Does Lucifer Have Free Will?

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Last I checked, Lucifer wasn't dead -- either naturally or by any other means.



I'm thinking of another old saying:

81dWVlfYmHL._SX425_.jpg

The points you raise would be awesome for a new topic maybe?.?.? :)

I'm 'assuming' repentance would be exclusively between God and His 'created' humans on earth, prior to their deaths.

In the 'afterlife', there exists no repentance/forgiveness, at least written in Christianity?.?.

IMHO, the Bible was a well written and perfectly not falsifiable document orchestrated to get humans to comply, applying 'objective standards' to follow, with the threat of eternal punishment for not doing so.
 
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
The points you raise would be awesome for a new topic maybe?.?.? :)

I'm 'assuming' repentance would be exclusively between God and His 'created' humans on earth, prior to their deaths.

In the 'afterlife', there exists no repentance/forgiveness, at least written in Christianity?.?.


But is it really the "afterlife" for a being who never died in the first place?

Consider: Lucifer & co. were already in heaven when they got the boot -- meaning that judgement is possible (at least for the angels) even in the "afterlife."

It raises some interesting possibilities...



IMHO, the Bible was a well written and perfectly not falsifiable document orchestrated to get humans to comply, applying 'objective standards' to follow, with the threat of eternal punishment for not doing so.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one...
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private

But is it really the "afterlife" for a being who never died in the first place?

Consider: Lucifer & co. were already in heaven when they got the boot -- meaning that judgement is possible (at least for the angels) even in the "afterlife."

It raises some interesting possibilities...


Agree. I should have elaborated a bit... 'Afterlife' might have not been the best word choice. Instead, maybe the word 'spiritual realm', or other...?

And yes, it does raise many questions. But I'm not sure if they would be appropriate for this thread? If you would like to start a new post, I would be happy to engage :)


We'll have to agree to disagree on this one...

Trust me, I'm more on your side than what may be portrayed in these responses
. "Well written" is somewhat facetious :) Specifically, in the sense to impose an unfalsifiable threat for noncompliance.
 
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single

Agree. I should have elaborated a bit... 'Afterlife' might have not been the best word choice. Instead, maybe the word 'spiritual realm', or other...?

And yes, it does raise many questions. But I'm not sure if they would be appropriate for this thread? If you would like to start a new post, I would be happy to engage :)

Interesting, but I still think these questions fir the topic of the thread: "Does Lucifer have free will?"

I submit that there's no way to know for certain one way or the other, so the best we can do is explore the theological implications of both possible answers:

If Lucifer does not have free will, then he cannot be held responsible for his actions -- if he is a puppet, the blame must necessarily fall on the One pulling his strings... theologically speaking, that's a unpleasant thought. Not to mention that if he doesn't have free will, how many other beings are nothing more than puppets? Theologically speaking, that's another unpleasant thought.

If Lucifer does have free will, then it means that he can, indeed, repent of his actions at any time. Now, whether or not God is required to offer salvation to him (IOW, whether or not the offer of salvation extends to God's creations besides humanity) is a topic for another thread. But... salvation or not, If Lucifer has free will (and considering the alternative, we'd best accept it), then that means at any time, he could simply throw open the gates of hell and say... "I quit."

And wouldn't that be the ultimate act of rebellion? Quite the theological can of worms there, isn't it?
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Interesting, but I still think these questions fir the topic of the thread: "Does Lucifer have free will?"

I submit that there's no way to know for certain one way or the other, so the best we can do is explore the theological implications of both possible answers:

Okay, cool. I will be happy to respond :) I guess it would be a good idea to first establish an 'objective' definition of the the term 'free will'. But unfortunately, at least in the English speaking world, this does not seem to exist :(

So to clarify, let me explain as to what the term 'means' in this OP's context. It 'means'...

Is Lucifer allowed to impose his will, as he pleases? Meaning, does God restrict, govern, or limit what Satan is said to have as his abilities?


If Lucifer does not have free will, then he cannot be held responsible for his actions -- if he is a puppet, the blame must necessarily fall on the One pulling his strings... theologically speaking, that's a unpleasant thought. Not to mention that if he doesn't have free will, how many other beings are nothing more than puppets? Theologically speaking, that's another unpleasant thought.

Agree. I believe this may have also been covered earlier in the response threads?

If Lucifer does have free will, then it means that he can, indeed, repent of his actions at any time. Now, whether or not God is required to offer salvation to him (IOW, whether or not the offer of salvation extends to God's creations besides humanity) is a topic for another thread.

Agree.

But... salvation or not, If Lucifer has free will (and considering the alternative, we'd best accept it), then that means at any time, he could simply throw open the gates of hell and say... "I quit."

And wouldn't that be the ultimate act of rebellion? Quite the theological can of worms there, isn't it?

It does pose many questions. Such as...

Does one have free will in heaven? That may be a new topic in and of itself...
 
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
It does pose many questions. Such as...

Does one have free will in heaven? That may be a new topic in and of itself...

It would be, and it's a topic I've asked in the past.

If we do, then heaven is really not much different, theologically speaking, than our current situation... and besides, doesn't free will include the ability to sin in heaven? Which open another theological can of worms...

And if we don't, then what's the appeal? I don't want to be a mindless drone in this life; why be one in the next one?

But agreed, a topic for another time...
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
It would be, and it's a topic I've asked in the past.

If we do, then heaven is really not much different, theologically speaking, than our current situation... and besides, doesn't free will include the ability to sin in heaven? Which open another theological can of worms...

And if we don't, then what's the appeal? I don't want to be a mindless drone in this life; why be one in the next one?

But agreed, a topic for another time...

And since the Bible does not delineate, extrapolate, or differentiate such 'conclusions' about heaven or hell, theists may be given carte blanche to unfalsifiably assert anything they so choose :)
 
Upvote 0

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟102,103.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I think a more important question is how we define god. If god is the omnipotant, omniscient creator that many Christians believe, then free will is impossible for any being he creates, as that being is the version of itself that god wanted to exist. i.e., the satan that WOULD betray him, the human that WOULD sin, etc.
 
Upvote 0

devolved

Newbie
Sep 4, 2013
1,332
364
US
✟67,927.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
And as I already mentioned, imposing a dichotomy among humans, to 'accept or burn', is no more or less compulsory then imposing law on humans to 'pay taxes or be punished' :) I understand you may be using the term 'free will' loosely. I.E. 'You are given free choice'. However, if you stop and think about it; really think about it, He IS imposing His will upon you ;) If such a God does exist, again it results in being compulsory. Thanks.

That's an oversimplification of the issue. First of all all of us are in a state of "compulsory existence". Likewise, we are in a reality governed by necessarily consistent recurrence so that make our existence coherent. These recurrences structure boundaries of reality in a way that limit us as beings. Hence, we are compelled to hunger and bound by all of the mechanisms that arguably result in outcome we call our being. If your parents were not compelled to sexually procreate by compulsory instincts that drove them, you would not have your compulsory existence. :)

So there isn't a "believe or burn" mandate... Since you clearly reject that mandate or even the very belief that claims that such mandate exists. So, clearly, if God exists, you are the living proof of at least compatibalists concept of free will, in which you choose not to believe a narrative you don't see viable.

After all, there are plenty of people who choose not to keep fighting to continue living and existing.
 
Upvote 0

the iconoclast

Atheism is weak. Yep, I said it
Feb 10, 2015
1,130
81
✟39,361.00
Country
Burkina Faso
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
I think a more important question is how we define god. If god is the omnipotant, omniscient creator that many Christians believe, then free will is impossible for any being he creates, as that being is the version of itself that god wanted to exist. i.e., the satan that WOULD betray him, the human that WOULD sin, etc.

Hey hey my dear 46and2 :)

I would love to explore this topic with you ;p.

What do you mean by "then free will is impossible for any being he creates, as that being is the version of itself that god wanted to exist. i.e., the satan that WOULD betray him, the human that WOULD sin, etc."

Could you please explain this to me, as im unsure of what you mean?

Cheers
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟102,103.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Hey hey my dear 46and2 :)

I would love to explore this topic with you ;p.

What do you mean by "then free will is impossible for any being he creates, as that being is the version of itself that god wanted to exist. i.e., the satan that WOULD betray him, the human that WOULD sin, etc."

Could you please explain this to me, as im unsure of what you mean?

Cheers

If the creator of a universe is defined as being omnipotent, he has chosen a universe to create from among infinite possibilities.

If that creator is also omniscient (including knowledge of future events), he also has the knowledge of what would occur in each of the infinite possibilities.

Therefore, whatever universe said creator chooses to make must play out as he/she/it intended. Thus, all decisions for every being within that universe has already been made by the creator's decision to create exactly that universe. For example, Adam could not have chosen not to sin, since the creator decided to create a universe in which he does sin, among an infinite amount of universes he/she/it could have chosen instead.
 
Upvote 0

the iconoclast

Atheism is weak. Yep, I said it
Feb 10, 2015
1,130
81
✟39,361.00
Country
Burkina Faso
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
If the creator of a universe is defined as being omnipotent, he has chosen a universe to create from among infinite possibilities.

Hey hey and thank you for your reply ;)

Isaiah 14:27
"For the LORD of hosts has planned, and who can frustrate it? And as for His stretched-out hand, who can turn it back?"

Matthew 19:26
And looking at them Jesus said to them, "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

The creator is omnipotent - having unlimited power. He chose to create a universe among these so called infinite possibilities.

To choose is to decide on a course of action which in turn suggests a reason (.eg a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.)

God chose to create the universe for a reason. What do you think?

If that creator is also omniscient (including knowledge of future events), he also has the knowledge of what would occur in each of the infinite possibilities.

The creator knows everything.

Psalm 147:5
Great is our Lord and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite.

1 John 3:20
God is greater than our heart and knows all things.

Lets consider infinite impossibilities and your life, including death. :,(

Is not your outcome - for better term than fate - the decisions you make within all these possibilities. There may be infinite possibilities but only a relatively smaller amount of life decisions in comparison.

These life decisions we make cannot be undone. You can redeem yourself or fix something but ultimately you cannot go back in time. Your outcome are these choices that you make and God - who is outside human time - knows what decisions you will make.

God is not a bricklayer or builder, Who bricks Himself in and cannot escape what He created. He is outside of this universe, time and laws. You atheists are looking in the wrong spot and will not accept the way to God.

What you think?


Therefore, whatever universe said creator chooses to make must play out as he/she/it intended.

To clarify things. We are talking about the Christian God and we will only consider material pertinent to Him.

Consider what is known and relevant about the Christian God. What do you think His intentions were (.eg when we consider how the universe is to play out?)

Do you suggest that God is a puppet master? If so, what makes you convinced of that? If not, what do you feel the Christian God is?

Thus, all decisions for every being within that universe has already been made by the creator's decision to create exactly that universe.

What does this suggest about free will and why cannot God give free will to humans and still be omnipotent/omniscient?

Im curious, how is an unlimited God limited - in the sense - that He cannot do such a thing as give free will to humans and still be omnipotent/omniscient?

For example, Adam could not have chosen not to sin, since the creator decided to create a universe in which he does sin, among an infinite amount of universes he/she/it could have chosen instead.

Hold up my dear. There is no she/it. We are talking about God so it is male pronouns. God is quite specific that he is not our mother or an it.

We need to be on the same page. We are talking about the Christian God - you are on a chrisian site - unless you are not sure who you are talking about.

Anyways. So adams choice to sin was not his own because God created a universe which sin occurs and he could have chosen to make other universes instead.

Are you suggesting Adam had no choice in the matter? Are you suggesting Adam was tempted in such a way that he could not exercise discipline and obey God?

What are you saying here my friend?

I think a more important question is how we define god.

Lets back track and consider your post that caught my attention.

Im curious,
How do you define you?

When we consider how you are defined, i may have a notion or interpretation of you and your essence.

What definition - of you - would you prefer, mine or yours?

Cheers you. I look forward to your reply. ;)
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
That's an oversimplification of the issue.

Well, not really, let's explore below...

First of all all of us are in a state of "compulsory existence".

Yes, some decisions in one's life are considered "compulsory", obligatory, necessary, mandatory, or are a 'required' or an 'imposed' upon rule.

Likewise, we are in a reality governed by necessarily consistent recurrence so that make our existence coherent. These recurrences structure boundaries of reality in a way that limit us as beings.

I guess I agree with this specific assertion above. However, I'm speaking about Christianity specifically :)

Hence, we are compelled to hunger and bound by all of the mechanisms that arguably result in outcome we call our being.

True, but would I have ever had an invisible entity impose a dictate stating not to eat shell fish specifically, while allowing other foods for consumption in this hunger state? What if I like shell fish, am not allergic, it's on sale at the market, and no one around me gets offended when I eat it? Or how about if I'm hungry and this is the only food available at the time?

If your parents were not compelled to sexually procreate by compulsory instincts that drove them, you would not have your compulsory existence. :)

Deciding whether or not to have sex when feeling frisky, whether or not to run a red light when late for work, choosing to eat or not eat when hungry while dieting, are 'apples and oranges' from this specific discussion.

Let me reiterate...

A cosmic agent presents an either/or proposition. 'Believe in me specifically, or I will cast you down into an arena you will not like, forever.' Is a far cry from trying to resist sexual urges when feeling 'randy' with your spouse.

Let us instead explore a more fitting scenario, Both 1. and 2. appear more related:

1. God states 'believe I exist and have a relationship with me, or I will cast you away'.
2. Your wife states to 'love me and never divorce me, or I will make your life a living hell'.

Both the above are what I mean by 'compulsory'.

In the two above scenarios, if you do not comply, you are threatened; like an ultimatum given by any mafia boss.


So there isn't a "believe or burn" mandate...

Yes there is... If Christianity is true, this is the implied dichotomy, directed by mere coercion. 'Accept my existence and repent to me specifically, or I will cast you away.' There would exist no other alternative.


Since you clearly reject that mandate or even the very belief that claims that such mandate exists. So, clearly, if God exists, you are the living proof of at least compatibalists concept of free will, in which you choose not to believe a narrative you don't see viable.

My current disbelief in such a proposition results from never experiencing tangible or empirical evidence of Yahweh's existence, for decades; now resulting in severe doubt to the actual existence to such an agent.

However, I'm fully aware of the implied ultimatum by the Bible itself, as I am a product of indoctrination. Hence, the reason I still lend it slight consideration, even today.
 
Upvote 0

the iconoclast

Atheism is weak. Yep, I said it
Feb 10, 2015
1,130
81
✟39,361.00
Country
Burkina Faso
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
What if I like shell fish, am not allergic, it's on sale at the market, and no one around me gets offended when I eat it?

Hey hey :)

Well you are under the law of Grace and not the law of Moses. Eat as much shell fish as you like ;)
 
Upvote 0

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟102,103.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Lets back track and consider your post that caught my attention.

Im curious,
How do you define you?

When we consider how you are defined, i may have a notion or interpretation of you and your essence.

What definition - of you - would you prefer, mine or yours?

Cheers you. I look forward to your reply. ;)

I'll start with this, then get back to the rest as I have time...

I'd prefer mine, of course.

But clearly what you are getting at is...shouldn't we go by how god defines himself, as in, how he describes himself in the Bible?

The problem is there are dozens of ways that Christians describe their god, despite the fact that they all have the same information. There are many who define him as you do, omnipotent and omniscient in an absolutist sense, and there are those who perceive logical pitfalls of such a stance and conclude that god must have meant something other than absolutism when it comes to those characteristics. To be clear, they aren't really changing their definition of god, but rather their definitions of omnipotence and omniscience.

Does that make sense?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

the iconoclast

Atheism is weak. Yep, I said it
Feb 10, 2015
1,130
81
✟39,361.00
Country
Burkina Faso
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
Does that make sense?

Hey hey :) and thank you for your kind repsonse. :)

I would prefer to say that i understand the words you are using and am aware of your position a bit better - in regards to 'defining God' - but lets dig deeper!

I'll start with this, then get back to the rest as I have time...

How about we stay here briefly and ill let you off replying to the entire post? Or if you want to go for it. :)

I'd prefer mine, of course.

Lets clean things up a bit.
A = your definition of 'you',
B = my defintion of 'you'
C = another persons defintion of you.

You would prefer a then b. Why would you prefer a?

Lets consider c, is there anyone that could meet the requirements of trust, that you would allow them to give a definition of you to me?

But clearly what you are getting at is...shouldn't we go by how god defines himself, as in, how he describes himself in the Bible?

To be honest, not really but this does sound good to me and a strong point from you to bolster my position. :)


The problem is there are dozens of ways that Christians describe their god, despite the fact that they all have the same information.

Im very curious and i might not be too familiar. What are these dozens of different ways?

There are many who define him as you do, omnipotent and omniscient in an absolutist sense,

The traditional defintion and Biblical one. Cool! ;p

and there are those who perceive logical pitfalls of such a stance and conclude that god must have meant something other than absolutism when it comes to those characteristics.

I would love for you to explain further

Who are these people and what denominations did they fall into?

What are they saying and do you agree with them?

To be clear, they aren't really changing their definition of god, but rather their definitions of omnipotence and omniscience.

Well that is makes things different. They do not change the definition of God but definitions of omnipotence and omniscience.

Before we get into omnipotence and omniscience, what do you think about the Christian God? (.eg the God of abraham and david)

Cheers
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟102,103.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Hey hey :) and thank you for your kind repsonse. :)

I would prefer to say that i understand the words you are using and am aware of your position a bit better - in regards to 'defining God' - but lets dig deeper!



How about we stay here briefly and ill let you off replying to the entire post? Or if you want to go for it. :)



Lets clean things up a bit.
A = your definition of 'you',
B = my defintion of 'you'
C = another persons defintion of you.

You would prefer a then b. Why would you prefer a?

Lets consider c, is there anyone that could meet the requirements of trust, that you would allow them to give a definition of you to me?



To be honest, not really but this does sound good to me and a strong point from you to bolster my position. :)




Im very curious and i might not be too familiar. What are these dozens of different ways?



The traditional defintion and Biblical one. Cool! ;p



I would love for you to explain further

Who are these people and what denominations did they fall into?

What are they saying and do you agree with them?



Well that is makes things different. They do not change the definition of God but definitions of omnipotence and omniscience.

Before we get into omnipotence and omniscience, what do you think about the Christian God? (.eg the God of abraham and david)

Cheers

Well, it may be that you yourself fall into the category of modifying your position a bit on the omnipotent/omniscient front, but haven't really thought about it too deeply. For example: Does omnipotence mean to you that:

1. God can create a square triangle?
2. God can smarfle a wigglin?
3. God can create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?
4. God can create a married bachelor?

In the absolutist sense, an omnipotent god should be able to adequately perform any of these tasks. But realistically, a modification to the definition of omnipotence seems to be required to make any kind of sense.

Would you agree?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟102,103.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Lets clean things up a bit.
A = your definition of 'you',
B = my defintion of 'you'
C = another persons defintion of you.

You would prefer a then b. Why would you prefer a?

Lets consider c, is there anyone that could meet the requirements of trust, that you would allow them to give a definition of you to me?

I prefer A because I know how to define myself better than any other person. No matter how well some other person may know me, they are bound to have some things wrong.

There are probably only a select few people, such as my brothers, my mother, and my best friend who could give an adequate definition of me. They would still have things wrong, but they would be pretty accurate.





Before we get into omnipotence and omniscience, what do you think about the Christian God? (.eg the God of abraham and david)

Cheers

The Christian god, I think, is best described as a mythological being that is a conglomeration of several gods from several religions, but most notably from the ancient Canaanite polytheistic religion which preceded and inspired ancient Judaism.
 
Upvote 0

devolved

Newbie
Sep 4, 2013
1,332
364
US
✟67,927.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
True, but would I have ever had an invisible entity impose a dictate stating not to eat shell fish specifically, while allowing other foods for consumption in this hunger state? What if I like shell fish, am not allergic, it's on sale at the market, and no one around me gets offended when I eat it? Or how about if I'm hungry and this is the only food available at the time?

You keep asking the questions that Christians have no relevant context for in this day and age. OT dietary laws were set among all of the other OT Israel rules, so you could ask a Rabbi ...

Judaism 101: Kashrut: Jewish Dietary Laws

Yes there is... If Christianity is true, this is the implied dichotomy, directed by mere coercion. 'Accept my existence and repent to me specifically, or I will cast you away.' There would exist no other alternative.

There are plenty of other alternatives, especially when it comes to Biblical interpretation of narrative as it relates to meaning of afterlife and eschatological descriptions. You are not constrained to belief... And you are certainly not constrained to "believe or burn" narrative. There are anihilationist views. There are universalism views... among some.

My current disbelief in such a proposition results from never experiencing tangible or empirical evidence of Yahweh's existence, for decades; now resulting in severe doubt to the actual existence to such an agent.

However, I'm fully aware of the implied ultimatum by the Bible itself, as I am a product of indoctrination. Hence, the reason I still lend it slight consideration, even today.

I do think that Christian doctrine of hell is one of the most awful concept of transcendent and afterlife that you could put a child through. It inflicts enormous amount of existential anxiety... And in such I am with you....

But I would likewise say that Biblical narrative on hell is pieced together using bits and pieces of graphic visual narratives that were used to juxtapose suffering that follows from abandoned ideals with benefits of the structure and progress that ideals provide.

There are other ways of talking about that narrative than literal interpretation that you are not deriving from picking up Bible and reading and coming to your own conclusions, but rather someone explaining the systematic view to you but taking a scissors and cutting and pasting "support verses" for that view.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
You keep asking the questions that Christians have no relevant context for in this day and age. OT dietary laws were set among all of the other OT Israel rules, so you could ask a Rabbi ...

Judaism 101: Kashrut: Jewish Dietary Laws

I was afraid this might be taken the 'wrong' way :)

First and foremost, this entire set of context is away off from the OP. However, I'm engaging, as some feel the 'free will' aspect needed further addressing....

Moving forward...

The comment I made should have further emphasized
'would I have ever had an invisible entity impose a dictate'

Meaning, at some point, the covenant delegated what foods could and could not be eaten. At some point, Yahweh's command was to avoid shell fish. My response was to demonstrate that your given analogies do not appear to parallel my point; that Yahweh instructs what specific foods cannot be eaten.

In post #153, when you stated 'Hence, we are compelled to hunger and bound by all of the mechanisms that arguably result in outcome we call our being.'


My counter point was that a divine agent telling one what foods they are allowed to eat, or not, appears to be in conflict with your statement.

However, many 'compulsory' choices do exist. But in hunger, why are we told what not to eat; especially if this was the only food available, is not poisonous, and there does not exist others to offend by eating as such? (i.e.) If one was stranded on a desert island, and shell fish was the only means of food to stay alive, or starve, the Jew should choose starvation?

Because at the end of the day, we need food for survival. So the dichotomy, or compulsory decision begins and ends at eating to live vs not eating and dying. God takes it a giant step further, stating what foods one erroneously cannot eat, by 'covenant law'.


There are plenty of other alternatives, especially when it comes to Biblical interpretation of narrative as it relates to meaning of afterlife and eschatological descriptions. You are not constrained to belief... And you are certainly not constrained to "believe or burn" narrative. There are anihilationist views. There are universalism views... among some.

Take my situation, for example. I doubt the existence of this being's existence, because I prayed for viable proof for decades, and never received any. Couldn't I then appeal to the many verses in the Bible which state that prayer gets answered? I trust I do not need to list them :)

Couldn't I also list the verses in the Bible which support my conclusion, that lack in belief, or no belief, defaults in damnation; because we need 'saving'? (i.e.) It is a compulsory conclusion that if one does not believe in the Christ, and to then also repent accordingly, you are not granted access to this claimed heaven?

I'm sure you could point to other verses which might demonstrate the contrary.... And in conclusion, if such verses are in direct conflict with one another, how might we 'settle the score'?


I do think that Christian doctrine of hell is one of the most awful concept of transcendent and afterlife that you could put a child through. It inflicts enormous amount of existential anxiety... And in such I am with you....

But I would likewise say that Biblical narrative on hell is pieced together using bits and pieces of graphic visual narratives that were used to juxtapose suffering that follows from abandoned ideals with benefits of the structure and progress that ideals provide.

There are other ways of talking about that narrative than literal interpretation that you are not deriving from picking up Bible and reading and coming to your own conclusions, but rather someone explaining the systematic view to you but taking a scissors and cutting and pasting "support verses" for that view.

It seems pretty clear. You must believe. And even if I did believe in the existence of Yahweh by some available 'proof', I would also need to repent, to acknowledge salvation. If not.... no Heaven, do no pass go, do not collect.

So yes, I am speaking about an asserted entity, whom makes the rules, and if they are not followed, the punishment is unpleasant, at minimum, for eternity. To me, this reeks of coercion, or an ultimatum. Just like I stated earlier with the IRS or a mafia boss, whom imposes rules upon society, or a group of people.
 
Upvote 0