God, justice, fairness and perfection

[Justin108]

For this debate, I need you to answer each of these questions in order.

1. Is God perfectly fair and just?

2. If God is not perfectly fair and just, does that mean God is by definition imperfect?

3. Does everyone have an equal chance in getting into heaven?

4. If everyone does not have an equal chance in getting into heaven, is God still perfectly fair and just?

[Justin108]

My version is based upon created PERSONS witnessing the creation of the whole of physical reality with no reason offered to prove this did not include the spirits of those who later were conceived as humans. People does not refer to just humans, eh?

The spirits mentioned in Job 38:7 are specifically angels.

It is true that the world 'elohiym has been interpreted by some translators to refer to angels but there is no support for this dogmatic assertion, another claim I request you prove.

Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
of God H430 'elohiym
rulers, judges
divine ones
angels
gods
(plural intensive - singular meaning)
god, goddess
godlike one
works or special possessions of God
the (true) God
GOD

Only 3 of 19 Bible versions have chosen angel over the sons of GOD...so I think I am on fairly solid ground.

...And not a single translation includes "humans"?

"You can't prove they're not humans" is not a supportive argument for why they ARE humans just as "you can't prove God is not a sentient rooster" is not a supportive argument for why God IS a sentient rooster.

Even if I were to excuse your burden of proof and suppose that angels and humans are of the same spiritual species with "angel" merely being a job title, this verse exclusively allows those with the job title of "angel" to be there during creation. Unless you argue that all man kind once held the title of "angel", I don't see your justification for the assumption that Job 38:7 claims that humans witnessed creation.

No, I argue that between the morning stars and the sons of Elohim all created
spirits are included, some who might have been working as angels and some already self chosen sinners.

No you don't "argue that", you "claim that". An argument would hold some form of justification. There is none to be found here.

I find support for all sinners to have been at this event from Romans 1:20 For since / from the creation of the world God's invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that they are without excuse. since interpreting this verse as a study of nature doesn't fulfill the condition that it proves that all those under GOD's wrath are without excuse for rejecting YHWH's divinity and power but seeing the creation of the physical universe certainly would and is available from the language.

I have already addressed this verse in post 52

It is also a theological necessity based upon the doctrine that only sinners are born on earth so their time of making free will decisions must have been pre-earth since I contend most strongly that GOD creating us as sinners by any means at all is blasphemy. All sin was created by the sinner choosing it by their free will and as enslaved to sin, no human has a free will unless GOD frees HIM from that addiction.

This assumption is simply not supported.

Nothing is assumed. It is a logically reasoned conclusion given the Christian definitions.

The claim that we made a decision pre-earth is an assumption. It is not a logical conclusion. A logical conclusion is that we became sinners SOMEHOW outside of God creating us as such. But for you to replace the "somehow" with a detailed description of how we became sinners is an assumption.

In other words, claiming we have free will and that there are two levels of sin is not enough support for your claim that we rejected God after an interaction with him in which he made a proposal to us

Support for my claim that we rejected God: (acknowledging that no verse is proof of any reality but only of Christian thought)

John 12:48 There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day. proves Christians believe some have rejected HIM.

Psalm 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. implies that we are sinful at birth.

Genesis 25:22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to inquire of the LORD. ...in which struggled is a biased rendering of the Hebrew which is 'to crush each other to pieces', a bias against our being evil in the womb as this suggests, that is, that we are conceived as evil.

Since I base all evil on the free will choice of the person, the only way that a person can be conceived as a sinner is if he made his free will decision pre-conception.

The verses you posted support
- that some have rejected God
- that we are born sinners

The verses do NOT support
- that all humans on earth rejected God pre-earth
- that we are born sinners because of our actions pre-earth

You keep trying to sneak that it. Yes, we are born sinners. But this does not prove that we are born sinners due to our free will decision pre-conception.

Where did I ever contend that I was proving anything???

Excuse me, what I meant to say is that it does not support your assumptions.

[ttruscott]

Some angels are elect:[/b]
1 Timothy 5:21 - I charge thee before GOD and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels. implying the fallen angels are demons and the people of the evil one, the tares, sown into the world by the devil. IF angels can choose to sin and become demons, they can also choose to be holy and work for GOD.

I thought the term "angel" was a title describing the role of the person as messenger of God? If this is the case, shouldn't all angels be "elect"? Did some "messengers of God" make the choice to not follow God after the interaction in which God claimed his divinity prior to supporting it? Or did they only officially become angels (messengers) after this interaction?

I do not deny that the Bible is written to hide the fact of our spirit natures and our sameness as the spirits in heaven....and it is not mine to know why this is like it is.

We have Michael waging war against Satan and his demonic angels and forcing him to earth to be locked in chains of darkest spiritual blindness. This is a reference to their judgement after seeing the proof of the HIS divinity and power by the creation of the world which sealed their choice to be eternally evil in HIS sight so they were cast from heaven.

That they were indeed called angels before this casting out could be expressing that we all or at least all had the potentiality to work for HIM before the fall. As to when the official designation happened from our potential to actually do the work is unknown, but it is obvious that we have a separation IN HEAVEN between the fallen angels and the holy elect angels and on earth we have people being sown into the world (not created) who are elect, that is, the people of the kingdom, and others who are not elect, that is, the fallen who are the people of the evil one.

These ideas certainly have a number of ways they can be juggled to fit a pattern...I pick the one that for me is most in tune with the harmony of HIS self revelation.

Angels are holy:
Mark 8:38 If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels. This verse contrasts the evil of men with the holiness, that is, the righteousness of angels.

Are you saying all angels are holy? If so, then only the "holy angels" witnessed creation. If men are wicked and angels are holy, then this separation is enough to exclude ourselves from witnessing creation as that account mentions "angels" only

The choice to reject YHWH is not finalized until proof of HIS divinity is given. Up till that time anyone can change their mind and bow to HIM by their free will. Once proof is given then they know HIS divinity and power so all their decisions from then on are coerced by that proof so they cannot choose by a free will to bow any longer, locking them into their free will choice to reject HIM.

The separation of all spirits made in HIS image was finalized into holy spirits, fallen demonic spirits and sinful but elect spirits by the creation of the physical universe before their eyes. The holy spirits are referred to as angels, the demons are referred to as Satan's angels, (proving that angels are just messengers working for anyone, not only GOD's messengers), and humans are referred to as those who will become like the holy angels after their resurrection, in keeping with the idea of hiding the fact that they are spirits like the others.

The image of GOD? I think it means things like personhood that is, self awareness, intelligence, emotional ability, curiosity and creativity and the ability to make true free will decisions. Therefore any being that fits this description fits the image of GOD as a person...

Emotional ability? Can't that be considered a "coercion" in your theology as well? If proof "forces" our free will, then doesn't emotion? If I am sad, I did not choose to be sad. So if something makes me sad, I am robbed of my free will, am I not? And if I can choose my emotion, then thay cannot be considered true emotion.

I start with the premise that GOD kept us free from coercion. Period. The details are not for me to know yet. So...

If our mature characters have been set by our self chosen responses to our experiences, kept free from any coercive influence by the grace of GOD, then it is indeed probable that our emotional outlook was certainly influential in our decision making about HIS deity. A coercion means we are forced to chose only one way but an influence is is something that can be studied and decided upon with out being coercive.

If I understand my own decision process, I have emotional responses to choices which are an influence that have been known to change along with further input from my friends etc...that is, I may try on the uniform of one option (symbolic of being immersed into that culture, listening to its proponents seriously) with the emotional attachments to wearing it, then when I try on the uniform of the other option with the emotional attachments of that option until I decide which uniform suits me the best. No only my emotional attachment to the ideas but also my emotional attachment to my friends who are choosing opposite options are a great influence. But in the end I do what I think is best for me without being coerced, and after sorting thru all the evidence and emotions.

You have your interpretation, I have mine and the day will never come when I accept an atheist's interpretation over the Holy Spirit.

Why bother debating if you blatantly admit that you will never be persuaded, no matter what argument I present? This is a debate forum, not a book club.

If you ask questions to open my eyes to the interpretation my faith is foolish, know it is a waste of time since I know of the really hard questions that no one has asked yet...and my faith says "wait for it." If you ask questions to understand my heterodox theology, great.

As you should have noticed I do not debate but engage in an intellectual dialectic, a discussion between equals to arrive at an understanding of each other's truth but with no combative attitude to force my truth on anyone else, a pov often sadly lacking here... True debate must depend upon proof which destroy all futher arguement implicitly and I do not accept that either side has enough proof to carry any debate so the process is moot.

I am here to try to alleviate some of the misconceptions and blasphemies many people hold about Christian doctrine and the self revelation of GOD. As you can see I am kept quite busy.

Directly, I answer in line with what I have been taught: 1 Corinthians 2:14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. since 1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. so you can see my position is full and taken up with other ideas.

[Justin108]

Some angels are elect:[/b]
1 Timothy 5:21 - I charge thee before GOD and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels. implying the fallen angels are demons and the people of the evil one, the tares, sown into the world by the devil. IF angels can choose to sin and become demons, they can also choose to be holy and work for GOD.

I thought the term "angel" was a title describing the role of the person as messenger of God? If this is the case, shouldn't all angels be "elect"? Did some "messengers of God" make the choice to not follow God after the interaction in which God claimed his divinity prior to supporting it? Or did they only officially become angels (messengers) after this interaction?

...That they were indeed called angels before this casting out could be expressing that we all or at least all had the potentiality to work for HIM before the fall.

You don't honestrly expect this excuse to work, do you? Either they are angels, or they are not. Why would the Bible refer to them as angels if they were simply "potential" angels? This is a dishonest and deliberate twisting of the words of the Bible, serving only to fulfill your conformation bias. Is there no limit to how far you would twist, turn and mutilate the words of the Bible to FORCE it to fit your theology? You blatantly refuse to accept this obvious contradiction. You will have to come up with a better excuse for this inconsistency if you wish to save your theology.

Angels are holy:
Mark 8:38 If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels. This verse contrasts the evil of men with the holiness, that is, the righteousness of angels.

Are you saying all angels are holy? If so, then only the "holy angels" witnessed creation. If men are wicked and angels are holy, then this separation is enough to exclude ourselves from witnessing creation as that account mentions "angels" only

The choice to reject YHWH is not finalized until proof of HIS divinity is given. Up till that time anyone can change their mind and bow to HIM by their free will. Once proof is given then they know HIS divinity and power so all their decisions from then on are coerced by that proof so they cannot choose by a free will to bow any longer, locking them into their free will choice to reject HIM.

I have explained why proof of his divinity is not a coercion in post 59. Please address it.

The image of GOD? I think it means things like personhood that is, self awareness, intelligence, emotional ability, curiosity and creativity and the ability to make true free will decisions. Therefore any being that fits this description fits the image of GOD as a person...

Emotional ability? Can't that be considered a "coercion" in your theology as well? If proof "forces" our free will, then doesn't emotion? If I am sad, I did not choose to be sad. So if something makes me sad, I am robbed of my free will, am I not? And if I can choose my emotion, then thay cannot be considered true emotion.

I start with the premise that GOD kept us free from coercion. Period. The details are not for me to know yet. So...

If our mature characters have been set by our self chosen responses to our experiences, kept free from any coercive influence by the grace of GOD, then it is indeed probable that our emotional outlook was certainly influential in our decision making about HIS deity. A coercion means we are forced to chose only one way but an influence is is something that can be studied and decided upon with out being coercive.

This would exclude divine revelation from being a coercion. We study the revelation and we decide upon it. If we cower and worship god out of fear rather than sincerity, god would know our lack of sincerity and reject us. This is the biggest flaw in your coercion rationale.

You have your interpretation, I have mine and the day will never come when I accept an atheist's interpretation over the Holy Spirit.

Why bother debating if you blatantly admit that you will never be persuaded, no matter what argument I present? This is a debate forum, not a book club.

If you ask questions to open my eyes to the interpretation my faith is foolish, know it is a waste of time since I know of the really hard questions that no one has asked yet...and my faith says "wait for it."

So if I were to successfully refute your theology, you still would not budge? Instead you would "wait" for an answer from your Holy Spirit? Until you can answer these refutations, however, you cannot claim your theology is based on reason.

If you ask questions to understand my heterodox theology, great.

I do wish to properly understand it. My refutation of your theology is a sincere one. I don't try to make a strawman of your theology. My criticisms are sincere.

As you should have noticed I do not debate but engage in an intellectual dialectic, a discussion between equals to arrive at an understanding of each other's truth but with no combative attitude to force my truth on anyone else, a pov often sadly lacking here...

That is because this is a debate forum. If you come to a debate forum with the intention to "not debate" then I am not at all surprised that you are disappointed. It is "sadly lacking" here because this is not the place for simply sharing ideas, this is a place where ideas are set against each other. Debates are combative in nature. If you don't accept this then I don't understand why you're here.

True debate must depend upon proof which destroy all futher arguement implicitly and I do not accept that either side has enough proof to carry any debate so the process is moot.

Debates are not only about presenting proof but also about presenting arguments. Few debates ever successfully "destroy" the other side, and even when they do, the other side never admits to defeat. Call if moot if you will, but whatever your intentions are, whether to share your thoughts or to actively convert others, I assure you it is equally moot.

I am here to try to alleviate some of the misconceptions and blasphemies many people hold about Christian doctrine and the self revelation of GOD. As you can see I am kept quite busy.

If you wish to do so, you will unfortunately have to support it with more than assumptions and hyperselective interpretations of scripture. I don't think you've managed to convince even a single individual on this forum, even within the Christian faith.

Directly, I answer in line with what I have been taught: 1 Corinthians 2:14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. since 1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. so you can see my position is full and taken up with other ideas.

This is a cop-out, even within the Bible. This would justify even the most absurd beliefs. If one does not agree, then obviously one is "without the Spirit".

Suppose a Christian with a radically different belief than yours threw this card at you, how would you respond? If a Christian said "God made us sinfull but is still perfect himself. That you do not understand this simply means you are without the Spirit", how would you respond?

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 82 by Justin108]

Almost a year and no answer

[ttruscott]

FIRST, thank you for bringing this back to my attention - I had not seen your answer to my post before and I'm glad to see what I can do now.

Some angels are elect:[/b]
1 Timothy 5:21 - I charge thee before GOD and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels. implying the fallen angels are demons and the people of the evil one, the tares, sown into the world by the devil. IF angels can choose to sin and become demons, they can also choose to be holy and work for GOD.

I thought the term "angel" was a title describing the role of the person as messenger of God? If this is the case, shouldn't all angels be "elect"? Did some "messengers of God" make the choice to not follow God after the interaction in which God claimed his divinity prior to supporting it? Or did they only officially become angels (messengers) after this interaction?

...That they were indeed called angels before this casting out could be expressing that we all or at least all had the potentiality to work for HIM before the fall.

You don't honestrly expect this excuse to work, do you? Either they are angels, or they are not. Why would the Bible refer to them as angels if they were simply "potential" angels? This is a dishonest and deliberate twisting of the words of the Bible, serving only to fulfill your conformation bias. Is there no limit to how far you would twist, turn and mutilate the words of the Bible to FORCE it to fit your theology? You blatantly refuse to accept this obvious contradiction. You will have to come up with a better excuse for this inconsistency if you wish to save your theology.

I have no idea what I was thinking when I posted this answer a year ago as you mention, nor whether I was tired or whatever... Anyway, invective is not necessary to motivate me to reconsider and will only get you deeper in trouble with admin.

The non-adversarial parts of your answer are quite pertinent and I had obviously not thought about this deep enough.

What do we know?
Angels can be holy and elect. No holy person can fall. Angel is a job description, not a race. Angels can also be evil, Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and HIS ANGELS were cast out with him. Also, 2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned... Now it says Satan has angels working for him and it also says that the angels that sinned, that is followed Satan, were not spared.

This suggests that it is not necessary to accept that the angels who sinned were holy angels working for GOD but may have been ordinary people working for Satan in Sheol, his followers who were thrown to the earth with him on his rebellion.

What work did they do for him to be called his angels? During the deliberations in Sheol about YHWH's claims and how each would respond, Satan was the first to rebel against YHWH*, claiming HE was a false GOD telling lies to manipulate worship for himself. This commitment to being GOD's enemy is the source of his power, a power which seduced others. Those he seduced were put to work on those who were as yet uncommitted to influence those who hadn't chosen yet to side with him.

*[As Michael was the first to wholly commit HIMself to accepting YHWH's claims to be our creator GOD and bowing in full allegiance to HIM, becoming the first elect, bringing his friends Uriel, Raphael and Gabriel after him.]

And after all the decisions were set and finalized separating all of created reality into the elect (under HIS promise of salvation) and the satanic non-elect (under HIS judgment of condemnation), Satan and his angels worked hard to sway the elect against GOD's command to break any allegiance they may have had with the non-elect so the non-elect could be damned...and some elect were won over and rebelled against GOD about the judgement forcing HIM to postpone it until they were redeemed and made holy, that is, they came into accord with HIS judgement to damn the reprobate.

So it is within the language to discern what the angels who fell to earth with Satan were Satan's angels, not GOD's angels.

[ttruscott]

As for the content of my claim, it is written that everyone did in fact make choices and decisions about GOD and HE did prove HIS divinity and power but the grip of evil upon sinners caused them to repress that proof because they loved sin more than the truth. Rom 1... proves the basis for this claim. Therefore no memory of seeing the proof isn't proof you don't have a repressed memory.

Rom 1 mentions nothing of memory loss

Rom 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. ...proves that the Bible states the proof has been given. Since no sinner remembers this proof either the memory was wiped by an outside force or it was self wiped as who suppress the truth by their wickedness emphatically supports.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools They knew GOD's proof but their thoughts of this proof were futile as their emotions grew angry and dark and they become foolish...

25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, They had seen the proof with their own eyes...they could not then call it a lie if they did not repress the memory of that proof.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. Look again, they did not ... RETAIN the knowledge of God, Your case fails.

[JehovahsWitness]

For this debate, I need you to answer each of these questions in order.

1. Is God perfectly fair and just?

Yes, I believe so. (I take it for the sake of discussion, one does not have to prove that God exists before answering)

3. Does everyone have an equal chance in getting into heaven?

No, but everyone will be given an equal chance of obtaining eternal life.

4. If everyone does not have an equal chance in getting into heaven, is God still perfectly fair and just?

Yes (see question #1) Equal access to every opportunity is not necessarily evidence of being just or fair. For example humans cannot fly unaided but birds can. Is that unfair or (presuming both were created) would that make God unjust? Men cannot conceive and don't have wombs is this injustice? Fairness and justice implies treating individuals without prejudice, making the correct and right decision in their regard according to their circumstances and without bias or favoritism.

What it does not mean is everybody having everything. In fact I would argue giving everybody everything equally would be unjust and unkind. For example giving a child the responsibility of paying the household taxes would be beyond their ability and unreasonbly demanding for them, even if their father had the opportunity to do so.


JW

[JLB32168]

Almost a year and no answer

You’ve gotten plenty of answers.

A#1 – Yes, God is perfectly fair and just.
A#2 – If God is perfectly fair and just then question #2 is irrelevant.
A#3 – Yes, everyone has an equal change of getting into heaven.
A#4 – Since the answer to #3 is “Yes� then question #4 is irrelevant.

These were my answers a while back. Several others have given the same answers but worded them differently. That you don’t like their answers is a different thing altogether, but saying you've not gotten answers is disingenuous.

[ttruscott]

My point is that no one rejected YHWH in HIS Glory but by faith, an unproven hope that (if they accepted HIM as GOD) HE is who HE claims to be or (for those who have put their faith /hope that HE is not GOD) that HE is in fact a liar and a false god.

And why is this lack of faith evil? If I knew a man who wanted to save the world but honestly believed he was not able to do so, my lack of faith is not a reflection of some evil motive. It is merely my honest reaction to a lack of evidence.

You mean a lack of proof - everyone got the same evidence. Some found it acceptable and some did not.

The crux of the problem is that the person contemplating that he did not want to bow to YHW knew that IF YHWH was GOD then HIS claims were true that to make such a decision was to become permanently addicted to evil which would corrupt every decision to a lesser or greater extent so every time anyone tried to extricate oneself from this addiction, it would be tainted by the evil and would fail. No one could cleanse themselves of evil outside of GOD's grace. To a make a decision that would end you in hell if YHWH ever proved HIS deity to you must have meant that your commitment to that decision was absolute, no wondering about evidence, no wishy washy maybes in one's mind at all but only an antipathy to HIM so strong that you are putting your eternal existence on the line that you would rather live in hell that under HIS rules.

The proof of HIS divinity was held in abeyance because proof before we chose to accept or reject HIM would have coerced our choices, destroying our free will. No one would go against proof so no proof was offered until after our choices about what we most wanted (a GOD or no GOD so we are our own god), were finished.

Our choices may have been coerced, true. There may be some who follow God out of cowardice instead of desire for justice, but wouldn't an omniscient god be able to tell the difference between the sincere and the cowardly? If I follow god only because I fear him but not because I seek justice, god would know and judge me for it. But if I truly seek justice, god would know.

Are you talking about our earthly experiences? It was not like that when we created our eternal relationship with YHWH by our own free will decision.

You are suggesting that one could reject the claim of GOD's deity out of a sense of justice?? Oh well, that duck don't hunt. As for GOD accepting all those who accepted HIS deity, it did not matter the reason why. I believe I was scamming YHWH when I accepted HIS deity just to avoid hell while planning to go my own way after, one of the cowards, but HE accepted it and let me dig my hole which ended me here.

This proof is the proof that was repressed in every sinner due to the enslaving nature of evil.

I find this leap from skepticism to a desire for evil to be inconceivable. Why would our skepticism for God's claims suddenly turn us all into evil, murderous, sadistic savages? How does this process work? How does "yes I believe you" turn us into saints while "no, I don't believe you" turn us into sin-enslaved monsters?

I don't know. The best analogy that I have is the two year old and the first time they say no. They realise for the first time they have the power to say no. Some learn it is not a real power though it feels so powerful. Others only learn that their will can be overridden but they never give up that rush of feeling powerful in rejecting another's will. This is sin, the rush of power in being rebellious that permeates every decision to a lesser or greater extent and is practiced with every decision so that it grows as the person gains in experience.

Now I expect contrariness to this but please don't argue against the analogy as if that was an argument against the situation. Such a waste of time...

I also find it hard to understand why a concept such as evil can even have a complex nature as the one you suggest. Evil, apparently, enslaves us as it is its nature. But how did evil even get to have a nature to begin with? Isn't the Christian paradigm that all that exists is from God? Some have bridged the issue of evil by claiming that evil is simply the absense of good, thereby absolving God of having created evil. In your theology, however, evil has its very own nature. Where does this complex nature come from? Did God design it? Did it evolve on its own? Has it always existed? I don't see how evil can have such a complex effect on our psyche

It is in the nature of people that when they choose evil it permeates their being and influences every decision. This is referred to as the enslaving power or nature of evil but that is an analogy to what happens to the person who chooses evil, as evil is an abstract that has no nature, per se but an inevitable result.

Evil has no objective reality but is an abstract moral position against YHWH's attributes, will and decisions. But when the evil in abstract is chosen by someone rebelling against YHWH's attributes, will or decisions, that abstraction becomes a reality in their mind, THEY are against GOD's will, THEY are evil as that feeling of liking the rebellion grows, their nature can be said to have become evil, no more just an abstraction.....the stink of rebellion will taint every decision they will ever make until they are saved from its enslaving power.

And don't worry about those going to hell not remembering why...Christians believe all memories will be restored at the judgement seat of GOD, along with all our memories of every instance of our whole lives will be there for every person to see

Wait I thought our memories were repressed by our own doing? That it is the result of our guilt/love of sin/enslaving nature of sin.

Luke 12:2 There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that not will be made known. 3 What you have spoken in the dark will be heard in the daylight, and what you have whispered in the inner rooms will be proclaimed from the housetops.… with
Romans 2:16 This will take place on the day when God judges people's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.
and
1 Corinthians 4:5 Therefore judge nothing before the proper time; wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. probably at the judgment seat: 2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive his due for the things done in the body, whether good or bad.

Every sin of every person in creation will be exposed to every other person in creation.

Why do we suddenly get our memories back? Do we stop loving sin all of a sudden? Does sin stop being so enslaving?

The memories come back when we see the proof of the truth of our evil but our love of sin caused the repression so the end of the repression has nothing to do with our continued love for sin when we are there before the GLORY of GOD.

[ttruscott]

As for

No one would go against HIM EVEN IF THEY WANTED TO because the perishing would have been proven.

PROOF BEFORE A DECISION DESTROYS FREE WILL

I address this in post 59

I went back. I don't think so.

If proof robs us of free will then free will can only truly be expressed in random guess work. If a claim is 100% free of any proof whatsoever, we can only guess if something is true or not. There is no logical alternative.

In between proof and randomness lies our desires and all the information about the choice and the influences of others...influences being things that urge us in a direction but without coercing that direction.

Our guesses may be motivated by appealing claims such as "believe me and you will have eternal life", but isn't this also robbing us of free will? Wouldn't our choices be "coerced" by our desire to have eternal life?

Our choices were influenced by the promises made but they were NOT coerced by the promises (or a no one would have rejected them). A choice without coercion is free. The promise of eternal life without hell is not a coercion without the proof and without the proof it only has the status of an influence.