Is anti free will mostly because of anti hell?

[Wootah]

Thought bubble.

Christianity essentially gives each of us agency, individuality, personality. We are responsible for our sins and are individual actors to such a degree that hell is justified.

Isn't all attempts to deny our individuality just an attack on the justice of hell?

[William]

[Replying to post 26 by ttruscott]

Well even that we may well be eternal spirits, in regard to your argument, we would have chosen of our own free will to create this universe and incarnate into it's forms, all of our own free will.

Even without the convoluted syntax this bit is meaningless from my pov of our reality...I don't get it.

I don't see why you don't get it, other than your beliefs have it that our free will was taken from us before we were incarcerated in this universe, yet here we are, still with free will, so it wasn't taken from us at all.

Therefore, there is no reason why it cannot be the case that we created this universe ourselves as spirits with our own free will, and incarnated into it.

Not according to Christian theology which supports the view that we are being brought (back) to a higher morality, not a hardier machinery.

You proclaim yourself not to hold the same 'Christian theology' as most other Christians, so now you want to argue that 'according to Christian theology' we are incarcerated in this universe against our free will due to an addition to evil?

Wouldn't it be more appropriate if such a power to do this to us against our free will, would have placed us in an environment where we were unable to feed our addiction? Isn't that how addiction is best cured?

Once our addiction to evil is cured, our new bodies will also express that perfection. It is sin that makes us as limited as we are here on earth.

Sorry but the evidence is that this universe is harsh on biological life forms. I am focusing this aspect of the the argument on this universe rather than some other one where the environment is convivial to the forms occupied.

[attempts to draw me into the personal rejected]

Yeah I do notice that about some Abranites. They are fine preaching their dogma in a debate setting as long as you don't call them out on their personal beliefs...then they cry 'foul!' and use that to reject having to actually debate!

So what would one have me do? Ignore the [strike]preaching[/strike] informing?

If one simply wants to 'inform' rather than debate to try and convince (which is what debating is right?) then why not just create a blog and ask one's GOD to attract the 'worthy' to it?

That way one's message will go directly to where it is needed and it won't be wasted on those who chose to question it's validity in a formal debate setting.

Because that is what I am actually doing. One is best not to practice conflating ones beliefs with ones person, and then when ones beliefs are questioned and shown to be false, one equates this to one's person somehow being attacked!

How is anyone supposed to have risk free debate when they are judged as 'getting personal' and sometimes punished when they are simply showing the belief/claims to be that which are questionable?

By replacing the word 'you' with the word 'one'?

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 43 by JehovahsWitness]

Interesting. So this would suggest that your god could create humans entirely capable of, but not desiring to commit sin. Free will with no downsides, like what your god has.

Your scenario that our creation capable of choosing evil but not wanting too (by our creation) is NOT free will because it forces us to not choose what we are supposedly capable of, which is no freedom of will at all but a sophistry.

The downside is this situation depends upon the loss of our free will, ie, unable to choose against GOD. GOD chooses to never sin as HE is committed to love. With no free will we cannot choose to love nor to be morally good - we can only just be.

But he chose to make beings that would choose sin. He made imperfect beings, because they could not emulate a perfect being (him, according to your doctrine).

You miss the mark with the word would. HE created people perfectly able to fulfill HIS purpose for their creation, to live with HIM in loving holy harmony in heaven, but who COULD chose to reject HIM if they so desired. HE created the possibility of their sin, not the actuality nor necessity.

The perfection we had before we chose our own moral relationship with HIM was the perfect ability and opportunity to choose by our free will to become either perfectly eternally righteous in HIS sight as HIS eternal family or to choose to become perfectly eternally evil in HIS sight as HIS eternal enemy.

HE made us perfectly able to choose our own fate which we chose...

[ttruscott]

So why did your god not imbue the nature of "free to commit sin, but choosing not to" in the first pair of humans?

GOD's ability to be able to sin but who does not is because of HIS commitment to love which arose from HIS free will. To create someone without the free will to act in disharmony against HIM does not allow them a free will so they can never love. Only by allowing them the ability to sin can their free will desire to become a lover and enter the heavenly marriage be fulfilled.

'Choosing not to sin' cannot be forced by the act of creation or the person has no free will but rather is forced to conform to GOD which makes them neither holy nor righteous and certainly not able to freely love.

[William]

[Replying to post 53 by ttruscott]

GOD's ability to be able to sin but who does not is because of HIS commitment to love which arose from HIS free will.

Before 'others' who was GOD committed to loving?

To create someone without the free will to act in disharmony against HIM does not allow them a free will so they can never love. Only by allowing them the ability to sin can their free will desire to become a lover and enter the heavenly marriage be fulfilled.

Sounds romantic, and like all things romantic, probably not true.

GOD had no GOD to act in disharmony against, so how can one claim GOD has free will so that then GOD can love? GOD has the ability to sin, but there is no GOD that GOD can sin against, so how is that an ability to sin?

By one's own reasoning, GOD is required in order for sin to be able to manifest as an example of GOD giving 'others' free will to either accept or reject [him]. Without the free will, the sin cannot be manifested, because ultimately the free will has to be used to accept the GOD as GOD-creator and sin is regarded as rejecting that GOD as GOD-creator.

GOD is required. In this case, a GOD claiming to be GOD-creator.

No Entity created GOD and gave GOD free will to sin against the creator entity of GOD, so where is this 'free will' able to be manifested by this GOD? How is this GOD able to sin?

'Choosing not to sin' cannot be forced by the act of creation or the person has no free will but rather is forced to conform to GOD which makes them neither holy nor righteous and certainly not able to freely love.

How then does this GOD have free will, holiness and righteousness, and able to freely love, IF [he] was not created?

All one has in this argument is;

"That which has been created has free will as a result of being created with free will, and that without the free will the created cannot make a choice to choose or reject the claims of the one claiming to be their creator, and to reject the claims is 'sin'."

How then can one also claim that this GOD has the ability to sin if the ability to sin is defined as the free will to reject the claims of the GOD-Creator?