Free Will

[TheBear]

Which would have been the less egregious to mankind - setting up a system where mankind is given free will and as a result most will burn in hell for eternity, or setting up a system where mankind automatically accepts God in this brief life, but will spend eternity in heaven?

 

[PantsMcFist]

Well, I take exception to the burning, and the exclusivist claims. I think salvation has more to do with living a good life in the culture you find yourself, especially with the poor representation Jesus has received historically.

I think those excluded from 'heaven' will be the people engaged in willful evil acts.

 

[jcook922]

Well, I take exception to the burning, and the exclusivist claims. I think salvation has more to do with living a good life in the culture you find yourself, especially with the poor representation Jesus has received historically.

I think those excluded from 'heaven' will be the people engaged in willful evil acts.

I agree, I don't think God would send me to hell because nuts from the Westboro Baptist Church or something made me firmly ground myself in not being a follower of Christianity.

 

[TheBear]

I should have made the OP a bit clearer. It's really addressed to those who do believe in eternal heaven and in eternal torture.

 

[PantsMcFist]

Well, if I wasn't clear, I do believe in those things, just not in exclusivist terms.

 

[TheBear]

Thanks.

Anyone else want to answer the OP question?

Free will - is it better that God gives mankind free will, resulting in eternal damnation for most, or would it have been better for God to have mankind automatically accept and worship him without a choice in the matter in this brief lifetime, but would not be condemned to eternal damnation?

 

[GreenMunchkin]

Hullo, Bear

The thing is, prison is still a prison, even if it's pleasant. Being in chains is being in chains.

If He forced us to go to hell, then He'd be cruel; if He gave us no chance at freedom from there, He'd be cruel. But we have a choice - allowing someone you love to do what they want to do is the hardest thing there is. The old adage is very much true: if you love someone, set them free. He's set us free, and allows us to choose for ourselves.

 

[TheBear]

Hey, GreenMunchkin!

The thing is, prison is still a prison, even if it's pleasant. Being in chains is being in chains.

Heaven is described as pleasant, and people will be there for all eternity. Wouldn't the prison and chains analogy apply to heaven as well? If not, why not?

 

[Pommer]

Thanks.

Anyone else want to answer the OP question?

Free will - is it better that God gives mankind free will, resulting in eternal damnation for most, or would it have been better for God to have mankind automatically accept and worship him without a choice in the matter in this brief lifetime, but would not be condemned to eternal damnation?

The "better" in the question needs to be defined by whose perspective we're going to take on the matter:
If it's the Creature's perspective then PlanB works a whole lot better.
If it is the Creator's perspective then it doesn't matter if free will leads to "heaven" or "hell", it's no skin off of God's nose.

The question could well be paraphrased as "Who does this God Person think He is"?

Seriously, though (and OT), the OP wants us to assume the "facts" as stated in the premise:
FW=heaven/hell
NFW=heaven

The OP also asks us to assume that God wants people to "accept and worship" Him.
I think it would be generally accepted that God has no "need" for acceptance nor worship...it's not (say) like God would cease to exist if everyone, all of a sudden like, decided to repudiate and otherwise ignore God.

If it's "better" under PlanA then He's not much of a god, is he?
If it's "better" under PlanB then we're not much more than automatons and He's still not much of a god.

 

[TheBear]

Who is this "us" and "we"?

I ask people to speak for themselves, on their own behalf, of their own thoughts, and not be self-appointed spokespeople for others.

When I participate in these discussions, I speak for myself, in my own words, and of my own thoughts. I never assume to represent a group, or anyone other than myself. I would hope that the rest of you would do the same.

Thanks.

 

[Pommer]

Who is this "us" and "we"?

I ask people to speak for themselves, on their own behalf, of their own thoughts, and not be self-appointed spokespeople for others.

When I participate in these discussions, I speak for myself, in my own words, and of my own thoughts. I never assume to represent a group, or anyone other than myself. I would hope that the rest of you would do the same.

Thanks.

Okie doke.

 

[GreenMunchkin]

Hey, GreenMunchkin!

Heh. I got a hug off the bear

Heaven is described as pleasant, and people will be there for all eternity. Wouldn't the prison and chains analogy apply to heaven as well? If not, why not?

No, if we go to Heaven, we're there because we chose that. We chose to live a life that will end in Heaven - although, I know it could be argued that our lives actually begin in some ways when we get there. And, it's true. What's 80-odd years next to an eternity? But eternity isn't something we can conceive of, and this life is what we have here and now, so we focus on it.

But while this life is temporary and - comparatively speaking, anyway - fleeting, it's still jolly difficult. If we don't want to go to Heaven, we can choose to walk away from the Lord and have a fantastic life on earth. Or, we can struggle in this life, and have a fantasticker one afterwards.

But we chose it. Being FORCED to go to Heaven wouldn't be ok... the only analogy I can think of isn't appropriate for the forum, so am at a bit of a loss to explain properly. Bleh. But it's a really good one. Yes.

 

[TheBear]

The only good choice, is a well informed choice. When people don't believe god(s) exist in the first place, or when logic, reasoning and evidence for a god is absent from their 'choice making', or when they just don't know one way or the other, what kind of 'choice' is it anyway?

 

[chingchang]

Hmmm...I suppose if God wanted robots he would have gone for option #2. Maybe he should check with you next time so he can avoid making all these horrible mistakes.

chingchang

Which would have been the less egregious to mankind - setting up a system where mankind is given free will and as a result most will burn in hell for eternity, or setting up a system where mankind automatically accepts God in this brief life, but will spend eternity in heaven?

 

[TheBear]

Hmmm...I suppose if God wanted robots he would have gone for option #2.

That goes to the core of my question. What is worse - temporary 'robots', or eternal torture?

Maybe he should check with you next time so he can avoid making all these horrible mistakes.

And there it is again, folks. Instead of just addressing the topic at hand and leaving it at that, some people just can't resist the urge to resort to cheap shots and personal jabs.

Forget about me. The topic isn't about me. It's about the OP question. Any further, off-topic and personal jabs will be reported.

 

[GreenMunchkin]

The only good choice, is a well informed choice. When people don't believe god(s) exist in the first place, or when logic, reasoning and evidence for a god is absent from their 'choice making', or when they just don't know one way or the other, what kind of 'choice' is it anyway?

The thing is, we all have the same "evidence" available to us. This is where the 2 worldviews just can't comprehend of where the other is coming from.

I can research Christianity intellectually and decide there's enough for me to take that step. Which is what I did. At which point, God has made Himself known to me time and time again. So, to me, I have unimpeachable proof, because I've experienced it and not believing makes no sense to me. I've only been a Christian 2 and a half years, and yet I honestly can't remember why I was an atheist. The reasoning seems entirely alien now.

Another person, however, can research Christianity intellectually and decide it's all bunkum... and it stops there. They don't experience Him, and the more they don't experience Him, the more they don't believe. Nor will they be able to comprehend why others do.

But we do all have enough to take that first step. If we didn't, none of us would have taken it. Ever.

 

[pantless rationalist]

No, if we go to Heaven, we're there because we chose that.

But once individuals are admitted to heaven are they allowed to freely leave? Or to be banished? If either is true, then it can't really be considered an absolute eternity in heaven. If neither is true then the situation conforms to your "prison" statement.

Thoughts?

 

[TheBear]

The thing is, we all have the same "evidence" available to us. This is where the 2 worldviews just can't comprehend of where the other is coming from.

I can research Christianity intellectually and decide there's enough for me to take that step. Which is what I did. At which point, God has made Himself known to me time and time again. So, to me, I have unimpeachable proof, because I've experienced it and not believing makes no sense to me. I've only been a Christian 2 and a half years, and yet I honestly can't remember why I was an atheist. The reasoning seems entirely alien now.

Another person, however, can research Christianity intellectually and decide it's all bunkum... and it stops there. They don't experience Him, and the more they don't experience Him, the more they don't believe. Nor will they be able to comprehend why others do.

But we do all have enough to take that first step. If we didn't, none of us would have taken it. Ever.

Years ago I worked on movie sets in Hollywood. There is a Hollywood catch-22 I'd like to point out. One can't play roles in movies unless they're a member of the Screen Actors Guild, but to be a member of SAG, you have to be in movies. Sounds crazy, but that's how it was. (I think they still operate that way today.)

Another catch-22, just as crazy, is that non-believers are unable to comprehend the Bible or God, yet are asked to make a 'choice' regarding the Bible and God.

Again, what kind of 'choice' is that?

 

[GreenMunchkin]

But once individuals are admitted to heaven are they allowed to freely leave? Or to be banished? If either is true, then it can't really be considered an absolute eternity in heaven. If neither is true then the situation conforms to your "prison" statement.

Thoughts?

I've never come across any Biblical or philosophical support for the idea that we can freely leave... we're told there will be no sin there so, no, I don't think anyone can or will be banished. The Bible doesn't describe Heaven in the way it does Eden, for example.

I agree on principle with that you're saying. But, again, we will have chosen to go there, with full knowledge that it will be for an eternity. God isn't stacking the decks or hiding the small print.

Have often seen people say something like: "better to reign in hell than to serve in Heaven". I understand it's hyperbole, but it still speaks to the fact that beneath all of the apologetics, it comes down to a choice. Many will choose Heaven, many will choose hell. No-one is unilaterally consigned to either.

 

[GreenMunchkin]

Years ago I worked on movie sets in Hollywood. There is a Hollywood catch-22 I'd like to point out. One can't play roles in movies unless they're a member of the Screen Actors Guild, but to be a member of SAG, you have to be in movies. Sounds crazy, but that's how it was. (I think they still operate that way today.)

Not so crazy. Here, you can't get published unless you have an agent, and you can't get an agent unless you've been published. That's just all of us being universally chafed by the nylon seam that is bureaucracy

Another catch-22, just as crazy, is that non-believers are unable to comprehend the Bible or God, yet are asked to make a 'choice' regarding the Bible and God.

Again, what kind of 'choice' is that?

Hmm... but then how do you explain the myriad non-believers who become believers?