Help me not fear heaven/hell

[tackattack]

---

Jesus demonstrated that He knew God's will, didn't want it (had a choice) temporarily but complied with it anyway.  If Christians have an issue with that they can take it up with the authors.

I'm not sure how that modifies either of our comments on the subject.  You say that god could sin.  I note that this would surprise many christians.  I;m not all that concerned with what the authors of magic book said, because you all see whatever you want to see in magic book.  I'm more concerned with you, as an author of your own comments.  You're reaffirming your belief, here, that god can sin..but in a few short sentences you'll define sinning as "acting against god" and further claim that god is good and all other things are evil.

God can act against himself?  God can do evil?

---

The distinctions is with Jesus and the Godhead. By God incarnating in the Mortal constraints of Jesus, Jesus was capable of sinning. If God's nature is good and good is the opposite of evil and if God can't be who/what he's not then he can't do evil. He does allow evil and can use it for the good. Evil is a human creation.

---

Going back to your tasteless example. You might never envision a scenario where you would choose to skullfuck anything. But choices can be made for you, even over your dead body. the actuality is that there is a kid and there is a peter and the 2 can be made to come together, with or without your volition. I notice you're intentionally not saying that you'd "never choose to skullfuck a child." you're just claiming it could never manifest, when there are lots of scenarios where it could be.

Oh my goodness, break out the smelling salts.  The guy who thinks that skewering the better man is a good and godly idea that will cover his own innumerable sins finds skullfucking children to be a tasteless example, lol.

If choices are being made for me, then I'm not the one freely willing anything.  I'm noting that if I have free will, I have free will.  The possession of this free will thing doesn't seem to grant me any particular ability.   I can't skullfuck a kid just like I can't jump all the way to the moon.  My shit just doesn't work like that.  Why having free will would grant me the ability to sin is a conundrum for the same reasons.  If you had free will but were physically incapable, or just didn't want to sin..then the possession of that free will thing doesn't actually make sin possible for you.  Some other thing may, who knows.  There's obviously some difference between a skullfucker and a non skullfucker and if we both have free will, it's possession aint it.  

It's not really clear how or that I'm capable of some sin that -isn't- skullfucking children, even sin as you define it.  I'd love to hear how some jumped up chimp so much as possesses the -ability- to act against a god, whether it wants to or not.  The undercurrent to all of this being that a god is super duper concerned with the ants below "acting against him", however that;s accomplished, in the first place.  I guess that's just par for the course with this type of stuff.

---

---

I will agree that you don't need will to have sin. Sin is an external. You do need will to commit sin because commit is an action that requires volition or movement. You can act on that external, taking the responsibility from the "Yes there is sin out there" to the "I committed a sin" through volition.

Ruh ruh....so there can be sin without free will, and free will without sin, after all.  You're going to have a hard time correcting Snow and having this convo with me.  

---

ok steel magnolias, if you had free will but were physically incapable, or just didn't want to sin..then the possession of that free will thing is innate and inactive because you're not choosing. Then again not choosing is a choice and informs other causes to whatever effect and outcome. Your free will is a choice in the available space that is sin/God's will. You could jump to the moon with sufficient tools. I think we're getting muddied in the definitions. You can sin (action) which is a causal act of volition. There is the ability to Sin (placement of said action) which is either in our out of God's will.

You don't need will to have sin (the place). You do need will to be able to sin (act). It's a pretty simple concept. I can see ahead that the light is turning red. I have a choice to stop, or not, or ignore the red light. Not stopping, from ignoring or disobeying, are both crimes. While sitting at the stop light I could ignore that red light and commit a crime because I have control to push the accelerator and because the stop light is there. You can't say the traffic violation isn't possible because you stopped at the red light. You can say that you complied with the law and stopped and committed no violation. You didn't sin, but it is still possible for you to sin, because the opportunity to sin exists external to you.

---

With response to helping the OP, stop letting other people's fears become your fears, and deal with the now.

Ok, I'll elaborate why I think free will is indicative of the ability to sin and why sin is indicative of free will.
If, assuming that God exists and He created Evil and
A. the definition of sin is to act against God's will
B. the definition of free will is independent volition
Then
C. You cannot have B without a choice.
If
1. the nature of God is good and everything else is evil
Then creating evil allowed choice, thus allowing free will.

Doesn't follow.  On top of that, you're making a claim that directly contradicts your comments above.  It doesn't actually matter whether or not you could have b without choice (and innate depravity argues that you don't have a choice just as competently as it argues that neither will nor free will are required for sin), nor does it matter whether god is good and everything else is evil.  The mere presence of two options doesn't mean that you will take either, want to take either, or can take either.  There's the option to skullfuck a child, and the option to -not- skullfuck a child.  If my will is free, it still isn't free on this.  Nothing about "allowing" me to have this option (gee thanks god, lol) grants me any free will.  We could do the same all over again with jumping to the moon, and offending or "acting against" a god.  I'll say this, I wish he would have "allowed" me the option to jump to the moon, instead.  

---

The moon exists whether you can jump to it or not. You could jump to the moon with sufficient tools. Even someone without legs can "jump to the moon" if you're not getting the definitions right. The simple fact you have the option IS a choice. Choice is free will. The presence of 2 options does mean you have volition. It doesn't indicate your predilection to do either, or nothing.

---

You can only have free will without sin only if you believe sin, as defined doesn't exist, which I believe you said was your stance. Please fill me in on your definitions of free will and how it is independent of choice.

Another non sequitur, and that's not what I told you at all. I suggested that the christian notion of sin was garbage top to bottom, for reasons you've kindly demonstrated in your posts.   I also added in posts in thread that sin is well at home in secular language, and that the notion that there could be things that were offensive to gods, if gods existed, is a rather mundane and believable claim so far as god claims go.  Obviously, I think that notions of sin that don't reduce to irritating the wrong ghost take the subject a tad bit more seriously.  

I don't define free will, nor do I argue that free will would be independent of choice..but if there were free will, it would have to be a bit more than just a choice, as we can make a choice regardless of whether or not our will is free....but none of this has anything to do with sin and none of your attempts to tie the two have passed the acid test , suceeded on their own grounds, or even been coherent with respect to your own thoughts on the matter.

Like I said before.  The christian notion fails for reasons wholly unrelated to the claim that there are no gods or that there is no sin or whether free will even exists.   You're expressing an article of your faith, not a cogent  position.  In the process, you cheapen he subject, your faith, your god, and yourself.  IMO.  

That's the real sin.

---

If you'd prefer to use a more common vernacular of secular sin (heinous act) for the purposes of this conversation we can but didn't I clearly explain my definitions above? It was a Christian conversation with assumed Christian definitions, I'm not the one muddying the waters. I may not be conveying it well, and for that I apologize, but it's not for my lack of trying. You can have options. You can make choices. When you self-author your actions based on the choice that available from the option; that's enacting free will.