Free Will and the Nature of Heaven

[Birdjaguar]

The fact that our actual behaviour often fails to adhere to such rules and the principles (the fundamental rules) behind those rules doesn't prove that the latter do not exist. In fact, in seeming affirmation of them, the very common rules against lying and cruelty are based on the fundamental principles that we should be truthful and caring to each other. Again, what is universal are those principles, not people's behaviour or even the mechanical rules that people formulate to govern it directly.

Human failings certainly do not prove that universal principles do not exist. But such principles need to "come from" somewhere or have an existience in their own right. There needs to be a source of some sort that you connect to the principles. The atheistic scientific contingent here usually insists on that soruce bieng something that fits within their model of the physical universe. If you cannot make it fit within those constraints, then you are forced to just say "because I beleive it so" for whatever reasons are appropriate.

The commonality of rules against lying and cruelty don't seem to me to demonstrate their universality anymore than 5000 years of people enslaving other peoplel demonstrates the universality of that idea.

I think it is more meaningful to say that universal concepts are those which we practice without regard to rules and culture, like sex and overeating, or preservation of our immediate family.

Fortunately, a better society is where even people outside our communities are subject to the same principles that we at least try to adhere to within.

I can't think of how else you would live the good life. Accumulation of material wealth? Through pleasure gained from the suffering of others? These do not lead one into the good life, as you would surely agree.

A better society and good life are not universal principles. They are personal goals and vary from person to person and from age to age. (Though I'm not sure what you mean by a "good life".)

What drives some people to aspire to having more stuff is a strong ego and the need to be accepted/loved. That need though is typically distorted into power and control because stong egos usually don't want to make the sacrifices necessary to be genuinely accepted and loved.

 

[aelf]

Bird,
I've been given something like a gag order by an expert on philosophical stuff. There's not much info about it at the moment, though I'm hoping there will be, so I shall refrain from posting about something like this either until things become clearer or for an indefinite length of time, since I recognise that I'm nowhere near an expert. I regret that I won't be able to continue this discussion for now.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Bird,
I've been given something like a gag order by an expert on philosophical stuff. There's not much info about it at the moment, though I'm hoping there will be, so I shall refrain from posting about something like this either until things become clearer or for an indefinite length of time, since I recognise that I'm nowhere near an expert. I regret that I won't be able to continue this discussion for now.

Do you mean a mod here told you to stop posting? Or do you mean that another poster suggested that you shouldn't carry on this discussin with me?

In any case suspension of the discussion is not a problem.

EDIT: Thanks for the pm clarification.

 

[RulerOfDaPeople]

Your thoughts

In Christianity the source of all evil and suffering in the world is the original sin in the garden of eden from denying God's commandment.

This was later reconciled by a caring and Just God, by sending his son (who was without sin and able to overcome it) to pay for man's sin (the wages of sin is death) by dying on the cross as Jesus Christ.


Theology 101

 

[Greizer85]

In Christianity the source of all evil and suffering in the world is the original sin in the garden of eden from denying God's commandment.

This was later reconciled by a caring and Just God, by sending his son (who was without sin and able to overcome it) to pay for man's sin (the wages of sin is death) by dying on the cross as Jesus Christ.


Theology 101

If He was so caring and just, why not create us so that we have sterling character and free will at the same time, as has been suggested earlier in this very thread? I'm sure even now such people exist who would not have disobeyd God's order. And if He is omniscient, He could see the whole shebang beforehand. Further, it seems rather inappropriate, to be frank even insane to punish all of humanity for the acts of two individuals, and to sent people to Hell because someone ate some apples thousands of years ago. Unless you take it metaphorically, but that has its own issues as well.

 

[Fr8monkey]

In Christianity the source of all evil and suffering in the world is the original sin in the garden of eden from denying God's commandment.

This was later reconciled by a caring and Just God, by sending his son (who was without sin and able to overcome it) to pay for man's sin (the wages of sin is death) by dying on the cross as Jesus Christ.


Theology 101

The "original sin" arguement is a cop out. We are told in Genesis 1:31 that God viewed his completed creation as "very good", and most literalist Christians agree that the originally created world was perfect, free of sin and death until Eve took that fatal first bite.

But how can this be? Adam and Eve clearly were imperfect even before they ate the fruit. This is simple logic: if they were perfect, they would not have chosen to sin against God.

Aware of this fact, apologists usually attempt to explain the first couple's actions as the result of free will. God loves us, the argument goes, and wants us to love him in return. But if he forced us to do this, if he programmed our love into us like programming a computer, it would not be genuine. Genuine love must be freely given, which is why God created us with free will, so we could of our own accord decide to worship him. However, if God gives us the choice to worship him, it logically follows that he must also give us the choice not to. In other words, by giving us the choice to do good, God necessarily also gave us the choice to do evil. These were the options given to Adam and Eve, and they chose the path of evil and sin.

But again, this argument denies logic. It is true that, if he gives us the option of doing good, God must logically also give us the option of doing evil. But that does not mean we must choose to do evil. Why couldn't God have created free-willed beings who would freely choose only the good?

 

[Ayatollah So]

Apropos of the last few pages: here are two views of morality to avoid. On the first, the Is completely defines the Ought: whatever people practice and call "moral" is moral. On the second, the Ought is completely unconnected to the Is, so that the moral truth exerts absolutely no influence on what people actually do.

I think aelf is avoiding both these mistakes, but I think his critics might be a little more mollified if he more explicitly rejects the second - and explains how. Just a suggestion.

 

[aelf]

Apropos of the last few pages: here are two views of morality to avoid. On the first, the Is completely defines the Ought: whatever people practice and call "moral" is moral. On the second, the Ought is completely unconnected to the Is, so that the moral truth exerts absolutely no influence on what people actually do.

I think aelf is avoiding both these mistakes, but I think his critics might be a little more mollified if he more explicitly rejects the second - and explains how. Just a suggestion.

Just curious. Why?

I think most people here seem to subscribe to a view that flirts with the first. The annoying thing is they refuse to bite the bullet and prefer to say "It just won't happen!" when pressed about certain obvious dilemmas. Or in some cases they do bite, but say "That's just too bad - that's how things work", which is a very unsatisfying answer.

As for the second, I suppose it wouldn't work if they don't even recognise that there's a moral truth, which seems to be the case for some. Or rather, they think the truth is whatever is actualised (i.e. truth = reality?), if I may put it that way, so it just goes back to the first view.

 

[Xyan]

Just to pop the thread back to the OP.

My thoughts will be that there is free will. But there is no heaven (in the sense that it is a holy place out there.)

We can "feel" heaven when we are charged with great ecstasy when something nice happened to us. And then the feeling will naturally subside.