Wouldn't it be better not to have freewil?

[OnceConvinced]

Theists tend to defend freewill as something that is just so important that it would be somehow a terrible thing if we did not have it.

However freewill for many people will result in them rejecting God and ending up in Hell, which many Christians believe will be eternal suffering.

I'm struggling to see how freewill is a good thing if it results in us going to Hell and perhaps suffering for all eternity.

I am reminded of a verse in the bible where Jesus says " For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" Mark 8:36

It's saying that riches... and continually seeking riches is not a good thing if it results in you losing your soul... ie going to Hell. It's saying that if something is going to cause us to lose our soul then we should avoid it.

Shouldn't the same thing be said about freewill? Should there not also be a scripture that says "For what shall it profit a man to have freewill and lose his own soul?"

So question for debate:

Would it be better to live on earth with Freewill and suffer for all eternity for rejecting Christ or would it be better to give up your freewill so that you can avoid eternal suffering?

Is freewill really such a necessity for a happy life?

Wouldn't life be better if nobody had freewill so nobody could ever do evil? (Like in Heaven)

[ttruscott]

The only time our freewill need be inhibited is if we seek to do something evil. Our freewill only need be violated then!

Is not the inability to choose evil in fact being forced to choose good, the inability to hate in fact being forced to 'love' and the inability to say no to a marriage proposal is in fact forcing the marriage? This suggestion is merely a fancy way of saying robot goodness, worship and love is fine because without a true choice between options, someone else is programming what you must do by limiting your ability to go any other way at all. To say you can't go that way is the same as saying you must go the other way...

As far as GOD limiting our sinfulness, I think HE does that for us all the time. It doesn't violate our free will but only our wills that are perverted and corrupted by sin. And I also believe that part of HIS method is explained in Heb 12:5-11, but sometimes HE overwhelms our evil desires with a sudden fear of consequences or self disgust and guilt over our evil desires to bring them to a stop.

[ttruscott]

So... actually rejecting Christ is not going to get you into the Kingdom. Who would invite into their Kingdom someone who rejects them as their King?

I dunno, a king who had other motivations than personal power.
Sort of begs the question doesn't it?

To join a kingdom, a country, it presupposes one pledges truly to the responsibilities that their acceptance requires or that if they are lying, their intent is subversive. There are legal requirements to joining a kingdom or entering a marriage... No one is accepted if they won't pledge to keep the laws and requirements, no matter what the King's motivation is.

What kind of person instills doubt in his truth at every turn, only to reward you if you believe the right thing about him?
What kind of God turns life into a kind of freewill pachinko game, when all the choices are riddles of dubious answer, and how you respond gets you into heaven?

No person nor any God... Our doubts are self inflicted, our inability to see spiritual truth is because we chose to be sinners and for those who chose to be HIS elect so as to come under HIS promise of salvation, they are indeed being brought to redemption by grace through faith. Your characterization of this process is a straw horse which has no life.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 12 by Divine Insight]


"And why couldn't a God (if one existed) simply remove any and all "evil desires" from people? No need to mess with their "Free Will" at all. After all, apparently it's not free will that makes the difference but rather it's what a person desires to do that makes the difference. "

Excellent...

but removing our evil desires is just another way of saying HE programms us to do things HIS way and whether or not we feel ourselves to be programmed or not, we are, so HE will know that our 'love and worship' for HIM may not have been what we would be doing if HE did not programm us to do so...which makes love and worship to be NOT true love and nor any worship at all.

Once you enter the gates of prison your free-will is taken from you; I suppose it makes them exstactic.

Your free will is not so much taken from you (as if against your will) but is a natural consequence of choosing to do a sin and become sinful in your nature. As for the ecstasy, I doubt it since some sinners are indignant with being called sinners and reject that appellation altogether, not being ashamed.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]

Sounds like a safeguard against accidental self-harm. No violation of free will has taken place.


Peace again to you!

If you can wave it off that easily then clearly God could have made sure that no human would become an alcoholic or drug addict, etc, in a similar fashion. No violation of free will by simply making safeguards against people becoming addicted to anything.

And of course we could speak about gay sexual orientations as as well. If these desire truly are "evil" and destructive, then just place safeguards against anyone ever feeling these desires.

After all, about about a "straight" person? Who made them "straight"? Did they chose to ignore their desire to be sexually attracted to their same gender? Or did they just never have that desire in the first place?

And if they never had the desire is that a violation of their free will?

Clearly your arguments don't hold water Tam.

Plus, why should these safeguards only be for self-injury? Why couldn't God place safeguards in place against desires to harm other people too? Then there would never be any child molesters, rapists, or other heinous criminals who apparently have a desire to harm others.

All of those desire could have simply been made unavailable with no loss of free will.

You can hardly complain about not having the free will to chose a desire that you aren't even aware exists.

So the "Free Will" argument for Christianity fails miserably. It's clearly a non-argument that in no way justifies this religion. Your God would need to be extremely inept for that argument to have any merit at all. But an argument that the Christian God is inept won't work for Christianity either. So it's a lose-lose argument.

[otseng]

Apologies tam, but I have to call this as being so much bovine faeces.

Moderator Comment

This is not considered acceptable phrasing here on the forum.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[tam]

[Replying to post 10 by tam]

So... actually rejecting Christ is not going to get you into the Kingdom. Who would invite into their Kingdom someone who rejects them as their King?

There are people in the UK who do not like the monarchy, and wish it to be abolished. Should they be expelled?

You are speaking about expelling those who are already citizens. This is not the same as allowing people to enter into your country who are not (yet) citizens; while those people are stating from the start that they reject the law and authority of the land.

Immigrants must at least agree to obey the laws of the land, and those who are in authority IN that land. Why would they be permitted in, otherwise?

This is Canada's (in English) oath of citizenship, and though there are proposed changes with regard to pledging loyalty to the monarchy, the changes keep the oath to obey the laws of the land:

I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen.



But here is a link to oaths of citizenship of a bunch of other countries as well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_citizenship


No one lets people in who state that they reject the King and the laws of the land.


Christ is the King of God's Kingdom; appointed King by God, Himself. Why would someone be able to say, "I reject your King; I won't listen to Him or You", and still expect to be invited IN?

You might not sit at the round table - not having been trained, not having loved the King or stood by Him, suffering with Him, carried your own cross, etc

I have suffered immensely in my life, but it seems to me here as if you are implying (perhaps unknowingly?) that it doesn't count since I don't consider my suffering having anything to do with Christ.

Not at all. The thought never even entered my mind.

Just because some are loved and rewarded for serving and suffering for Christ, does not mean that I am making any sort of statement about those who suffer in/from this world.

The knights at the round table fought/fight for the King (and those the King loves), and take their orders from the King. Hence they have a seat at the table. Doesn't mean the Kingdom doesn't also have subjects who are loved... or that those subjects are healed.

And the leaves of the tree (of life) are for the healing of the nations. Revelations 22:2



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 23 by ttruscott]

We've been though this already many times: If freewill does not necessarily lead to sin, as you've affirmed by saying angels in heaven have freewill but do not sin, then God could create his brides with freewill without the risking the danger of sin. If that is somehow beyond his omnipotence then he should not have created any freewilled beings at all. Introducing a pre-Earth existence does not help resolve anything but just pushes the problem back one step in time.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by OnceConvinced]

An interesting question. I have attempted to narrow the predicament down to three:

1) Would it be better to be a rock or a squirrel than a man who willfully rejects salvation?

2) Would it be better to be a rock or a squirrel than a man who willfully accepts salvation?

3) Would it be better to be a man who willfully rejects salvation than one who willfully accepts salvation?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 26 by tam]

ou are speaking about expelling those who are already citizens. This is not the same as allowing people to enter into your country who are not (yet) citizens; while those people are stating from the start that they reject the law and authority of the land.

Ya know...I don't have a rebuttal for this. At least not at this time, but to be honest, I don't think I can come up with one.

No one lets people in who state that they reject the King and the laws of the land.

Hmm...just as a matter of interest, in case you're unaware, here in Ireland, we have the Sinn Fein (pronounced Shin Fain) political party. It operates in both Northern Ireland (which is part of the United Kingdom) and the Republic of Ireland. Any Sinn Fein MPs (Members of Parliament) who are elected in the North, as a matter of policy, do not sit at Westminster and do not swear an oath to the Queen. They do not recognize Westminster's jurisdiction in the North, yet the party is still allowed to operate and their members, both elected and lay people, are not expelled from the UK.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 23 by ttruscott]

We've been though this already many times: If freewill does not necessarily lead to sin, as you've affirmed by saying angels in heaven have freewill but do not sin, then God could create his brides with freewill without the risking the danger of sin. If that is somehow beyond his omnipotence then he should not have created any freewilled beings at all. Introducing a pre-Earth existence does not help resolve anything but just pushes the problem back one step in time.

I don't understand - free will means you choose without being forced,...how can HE give us a free will without any danger of sin? Only by limiting our free will can HE limit sin. The angels do not sin because they WILL not, not because of anything GOD does or how HE created them.