Will we sin when we get to heaven?

[Oncedeceived]

Just for clarity, where do you mean by "above"? Before or after I clarified that "sin" is too broad of a term?

The quote above. Sin is a broad term. Evil is a broad term. Sin is defined as anything that goes against God's holy nature. A simple lie is a sin. Hate is a sin. Pre-marital sex is a sin.

The only reason that babies are not "sinless" is because the consequences of sin are passed on hereditarily. They never chose to sin, so they never sinned, as a verb.

That is because we are a created being and we reproduce. A created being is by nature a creature that sins.

Because if we had such a nature of never having any desire to choose to do evil, sin wouldn't exist. The OP uses it as a verb, but you're using it as a noun, so I am trying to draw the distinction.

Sin would always exist in a physical world.

 

[Oncedeceived]

But if we were made to never have a desire to do Evil (like God in just that respect) then any attempt fallen angels made to cause us to choose to do evil would have failed. Of course, God could have just made the angels with no desire to ever do evil (like God in that respect) and then there never would have been evil there either.

Why can't you understand that we can't be like God in any respect until we become spiritually saved by Him?

 

[Chriliman]

But if we were made to never have a desire to do Evil (like God in just that respect) then any attempt fallen angels made to cause us to choose to do evil would have failed. Of course, God could have just made the angels with no desire to ever do evil (like God in that respect) and then there never would have been evil there either.

I think we need to define what evil actually is. My understanding is that evil can only exist when a created being disobeys God. Therefore, in order for God to create beings who freely choose to obey Him because of who He is, He actually has to create them in such a way that disobedience is possible i.e. give them free will to obey or disobey Him.

It is good of God to do this, it's also good of God to correct the disobedient ones who are willing to listen to Him. It's the correction/discipline process that leads to perfectly free beings who never disobey which leads to a physical reality where there is no pain or suffering because every being obeys God perfectly, they essentially become One with God.

Creation is not there yet, because there's still a lot of disobedience happening, but this does not mean God is inactive. He is actively disciplining and correcting His creation, we're getting there, thanks be to God!

 

[Moral Orel]

Why can't you understand that we can't be like God in any respect until we become spiritually saved by Him?

Because we can "become spiritually saved by Him" without ever choosing to do anything (babies who go to Heaven). Therefore God can skip the whole bit on Earth and cause us to never have a desire to do evil. Making the exception the rule isn't an impossibility. It just makes something that is totally possible more prevalent.

 

[Moral Orel]

I think we need to define what evil actually is. My understanding is that evil can only exist when a created being disobeys God. Therefore, in order for God to create beings who freely choose to obey Him because of who He is, He actually has to create them in such a way that disobedience is possible i.e. give them free will to obey or disobey Him.

But in the case of babies, they never choose God, they don't have a chance to. Is this at a detriment to them? Are they inferior in some way to people who suffered on Earth and "earned" passage to Heaven by making a conscious choice to choose God?

I put "earned" in quotations because I know all about grace. For lack of a better term, you have to do something to gain entry to Heaven, but babies don't. Which means it isn't impossible for God to put us in that state of being that we would never disobey God. Unless of course people do sin in Heaven and get kicked out...

 

[Chriliman]

But in the case of babies, they never choose God, they don't have a chance to. Is this at a detriment to them? Are they inferior in some way to people who suffered on Earth and "earned" passage to Heaven by making a conscious choice to choose God?

God chose us to exist for a reason, right now we can only vaguely understand His reasons for doing what He does. I trust Him with my life and I trust that He allows babies to be born and die after a few days for reasons that I can't understand right now.

I put "earned" in quotations because I know all about grace. For lack of a better term, you have to do something to gain entry to Heaven, but babies don't. Which means it isn't impossible for God to put us in that state of being that we would never disobey God. Unless of course people do sin in Heaven and get kicked out...

Yes, you have to fully submit yourself to God and to His will. God is patient with us, He knows we waiver and sometimes fail to do what He wants, but if God loves you then you will not be lost, you will be saved and this is because God is who He is, not because of anything good or bad that you've done.

 

[civilwarbuff]

No side deal, just the Real Deal. See John 3:16, Romans 10:9-13, and a host of other Scripture. Notice the Scripture you posted... "but he who does the will of My Father in heaven." That should clue you in.

He can't understand scripture, he is an atheist....1 Cor 2:14

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because we can "become spiritually saved by Him" without ever choosing to do anything (babies who go to Heaven). Therefore God can skip the whole bit on Earth and cause us to never have a desire to do evil. Making the exception the rule isn't an impossibility. It just makes something that is totally possible more prevalent.

Babies do have the ability to sin. They just haven't. God isn't skipping it, He is just taking them at an age when they have no knowledge of good or bad or accepting or rejecting God.

 

[Moral Orel]

Babies do have the ability to sin.

What evil act is a one-day-old capable of performing?

They just haven't. God isn't skipping it, He is just taking them at an age when they have no knowledge of good or bad or accepting or rejecting God.

Babies who pass away immediately go to Heaven where they never have any desire to do any evil act. As babies, they have no desire to do evil either because they do not have the intellectual capabilities of choosing to do evil. So the state we, as adults, find ourselves in, where we have the capability to choose to do evil and do choose to do evil is skipped.

 

[Moral Orel]

God chose us to exist for a reason, right now we can only vaguely understand His reasons for doing what He does. I trust Him with my life and I trust that He allows babies to be born and die after a few days for reasons that I can't understand right now.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying God is bad because He lets babies die. If they go to Heaven, then it's all good.

Yes, you have to fully submit yourself to God and to His will.

I have to, sure, but submitting yourself to God is not some necessary part of creation for entry to Heaven because babies do not make that choice.
So here's the point.
In Heaven no one chooses to do evil, yet has free will.
Babies on Earth have no ability to choose to do evil.
Babies who die go directly from having no ability to choose to do evil to a state in which they will never choose to do evil.
So babies never made the choice to follow God, yet still have free will.
Putting us on Earth with the desire to do evil is not necessary to have free will.

 

[Chriliman]

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying God is bad because He lets babies die. If they go to Heaven, then it's all good.

Cool and the heaven you're referring to is not fully realized by an individual until after that individual's mortal body passes away.

In Heaven no one chooses to do evil, yet has free will.

Correct and remember this heaven is a physical place on earth that is not fully realized until after each individual's old mortal body passes away. This is important to remember.

Babies on Earth have no ability to choose to do evil.

But the fact that they exist in an old mortal body means they are inherently evil.

Babies who die go directly from having no ability to choose to do evil to a state in which they will never choose to do evil.

Physical death could be God's final attempt to purify us of all evil. I don't know, it's possible. For a baby, this would be an easy transition, but for a grown person who has never confessed their sins and asked for forgiveness, this could be unimaginable torment, whether that torment would last forever or not, I don't know and would prefer to not know.

So babies never made the choice to follow God, yet still have free will.

I have no idea what God does with babies who die. Just being honest.

Putting us on Earth with the desire to do evil is not necessary to have free will.

You seem to be presuming that you know better than God and that He has no legitimate reason to put us on earth. One valid reason to live on earth and make choices is to prepare us for the new heaven and earth where our choices could be even more significant than they are now on this old earth. I don't know.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What evil act is a one-day-old capable of performing?

Again, sin is not just evil. They don't sin but they have the nature to sin.

Babies who pass away immediately go to Heaven where they never have any desire to do any evil act. As babies, they have no desire to do evil either because they do not have the intellectual capabilities of choosing to do evil. So the state we, as adults, find ourselves in, where we have the capability to choose to do evil and do choose to do evil is skipped.

It isn't about the desire to sin, it is the nature of the creation. They are too young to sin but they still have the nature of sin which means that nature is not being skipped, it just hasn't actualized as of yet. Would you want to stay in a state of infancy to insure your path to heaven or would you rather interact with the world as an adult?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You continue to recite the same words with no meaning. What do you mean by limited by logic or by the rules of logic. Explain your position please.

You seem to be claiming that logic is in the drivers seat here. Please explain. God is logic, logic is not God. So explain how logic can limit thinking or limit a Supreme Being?

Demonstrate how God would not know if something is true or false?

When I remarked on God's omnipotence, you said:

That doesn't mean He can make a square circle.

So I take it that your position is that God cannot perform logically absurd tasks such as creating a square circle. You use this line of reasoning to conclude that God cannot create sinless beings.

So to summarize your views:

1. A square circle is logically impossible
2. God cannot create a square circle
3. Therefore, one of God's limitations is that he cannot create a square circle
4. God cannot create a square circle and as far as we can tell this is because it is logically impossible (or is there another reason?)
5. Therefore, one of God's limitations is due to logic
6. We conclude that God is limited by logic

God is limited by logic, or bound by logic, or unable to violate logic, etc. To clarify, this is your worldview, not mine. If I believed in your God, I'd believe he could violate logic because he positively must do so in order to be omniscient or create the universe ex nihilo, both of which are essential characteristics of YHWH.

Why must he violate logic to be omniscient? Gödel proved that there must be propositions which are true/false but cannot be shown to be either, which is to say that their truth value is necessarily unknown. God's omniscience is just as logically absurd as a square circle.

Why must he violate logic to create the universe ex nihilo? Allow me to recycle my arguments for this:

A system is a region of space.

A state is the arrangement of matter, energy, and otherwise existing things within a system.

Causality acts on a system to take it from one state to another over a duration of time.

"Prior" to the t=0 event, space and time "did" not exist. Phrased more precisely, in a state of reality wherein the t=0 event has not occurred, space and time do not exist. Therefore, causality does not exist in this state of reality. Therefore, the t=0 event cannot have been brought about via causality.

Alternatively, we can define causality as this:

Causality is the relation between a thing that is acting, a thing that is being acted on, and the effect that results. For example, consider a man sculpting a statue. The man is the thing that is acting, the marble is the thing that is being acted on, and the effect that results is the statue. With this in mind, the Kalam Cosmological Argument fails:

What did God act on to causally bring about the universe? Did he act on the universe? Then the universe existed before it existed so it could be acted upon and brought into existence... an absurdity. Did he act on nothing? Then nothing was causally effected, which is to say that no instance of a cause took place, which is to say that there was no cause, which is to say that the universe exists without a cause, so the most you can possibly assert is that the universe spontaneously popped into existence and that God was present but not participating.

Why are these issues relevant to the thread?

If we have shown that God necessarily must be able to violate logic, then your contention that he could not have created us to be sinless is refuted. Therefore we are left with the question again: If God prefers us to be sinless, and if we are better off that way as well, and if we would avoid hell had we been created that way initially, why didn't God simply do it that way to begin with?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

If God has free will to do as He pleases and it pleases Him to suffer immensely in order to create a physical reality that is free from pain and suffering where all the inhabitants are as happy as possible forever, where's the problem?

Did it please him to suffer immensely? I thought Jesus sweated blood and prayed that the cup of suffering would be taken from him.

Also, all of the inhabitants of physical reality are not free from pain and suffering and we will not all be as happy as possible forever.

You continue to throw things at me which do not withstand casual scrutiny.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

No side deal, just the Real Deal. See John 3:16, Romans 10:9-13, and a host of other Scripture. Notice the Scripture you posted... "but he who does the will of My Father in heaven." That should clue you in.

OK. What is the will of the father in heaven?

 

[Chriliman]

Did it please him to suffer immensely? I thought Jesus sweated blood and prayed that the cup of suffering would be taken from him.

The human side of Jesus did not want to suffer what needed to be done, but notice Jesus says in Luke 22:42 "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done." Jesus was completely submissive to His Father's will, which was that He give Himself over to power's of darkness in order that God can destroy them and give eternal life to all who believe in Jesus. Jesus being the first fruits of eternal life because He obeyed God and set the example of how God's children should live and serve other's in this life.

Also, all of the inhabitants of physical reality are not free from pain and suffering and we will not all be as happy as possible forever.

Right, not in this physical reality, but in the new heaven and earth(new physical reality) there will be no pain or suffering because of what Jesus did on the cross and because God raised Him from the dead.

 

[BigDaddy4]

OK. What is the will of the father in heaven?

John 6:36-40

35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

 

[Chriliman]

OK. What is the will of the father in heaven?

That all believe in Jesus Christ and be given eternal life through Him. This is why God sent Him.

 

[Oncedeceived]

When I remarked on God's omnipotence, you said:




So I take it that your position is that God cannot perform logically absurd tasks such as creating a square circle. You use this line of reasoning to conclude that God cannot create sinless beings.

God set up the rules that create the circle. Why would God who instated what a circle would be, who determined what would constitute a circle and that having the nature of a circle can not by God's design be anything but a circle. God needs not redesign or change rules, but in fact, has said He will not according to His own will change them.

So to summarize your views:

You are summarizing what you "think" my views are.

1. A square circle is logically impossible

a circle is a circle due to the design of God. A circle is the nature of a shape that is described as a circle.

2. God cannot create a square circle

God is a rational Being that created the circle. The circle is the nature of a certain shape that if that shape is altered no longer is considered a circle. Again, God determined that this shape is a circle and His rational thought in doing so determines that if a circle is no longer in the shape of its nature it is no longer a circle.

3. Therefore, one of God's limitations is that he cannot create a square circle

Again, a circle of any other shape is no longer what its nature was designed to be. By all rational thought, a circle will not remain a circle if it is altered in such a way as to no longer be in the shape of its nature. God is not limited by the rules of logic but instead the rules are by His very rational nature and design.

4. God cannot create a square circle and as far as we can tell this is because it is logically impossible (or is there another reason?)

Man knows that a circle is a circle and if it is altered in such a way becomes a square. A square is the nature of a shape that we label square. Logic did not exist before God for Him to be limited by them, Logic comes from God's rational thought.

5. Therefore, one of God's limitations is due to logic

This statement asserts that logic exists outside or separately from God's rational thought, that is not the case and as such God is not limited by logic as logic is God's rationality.

6. We conclude that God is limited by logic

You conclude God is limited by logic, but logic tells us that logic is not a separate entity nor did it exist prior to God. God then is not limited by logic, but God is rational and logic is the flow of His rationality.

God is limited by logic, or bound by logic, or unable to violate logic, etc. To clarify, this is your worldview, not mine.

No, this is not my worldview, this is your misunderstanding of both of our worldviews.

If I believed in your God, I'd believe he could violate logic because he positively must do so in order to be omniscient or create the universe ex nihilio, both of which are essential characteristics of YHWH.

Both are required but your premise that logic is a separate entity that precedes God is an assertion without basis.

Why must he violate logic to be omniscient?

Gödel proved that there must be propositions which are true/false but cannot be shown to be either, which is to say that their truth value is necessarily unknown. God's omniscience is just as logically absurd as a square circle.

Truth is God. Your assertion is simply a mis-characterization of God's limits. Only man is limited by propositions that are true or false but can not be shown to be either.

Why must he violate logic to create the universe ex nihilo?

Allow me to recycle my arguments for this:

A system is a region of space.

A state is the arrangement of matter, energy, and otherwise existing things within a system.

Causality acts on a system to take it from one state to another over a duration of time.

"Prior" to the t=0 event, space and time "did" not exist. Phrased more precisely, in a state of reality wherein the t=0 event has not occurred, space and time do not exist. Therefore, causality does not exist in this state of reality. Therefore, the t=0 event cannot have been brought about via causality.

Alternatively, we can define causality as this:

Causality is the relation between a thing that is acting, a thing that is being acted on, and the effect that results. For example, consider a man sculpting a statue. The man is the thing that is acting, the marble is the thing that is being acted on, and the effect that results is the statue. With this in mind, allow me to recycle my alternative rebuttal to the Kalam argument:

What did God act on to causally bring about the universe? Did he act on the universe? Then the universe existed before it existed so it could be acted upon and brought into existence... an absurdity. Did he act on nothing? Then nothing was causally effected, which is to say that the universe was created without a cause, so the most you can possibly say is that the universe spontaneously popped into existence and that God was present but not participating.

You are actually making the argument for God's existence. Everything in the universe has a cause. Everything has an explanation of being in existence if it exists there is the Principle of Sufficient Reason for it to exist. The universe is one large interacting chain of existence with each thing having a sufficient reason for existence. Your example for instance, beginning with the statue. The statue did not pop into existence without a cause, the cause of the statue is the marble. It exists by metamorphic rock that forms when limestone is subjected to the heat and pressure of metamorphism. The man exists because his parents existed before him and before that the universe spewed out stardust and man came to exist, the stardust exists by fusion in the universe, the universe then must have a sufficient reason for it to exist and the buck doesn't stop there. If there is no first cause or uncaused cause then we have an infinite regress of causes with no first link in the chain of all other causes in the universe. If there is a cause, an eternal, necessary, independent and self explanatory Being that has nothing above it, before it, or supporting it we have a sufficient reason for all causes in the universe and the universe itself. We have evidence throughout our existence that there is sufficient reason for all causes in the universe, why would you entertain the thought that the universe stands apart and separate from that chain of causes?

Why are these issues relevant to the thread?

Did you forget the progression of the discussion?

If we have shown that God necessarily must be able to violate logic, then your contention that he could not have created us to be sinless is refuted. Therefore we are left with the question again: If God prefers us to be sinless, and if we are better off that way as well, and if we would avoid hell had we been created that way initially, why didn't God simply do it that way?

As I've shown, your assertions are unfounded and the question of whether or not God could create us to be sinless is not refuted at all.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The human side of Jesus did not want to suffer what needed to be done, but notice Jesus says in Luke 22:42 "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done." Jesus was completely submissive to His Father's will, which was that He give Himself over to power's of darkness in order that God can destroy them and give eternal life to all who believe in Jesus. Jesus being the first fruits of eternal life because He obeyed God and set the example of how God's children should live and serve other's in this life.

Acquiescing to authority does not mean the same thing as enjoying the process.

Right, not in this physical reality, but in the new heaven and earth(new physical reality) there will be no pain or suffering because of what Jesus did on the cross and because God raised Him from the dead.

Right, so... why didn't God just make it that way to begin with?

Your original answer was this:

If God has free will to do as He pleases and it pleases Him to suffer immensely in order to create a physical reality that is free from pain and suffering where all the inhabitants are as happy as possible forever, where's the problem?

Clearly the process did not please him.