Christians - Is there free will in heaven?

[kaylasdad99]

Then when come back please don’t bring pie.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@chowder

Considering that no-one has ever returned from “heaven” and told us what a fantastic place it is, or not, then your question can’t be answered

There’s over a billion people who would disagree with your statement.

[turbopower]

@smiling bandit

we will be fully aware of the true nature of good, God, life, the universe, and everything. We will know exactly what we are intended for, why we are meant for it, and how we will do it. By virtue of having arrived at that point, we will be the kind of people who have agreed that our rebellious spirit is innately wrong, and that we recognize and follow God’s supreme, divine, holy and perfect law.

That doesn’t work. There are people I know right here right now that are sure their rebellious spirit is innately wrong and they continue to suffer and cause others to suffer. Sinning isn’t based on a lack of knowledge.

@smiling bandit

However, evil enters the world through the sins of the devil - or one of his slaves - and of mankind.

Natural disasters, such as the 2004 tsunami in Asia that killed hundreds of thousands of people is not the fault of mankind. So it must be the fault of God, or as you say the devil or one of his slaves. If God is more powerful then the devil, then God is ultimately responsible for innocent babies being swept away in tsunamis or being left orphans. And what about the suffering of animals? Have they fallen from grace too?

[Czarcasm]

@The Flying Dutchman

There’s over a billion people who would disagree with your statement.

I’m confused here. Are you saying that either:

1. A billion people have first-hand knowledge about heaven, or
2. A billion people have reach consensus about the nature?
   If the first, who are they?
   If the second, who are they?
   If you have something else in mind, please elaborate.

[Triskadecamus]

They might lack a consensus, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have an answer.

Tris

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Czarcasm

I’m confused here. Are you saying that either:

1. A billion people have first-hand knowledge about heaven, or
2. A billion people have reach consensus about the nature?
   If the first, who are they?
   If the second, who are they?
   If you have something else in mind, please elaborate.

I was replying to say that perhaps he meant over a billion think Jesus returned - but then I remembered he didn’t return from Heaven (or at least, such is my understanding).
Anyway, my problem with the “Yes, you have free will, you just want to go along with God” solution is that it’s a perfectly reasonable and excellent one. So perfect and excellent it leads me to ask; well, why not just do that in the first place? I mean, the common solution to the problem of evil is that evil is acceptable when free will is the prime goal, but if God can have us have both free will and goodness at the same time, why don’t we just skip straight to that?

[Koxinga]

@turbopower

That doesn’t work. There are people I know right here right now that are sure their rebellious spirit is innately wrong and they continue to suffer and cause others to suffer. Sinning isn’t based on a lack of knowledge.

Well, we’re talking about people who do make it to heaven, not “the other place”.

Natural disasters, such as the 2004 tsunami in Asia that killed hundreds of thousands of people is not the fault of mankind. So it must be the fault of God, or as you say the devil or one of his slaves. If God is more powerful then the devil, then God is ultimately responsible for innocent babies being swept away in tsunamis or being left orphans. And what about the suffering of animals? Have they fallen from grace too?

I don’t know about animals, but I do have a hard time reconciling children suffering with God’s nature. That’s one I haven’t wrapped my mind around yet.

[lekatt]

@Triskadecamus

Immortality is in His nature, not ours.

Free will is what allows us to choose to love. Accepting the Love of God is what creates your ability to pass beyond the world we know, where no one can define God because He doesn’t fit into our perception. In the end, we will have existence where our perception and our being are freely added to His. Using that will without His love is what ties us to the world, which perishes. They are consequences, not punishments and rewards.

I have no doubt that this is heresy to many. That probably includes both religious and nonreligious people.

Tris

Sounds reasonable to me.

[lekatt]

@kaylasdad99

Then when come back please don’t bring pie.

Humility is a desirable trait, it frees the intellect for learning new ideas.

[Czarcasm]

@Triskadecamus

They might lack a consensus, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have an answer.

Tris

I’m sorry, but if they lack a concensus, it can only mean that they don’t have “an” answer.

[Triskadecamus]

@Czarcasm

I’m sorry, but if they lack a concensus, it can only mean that they don’t have “an” answer.

So, yours is a universe with only a single point of view. One size will, by damn, fit all.

I am not sure why that surprises me.

Tris

[Czarcasm]

@Triskadecamus

So, yours is a universe with only a single point of view. One size will, by damn, fit all.

I am not sure why that surprises me.

Tris

To every question, there is an answer.
But not every answer is correct, because if any answer to a particular question can be correct, that particular question isn’t worth asking.
For example, if someone asks about particular aspects of Heaven(like the OP of this thread) and it doesn’t matter if any particular answer is correct, then either the question is worthless…or the answer is.

[Koxinga]

@Czarcasm

To every question, there is an answer.
But not every answer is correct, because if any answer to a particular question can be correct, that particular question isn’t worth asking.

Tell that to Schroedinger’s cat. Even taking God out of the equation, I think the universe is far weirder than you give it credit for.

[Czarcasm]

@Koxinga

Tell that to Schroedinger’s cat. Even taking God out of the equation, I think the universe is far weirder than you give it credit for.

I hate it when people misuse the Schroedinger’s Cat paradox. The cat is neither dead or alive until it is observed, but that is as far as it goes, answer-wise. The cat is not a dog, and the cat, dead or alive, is still in the box. The box is still square.
There are a universe of answers that can be wrong about the Cat and the Box.
I think the universe makes a bit more sense than you make it out to be.

[Triskadecamus]

@Czarcasm

. . . if someone asks about particular aspects of Heaven(like the OP of this thread) and it doesn’t matter if any particular answer is correct, then either the question is worthless…or the answer is.

Or both. Oh, wait, that’s two answers!

Binary thinking. It’s a limit. Perhaps you are right, and I am wrong. Or, perhaps there is another answer. Perhaps Heaven is not bound by logic at all. Perhaps it is an unbounded continuum of possibility that cannot be apprehended without infinite perception and understanding.

Failing to understand the actual real true nature of heaven, when you don’t believe in heaven is reasonable. Insisting that your understanding of it is the only true answer, when you don’t believe in it is . . . narrow.

Tris

[Triskadecamus]

@lekatt

Sounds reasonable to me.

A stinging criticism!

Tris

[Koxinga]

@Czarcasm

I hate it when people misuse the Schroedinger’s Cat paradox. The cat is neither dead or alive until it is observed, but that is as far as it goes, answer-wise.

Did I misuse it? In Schroedinger’s thought experiment, my understanding is that the cat can only be said to be both dead and alive until it is observed. There’s no one single answer, yet the question is not worthless. So your previous assertion is false, is it not?

[Czarcasm]

@Triskadecamus

Or both. Oh, wait, that’s two answers!

Binary thinking. It’s a limit. Perhaps you are right, and I am wrong. Or, perhaps there is another answer. Perhaps Heaven is not bound by logic at all. Perhaps it is an unbounded continuum of possibility that cannot be apprehended without infinite perception and understanding.

Failing to understand the actual real true nature of heaven, when you don’t believe in heaven is reasonable. Insisting that your understanding of it is the only true answer, when you don’t believe in it is . . . narrow.

Tris

If the true nature of Heaven is that it is not limited by logic, then perhaps any answer given is . . . useless.

[Czarcasm]

@Koxinga

Did I misuse it? In Schroedinger’s thought experiment, my understanding is that the cat can only be said to be both dead and alive until it is observed. There’s no one single answer, yet the question is not worthless. So your previous assertion is false, is it not?

The answer to whether the cat is dead or alive is…wait for it…here it comes…you don’t know until you look, so any answer you give until you look is useless.

[chowder]

@The Flying Dutchman

There’s over a billion people who would disagree with your statement.

In which case there are are over a billion nutjobs out there