I think that’s what I meant. The way I heard it described was that we experience the afterlife as similar to one of the magical moments in this life where we completely lose ourselves in it and time seems to stop. One author in particular described it as “one eternal now” which I (perhaps erroneously) interpreted to mean there is no later.
Here I’m going to disagree with the implication that free will doesn’t exist. Knowing what someone is going to do isn’t the same as making them do it; I know what’s going to happen in Casablanca, but I don’t make anybody get on that plane.
Free will and omnipotence are two different things. Just because characters in a book or movie don’t do what you want them to do doesn’t mean they have free will-They are still puppets to the person who writes and/or directs their lives.
So frozen in amber, but it’s pleasant? We no longer think of anything or have thoughts (because thinking takes time), but we’re simply locked into the static sensations of experiencing happiness?
Well, there are certainly worse ways to be preserved forever.
I’d still be entirely fine with annihilation though - it seems no worse than ‘unthinking happiness forever’.
Welllllll, this is highly debatable - and it’s a debate I’d be entirely willing to have! I think that compatiblist free will is interesting, and even more entertaining is the futile effort to explain it to other people who don’t believe in it! (Note: I don’t think one can defend the idea that Ilsa and Laszlo had free will that allowed them to freely choose to get on that plane. But I’d be quite amused to see you try!)
So, fun discussion. But it would probably be a rather big digression from the current digression we’re having.
The problem of you knowing what they are going to do might or might not involve free will, but if they know what they are going to do then they clearly don’t have any. It would be like being in a play where you have to speak the author’s lines, and never ever get off stage.
Are we actually going to have this discussion now?
There is a workable model for compatiblist free will that allows an agent to be perfectly predictable while still having free will. (Spoiler - it accomplishes this by defining “free will” in a way that others might find unintiuitive - people generally prefer not to define the term at all. And no, movie characters still wouldn’t be considered to have free will.)
As noted, I will happily talk about this subject all day, however it remains a fact that this subject is only tangentially related to the subject of god’s universalism. Whether humans have free will or not only really intrudes into that discussion by modifying how weird it is for God to be punishing people for things they couldn’t help doing. An absence of free will can be used as an argument in favor of universalism being more moral (presuming you require God to be moral) because a universalist god wouldn’t be punishing people for things they can’t help - but it could alternatively be used to support an argument that a non-universalist God is morally correct to be filtering out inherently flawed merchandise.
I didn’t express an opinion on others predicting behavior, just a person predicting his or her own behavior. I’ve been through this movie before.
But we don’t have to get into free will. Some people are born sociopaths, and some have almost unquenchable urges, and the question of whether these people are truly sinning is interesting. The secular legal system has a mental illness defense. In the old days you could blame demons - who do they blame now?
Which seems yet another argument for Universalism without getting into the free will quagmire.
Doesn’t a bit in Scripture make clear that, if word from on high decrees the fate of some guy named Isaac, it’s a good man’s duty to — well, to go through the motions down here, sure; but, in the end, that’s not really The Will Of God, because, hey, would that make sense? No, I know what was said; but who cares what was said? Didn’t it all just turn out to be an act, a show, a put-on, a performance?
Wiki: “Believers in universal reconciliation may support the view that while there may be a real “Hell” of some kind, it is neither a place of endless suffering nor a place where the spirits of human beings are ultimately ‘annihilated’ after enduring the just amount of divine retribution.”
I assume advocates make hell into a sort of purgatory. I’m not claiming that universal reconciliation is the only valid interpretation of course, nor that it is even a majority view. I will opine that theologically I find watered down theories of the afterlife (e.g. “Hopeful”) more attractive as they are more agnostic and less arrogant.
ISTM nobody has given the very obvious answer to the OP.
Yes. Universalism was formally condemned as heresy at the Second Council of Chalcedon in 532. And de facto, that is why most Chrstians reject it.
Obviously, you’re free to disagree, but your entire argument is premised on the (modern, Western) idea that if you have the better argument on how to interpret various Bible verses, then you’re right. But the majority of Chrstians belong to churches that do not believe in Sola Scriptura..* It’s like claiming the Supreme Court was wrong – you’re entitled to your opinion, but the actual authoritative interpreters have spoken, and the issue is settled. You’re right that it’s a very old idea; but it’s also an idea that the Church has consistently rejected, and most Christians aren’t inclined to argue with 1500 years of settled theology.
(*And even among Protestants, many of the major denominations have definitive, binding doctrinal statements against it,.)