME SPOT ON THE SPECTRUM OF ATHEISM.

Not sure how this is relevant but okay.

Perhaps reading more of CS Lewis would help.

Because of his Anglican values supposedly contained within? It's a rather cute idea, but as with Tolkein one would only see Aslan as a Christ figure if one was purposefully looking for it. Yuna the Summoner Priestess in the Final Fantasy series could also be described as a Christ figure for much of her story with her willingness to accept Martyrdom while she had faith but again, this would only be picked out if one was purposefully looking for such an example. Being created by Japanese Buddhist/Shintoists it was very unlikely she was created to exemplify the ideal Christian martyr, it was purely coincidental.

Lewis may have had this in mind when he created Aslan, but there are so many savior figures in literature one wouldn't be aware this was an intentional comparison unless one had been told that that Lewis wanted to express Christian doctrine or that Galadriel was a Marian figure (not quite sure how that fits in with her fucking Gandalf but whatever...I got that from Catholic Answers, not from my own reading of the Hobbit or the Lord of the Rings).

At least not one that you recognize for its quality, apparently. I'll keep trying...Bring more wood!

I admire your persistence.

I don't own that book, but I do have a fairly respectable library of titles. If you are going to read some Catholic theology/apologetics, I'd be happy to recommend some books.

By all means I'd appreciate suggestions. I have just ordered a copy of Akin's "The Fathers Know best" (I can't recall the exact title) as part of my search for decent Catholic doctrine revision for my module.

Or both. Could I be doing it for BOTH reasons?

Would this make it any better morally?

I recall you mentioned your study with the Protestants and the Orthodox, but I must have missed your mentioning this. I do apologize. And I wish I knew which diocese you are teaching in.

To be fair I didn't mention it; the CCRS is less a theological programme itself and more a driving test. They don't inform so much as examine for evidence you already know the material hence I didn't mention it, really the base topics are woefully inadequate for the exam and despite the advertising claiming it is primarily for outsiders and non-theologians I think they assume anyone who takes it is a practicing Catholic. I wouldn't have brought it up but you seem to think I must attend a Catholic university to learn about Catholic Theology which is a bit of a catch twenty two since as a "practicing homosexual" I'm not allowed to attend Catholic schools or universities. Still, funnily enough I am now qualified to teach Theology at them, overqualified actually.

You can rest easy in that I do not teach at a Catholic institution, but an nominally Anglican one. My employer simply wishes everyone who leads Theology is accredited and knowledgeable of the most well known Christian traditions. Anglicans themselves aren't generally as exclusive as the Orthodox or Catholics and try to balance everyones opinion for merit, rather than the automatic Catholic/Orthodox "Heretic!!".

It's why they're usually far better positioned when debating outsiders, they actually understand the opposition.

Do a search on the word "whores" posted by Randy Carson. Let me know what you come up with, okay?

All I found was me quoting YOU here: http://atheistforums.org/thread-33377-po...#pid970638

My search:

http://atheistforums.org/search.php?acti...order=desc

I said in more flowery language, not in those exact words but with that meaning. You've made it very clear you consider us all some more than others depraved and immoral.