But this standard answer has a flaw. Because if free will without sin is a logical contradiction, then people in heaven will either be able to sin there or won’t have free will. And neither option will be very satisfying for a believer.
Is this some sort of Dopeproject? Is there some thread about it?
The meme that I always hear is that in heaven everything is so peachy that there will be no temptation to sin.
But there are lots of things that are considered sins just because of church rulings. Premarital sex for one. Sex and/or love can be fun and fullfilling without marriage. But in a place without sin, you couldn’t do it, and so couldn’t have free will. The same applies to things like gluttony or sloth. I mean cmon, sloth is really fun. But no, in heaven, there are no lazy people apparently.
No, once people have qualified for heaven by demonstrating their willingness to choose not to sin despite having the free will to do so, they get the assurance of never wanting to sin again. They’re not expected to spend all eternity defying temptation. I’d find that perfectly satisfying. 
So god forces them to stop wanting things that are a sin? Doesn’t sound free or assuring to me.
How did you get from what Malacandra posted to this?
I dunno about hotflungwok, but I got it from “they get the assurance of never wanting to sin again”. How could God possibly make this occur without modifying their personalities to no longer have any interest in any of the many sins? And if it’s not forced upon them, then does that mean you have the option of going to heaven and keeping your vice-shaded personality intact? (If so, then additional restraints would have to be put on you if the goal is preventing you from acting on your viceful desires, in which case what use is free will?)
I guess I just don’t get the leap from “assurance” to “forcing”.
Either the only people allowed in heaven are those who have absolutely no desire to commit any sin whatsoever, or, in order to keep heaven sin free, god has to either a) change people who want to sin into people who don’t want to sin or b) make it so they can’t sin. If god does a, he’s forcing you to do/be something you’re not, negating free will. If god does b, then he’s preventing you from doing something you want to do, again negating free will. If god only allows people into heaven who have no desire to commit even the most minor of sins, then he’s lonely.
This paradox is really not a paradox at all, an the answer is quite simple.
1.) God is all-powerful. Or stated more precisely, for any mass N, God can lift a rock of mass N.
2.) God can create anything. Or stated more precisely, for any mass M, God can create a rock of mass M.
3.) However, for any specific God-created rock R, there is a specific mass, which we shall call M®.
4.) Therefore, for any specific rock God-created rock R, God can lift a rock of mass M®. [See point (1).]
5.) Therefore God cannot create a rock so big he cannot lift it.
There is no contradiction.
You misspelled 2. The argument is actually as follows:
1.) God is all-powerful. Or stated more precisely, for any mass N, God can lift a rock of mass N.
- God can create anything. Or stated more specifically, God can create a rock so massive that that God cannot lift it, which shall be designated as having mass M.
3.) However, for any specific God-created rock R, there is a specific mass, which we shall call M®. By 2, God cannot lift M®.
4.) However, from point 1, God can lift M®.
5.) Points 3 and 4 contradict.
(None of the symbology here is great, but the point should be clear enough.)
God can lift anything. Ergo the phrase “a rock so massive that God cannot lift it” is meaningless, because liftability by God is a meaningless category. One might as well ask whether God can sing a pig so blue that he coudln’t sneeze at it.
Frankly I see a problem with a non-physical entity lifting anything, much less a rock of any sort of mass.
So prior to the rock problem it might be helpful for someone to explain how god could lift anything - especially if he’s outside of time/space.
I’m curious - why can’t god give us this assurance prior to death?
What you describe is precisely losing your free will.
Besides, if you think it’s fine and dandy, you should wonder why God chose not to give the same assurance during our earthly life.
Finally, your christian theology is faulty. A man can’t chose not to sin. Or at least I’m not aware of any christian church teaching that it’s possible not to sin (apart from some heresies that have been dealt with long ago).
The assurance that you will never ever want to sin during a infinite time implies that you lost the ability to choose to sin, hence your free will.
Remember, it was precisely the argument I was responding to : God made men with the ability to sin (despite him wanting them not to sin, and punishing them for doing so, etc, etc…) because otherwise they wouldn’t have free will.
So, either God can create humans who have a free will and nevertheless won’t sin (and then, the question is : why did he choose to make us sinful?) or he can’t, and then in heaven either we will still be sinful or we will lose our free will.
You can’t have it both way.
begbert2
(None of the symbology here is great, but the point should be clear enough.)
Detective Dolly: So what’s the symbology there?
Paul Smecker: Well, now that Duffy has relinquished his “King Bonehead” crown I see we have an heir to the throne! I believe the word you were looking for is “symbolism.” What is the ssss-himbolism.
- boon dock saints
Insofar as you lose the capacity to choose what you do not want to choose, yes; but I don’t see why that’s a bad thing.
Because He desires us to choose obedience to Him when we have the opportunity to choose otherwise.
But a man can choose to surrender his sinful nature to Christ and have his sins washed away. He can choose to at least attempt to keep the commandments with God’s grace upholding him, and ask for his failures to be forgiven. I don’t believe you’ll find that to be heretical.
Bingo. Now we have to define sin. If you take it to be the laundry list of inconvenient physiological tendencies they rant about in sunday school, then heaven is going to be sucky indeed. If you take sin to be the intention to defy God’s will to bring evil, or something more sophisticated along those lines, it might be a lot easier to allow imperfect people into heaven. What matter is that you do not have the intention to do evil. You can still get all hot about the neighbour’s wife, but as long as it is not something you do just to piss off God, then you are ok.
PS: I typed this more than 12 hours ago, then my ISP died. I haven’t seen what has been posted since. Sorry if it doesn’t make sense in light of recent posts.