Will we sin when we get to heaven?

[Nihilist Virus]

Maybe exiling Satan and his followers was the means of purging sin from heaven? Of course, it depends what "sin" means. Is it possible for "sin" to be so completely purged that asking a human resident of heaven if he/she can sin is like asking a snake if he/she is left-handed?

One definition of sin is for your personal will to conflict with God's will. If residents of heaven are so close to God and so thankful to God, then maybe it would be like asking if God Himself can sin? How can God disagree with His own will?

No need to make straw men for the Christians. At least it sounds like that's what you're doing here.

 

[cloudyday2]

No need to make straw men for the Christians. At least it sounds like that's what you're doing here.

Mostly, @redleghunter needs to explain what he meant. I'm just trying to guess what he might have meant, and I'm probably guessing incorrectly.

 

[Oncedeceived]

By all means, if that's not your position, feel free to say what it is. I've gotten nothing from any of you so far.

You made the claim that God could create us that way. I asked how?

My position is that we are not God and only God is sinless. For us to be sinless we have to have those sins paid for and only then are we sinless. We can't be without the choice of having our sins paid.

 

[cloudyday2]

@Nihilist Virus , have you noticed politicians in debates never answer their opponents' questions? I guess that is because the person who frames the question controls the discussion. Like a religion questionnaire might ask what I think about the timing of the rapture, and I would want to say "I don't believe in the rapture", but all I can say is (a), (b), or (c). Sometimes the questions contain assumptions that the person doesn't accept.

I notice that a lot when I take multiple choice polls, so that is why I am sympathetic to people who don't want to answer either way.

 

[redleghunter]

So now there are two Christians who won't explain why it's s false dichotomy.

Already responded.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

@Nihilist Virus , have you noticed politicians in debates never answer their opponents' questions? I guess that is because the person who frames the question controls the discussion. Like a religion questionnaire might ask what I think about the timing of the rapture, and I would want to say "I don't believe in the rapture", but all I can say is (a), (b), or (c). Sometimes the questions contain assumptions that the person doesn't accept.

I notice that a lot when I take multiple choice polls, so that is why I am sympathetic to people who don't want to answer either way.

Yeah I definitely noticed that about politicians, that's why I don't pay attention to politics. I get what you're saying about some questions not having the answer you want, but to claim that Yes or No is a false dichotomy is lunacy.

 

[civilwarbuff]

A false dichotomy or false dilemma occurs when an argument presents two options and ignores, either purposefully or out of ignorance, other alternatives.

In general, a false dichotomy gives the impression that the two oppositie options are mutually exclusive (that is, only one of them may be the case, never both) and that at least one of them is true, that is, they represent all of the possible options.

False dichotomy examples
For example, the claim that “you’re either with me, or you’re against me” is an example of a false dichotomy. This form of rhetoric is used to persuade or even threaten, but it ignores the fact that the individual or group addressed may have a neutral opinion towards the speaker. It is logically possible for someone to be neither with nor against an individual.

A more obvious example would be the claim ‘All animals are either mammals or fish.’ We could use that, with the premise ‘my pet parrot is not a mammal’ to conclude that ‘my pet parrot is a fish’. Clearly, something went wrong. The problem here is not a failure of logic in the argument form, but that the first premise is a false dichotomy. That premise is false — there are also birds, for one, as well as other groups of animals.

Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus
A special version of this fallacy is known as falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus, essentially “false in something, false in everything”. This is a combination of a false dichotomy and an ad hominem attack, because it attempts to disregard everything the person is saying by the claim that they’re either presenting the truth or presenting falsehoods. It ignores the possibility that the individual is wrong about one thing but right about others. The fact that someone has been proven wrong about claims they made is a potential reason to suspect other claims they make, but not a logical reason to disregard them entirely.

 

[redleghunter]

If you don't like the flow map, you can still answer the basic question: Will you sin when you get to heaven? Yes or no is not a false dichotomy. Period.




If my intention is to cherry pick then why am I asking for clarification on those verses? I would simply ignore them.



There is none. You all have invented one.

OT: Satan hardly even exists, there is no afterlife, God often kills and rarely shows mercy or love, God favors the Jews to the point that the religion is not even meant for Gentiles.

NT: Satan is a major factor, the afterlife is all that matters, God rarely kills and shows infinite mercy and love, God suddenly loves us dogs Gentiles so much that the Jewish apostles hand the church over to us



A group of men who regularly engaged in rape, slavery, and genocide decided to draft a system of morality with the core idea being that if you slit an animal's throat and swab its guts all over an altar, then a wrathful deity will forgive you because he enjoys the smell of burning flesh.



You're giving a long list of non-answers.

How can you pose your OP without knowing the overarching theme of the OT and NT?

That's the issue with your OP.

You have to understand the standing of the first created human beings before God; then what they did to be separated from the original standing ; then how they and their progeny were delivered and redeemed. How that story ends brings us back to the very first state or standing.

Your OP is a theological question. You now have a theological answer.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Which he won't be able to understand.....

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You made the claim that God could create us that way. I asked how?

He's omnipotent...?

My position is that we are not God and only God is sinless. For us to be sinless we have to have those sins paid for and only then are we sinless. We can't be without the choice of having our sins paid.

So are you saying that once we are sinless, we'll no longer have a desire to sin, and that God couldn't have made us that way? OK, but were the angels sinless? If so, how? Also, how was it even possible for Satan to rebel? If they weren't created sinless, isn't that unfair?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

How can you pose your OP without knowing the overarching theme of the OT and NT?

That's the issue with your OP.

You have to understand the standing of the first created human beings before God; then what they did to be separated from the original standing ; then how they and their progeny were delivered and redeemed. How that story ends brings us back to the very first state or standing.

Your OP is a theological question. You now have a theological answer.

I do understand it, I simply disagree with your literary interpretation. Also, even if we go with what you're saying, what I said to Oncedeceived applies here:

So are you saying that once we are sinless, we'll no longer have a desire to sin, and that God couldn't have made us that way? OK, but were the angels sinless? If so, how? Also, how was it even possible for Satan to rebel? If they weren't created sinless, isn't that unfair?

 

[Hammster]

Already responded.

I didn't say that there were no responses. Your answer was akin to "read the bible".

 

[redleghunter]

I do understand it, I simply disagree with your literary interpretation. Also, even if we go with what you're saying, what I said to Oncedeceived applies here:

So are you saying that once we are sinless, we'll no longer have a desire to sin, and that God couldn't have made us that way? OK, but were the angels sinless? If so, how? Also, how was it even possible for Satan to rebel? If they weren't created sinless, isn't that unfair?

I gave you a theological answer to a theological question.

The difference between Adam and Eve and a new creature in Christ Jesus is we are promised to be conformed to His image. Why understanding the warp and woof of the message delivered by God to mankind and His fulfillment of the promise.

We will be sinless because we will be like Christ.

 

[Oncedeceived]

He's omnipotent...?

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

So are you saying that once we are sinless, we'll no longer have a desire to sin, and that God couldn't have made us that way? OK, but were the angels sinless? If so, how? Also, how was it even possible for Satan to rebel? If they weren't created sinless, isn't that unfair?

Once we have our sins paid in full we are covered by Jesus and are spiritual beings and our physical bodies that carried our sin nature are no longer with us. Angels and Satan rebelled and those who did were thrown out of heaven, those that didn't sin chose not to reject God and their decision after being made stopped there as they do not reproduce. The angels and Satan had one shot as well and rejected it and will never be allowed in heaven.

 

[redleghunter]

I didn't say that there were no responses. Your answer was akin to "read the bible".

Indeed very good advice to actually read and comprehend the foundation of God's revelation to mankind before asking questions about it.

I'm glad you brought that up.

If one wants to understand baseball they have to actually read the rules, watch it played for 9 innings and perhaps go out and play a few games.

If someone comes up to me and says "hey coach can you teach me to throw a two seam fastball, I'm first going to ask if they know how to pitch. If they say yes, then they must show me they can.

The OP was low and outside.

 

[Hammster]

Indeed very good advice to actually read and comprehend the foundation of God's revelation to mankind before asking questions about it.

I'm glad you brought that up.

If one wants to understand baseball they have to actually read the rules, watch it played for 9 innings and perhaps go out and play a few games.

If someone comes up to me and says "hey coach can you teach me to throw a two seam fastball, I'm first going to ask if they know how to pitch. If they say yes, then they must show me they can.

The OP was low and outside.

From your perspective, maybe. From the OP's perspective, it could have been a legit inquiry. This is the outreach area. Treating each question as an annoyance isn't what the forum is about.

 

[redleghunter]

From your perspective, maybe. From the OP's perspective, it could have been a legit inquiry. This is the outreach area. Treating each question as an annoyance isn't what the forum is about.

Then I hope my last response was informative.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I gave you a theological answer to a theological question.

The difference between Adam and Eve and a new creature in Christ Jesus is we are promised to be conformed to His image. Why understanding the warp and woof of the message delivered by God to mankind and His fulfillment of the promise.

We will be sinless because we will be like Christ.

You are not answering my question about the angels.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Indeed very good advice to actually read and comprehend the foundation of God's revelation to mankind before asking questions about it.

I'm glad you brought that up.

If one wants to understand baseball they have to actually read the rules, watch it played for 9 innings and perhaps go out and play a few games.

If someone comes up to me and says "hey coach can you teach me to throw a two seam fastball, I'm first going to ask if they know how to pitch. If they say yes, then they must show me they can.

The OP was low and outside.

I know the Bible quite well. The reason I'm atheist is because I decided to read it cover to cover.

 

[redleghunter]

You are not answering my question about the angels.

The Bible is not about good and bad angels.

They are created beings not mentioned in God's plan of deliverance.

Are you implying the fallen angels got a raw deal?