Jesus VS. The Invisible Pink Unicorn

Great Debates
101

So then, in Heaven people still have free will? So that means they can sin in heaven, right? I mean, that’s what one of the consequences of free will is supposed to BE in the Christian religion(s) – free will = ability to sin. It even means they have the option of not believing in Jesus while they’re in Heaven. Which SHOULD, from what I hear, immediately damn them to Hell.

And yet, we are promised that if you go to Heaven, you STAY in Heaven for all eternity.

I contend that it is impossible BOTH to fulfill a promise of eternal Heavenly residence AND to have free will while in Heaven.

102

oldscratch
“Michael Jackson blow hot young chicks out of the water!”

Um, “chicks”?

103

Maybe you can’t understand why anyone would choose goodness.

104

**
[/QUOTE]

Actually, that particular scene never happened. This has been bandied about on Urban Legends discussion groups for years. Someone made up this story about the tar-tar sauce, and it has spread so widely that now people who have heard of the story even subconsciously believe they have witnessed this (non-existent) portion of The Simpsons.

For more information, look up “Simpsons” at http://www.soapes.com
**
[/QUOTE]

No, that can’t be right. I distinctly remember the tar-tar scene. The reason I can remember that episode so easily is because it’s also the one where Ned and Maude Flanders are contestants on The Married Couple’s Game. Maude (may she rest in peace) gave that now classic response, “That’d be up the butt, Bob”. Though, next you’ll be telling me that is an urban legend too.

Dude, you seriously need to brush up on your Simpsons.

105

Okay, then, lemme rephrase that:

I contend that it is impossible both for God to fulfill ALL promises of ETERNAL Heavenly residence for all Christians, and for all people in Heaven to have free will, UNLESS people in Heaven can sin (even sin to the point of rejecting Jesus as their Lord).

Because if everybody who qualifies to get into heaven (by being Christian at the moment they died) has free will, it is inevitable that some of them will choose to sin. At least a few of those heavenly sinners would, inevitably, fot at least an instant or two, choose even to reject Jesus as their Lord. If it was impossible for anyone in Heaven to commit such a sin, they wouldn’t have free will, would they? So, then, what happens to a person in Heaven who rejects Jesus? If God kicks that person out of Heaven, then he has violated his promise of an ETERNITY in Heaven for those who accepted Jesus while they were still alive.

The only way to keep Heaven a sin-free place, if God wants to allow free will to exist in Heaven, would be for God to look into all the possible futures (which he of course knows, being omniscient and stuff), and determine ahead of time which people would choose to sin in Heaven, and which people would not – and then God could simply refuse to admit any of the people in the first category into Heaven at all. But THIS would violate His promise of an eternity in Heaven for ALL people who accepted Jesus while they were alive.

So, nope, you can’t have a Heaven whose residents never sin, and a Heaven whose residents have free will. The two notions are simply incompatible.

106

And some people were whining that this wasn’t a serious thread. Well, you guys showed them – daring to bring up Christian heaven in a thread about the IPU! Her holy hooves will trod upon ye for that one.

107

Okay, let me rephrase mine, too.

Maybe you can’t understand why anyone would choose goodness always. Just like God does Hizzownself.

108

You’re missing his point, Lib. He isn’t saying it’s impossible for anyone, but for everyone who is in Heaven. Heck, you even quoted that part of his message, where he says it’s inevitable that some of them would choose to sin if they have free will. Especially since you’re talking about an eternity.

109

You aren’t listening.

They choose goodness always. That’s why they’re “in” Heaven. That’s what Heaven is, freely chosen goodness, just as Hell is freely chosen evil. They do not “change their minds”. Goodness doesn’t come from the mind. It comes from the heart.

110

Yeppers. Eternity is an awfully long time. Unless the definition of “eternity” has changed since I was a tyke, it means time stretching out forever into the future without end.

So there’s a large-but-finite number of people in Heaven for an infinite length of time. All with free will. Nearly all of whom, when they were alive, committed sins of one sort or another (which only their belief in Jesus allowed God to pardon). Many of whom, furthermore, were not Christians all of their lives. Some of whom may even have been Christian at some point in their lives, then foresaken Christianity, then come back to Christianity before they died. If they had the capacity to temporarily foresake Christianity while alive, they would still have the capacity to foresake it while in Heaven, unless being in Heaven altered their personalities somehow.

Now, of course, you might be tempted to argue that it’s possible to alter ones personality such that that person will never ever have the desire to sin, without actually taking away that person’s free will. But if that is the case, then you’ve gotta wonder: if God originally wanted to create Man with free will but does not like for Man to sin, why didn’t God just create Man with this specially-altered personality to begin with? If it’s possible to never want to sin and still have free will, why didn’t God make us like that to begin with instead of waiting for us to get to Heaven before making us that way?

111

That’s what’s happening here, Tracer. That’s what the atoms are for. They provide a means for you to express your heart. Do you help or harm what is around you? Do you love or hate what is around you? In this amoral matrix, you make moral decisions, both good and bad.

But when you are manifested as Spirit only (which is your essence) you are left with what your heart has decided. You will no longer have the atoms to give context to your morality because now the dream is over, and reality has set in. Either your essence loves God or not.

There are no more situational shorts for such decision making.

112

Whew Maybe I shoulda posted all this in that Christianity and Love thread instead. I’m gettin’ all serious and stuff.

Um … Pink Unicorns! Hoofprints! Invisible Pink hoofprints! And great big mounds of slippery fish!

113

I AM sorry, apparently I misspoke, and you took it as an insult, what I meant was, those that mock are GOING to Hell, per Cor.6 How could I possibly desire to insult those carrying on such an adult theological discourse?

114

Let me jump in here for a moment.

I think it’s entirely possible to lead a sin-free existence in Heaven without any free will contradiction.

Sinning in Heaven might be like driving on the Autobahn. There IS no speed limit, therefore it’s impossible to speed. Sin may be an impossibility once you shuffle off this mortal coil. The term “Sin” might be meaningless once you become an Angel. If you have no body and no posessions, it might be pretty hard to sin.

Then again, Heaven might be like the Borg collective. When you die and go to Heaven, maybe that just means you join the mind of God, and become part of it. Perhaps you no longer have the same identity you did on earth, but are just a part of the collective God-mind. Once you are part of God, again the term “sin” would be meaningless.

WHo knows what the rules are. Maybe if you don’t play your harp at least 12 hours a day, that is considered a sin in Heaven. Perhaps you are penalized by having to clean up after the Seraphim, or are forced to work at the Pearly gate for a few centuries until you learn the error of your ways.

One thing is for certain though. Trying to guess the rules aboiut a place that no living person has ever seen is sillier even than my OP.

ONE IMPORTANT NOTE:

When I wrote the OP, I assumed that no devout Christians would post here, except perhaps to complain. I’ve been very pleasantly surprised to see Lib join in the fun, and doubly pleased to see him react so well to the ribbing that I and others have given him (which has been pretty tough.)

I think that displays real class.

I especially liked the Jesus-disapears-from-the-middle-of the-ring piece he wrote. It managed to stay in the light-hearted spirit of the thread and still convey Lib’s deeper message (The part about converting Vince McMahon seemed unrealistic though. Don’t you know that he’s evil incarnate and has already sold his soul to the devil?)

So often when the discussion turns to religion, the true faith holders seem compelled to wack you on the head as hard as possible with the sledgehammer of the one true Church.

I very much appreciated the skill, subtlety, and humor of that post. It’s a tough combo when you are trying to get a message across.

Lastly, I’m sure that if there is a God, he must have a great sense of humor, and from reading the Gospels, it seemed to me that Jesus wasn’t the goddy two shoed wimp most people make him out to be.

The Gospels portray a pretty hearty and earthy guy. THe kind you’d feel pretty comfortable drinking a beer or sharing a dirty joke with.

THe impression that I get is that if Jesus were alive today, he’d ride a Harley Davidson, and his ministries would be on the bad side of town, perhaps in a pool hall, a bar or the inner city.

No, and Lib is not standing next to me with a gun forcing me to right this.

Good job Lib! Your actions and example serve as a much better sermon for your beliefs than any amount of indignant, and self-righteous preaching ever could (not that you would ever do this, I’m referring of course to others.)

115

[Moderator Hat: ON]

Danielinthewolvesden:

Sarcasm and a fake apology as a response to a moderator warning will not win you points. You want to throw stuff like your “Go to Hell” comment around, take it to the Pit. If you don’t like a thread, go complain about it and/or the participants in the Pit. But keep statements like that out of Great Debates.

I trust I’ve made myself clear.

David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator

[Moderator Hat: OFF]

116

Lib said:

Lib, I know you’re fond of that metaphor, but I’m sorry, the only thing that comes from the heart is blood. Goodness and evil both come from the mind (or, in some cases, from the genes). But are you honestly saying that the only people in Heaven are those who choose goodness always? They never tell a lie? They never fudge their income taxes? They never pull the moral equivalent of doing 60 in a 55 zone? Or are you equating “goodness” to a more overall characteristic?

117

Hiyo Silver! Just send me an MPEG of the IDU and JC,and I’ll tell you what’s real.

118

Scylla

Thanks for your warmth and kindness. I owe my thick skin to David, who once counseled me to develop it.

Arguments between theists and atheists, given equal intellegence and resources of the parties, always end in a stalemate due to that ol’ achilles’ heel of reason, begging the question. Nothing can be proved to exist or not. As I see it, it is God’s incredibly simple means of guarding our free-will from His own.

I think you’re right on about Jesus. He would indeed be in the bars and brothels, just as he was before, because that’s where His brothers and sisters are. But He would also be in the churches talking to the religion politicians, to say things like this to them:

David

'Tain’t so.

It should be clear from the context that I’m using heart in the sense of “one’s innermost character, feelings, or inclinations <knew it in his heart> <a man after my own heart>” or “the essential or most vital part of something” (Merriam-Webster), and not in the sense of “a hollow muscular organ of vertebrate animals that by its rhythmic contraction acts as a force pump maintaining the circulation of the blood” (Ibid), nor even in another sense that you failed to mention, “a playing card marked with a stylized figure of a red heart” (Ibid).

You likely use the term yourself from time to time, as in “let’s just get to the heart of the matter”.

I disagree. The mind (and the genes) are amoral. They can be used either for good or evil. If you’re right, we should be able to stamp out evil by selective breeding or cloning. Unfortunately, there is the ubiquitous example of “the preacher’s son”, like the one I knew in high school, who, given your theory, must have had one wicked mama.

Yes.

That which is evil in one context might be good in another. If a person lies to guard himself from a psycho, he is not doing evil. As for 60 in a 55, some laws are based on expedience, not ethics.

Yes, I guess you could say that. The overall characteristic is a loving heart. Such a heart does only good.

119

Lib said:

Precisely (well, mostly – I’ll get to that in a second). And that choice comes from the mind. That is, when there is a choice. What about the person who is good but then takes a blow to the head, changing his personality? Has he made a choice to become evil (or at least less good)? Has his “heart” changed? Has his “soul” changed?

While most genes don’t have anything to do with morality, there are likely some that cause the person to be very likely to be somewhat less than good. So whether they are “amoral,” I’m not sure.

I never said anything of the sort.

What? :confused: What theory? What are you talking about?

Read what I said, Lib, not what your libertarian knee-jerk reaction thinks I said. I very carefully worded that to say the “moral equivalent” because I knew you would say something like this about speed limits (as would I). I was talking about morals, not specific law breaking.

OK. Now, we all know that you have said Gaudere has a loving heart. So are you saying that she only does good? She never does anything “bad”? (I’m not saying that she does or doesn’t; I just want to know your opinion.)

120

Lib, one more thing.

It occurs to me that your definition of “bad” or “sin” is very different from the Bible thumpers around here. To make sure we’re understanding each other, can you please try to define what you mean when you say those words?

Thanks.

Long Live the IPU! (Gotta keep this vaguely topical.)