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)

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 59 by ttruscott]

I suggest that anything with dna cannot have a free will because they did not choose their dna yet it defines their whole life. Dna things can choose but they are not free willed.

To show what you mean, you'll have on hand to demonstrate a thing without DNA that does have free will I hope?

waits patiently

[Bust Nak]

One thing we can not ask God to change is to do away with humans so you are stuck - with being human. It appears he likes us.

But do we have to be in this physical form?

You said: 'change everything else that are opportunities to sin'.
Care to give some examples?

Make us reproduce asexually, boom! No more lusting after your neighbour's wife.

[Bust Nak]

Then so be it because doing that would mean literally everybody being in heaven and not one person in hell, there wouldn't even be a hell. Tell me that is not preferable to what your alternative is.

No sir, there would be no heaven and no possibility of a Biblical heaven which is a full loving and holy commitment to full communion and marriage which cannot happen if no one is free to love but only 'love' because they are programmed to 'love'.

Then so be it! I asked you tell me if that is not preferable to "a Bibical heaven which is a full loving and holy commitment to full communion and marriage" and you have not answered. All you've told me is that without freewill there would be no heaven, I've already granted you that. Once again, which is better, a situration where a) some goes to heaven while others go to hell, or b) no heaven and no hell?

To hammer the point home - telling me not having free will means no heaven, does not answer my question.

You may indeed be happy with mechanical love but I still contend that GOD is not.

Our happiness trumps God's happiness, you've already affirmed that God supposedly did all this not for his own benefit but for ours. And I am telling you over and over again, that what is BEST for our benefit, given the constrains you insist on, is for us to never exist at all.

Restating your constrains does nothing to answer my objection, I've already granted you that freewill is necessary for true love.

No free will denies us the ability for true love, replacing it with mechanical, other induced (not chosen) 'loving' acts, words and feelings.
It denies us true worship.
It denies our moral goodness and righteousness.

Then so be it. Not having the ability for true love is better than an eternity in hell. Give me a straight up confirmation or denial. I don't need you to explain how free will is necessarily for love for the upteen time. You have time and again stated your thesis in lieu of answering my challenges.

Not being able to choose something is a real constraint; being warned of the consequences is an attempt to influence our decision but which we can ignore or accept so it is NOT a constraint nor a 'force'.

Then influence our decision more so that no one would choose sin! You are trying to have your cake and eat it. Either influence is okay or it isn't. If it isn't okay, then we shouldn't be warned; or if it is okay then God should have done something more.

Your definitions of constraint and force suit your position but they are not proper to describe HIS warnings of consequences.

My definition of constraint and force is flexible, I can change them to suit you, the point is yours is logically inconsistent.

[ttruscott]

Not being able to choose something is a real constraint; being warned of the consequences is an attempt to influence our decision but which we can ignore or accept so it is NOT a constraint nor a 'force'.

Then influence our decision more so that no one would choose sin! You are trying to have your cake and eat it. Either influence is okay or it isn't. If it isn't okay, then we shouldn't be warned; or if it is okay then God should have done something more.

You do not seek an influence, you want a force we can't resist. It is disingenuous to pretend you don't know the difference. We all got the best/most influence we could get without our freedom to choose being compromised by being forced to chose one way or the other.

I think that a free will decision self creating our fates is the superior way to fill heaven even though it allows evil and hell to be a possible necessity.

[Bust Nak]

You do not seek an influence, you want a force we can't resist.

Incorrect. I seek an influence that we CAN resist, but through our free will choice, WOULD not reject.

It is disingenuous to pretend you don't know the difference.

So says the guy who continually misrepresent my case.

We all got the best/most influence we could get without our freedom to choose being compromised by being forced to chose one way or the other.

No, we didn't. Since a bunch of us rebelled. The best influence we could get would not have resulted in any rejection.

I think that a free will decision self creating our fates is the superior way to fill heaven even though it allows evil and hell to be a possible necessity.

That still does not answer my question. You've avoided this long enough.

Which is better, a situation where a) some goes to heaven while others go to hell, or b) no heaven and no hell?

[OnceConvinced]

So no, nobody is forced to accept marriage to God unless of course turning down that proposal is considered evil. Do you see turning down God's offer of marriage as evil?

Yes since no one who accepted HIS deity would turn HIM down, the rejection supposes that they first had to reject HIS deity by committing themselves to the idea that HE was lying about being our GOD and therefore, as a false god (blasphemy against the Holy Spirit) which is not a good start and second, they do so knowing HE that if HE ever does prove HIS divinity, they will be doomed but proceed to reject HIM anyway, choosing to end in hell rather than in any relationship with HIM in heaven. Sounds pretty sinful to me...

I don't see the logic behind what you're saying there, but never mind. My next question would be why does God require you marry him?

I don't agree that just because we have our desire to do evil removed... or there are barriers in place to prevent us do to evil, that would make us robots. There is more to life than just good and evil.

But our moral stance permeates every thought we have...

Which would be great if are all good and not evil. It's going to be the way it is in Heaven, right?

either we are in accord with GOD or we are not. Nothing is neutral. It was Jesus who apparently claimed that a sinner is enslaved by sin which I assume means the sinner is addicted to sin which clouds his mind and corrupts his judgements to some extent in every thought.

And there would be no sin to be addicted to if we didn't have freewill. If we could only desire to do good, there would be no danger of a sin addiction.

Heaven is only accessible thru free will

Where in the bible does it say this? My bible tells me that the way to heaven is by believing in Jesus (John 3:16) and repenting of sin. (Acts 3:19)

So if someone hypnotises you to believe in Christ you will be saved? I think not... Faith must be a sincere expression of hope and belief, not a mere running with the crowd and jumping on the bandwagon.

No one is talking about hypnotism here. If God were to take away our desires to do evil and give you only a desire to do good, then it's going to be sincere. You would never have the desire to reject God.

Any form of freewill violation surely has to be better than suffering for all eternity in Hell.

A mechanical act is one that the doer must do because it is designed to do it

Yep and if you design it with a freewill, you can't complain if it does evil.

and a mechanical act has no moral value. If that doer is a person who must only do good and cannot ever do evil, then it is mechanical and not morally good at all.

Sounds like something all humans should aspire to though, shouldn't it?

At least it won't be evil.

No free will denies us the ability for true love, replacing it with mechanical, other induced (not chosen) 'loving' acts, words and feelings.
It denies us true worship.
It denies our moral goodness and righteousness.

At least we won't have to burn in Hell for all eternity. I know I'd rather forgo all those things you mentioned than suffer in Hell for all eternity. Wouldn't you?

[OnceConvinced]

Freewill, Reason, Consciousness (the ability to think 'I', 'me', 'you' etc.) are all part and parcel of what distinguishes us from the lower forms of life and inanimate matter.

So what?

With this status comes bad things; but with it comes good things (conscious happiness and joy).

The question has ignored the stuart maxim: it is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied.

Now, if so, it is infinitely better to be a human satisfied than a pig satisfied. Thus freewill is an available grace

Surely it's better to be a dissatisfied human for 80-90 years than to suffer for all eternity in Hell?

The complaint of this thread is that God should have made a world of satisfied pigs, instead of making a world in which both satisfied humans and dissatisfied humans are possible.

nope, no complaint was made at all. Simply a question. Wouldn't it be better to have no freewill for 80-90 years than suffer for all eternity in Hell?

Would you like to answer that question?

I think the complaint is nonsensical.

Well yes it is, but then you were the one who came up with it, not me. This is just another of your strawmen.

I doubt anyone here really wishes they were a happy pig or a rock.

Of course no one wants to be one, but when the threat of Hell is over your head, then it's a different story.

Would you rather be a happy pig or a rock for 80-90 years or have that freewill and suffer for all eternity in Hell?

Only 80-90 years Liam. Not much of an imposition for an eternity of being a happy pig in Heaven, surely?

[ttruscott]

You do not seek an influence, you want a force we can't resist.

Incorrect. I seek an influence that we CAN resist, but through our free will choice, WOULD not reject.

Seek no further, you are now living the consequences of that seeking becasue that is exactly what happened. But because it was by a true unfiddled with free will, some would not reject the good, and some did reject the good.

I know you want to define the words so that sin and hell is not an option but that makes a free choice an illogical contradiction.

[Bust Nak]

Incorrect. I seek an influence that we CAN resist, but through our free will choice, WOULD not reject.

Seek no further, you are now living the consequences of that seeking becasue that is exactly what happened.

Well, that can't be what has happened because I said would NOT reject.

But because it was by a true unfiddled with free will, some would not reject the good, and some did reject the good.

That does not follow. A true unfiddled with free will does not imply some would go one way while others go another.

I know you want to define the words so that sin and hell is not an option but that makes a free choice an illogical contradiction.

No, that's you who is trying to do that. I've made it very explicit that Hell is an option, an option that isn't chosen. I've even gave you specific suggestion as to how it can be achieved. It is time you stop misrepresent my stance.

I would point out once again that you have failed to answer my challenges and kept up your strawman arguments. And to think you have the nerve to call my sincerity into question.[/u]

[Monta]

[Replying to post 66 by OnceConvinced]


"nope, no complaint was made at all. Simply a question. Wouldn't it be better to have no freewill for 80-90 years than suffer for all eternity in Hell?"

Would it be better without free will?
Certainly not:

REASON is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, applying logic, establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information.

I have no plans for hell. I am not going to commit murder, steal, sexualy abuse girls and boys. I forgive others and myself and I believe God forgives me.

I wonder whether people want it both ways - do anything they want even though it may be hurtful to others, at the same time look for some insurance just in case God exists and they don't want eternity in hell?