The capability to sin

[Willum]

[Goat]

[TRANSPONDER]

I suppose we are talking Theologically rather than philosophically as (philosophically) Freewill is a decision -making ability (though arguably determinist in that there are reasons - probably unrealised - that direct our decisions). But theologically we are talking about why God gave us Free will. The apologetic is that God wants humans in heaven that love Him voluntarily, not because we were created 'robots' with no ability but to worship God by rote. Which would be about as meaningful as prayer - wheels.

The fate of those who do not love God for one reason or another is either punishment, which is either seen as an encouragement to Love God, but that has the effect of making the love coerced rather than truly Free and Christians strenuously deny that there is anything in their reverence but gratitude and no fear or hoped of reward, or the concept of Hell is rejected in favour of 'separation', which is either Oblivion, which will suit me well as it this is getting what Buddhists call 'Nirvana' for free, or it is an afterlife free of God; which is heaven so far as I'm concerned, unless it is not pleasant, in which case it's Hell, by any other name, with all the moral problems that come with the concept.

In between, is a sort of irreligious Theist theology which would (for example) reject the Eden scenario (which story apparently means that Putin could give lessons to God in effective planning and strategy) and have what is, in fact, the biological and socially evolved morality and the theology of what an intervening deity who carestuppence about us would do about it. Which discussion I throw open to anyone.

[1213]

[nobspeople]

[Willum]

[Replying to Goat in post #2]

Thank you for the useless reply.
Yes I can show freewill.

I had many options to reply to your comment, most were more disparaging than this one, and reflect freewill. I can certainly post others, iaw freewill - or not.
One was to ignore it, as perhaps I should.

As I write I am also free to list the options and roll a die to determine which I use.

Now, if we could just rid ourselves of such erroneous comments, we might be able to make progress on the topic itself.

[Willum]

[Willum]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #3]

Not even close.
There is a topic, perhaps you'd like to review it, then answer again?

[Willum]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #5]

One could say that freely worshipping god would be (more) pleasurable to god than if one was 'programmed' to do so. I'd ask why a perfect being needs or even wants to be worshipped; shouldn't it be content with itself enough? I think so.

But since we're speaking about God, doesn't that just increase the scope of the "programming?"
From one of default pleasure, to abbreviate what you said, to one where freewill/sin are included?

Thank you for the excellent insight.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #5]

One could say that freely worshipping god would be (more) pleasurable to god than if one was 'programmed' to do so. I'd ask why a perfect being needs or even wants to be worshipped; shouldn't it be content with itself enough? I think so.

But since we're speaking about God, doesn't that just increase the scope of the "programming?"
From one of default pleasure, to abbreviate what you said, to one where freewill/sin are included?

Thank you for the excellent insight.

The bolded section above, why would you say that? Not saying you're wrong, simply trying to understand the 'why' here.