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)

[OnceConvinced]

Of course some will argue that God wants us to freely accept him and to freely love him, but isn't that an extremely high price to pay? Millions of humans all burning in Hell so that God can have the satisfaction of humans freely loving and worshipping him?

The thing is, I think it can be argued that it's not a "high price to pay" if those in hell really deserve it.

Are you suggesting that there are people on this earth who deserve to suffer for all eternity and that God is ok with that?

You wouldn't see such a god as evil and sadistic?

Imagine if some of the people who were suffering for all eternity were your loved ones. Say your kids or you partner. Your parents maybe. Would you consider it a high price?

God may not see it as a high price, but if he loves his creations, shouldn't he try to look at it from their point of view? Supposedly sending Jesus was a way to see things from the perspective of humans.

To me that seems very selfish, egotistical and self-centred of God. It's also highly malevolent if you are going to force eternal suffering on to those who don't love you freely.

Again, what if they really do deserve it according to the God? You could be in the wrong and a "bleeding heart." Maybe those who are in hell don't deserve any sympathy.

That sounds like a highly malevolent, selfish and egotistical way of looking at it. As a human I would show some empathy. Try to see it from the point of view of those suffering... and also the humans who will suffer knowing that their loved ones are burning in Hell for all eternity. Surely a loving God would want to look at things from our perspective too? Not just his?

I have no problem with "let the punishment fit the crime", but I don't see how eternal suffering could ever be considered just. I can only see it as extremely evil. I can't believe there would be a god who was so sadistic. And all just because he wants to be loved? What a twisted god that would be. Such a god would not deserve love.

[OnceConvinced]

Assuming for the sake of argument that these are the two options before us. (these are not ANY of the options before us, actually, but I do not wish to derail your thread, and that might be another topic)

Mmmm. I think it could very well be relevant to this thread. What would you think those other options would be?

There is no hell (as a place of eternal torment). So that is not something one has to worry about.

The OP takes the stance that there is a hell. So there IS something to worry about.

Rejecting Christ (and would you not also have to know Him to reject Him, or at the least would you not have to reject all the things that He IS and that He teaches: such as truth, mercy, love, etc?)...

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


But it seems to me that you are speaking more about simply not believing that He exists, rather than rejecting Him.

Exactly. That is what I refer to in the OP when I say "rejecting Christ".

Being a non-believer, so to speak. What if you are a non-believer... but you have done good to even a least one of Christ's brothers, thereby doing good to Him unknowingly? What if you reveal by what you DO that you have the law of love upon your heart? Why would you be punished or rejected for any of these things?

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 - but you might still be known and accepted and loved and invited into the Kingdom and given eternal life because of what you have done for even a least one of the King's brothers. Even unknowingly.

In my OP I am going by the standard belief of Christians that the only way for Salvation is to repent of your sins and accept Christ as your saviour. If you don't do that, you go to Hell.

Wouldn't you rather lament about lack of freedom for 80 years of your life rather than lament about your lack of freedom as you suffer for all eternity?

Yes.

(But it would not be a lack of freedom for 80 years; it would be a lack of freedom for all eternity. But even then, still better to lament without also lamenting about eternal suffering)

Well it would only be a lack of freedom for all eternity if God had no other way to prevent sin in Heaven. However Christians insist that in Heaven we will still have freewill, but there will be no way we can sin or harm others. Supposedly no free-will will be violated when in Heaven.

But like you said, it would still be better than eternal suffering. So bring that lack of freewill on I say!

Too funny. I just started watching it from the beginning. (I don't think I ever saw the first season; I started watching it when Seven of Nine came on the show)

But would she go back to the Borg if given a choice? Maybe at the start, being afraid, wanting to return to her 'chains'. But after she grew, learned, made mistakes, learned from them, made friends, loved, etc?

I don't want to give any spoilers by jogging your memory, so I will word this carefully.... Let's say that she begins to realise that being free is a better option than being tied to the Borg collective.

The thing is, the Borg-Collective would be more likened to something Satantic, where you are hooked into something controlled by an evil entity... (in the Borg's case, the Borg Queen). So we might even call it the "Satan-Collective".

In the God-Collective though, it would be wonderful, wouldn't it? It would be pure and righteous. I'm betting if it was God who was keeping Seven-Of-Nine in the Borg collective she would continuously do everything she could to get back to it. I'm betting you would too if you have been cut from God.

Imagine having a constant connection with God where he guides you and ensures you only do the right thing. That would have to be something pretty wonderful wouldn't it? Going by what you've said in the past you may say you have that already. Just that you have the freewill to go with it. But would it lesson the awesomeness of being connected to God if you didn't have that freedom? And if you lost that connection and God then told you, you can have it back, it's just that you'll have to give up your freewill, would you refuse him?

(oh, and angels in heaven also have free will... or else none of them could have rebelled, yes?)

Yes, the angels had freewill and what happened? They rebelled as a result of that freewill EVEN in Heaven! So I think it's a little like wishful thinking to believe that once we're in Heaven and if we still have freewill, that we won't choose to rebel.

Except we will have learned - learned to chose the good and reject the bad.

I'm sure the angels in heaven would surely have learnt that too, but it didn't make a difference.

But we are talking eternity here. Can it really be guaranteed that someone wont' exercise his freewill in a negative way after say a few billion years?

There doesn't appear to be any guarantee there. You seem to be trusting millions of Christians. You are trusting that all those millions are never going to utilise their freewill in a negative way, not once in all eternity.

The bible tells us there will be no pain and no suffering in Heaven. But what happens if you accidentally hurt someone? What if you're driving along in your Lamborghini (if there are cars in Heaven that's what I'd be driving) and a person runs out in front of you and gets bowled over.

How does that sort of suffering get prevented? After all no one has actually done anything wrong in this situation. No sin has been committed, yet suffering takes place.

There just seems to be way too many presumptions when it comes to Heaven. Freewill is surely going to cause trouble at some stage, just like it did when it came to the angels who rebelled.

(this is not to say that we do not make mistakes...

So how do you think God will stop us from making mistakes in Heaven? Innocent mistakes that cause others to be hurt?

Even when one attempts to do the right thing, they end up hurting others. It seems to be a natural thing. You can have the best of intentions and be the most loving person in the world, but you're bound to do something that hurts someone else. I don't see how learning to choose good and reject bad is going to prevent those things from happening. Especially not for all eternity.

I imagine that if God wanted us to be robots, we would be robots.

I don't know. Did he want viruses to affect humans the way they do? Did he want creatures to be poisonous? Did he want animals to eat other animals? Did he want say male lions to eat cubs just so they could have sex with the mothers?

It's hard to know what God's intentions were and what he ever intended to begin with. Maybe he expected humans to be more compliant? In the OT it seems God is often surprised at just how evil people become. He even regretted creating humans at one point there.

That is not what He wanted for us. Perhaps because He knows that we can be and would want to be so much more.

I would be very dubious about a heaven where Christians... many who have done terrible things in their life... will just decide to do good and never do bad. That seems like wild fantasy to me. I would want more assurance in Heaven.

All it takes is just one person to decide that they no longer want to do good and decide to do bad. Just like with Lucifer. I'm sure his intentions were only to do good to begin with. Who's to say history would not repeat itself?

[OnceConvinced]

And that brings up a very important question. Where do our desires come from? Are they genetic? My atheist uncles were suggesting that they very well may be and our family just happens to have genes that favor good desires. That sounds good in theory anyway for a secularist worldview.

It seems that God must have violated their freewill from birth, preventing them from wanting to do evil.

You make some wonderful points.

It all comes down to our desires, basically. It's what we desire to do. Some of us are born without desires to have gay sex. Some of us are born without desires to murder, rape, torture, steal etc etc. Does that mean our freewill has been violated by God in some way?

Of course not. So why not just make us all without the desire to do those horrible things? Just create in us a desire to do good things and ensure we never have the desire to do evil.

If it can work for the likes of your family... and many others I know, then why can't it work for all families, including the Mansons, the Hitlers, the Bin-Ladens, the Husseins, the Swaggarts, the Haggards etc etc?

You also rightly bring up examples of people who claim that God healed them of their evil desires. I'm presuming God must have violated their freewill and taken away those desires.

[OnceConvinced]

But would she go back to the Borg if given a choice? Maybe at the start, being afraid, wanting to return to her 'chains'. But after she grew, learned, made mistakes, learned from them, made friends, loved, etc?

If she thought there was some great goal to be accomplished that could only be done by going back to the Borg, perhaps.

Very good point. So we can apply that same question to God. What if in the God-Collective there is some greater purpose. Some greater good.

The Borg thought they were doing something for the greater good by assimilating all races. They weren't even technically evil, just misguided and deluded. But what say in the God-Collective it's a worthy and righteous, purpose? ie to assimilate all humans into Jesus Christ so that they might have eternal life.

So let's say you are Seven-Of-Nine coming from the God-Collective and all you see is people around you who are destined to burn in hell for all eternity. You want to save these people but the only way you can do it is return to the God-Collective, thus having your freedom and individuality removed.

Would Seven-Of-Nine go back to the God collective?

Even better would someone like Tam go back to the God-Collective if she had been wrenched out of it?

Tam, seems to be a person who cares about her fellow humans. I reckon she'd gladly return to the God-collective even if it meant giving up her freewill and her individually. Or am I wrong about that Tam?

No greater love has he who is willing to give up his freewill for another!

After all, we have Janeway making that deal with the Borg in the first place out of desperation (a stupid deal if you ask me. Janeway should have demanded that the Borg drag Voyager back to the Federation, all the way, instead of just passage through a section of space.

It was stupid alright. She should have taken the side of Species 8472. They would have wiped out the Borg completely and with little effort. It also turned out that Species 8472 were actually the good guys; a benevolent and reasonable race.

[OnceConvinced]

Good afternoon Ted, I have nothing to debate when it comes to the pre-earth existence stuff. But I did have to pick up on this:

You now choose to not be evil with your family - why think that the most loving people in creation will ever choose to be evil against the ones they love? Especially when they know by experience the inevitable destruction that would cause?

The thing is even those with best loving intentions aren't going to get it right every time.

There's a saying I think is so true. You can please some of the people all the time but you can't please all the people some of the time.

Do a good deed and you risk upsetting someone else.

I've seen this is true even in a situation with love ones. In trying to show your love and good intentions to one person you can in fact offend others. You may think you're being loving and kind to someone, but you can never guarantee that you're doing the right thing.

If you're married, you must surely know this to be true. You can never please your wife all the time. There are always going to be times when you do things wrong and it's not because you did anything wrong or had any bad intentions. Nevertheless, you can bet they'll have their spin on why what you did is wrong and how it caused them suffering.

Why would it not be different in Heaven?

In Heaven, we are supposedly going to be on loving terms with everyone. There will be no hate. We'll all be brothers and sisters. How can you possibly ensure that you are going to get things right with everyone? There will always be people who are offended and accusing you of doing something bad, even when you think you didn't.

[OnceConvinced]

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,

Maybe , but how wonderful that would be. You'd never have to fear anyone doing evil acts to you or your loved ones!

I'd be willing to sacrifice my freewill if it meant I could never harm another human ever again.

But the thing is you'd still get to do all the good things you want to do right? It won't stop you travelling overseas, enjoying a good meal, making love to your wife, playing with your kids, etc etc.

What freedom you would have, knowing that you can only ever do things that are good.

Wouldn't that be a small price to pay to avoid eternal damnation?

the inability to hate in fact being forced to 'love'

Would you rather be a hateful or loving person? I'd rather be loving.

and the inability to say no to a marriage proposal is in fact forcing the marriage?

Since when did loving someone mean you were forced to marry them? Being forced to marry someone would be evil. Turning someone's marriage proposal down would not be a sin.

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...

Have you got something against robot goodness worship and love? Wouldn't it be better than suffering for all eternity?

80-90 years of this. Isn't that a small price to pay for an eternity in Heaven?

Ted, you really seem to be arguing that we should be allowed to be evil and horrible to people. I for one do not want to harm anyone, so would be more than happy to have God take my freewill if it mean only doing good. I would also be able to avoid an eternity in Hell and live in paradise instead.

I have absolutely no desire to do abominable acts anyway. I guess maybe God is already violating my freewill to a certain extent.

As far as GOD limiting our sinfulness, I think HE does that for us all the time.

Some of us. Not all it seems.

So no problem right?

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.

I've been arguing those things as possible methods to prevent sin for years! No freewill violated at all.

So why not limit us all in the same way? Why only some of us?

Meanwhile a lot of humans continue to do abominable acts without any overwhelming fear, disgust and guilt.

[OnceConvinced]

[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?

1) Yes, it would be better to be a rock or a squirrel than to spend all eternity in Hell.
2) It would be slightly more appealing to be the man who wilfully accepts salvation, however in the long run it wouldn't matter. I would be n Heaven rather than Hell. 80-90 years of being a rock or a squirrel would be a small price to pay for eternity in paradise.
3) I would never want to be the man who wilfully rejects salvation if it means I will suffer for all eternity in Hell. So of course it would be better to be the man who wilfully accepts salvation. However I'd be happy enough to be a rock or a squirrel if it means a free pass to Heaven.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 30 by ttruscott]

" The angels do not sin because they WILL not, not because of anything GOD does or how HE created them."

Will is of love.

What we love that we will do, be it good or evil.

Loving and doing that which is good is entry to heaven
where loving and doing that which is evil is entry to hell.

We all had the same start in life. Man is born in innocence.

[Bust Nak]

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?

I suggested a number of ways every time you asked me:
1) Do not programme us the desire to sin - so we lack the desire to sin.
2) Failing that, give us the intelligence and wisdom so we can work it out for ourselves that it is not a good idea to sin.
3) Failing that, remove the opportunity for us to sin.
4) Failing that, programme us the desire to not sin, without limiting our free will for non-sinful stuff.

Or if you still insist as you did before, that none of the above is possible, then there is always the option of not creating any free will beings at all and go without his wedding, given his emphasis on free will, a decision to create freewill beings that results in many said beings going to hell, isn't his choice to make.

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.

Then you need to explain why some choose one thing while others choose something else, given that we were supposed to be created equal. Where did our desire to sin come from, if it is not part of our created nature?

Having said all that, the underlying point is still this: even if I cannot come up with a way of achieving freewill beings that will not sin - God can, because he is omnipotent and can do anything that is not a logical contradiction, and angels are not logical contradictions, given they exist.

What I said here should be familiar to you, I keep pushing you with this same old challenge, and eventually you will get bored because it is old ground. Granted, it is old ground, I keep coming back to this because I have not got a satisfying answer to my challenge.

[ttruscott]

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?

I suggested a number of ways every time you asked me:
1) Do not programme us the desire to sin - so we lack the desire to sin.

You are still programmed and so have no free will! That is the point of my question - you have no answer but to deny free will. YOu have accepted before that no free will means no love and marriage that we respect and decided tha tthat w

2) Failing that, give us the intelligence and wisdom so we can work it out for ourselves that it is not a good idea to sin.

Agreed! In place!! This is the point of our being painfully disciplined as training in righteousness, Heb 12:5-11 but which is only available to those who accepted HIM as their saviour from sin so it is not available to those who rejected any and all help from HIM to deal with their sin which they reject as real.

3) Failing that, remove the opportunity for us to sin.

Ah well, as you have seen here, there is no truth that cannot be argued against nor desecrated...no matter the truth we believe, someone can deny and denigrate it. This is the nature of sin. To end this the person must quit thinking and choosing...ie, die.


4) Failing that, programme us the desire to not sin, without limiting our free will for non-sinful stuff.

Or if you still insist as you did before, that none of the above is possible, then there is always the option of not creating any free will beings at all and go without his wedding, given his emphasis on free will, a decision to create freewill beings that results in many said beings going to hell, isn't his choice to make.

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.

Then you need to explain why some choose one thing while others choose something else, given that we were supposed to be created equal. Where did our desire to sin come from, if it is not part of our created nature?

Having said all that, the underlying point is still this: even if I cannot come up with a way of achieving freewill beings that will not sin - God can, because he is omnipotent and can do anything that is not a logical contradiction, and angels are not logical contradictions, given they exist.

What I said here should be familiar to you, I keep pushing you with this same old challenge, and eventually you will get bored because it is old ground. Granted, it is old ground, I keep coming back to this because I have not got a satisfying answer to my challenge.[/quote]