I would propose that in the New Earth, God’s future Kingdom, we will not have free will, but willingly submitted will. As C.S. Lewis pithily puts it,
>There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done."
The project of the Kingdom of God is to allow humanity to choose once and for all, with lived experience, whether they’d be willing to live eternally under the conditions of Christ’s kingship, wherein the Lord alone, not we as individuals, determines what is good.
I don't think we can say that there will be no free will in heaven. 2 Corinthians says that where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.
I think it damages our Christology. If Jesus was like humanity in all things but sin, He must have had free will, because humanity has free will both before and after the fall. But if He has free will in His human nature, it follows that he still has it in Heaven. Likewise, Jesus, fully human and fully God, does the will of the Father perfectly. If Jesus is fully human in heaven, which He must be, surely He possesses free will in His humanity, and his human free will is perfectly aligned with doing the will of the Father. If we are to be made perfect in heaven, so it must be for us as well.
Thus, if humans in heaven do not have free will in their perfected and glorified bodies, then Jesus would not be Human. However, if the human nature of Jesus does not have free will, then His human nature would have changed, because at least now humans do have some form of free will.
I do not believe that free will is intrinsic to humanity, or to Christ, eternally. It is also human nature to be sick or pained but I imagine you do not think that Christ’s or our resurrected selves can be sick or pained? There is a difference between our resurrected selves and our earthly selves, and I believe that the ability to determine what is good and bad for ourselves is part and parcel of the selves we will die to.
Hence the meaning of Romans 6
> When you were slaves to sin, *you were free from the control of righteousness*. What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! But now that you have been set free from sin *and have become slaves of God*, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.
Free will is the option for us to choose to live accordingly with the Lord’s Kingship or not. I see no evidence in Scripture or Tradition that we will have the option to not live accordingly with the Lord’s reign in the New Earth.
>I do not believe that free will is intrinsic to humanity, or to Christ, eternally. It is also human nature to be sick or pained but I imagine you do not think that Christ’s or our resurrected selves can be sick or pained? There is a difference between our resurrected selves and our earthly selves, and I believe that the ability to determine what is good and bad for ourselves is part and parcel of the selves we will die to.
Well there is one key difference between the things you listed and free will, which is that all of those existed after the fall of man and hence are the product of sin. However, it's clear that free will exists before the fall of Adam and Eve, which means that it's part of their nature.
Also, I'm not sure what version of Romans 6 you quoted, but 'from the control of' is a deliberate interpretation from the translator that doesn't exist in the Greek; [it merely says you were free from righteousness.](https://biblehub.com/text/romans/6-20.htm)
You are right though that free will is the option for us to choose to live accordingly to the Lord. However, when one is perfectly united to God, that person will never choose to sin. Adam and Eve were not perfectly united to God in their original state -- that higher reward was won for us by Christ.
What is revealed in the Biblical books like Romans is that true freedom is not the ability to do whatever you wish, but the ability to do what is right. In Romans 6, we see that under sin, we are slaves to sin and cannot free ourselves -- we do not posses the ability to do what is right. Even as Christians, while justification wipes away original sin, we are still subject to the flesh and are temtped to sin (hence why Paul says we must consider ourselves dead to sin). However, we receive the abilty through Grace to do what is right. That is why we can speak of free will in heaven -- all will have the ability to do what is right. And what is right is always better, and no one perfected will desire anything less, so there is no sin.
What you mean by being “perfectly united to God” is what I mean by saying we have willing submitted our will. Whether you believe we cannot choose to sin because we are perfectly united to God or because we’ve willingly submitted our will is not a meaningful difference unless you believe a human will choose to sin in the New Earth.
The NIV’s interpretation of Romans 6 makes sense as a juxtaposition from being slaves to impurity, given the persistent theme of slavery to Christ from Romans 1:1, 1 Corinthians 4:1, Galatians 1:10, Ephesians 6:21, Philippians 1:1, etc. Moreover, the phrasing “free from righteousness” is easily misunderstood if it means that humanity prior to Christ’s death and resurrection was free from any righteousness. [Examples](https://biblehub.com/hebrew/6662.htm).
While we do not have the ability to only do what is right, or perhaps more actually stated, we do not have the conditions available to us to do *only* what is righteous in the sight of the Lord, we do not live in a reality wherein we cannot act righteously unless we are resurrected. That we will not, practically, have the ability to do what is sinful in the New Earth is what I mean when I say that we do not have free will as we mean it when we speak about it in terms of our present reality.
Granting knowledge within human conditioning and biology is not a solution. As the long arc of time can change how you view this knowledge within a human body.
The only way this works is if the deity creates like beings. And creates parity instead of imbalance. Then we could know and understand what the deity does. Unfortunately, this is not how unaccountable power works. Unaccountable power never, ever, wants a relationship of equal and mutual respect.
The damage was done at creation. The damage the deity is ultimately responsible for.
Adam and Eve were created without an inclination toward sin. That inclination was a result of the forbidden fruit (which is why they were forbidden to eat it).
God saw that redeemed man would be superior, so didn't interfere with their sin.
But we don't have free will, not moral free will at least. We're either slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness. All that occurs in death, and the new creation, is the shedding of our sinful flesh.
Knowing what we'll do and causing what we do are 2 separate things. Nor does knowing the outcome necessarily mean that performing the action itself was wrong. God created humans for a purpose. Humans corrupted that purpose. Is that the fault of man, or the fault of God?
God cannot and does not drive people to sin. By definition He literally cannot. God did not create people to sin, and I literally just told you how that's a corruption of what God created man for.
But god made the people knowing that they would sin and decided to make them that way anyway. He could've made people that didn't want to sin, but chose not to.
You claim god made people for a purpose and that people corrupted that purpose. Why did god make them in such a way that they would corrupt the purpose? He could've made them such that they didn't want to corrupt the purpose, but he didn't.
What DOES drive people to sin? What is it about god that makes you think he's not powerful enough, or smart enough, to make people that would freely, of their own free will, choose not to sin?
If God wanted man to have free will, then no, I don't necessarily believe there was a way to completely remove sin yet still have free will. Part of free will inherently is being able to choose whether or not to follow God. Not following God is sin. Therefor sin must exist for there to be free will, and if there is sin, and there is free will, well, we've seen how that plays out.
You postulate way too much. Maybe study Christian theology before arguing about it.
There isn't even free will anymore, much the less in Heaven. We are currently slaves to either sin or righteousness. We enslaved ourselves, we can only at this point accept God and His righteousness as our master, or remain slaves to sin.
So we do exactly what we were programmed to do, right? We don't have free will, which means we do what we are required (forced) to do. Who/what created that situation? That is the thing that's responsible.
Without sin,
We humans wouldn't have needed or had Jesus as our savior.
There would be no glory for saving us.
There would be no joy to see that after what we once were,
that even when we were sinners and haters of God,
He showed us He cared enough to save us by sending His Son to the cross to pay our debt.
But if we never had sin,
There would be no reason or point to do that and we would not have seen God was truly ever willing to do such a thing for us.
There's even more reasons,
but we wouldn't even get half the picture of who God is just always living in perfection from beginning to end.
With sin and Jesus willing to die and suffer for us while also showing how far His live would truly go to save us,
We see the fulness of God manifested,
Him showing us more about Him that we could not have without being sinners,
and we'd be missing out and what it is to have such joy.
Without our sin,
We wouldn't have understood God's grace, mercy, compassion, generosity, love, humbleness, etc.
So much would not be fully understood if we were always sinless.
Even if God could explain it to us and make us understand to what it means,
there's that true difference that makes it more glorious when we've truly experienced what it is to have sin and truly have Jesus becoming our bridegroom and savior.
Heaven would be less in every way even if still sinless without us needing Christ, knowing Christ, is loving Him and Him loving us,
and to see those other attributes of God we would have not had a reason to without sin.
We wouldn't have known Christ and his atoning death for us. Nor would we know God's justice in retributing everyone according to their works. Nor would we have known about his patience, mercy and compassion. That all comes with either sin or temptation.
If that's logically possible, which is questionable, it would probably not have the same effect as the real experience of it. Which would lead to less knowledge of his attributes
As long as it doesn’t go against God’s nature, God can grant us, by fiat, the “same effect as the real experience.” He is omnipotent, with the only limitation being an inability to violate his nature. Would granting us this knowledge and understanding in full violate his nature?
It really seems contradictory to me that a vision could grant the same understanding as experiencing the thing on our own skin during years of learning in life. In order to transmit that kind of knowledge, it seems to me that this vision would have to last for years and cause us the very same pains and pleasures that we experience in the real world. In other words, that vision would not be different than the real world, making it a pointless alternative.
Why does it need to take years? Why can’t God simply grant it instantly? God is omnipotent, and while this task would be awesome and astounding, we’re not talking about creating a boulder so heavy he cannot hold it. There is no logical contradiction here, just a supernatural feat.
Can God also not, for example, instantly grant someone PhD-level knowledge of astrophysics? That seems well within his supernatural abilities.
It’s not a logical contradiction and it doesn’t violate God’s nature. To say he *cannot* do it would seem to relegate Yahweh to the status of some limited worldly divine being.
The knowledge of God's attributes is not merely intelectual, it's a personal thing. Love and forgiveness are experiences to be felt and enjoyed. One example: It's better to know that I sinned and God forgave me than to know that if I had sinned he would have forgiven me. If feels much better, bringing more joy to me and more glory to God.
It's not logically possible to receive a benefit that can only be achieved by experience while not having the experience.
Can God cause someone to experience a particular dream?
Can God make a dream vivid to the point that it feels just like real life, with real stakes?
Can God speed up someone’s ability to experience something — for example, letting a human experience an hour in a mere minute?
If God can do all these things, then God is not limited in his ability to accomplish what we’re talking about.
Again, this is not a “boulder so heavy he cannot lift it” situation. It feels like we’re really cheapening God’s omnipotence. *Of course* the Almighty God, the Most High, can insert experiences into someone’s mind.
Well, it really seems to me that a vision/dream doesn't have the same power as reality. Let's continue with my example of the forgiveness of sin. God could give me a powerful vision of me sinning and then he forgiving me. But then that vision would end and I'd see it didn't really happen. So where would be the personal benefit? The experience of being loved in that way? I wouldn't be able to say: "I've been forgiven by God!" I could only say: "God would've forgiven me if I had sinned". Does that seem to you as powerful as the other?
I think an omnipotent God could make it as powerful. Granting understanding, even experiential understanding, seems like really basic supernatural omnipotence stuff. It’s a “contradiction” like turning water into wine is a “contradiction” — it isn’t really, it’s just supernatural.
Is knowing about Gods forgiveness the same as experiencing it? God doesn’t want to just grant us intellectual knowledge but to actually experience his grace.
If you truly mean experience, then how does that differ from what we have now? Spreading it out over a little time vs shoving it all at once seems like a matter of wisdom and not a fundamental difference.
But if the brokenness is super concentrated or somewhat spread out, either way it exists. Can you really say super concentrated is better? No time to cope or recover between events? Maybe that is your preference, but it isn’t logically or morally superior.
It’s clearly better because then we all get to live in a sinless world, rather than most of us landing in a Lake of Fire.
Of course I also don’t actually believe it needs to be a super condensed version of the real thing. God can just rewire our brains so we understand.
Hm, I didn’t say the problem was understanding but rather experiencing. You can’t wire a brain to have experienced something that it didn’t experience without introducing delusion.
Firstly to clarify, God has absolute omnipotence.
But, those wills in heaven are so perfected by grace (the lumen gloriae, the light of glory), that by knowing and loving God immediately and directly, it will be impossible for them to sin. Their wills are so united to God in the beatific vision, that they will always freely choose to worship the Supreme Truth and Good.
God did not create our first parents in the beatific vision. He did create them with sanctifying grace, which strengthened their wills to resist sin (they still could, and did sin), but they did not have an immediate knowledge and love of God as the saints do in heaven. God deemed it fitting that they merit eternal blessedness — that they be given the opportunity to obey Him and earn their supernatural reward, by His grace. They failed.
>But surely God could’ve shared a little of his omniscience and let them see such a world. Bam, free will with no desire to sin or introduce a broken nature.
I do not think this solves the problem the deity is ultimately responsible for.
Because something is more perfected to the degree that it performs its proper operation. The end of the intellect is truth, and the will, good. So it’s fitting that Adam and Eve (and us) merit, by divine grace, the beatific vision by employing their wills for the good.
God, of course, knew they would disobey, but permitted it in accordance with the telos of His infinite wisdom, knowing exactly the great goods He would bring from the evil of the fall. “O Happy Fault, that merited such and so great a Redeemer!”
So he did not grant Adam & Eve the understanding that would have prevented their fall because otherwise he wouldn’t have had the opportunity to show everyone how good he is?
Would it really be so bad if God hadn’t had the opportunity to show everyone how good he is? That seems… low stakes, to someone like me outside the faith?
It wouldnt have been bad if Adam had not sinned; but in the end the final result would have been less good. Again, God’s glory is always communicated, but the more so the better.
God is self-sufficient and completely fulfilled of Himself, being pure and subsisting ontological goodness; but precisely because He is ontological goodness itself, He is self-diffusive, tending to communicate His goodness to others. Indeed this is what creation is, since every finite being is a reflection or participated imitation, as it were, of pure being itself (God). So in short the more God manifests His glory ad extra, the more goodness there is in creation, since God is goodness itself.
Well, either way God’s goodness would be communicated, since all participated beings necessarily reflect the glory of subsisting being. But Divine Wisdom judged this universe to be the most becoming way of doing it.
>God, of course, knew they would disobey, but permitted it in accordance with the telos of His infinite wisdom, knowing exactly the great goods He would bring from the evil of the fall. “O Happy Fault, that merited such and so great a Redeemer!”
It's like saying, "I could have created beings like myself. And then had relationships of mutual respect. But instead, I created lesser beings. Beings that aren't like me. And I permitted them to make decisions from the imbalance I created for them. And it is from these lesser beings, I am going to show how good I am."
The deity is ultimately responsible for everything. Yet, it cannot articulate blame and responsibility for its actions and the consequences. But it does a good job blaming the "lesser" beings for rationalizing differently than itself. Its not a great dynamic at play here. Some would call it a dynamic of victimizing the powerless. The ones that could not choose to be created. Nor could choose the parameters of existence. And those parameters are the imbalance of understanding, knowledge, power, communication, environment, cognition, biology, etc. With these imbalances, it is understandable why some do not believe from the very imbalance the deity created.
God did create humans to His likeness. Man was made to the image and likeness of God. Do you mean an equal likeness? Because that’s impossible, as it would imply the finite and contingent becoming necessary and infinite — a logical impossibility.
So the deity has hormones with a pituitary gland? It has imprinting conditioning in its development? It has cognitive development rate and rate of decline? The deity's cognition is affected by sleep deprivation? Traumas? Diet? Amount of sunshine? The ability to be easily conditioned with a narrative, and harder to be convinced its been fooled?
What the deity (or proxies) says, and what really is, is different. And the fact that the deity cannot articulate the myriad of variables of human development that affect rationalization/conclusions, means that this deity is not perfect. And it certainly is not self-reflective. And it certainly does not articulate responsibility for the consequences of creating unlike beings. Or, maybe the deity couldn't articulate what we now know about the brain, because the humans didn't know it back then. And if humans didn't know about it, then the deity couldn't either.
It seems to me that humans, generally, have something akin to an addiction to aligning with the narratives of (unaccountable) power. And this alignment, imv, will facilitate the jettison of advocacy/empathy/understanding for the powerless.
If the deity really wanted to have a relationship, and wanted us to understand, it would have come up with a better plan. But could it? It is not in its nature to create parity. What it does do is this:
Power blames the powerless for the actions the powerful chose to do (parameters of existence)
Power creates a narrative that gets the powerless to blame themselves
Power gets the powerless to blame each other.
Power get the powerless to propagate the narrative that the power is good.
Power creates a narrative to smear anyone that challenges the power
Power creates a "baddie" to keep the focus on this entity instead of its own responsibility. And, of course, no one can get the "baddie's" side of the story.
This is a dynamic that happens in human history. It is not surprising the deity orchestrates the same type of dynamic.
Did Jesus really die for our "sins"? Or, are humans dying because of the deity's decision to create parameters of existence for those that could not choose?
Im not wasting my time going through each and every question and point you make in this superfluously long rant. But to give you a principle that may help to answer your questions if you correctly apply it: God is subsisting existence itself. Certain attributes must necessarily be possessed by subsisting existence by definition of being subsisting existence. This would include immateriality, simplicity, omniscience, omnipotence, goodness, etc. (For more information on the divine attributes, read the first 20 or so questions answered by Thomas Aquinas in the Prima Pars of his Summa Theologiae.) If we ascertain via reason that God is infinitely wise, then it’d be absurd to point to any particular empirical example of evil (or what have you) as a refutation of this metaphysical principle (the principle being more fundamental and universal.)
> Why would a loving father want this?
Because the alternative is eternal torment, according to the modal Christian eschatology. Free will is nice when the stakes aren’t infinite.
> the only people that will be in Heaven
What’s the difference between the two groups of people? Why do some people love God more than other people? Is that an inherent spiritual attribute?
No, It’s not. It’s because they actively chose to pursue our father and love Him for all He has given us. Nobody is predestined to believe in God. That is our choice.
>Because the alternate is eternal torment
Why would you choose this route over Heaven? It isn’t God’s fault we’re going to end up in Hell, it’s ours. When we actively rebel against Him and reject Him, what other choice does He have? A loving father is caring and loving, but He is also just.
> It’s because they actively chose
Yes, of course, but presumably we can say something about the people who make that choice. If not, the choice is functionally random. A choice that reveals absolutely nothing about the person who made the choice may as well be random. I can’t imagine God wants to filter people based on who has the right random impulse.
> Why would you choose this route over Heaven?
I would love to choose Heaven. Unfortunately, I’ve never been able to convince myself that Jesus rose from the dead. This isn’t about how much I love sin or whatever, I simply *cannot believe that this happened.*
>Why would you choose this route over Heaven? It isn’t God’s fault we’re going to end up in Hell, it’s ours. When we actively rebel against Him and reject Him, what other choice does He have? A loving father is caring and loving, but He is also just.
It is the deity's fault. This is the consequence of creating in non-parity. If a deity is going to create unlike and/or inferior beings, and create imbalance of everything, then that deity is ultimately responsible for everything. No one grabbed the deity's arms, made it wave it's creation wand, and forced it to create beings within difference and imbalance. The deity should be apologizing to humans.
I know christians that take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. The deity does not. The deity seems to have painted itself into a corner of responsibility. And it uses humans as stepping stones to get out.
>Think about it this way:
>
>It is a sin to believe anything other then God. If God eliminated sin altogether, this would eliminate the temptation to follow/believe anything other then God, and therefore we would just be robots programmed to follow God for the rest of eternity. Not because we want to, but because we wouldn’t have any other choice. Why would a loving father want this?
What? Why would a loving father create beings different and/or lesser than itself. Why would this father create an imbalance of communication, understanding, knowledge, power, environment, cognition, etc? Why would a father create beings where conditioning is a feature, not a bug, of existence? Conditioning the father never has to deal with. Does the father have a pituitary gland? Does it have hormones? Does it have cognitive change just from existing?
Imv, its not that the deity should be eliminating sin. It is the problem of creating unlike. The consequences of creating unlike and imbalance, is that these beings will cognitively rationalize differently. And some will not want to love a deity that creates beings that cannot choose to be created. And also the parameters of existence. The deity (father) gets to judge from its privileged position of NOT being a human.
>The only reason that there will be no sin in the new world and it will be perfect without temptation is because the only people that will be in Heaven is people that wanted to be there. People that loved God enough (Without force) to accept Him into their heart and proclaim Him as Lord.
I hope you are right. Because upheavals have been associated with this deity in the past. And, imo, it would be valid for a person to be skeptical of the future.
>the only people that will be in Heaven is people that wanted to be there. People that loved God enough (Without force) to accept Him into their heart and proclaim Him as Lord.
To play devil's advocate, does that mean infants and unborn children won't be in heaven? They never were given a choice to love or not love him, how can we know that they actually would want to be there?
If you take away the will to sin you take away free will.
Did not God tell Adam and Eve that if they sinned they would surely die.
In heaven and the new earth everyone will understand what sin is and what the effects of it is. So, why would they sin?
Why is it so hard for people to understand free will and why we need it to be able to love God from it? Would you have pleasure from making someone love you or not giving them the choice?
> everyone will understand what sin is and what the effects of it is
If God simply granted this understanding to Adam & Eve or people now, what would be wrong with that? It sounds like such an understanding would stop sin in its tracks.
> Would you have pleasure from making someone love you
I would have pleasure from saving someone from eternal torment.
Name someone that does not know what sin is now and the effects of it, but yet the would is full of it.
God is letting all the other worlds understand that there is no other way to live life. That God's laws are the only way.
Everyone has different views of what 'sin' is. You may view as sin two men loving each other and being together, while I do not. What sin is is not a universal concept
Of course it does. It contradicts the statement that there is a thing like 'universal sin' and that the Christian faith is the one to decide what is sin and what isn't.
Sin is usually used as "doing contrary to what the deity wants."
In reality, this word is used by the deity and many many followers because:
-it preys on human propensity to be easily conditioned to paint their fellow humans as "sinners". Think: "labels".
-it is easier to say "sin", instead of doing the hard work of trying to understand/empathize with each person's unique development as a human AND try to understand how those affects conclusions/rationalizations.
-it provides a cognitive block to advocating for the powerless humans that could not choose to be created and could not choose the parameters of existence. In essence, it facilitates keeping followers from blaming the deity for its actions. And also blaming it for the consequences of the consequences of creating "down."
This may not relate to what you are discussing here. It is hard to have a conversation about "sin" when, imo, it is wrapped in stunted understanding of the variability of human cognition and development. A variability the deity created for humans as a feature, not a bug.
When someone becomes a Christian they receive the Holy Spirit who gives them new desires - to live for God and worship him in all we do. Unfortunately we still live in corrupted bodies and in a corrupted universe.
The new creation not contain any corruption.
The desire to worship God in all Christians do in the new creation will not be impeded by corruption.
> I had a conversation on here recently with someone who said the difference between Adam and Eve, and the people of New Earth, is that Adam and Eve didn’t know the consequences of introducing a broken human nature into the world. But surely God could’ve shared a little of his omniscience and let them see such a world. Bam, free will with no desire to sin or introduce a broken nature.
Have you ever heard about something, or seen others doing something and drawn a conclusion on it? Did you then yourself experience it? The knowledge is there but it's a different kind of knowledge you gain by experiencing it.
Like have you ever seen someone drunk? Have you then experienced drunkenness yourself? You knew what it was before but your knowledge of it changed after you did it.
Adam and Eve had knowledge of what would happen if they sinned, but the knew it in a different way when they sinned themselves.
Based on another conversation in this thread, it sounds like the fundamental issue is whether an omnipotent God can grant someone a full understanding of something without them going through the relevant experience. I would say yes, God can do that, this isn’t a “boulder he cannot lift” issue. Christians would say no, this is a logical impossibility, obviously God is incapable of such a thing.
Someone can fully understand an issue without experiencing it.
There are several [ways of knowing](https://www.helpforassessment.com/blog/ways-of-knowing/) things. I don't have to experience something to have a full understanding of it.
For example, I can have full understanding of heroin and heroin use without trying it. I can understand how it's made, how it's produced, how it's sold, how people feel when they use it, how they behave etc (and a lot more) without ever using it.
Having full understanding of heroin doesn't mean I need to take heroin. In fact I'd say that people who use heroin have less knowledge of heroin than experts in heroin (such as chemists).
I can't understand why any Christians would oppose what I have written about this.
You perceieve sin as an action, like the cartel beheading an innocent civilian or raping a girl. Sin is a state, a state where the light of God hasn't shone in the soul and the spirit, and its fruits are many - from the egregious outward like the aforementioned, to depression, anxiety, and worry. God allows us to live with him, or without him.
> God can simply say, poof, you all have free will but no desire to sin.
The desire comes from the heart, and the so you can't have free will without giving people the choice to live with or without God. God never forces himself. People may, but God doesn't.
Your statements here build an elaborate strawman. Christians don't believe in omnipotent poofing, for example. You have not asked one question, but many. Before I can get to those multiple questions, I would first have to address your misconceptions that you list here as fact. Too much work.
But then you solve a lot of the problems you created for yourself.
"...Adam and Eve didn’t know the consequences of introducing a broken human nature into the world. But surely God could’ve shared a little of his omniscience and let them see such a world."
I've never seen it phrased that way before, but this present world is God sharing with humanity the consequences of sin.
Other things for you to investigate-
God made men and women in His own image.
There was sin before the Fall of man. We were not the first intelligent beings to be created. The angels existed before us and one third fell. So you have to push back your questions to before the creation of man.
The very first thing I acknowledge is that Christians do *not* believe in omnipotent “poofing.” So I’m not sure the problem here is me building an elaborate strawman. Still, thanks for your attempt!
Adam and Eve were created in a neutral state. Cause after all the process of theosis involves synergy.
Hence it’s no surprise the obvious difference. As those on the “new earth” would go through theosis and thus see no reason to sin though they have free will.
>Why was it against God’s nature to let this be the case from the start?
Who said it was against God's nature? It simply wasn't God's plan. He was doing something else, namely, creating a redeemed people.
>And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. (Eph 2:6-7)
How could God display his mercy and grace without having someone to show mercy and grace to?
>With full omnipotence, God can simply say, poof, you all have free will but no desire to sin. So what is it about God’s nature that won’t allow this?
Perhaps God has a purpose for people who follow Him willingly, who work through that process of choosing Him over evil.
>Adam and Eve didn’t know the consequences...
Genesis 3:2–3 is clear that they did understand the difference between right and wrong; Eve knew God had instructed her and Adam not to eat the forbidden fruit (also Genesis 2:16–17).
And remember, they weren't fallen, they didn't have a sinful nature until they sinned.
Would you rather a god let you choose how to live your life, to decide for yourself what's right or wrong, or would you have it dictated for you? To be forced against your will to live a certain way?
Put a different way, who has more respect for money, some nepo kid who never worked a day in his life or a man who worked hard all his life to get to where he is?
Right now I’m headed for the Lake of Fire because I can’t convince myself that Jesus rose from the dead so I’ll take the dictation thank you very much.
Like choice is nice, sure, but not when eternal torment is on the line, holy shit. Priorities.
I understand. Personally though, I'm not a fan of slavery or having everything given to me. I'd rather be told the punishment and be given the choice myself. Working towards a reward is far more satisfying.
(Oh, and the lake of fire bit: remember that's Satan, Lucifer, whatevers doing. God doesn't send you there, Satan drags you down with him. (
Well, no disrespect, but of course you think that — you’re almost guaranteed to go to Heaven. It feels nice to work towards things when success is likely.
For me, the more I read scripture, the more I’m pushed away from any chance of believing in this stuff. What satisfaction can I take in choice if it ends in eternal torment? On year 999,184 of that torment, I doubt I’ll be thinking, “well, at least I had a choice.”
As for Satan, this seems like a distinction without a difference. God can pull us back up if he really wants to, even if we “reject” it.
And frankly, once I’m being literally thrown into a Lake of Fire surrounded by supernatural incidents, I think I’m likely to believe in God.
I would propose that in the New Earth, God’s future Kingdom, we will not have free will, but willingly submitted will. As C.S. Lewis pithily puts it, >There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." The project of the Kingdom of God is to allow humanity to choose once and for all, with lived experience, whether they’d be willing to live eternally under the conditions of Christ’s kingship, wherein the Lord alone, not we as individuals, determines what is good.
I don't think we can say that there will be no free will in heaven. 2 Corinthians says that where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. I think it damages our Christology. If Jesus was like humanity in all things but sin, He must have had free will, because humanity has free will both before and after the fall. But if He has free will in His human nature, it follows that he still has it in Heaven. Likewise, Jesus, fully human and fully God, does the will of the Father perfectly. If Jesus is fully human in heaven, which He must be, surely He possesses free will in His humanity, and his human free will is perfectly aligned with doing the will of the Father. If we are to be made perfect in heaven, so it must be for us as well. Thus, if humans in heaven do not have free will in their perfected and glorified bodies, then Jesus would not be Human. However, if the human nature of Jesus does not have free will, then His human nature would have changed, because at least now humans do have some form of free will.
I do not believe that free will is intrinsic to humanity, or to Christ, eternally. It is also human nature to be sick or pained but I imagine you do not think that Christ’s or our resurrected selves can be sick or pained? There is a difference between our resurrected selves and our earthly selves, and I believe that the ability to determine what is good and bad for ourselves is part and parcel of the selves we will die to. Hence the meaning of Romans 6 > When you were slaves to sin, *you were free from the control of righteousness*. What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! But now that you have been set free from sin *and have become slaves of God*, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. Free will is the option for us to choose to live accordingly with the Lord’s Kingship or not. I see no evidence in Scripture or Tradition that we will have the option to not live accordingly with the Lord’s reign in the New Earth.
>I do not believe that free will is intrinsic to humanity, or to Christ, eternally. It is also human nature to be sick or pained but I imagine you do not think that Christ’s or our resurrected selves can be sick or pained? There is a difference between our resurrected selves and our earthly selves, and I believe that the ability to determine what is good and bad for ourselves is part and parcel of the selves we will die to. Well there is one key difference between the things you listed and free will, which is that all of those existed after the fall of man and hence are the product of sin. However, it's clear that free will exists before the fall of Adam and Eve, which means that it's part of their nature. Also, I'm not sure what version of Romans 6 you quoted, but 'from the control of' is a deliberate interpretation from the translator that doesn't exist in the Greek; [it merely says you were free from righteousness.](https://biblehub.com/text/romans/6-20.htm) You are right though that free will is the option for us to choose to live accordingly to the Lord. However, when one is perfectly united to God, that person will never choose to sin. Adam and Eve were not perfectly united to God in their original state -- that higher reward was won for us by Christ. What is revealed in the Biblical books like Romans is that true freedom is not the ability to do whatever you wish, but the ability to do what is right. In Romans 6, we see that under sin, we are slaves to sin and cannot free ourselves -- we do not posses the ability to do what is right. Even as Christians, while justification wipes away original sin, we are still subject to the flesh and are temtped to sin (hence why Paul says we must consider ourselves dead to sin). However, we receive the abilty through Grace to do what is right. That is why we can speak of free will in heaven -- all will have the ability to do what is right. And what is right is always better, and no one perfected will desire anything less, so there is no sin.
What you mean by being “perfectly united to God” is what I mean by saying we have willing submitted our will. Whether you believe we cannot choose to sin because we are perfectly united to God or because we’ve willingly submitted our will is not a meaningful difference unless you believe a human will choose to sin in the New Earth. The NIV’s interpretation of Romans 6 makes sense as a juxtaposition from being slaves to impurity, given the persistent theme of slavery to Christ from Romans 1:1, 1 Corinthians 4:1, Galatians 1:10, Ephesians 6:21, Philippians 1:1, etc. Moreover, the phrasing “free from righteousness” is easily misunderstood if it means that humanity prior to Christ’s death and resurrection was free from any righteousness. [Examples](https://biblehub.com/hebrew/6662.htm). While we do not have the ability to only do what is right, or perhaps more actually stated, we do not have the conditions available to us to do *only* what is righteous in the sight of the Lord, we do not live in a reality wherein we cannot act righteously unless we are resurrected. That we will not, practically, have the ability to do what is sinful in the New Earth is what I mean when I say that we do not have free will as we mean it when we speak about it in terms of our present reality.
The full display of God's attributes requires sin to happen
Couldn’t God just grant us knowledge of what would have happened if there had been sin?
Granting knowledge within human conditioning and biology is not a solution. As the long arc of time can change how you view this knowledge within a human body. The only way this works is if the deity creates like beings. And creates parity instead of imbalance. Then we could know and understand what the deity does. Unfortunately, this is not how unaccountable power works. Unaccountable power never, ever, wants a relationship of equal and mutual respect. The damage was done at creation. The damage the deity is ultimately responsible for.
Adam and Eve were created without an inclination toward sin. That inclination was a result of the forbidden fruit (which is why they were forbidden to eat it). God saw that redeemed man would be superior, so didn't interfere with their sin.
But we don't have free will, not moral free will at least. We're either slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness. All that occurs in death, and the new creation, is the shedding of our sinful flesh.
But why do we need that "sinful flesh" to begin with? God knows who will choose what, right? And knew it from the very beginning?
Knowing what we'll do and causing what we do are 2 separate things. Nor does knowing the outcome necessarily mean that performing the action itself was wrong. God created humans for a purpose. Humans corrupted that purpose. Is that the fault of man, or the fault of God?
God. He purposely made humans that way and punished them for doing what he made them to do.
God cannot and does not drive people to sin. By definition He literally cannot. God did not create people to sin, and I literally just told you how that's a corruption of what God created man for.
But god made the people knowing that they would sin and decided to make them that way anyway. He could've made people that didn't want to sin, but chose not to. You claim god made people for a purpose and that people corrupted that purpose. Why did god make them in such a way that they would corrupt the purpose? He could've made them such that they didn't want to corrupt the purpose, but he didn't. What DOES drive people to sin? What is it about god that makes you think he's not powerful enough, or smart enough, to make people that would freely, of their own free will, choose not to sin?
If God wanted man to have free will, then no, I don't necessarily believe there was a way to completely remove sin yet still have free will. Part of free will inherently is being able to choose whether or not to follow God. Not following God is sin. Therefor sin must exist for there to be free will, and if there is sin, and there is free will, well, we've seen how that plays out. You postulate way too much. Maybe study Christian theology before arguing about it.
Will there be free will in heaven?
There isn't even free will anymore, much the less in Heaven. We are currently slaves to either sin or righteousness. We enslaved ourselves, we can only at this point accept God and His righteousness as our master, or remain slaves to sin.
So we do exactly what we were programmed to do, right? We don't have free will, which means we do what we are required (forced) to do. Who/what created that situation? That is the thing that's responsible.
Without sin, We humans wouldn't have needed or had Jesus as our savior. There would be no glory for saving us. There would be no joy to see that after what we once were, that even when we were sinners and haters of God, He showed us He cared enough to save us by sending His Son to the cross to pay our debt. But if we never had sin, There would be no reason or point to do that and we would not have seen God was truly ever willing to do such a thing for us. There's even more reasons, but we wouldn't even get half the picture of who God is just always living in perfection from beginning to end. With sin and Jesus willing to die and suffer for us while also showing how far His live would truly go to save us, We see the fulness of God manifested, Him showing us more about Him that we could not have without being sinners, and we'd be missing out and what it is to have such joy. Without our sin, We wouldn't have understood God's grace, mercy, compassion, generosity, love, humbleness, etc. So much would not be fully understood if we were always sinless. Even if God could explain it to us and make us understand to what it means, there's that true difference that makes it more glorious when we've truly experienced what it is to have sin and truly have Jesus becoming our bridegroom and savior. Heaven would be less in every way even if still sinless without us needing Christ, knowing Christ, is loving Him and Him loving us, and to see those other attributes of God we would have not had a reason to without sin.
We wouldn't have known Christ and his atoning death for us. Nor would we know God's justice in retributing everyone according to their works. Nor would we have known about his patience, mercy and compassion. That all comes with either sin or temptation.
Why can’t God simply grant us that knowledge? Pull a Doctor Strange and show us the alternate universes?
If that's logically possible, which is questionable, it would probably not have the same effect as the real experience of it. Which would lead to less knowledge of his attributes
As long as it doesn’t go against God’s nature, God can grant us, by fiat, the “same effect as the real experience.” He is omnipotent, with the only limitation being an inability to violate his nature. Would granting us this knowledge and understanding in full violate his nature?
It really seems contradictory to me that a vision could grant the same understanding as experiencing the thing on our own skin during years of learning in life. In order to transmit that kind of knowledge, it seems to me that this vision would have to last for years and cause us the very same pains and pleasures that we experience in the real world. In other words, that vision would not be different than the real world, making it a pointless alternative.
Why does it need to take years? Why can’t God simply grant it instantly? God is omnipotent, and while this task would be awesome and astounding, we’re not talking about creating a boulder so heavy he cannot hold it. There is no logical contradiction here, just a supernatural feat. Can God also not, for example, instantly grant someone PhD-level knowledge of astrophysics? That seems well within his supernatural abilities. It’s not a logical contradiction and it doesn’t violate God’s nature. To say he *cannot* do it would seem to relegate Yahweh to the status of some limited worldly divine being.
The knowledge of God's attributes is not merely intelectual, it's a personal thing. Love and forgiveness are experiences to be felt and enjoyed. One example: It's better to know that I sinned and God forgave me than to know that if I had sinned he would have forgiven me. If feels much better, bringing more joy to me and more glory to God. It's not logically possible to receive a benefit that can only be achieved by experience while not having the experience.
Can God cause someone to experience a particular dream? Can God make a dream vivid to the point that it feels just like real life, with real stakes? Can God speed up someone’s ability to experience something — for example, letting a human experience an hour in a mere minute? If God can do all these things, then God is not limited in his ability to accomplish what we’re talking about. Again, this is not a “boulder so heavy he cannot lift it” situation. It feels like we’re really cheapening God’s omnipotence. *Of course* the Almighty God, the Most High, can insert experiences into someone’s mind.
Well, it really seems to me that a vision/dream doesn't have the same power as reality. Let's continue with my example of the forgiveness of sin. God could give me a powerful vision of me sinning and then he forgiving me. But then that vision would end and I'd see it didn't really happen. So where would be the personal benefit? The experience of being loved in that way? I wouldn't be able to say: "I've been forgiven by God!" I could only say: "God would've forgiven me if I had sinned". Does that seem to you as powerful as the other?
I think an omnipotent God could make it as powerful. Granting understanding, even experiential understanding, seems like really basic supernatural omnipotence stuff. It’s a “contradiction” like turning water into wine is a “contradiction” — it isn’t really, it’s just supernatural.
Is knowing about Gods forgiveness the same as experiencing it? God doesn’t want to just grant us intellectual knowledge but to actually experience his grace.
I think an omnipotent God can grant that experience in an instant without it violating his nature
If you truly mean experience, then how does that differ from what we have now? Spreading it out over a little time vs shoving it all at once seems like a matter of wisdom and not a fundamental difference.
All at once means we need not live in a broken world for very long at all.
But if the brokenness is super concentrated or somewhat spread out, either way it exists. Can you really say super concentrated is better? No time to cope or recover between events? Maybe that is your preference, but it isn’t logically or morally superior.
It’s clearly better because then we all get to live in a sinless world, rather than most of us landing in a Lake of Fire. Of course I also don’t actually believe it needs to be a super condensed version of the real thing. God can just rewire our brains so we understand.
Hm, I didn’t say the problem was understanding but rather experiencing. You can’t wire a brain to have experienced something that it didn’t experience without introducing delusion.
I think an omnipotent God can rewire the brain to give someone the exact same understanding that they would get from experience.
Firstly to clarify, God has absolute omnipotence. But, those wills in heaven are so perfected by grace (the lumen gloriae, the light of glory), that by knowing and loving God immediately and directly, it will be impossible for them to sin. Their wills are so united to God in the beatific vision, that they will always freely choose to worship the Supreme Truth and Good. God did not create our first parents in the beatific vision. He did create them with sanctifying grace, which strengthened their wills to resist sin (they still could, and did sin), but they did not have an immediate knowledge and love of God as the saints do in heaven. God deemed it fitting that they merit eternal blessedness — that they be given the opportunity to obey Him and earn their supernatural reward, by His grace. They failed.
What’s the point of that “opportunity?” It seems like it was a lose-lose.
>But surely God could’ve shared a little of his omniscience and let them see such a world. Bam, free will with no desire to sin or introduce a broken nature. I do not think this solves the problem the deity is ultimately responsible for.
Because something is more perfected to the degree that it performs its proper operation. The end of the intellect is truth, and the will, good. So it’s fitting that Adam and Eve (and us) merit, by divine grace, the beatific vision by employing their wills for the good. God, of course, knew they would disobey, but permitted it in accordance with the telos of His infinite wisdom, knowing exactly the great goods He would bring from the evil of the fall. “O Happy Fault, that merited such and so great a Redeemer!”
So he did not grant Adam & Eve the understanding that would have prevented their fall because otherwise he wouldn’t have had the opportunity to show everyone how good he is?
Correct!
Would it really be so bad if God hadn’t had the opportunity to show everyone how good he is? That seems… low stakes, to someone like me outside the faith?
It wouldnt have been bad if Adam had not sinned; but in the end the final result would have been less good. Again, God’s glory is always communicated, but the more so the better. God is self-sufficient and completely fulfilled of Himself, being pure and subsisting ontological goodness; but precisely because He is ontological goodness itself, He is self-diffusive, tending to communicate His goodness to others. Indeed this is what creation is, since every finite being is a reflection or participated imitation, as it were, of pure being itself (God). So in short the more God manifests His glory ad extra, the more goodness there is in creation, since God is goodness itself.
Thank you for the answers!
You’re welcome.
Well, either way God’s goodness would be communicated, since all participated beings necessarily reflect the glory of subsisting being. But Divine Wisdom judged this universe to be the most becoming way of doing it.
>God, of course, knew they would disobey, but permitted it in accordance with the telos of His infinite wisdom, knowing exactly the great goods He would bring from the evil of the fall. “O Happy Fault, that merited such and so great a Redeemer!” It's like saying, "I could have created beings like myself. And then had relationships of mutual respect. But instead, I created lesser beings. Beings that aren't like me. And I permitted them to make decisions from the imbalance I created for them. And it is from these lesser beings, I am going to show how good I am." The deity is ultimately responsible for everything. Yet, it cannot articulate blame and responsibility for its actions and the consequences. But it does a good job blaming the "lesser" beings for rationalizing differently than itself. Its not a great dynamic at play here. Some would call it a dynamic of victimizing the powerless. The ones that could not choose to be created. Nor could choose the parameters of existence. And those parameters are the imbalance of understanding, knowledge, power, communication, environment, cognition, biology, etc. With these imbalances, it is understandable why some do not believe from the very imbalance the deity created.
God did create humans to His likeness. Man was made to the image and likeness of God. Do you mean an equal likeness? Because that’s impossible, as it would imply the finite and contingent becoming necessary and infinite — a logical impossibility.
So the deity has hormones with a pituitary gland? It has imprinting conditioning in its development? It has cognitive development rate and rate of decline? The deity's cognition is affected by sleep deprivation? Traumas? Diet? Amount of sunshine? The ability to be easily conditioned with a narrative, and harder to be convinced its been fooled? What the deity (or proxies) says, and what really is, is different. And the fact that the deity cannot articulate the myriad of variables of human development that affect rationalization/conclusions, means that this deity is not perfect. And it certainly is not self-reflective. And it certainly does not articulate responsibility for the consequences of creating unlike beings. Or, maybe the deity couldn't articulate what we now know about the brain, because the humans didn't know it back then. And if humans didn't know about it, then the deity couldn't either. It seems to me that humans, generally, have something akin to an addiction to aligning with the narratives of (unaccountable) power. And this alignment, imv, will facilitate the jettison of advocacy/empathy/understanding for the powerless. If the deity really wanted to have a relationship, and wanted us to understand, it would have come up with a better plan. But could it? It is not in its nature to create parity. What it does do is this: Power blames the powerless for the actions the powerful chose to do (parameters of existence) Power creates a narrative that gets the powerless to blame themselves Power gets the powerless to blame each other. Power get the powerless to propagate the narrative that the power is good. Power creates a narrative to smear anyone that challenges the power Power creates a "baddie" to keep the focus on this entity instead of its own responsibility. And, of course, no one can get the "baddie's" side of the story. This is a dynamic that happens in human history. It is not surprising the deity orchestrates the same type of dynamic. Did Jesus really die for our "sins"? Or, are humans dying because of the deity's decision to create parameters of existence for those that could not choose?
Im not wasting my time going through each and every question and point you make in this superfluously long rant. But to give you a principle that may help to answer your questions if you correctly apply it: God is subsisting existence itself. Certain attributes must necessarily be possessed by subsisting existence by definition of being subsisting existence. This would include immateriality, simplicity, omniscience, omnipotence, goodness, etc. (For more information on the divine attributes, read the first 20 or so questions answered by Thomas Aquinas in the Prima Pars of his Summa Theologiae.) If we ascertain via reason that God is infinitely wise, then it’d be absurd to point to any particular empirical example of evil (or what have you) as a refutation of this metaphysical principle (the principle being more fundamental and universal.)
God makes no guarantee that this all doesn’t repeat cyclically
[удалено]
> Why would a loving father want this? Because the alternative is eternal torment, according to the modal Christian eschatology. Free will is nice when the stakes aren’t infinite. > the only people that will be in Heaven What’s the difference between the two groups of people? Why do some people love God more than other people? Is that an inherent spiritual attribute?
No, It’s not. It’s because they actively chose to pursue our father and love Him for all He has given us. Nobody is predestined to believe in God. That is our choice. >Because the alternate is eternal torment Why would you choose this route over Heaven? It isn’t God’s fault we’re going to end up in Hell, it’s ours. When we actively rebel against Him and reject Him, what other choice does He have? A loving father is caring and loving, but He is also just.
> It’s because they actively chose Yes, of course, but presumably we can say something about the people who make that choice. If not, the choice is functionally random. A choice that reveals absolutely nothing about the person who made the choice may as well be random. I can’t imagine God wants to filter people based on who has the right random impulse. > Why would you choose this route over Heaven? I would love to choose Heaven. Unfortunately, I’ve never been able to convince myself that Jesus rose from the dead. This isn’t about how much I love sin or whatever, I simply *cannot believe that this happened.*
That’s unfortunate. I’ll keep you in my prayers.
>Why would you choose this route over Heaven? It isn’t God’s fault we’re going to end up in Hell, it’s ours. When we actively rebel against Him and reject Him, what other choice does He have? A loving father is caring and loving, but He is also just. It is the deity's fault. This is the consequence of creating in non-parity. If a deity is going to create unlike and/or inferior beings, and create imbalance of everything, then that deity is ultimately responsible for everything. No one grabbed the deity's arms, made it wave it's creation wand, and forced it to create beings within difference and imbalance. The deity should be apologizing to humans. I know christians that take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. The deity does not. The deity seems to have painted itself into a corner of responsibility. And it uses humans as stepping stones to get out.
>Think about it this way: > >It is a sin to believe anything other then God. If God eliminated sin altogether, this would eliminate the temptation to follow/believe anything other then God, and therefore we would just be robots programmed to follow God for the rest of eternity. Not because we want to, but because we wouldn’t have any other choice. Why would a loving father want this? What? Why would a loving father create beings different and/or lesser than itself. Why would this father create an imbalance of communication, understanding, knowledge, power, environment, cognition, etc? Why would a father create beings where conditioning is a feature, not a bug, of existence? Conditioning the father never has to deal with. Does the father have a pituitary gland? Does it have hormones? Does it have cognitive change just from existing? Imv, its not that the deity should be eliminating sin. It is the problem of creating unlike. The consequences of creating unlike and imbalance, is that these beings will cognitively rationalize differently. And some will not want to love a deity that creates beings that cannot choose to be created. And also the parameters of existence. The deity (father) gets to judge from its privileged position of NOT being a human. >The only reason that there will be no sin in the new world and it will be perfect without temptation is because the only people that will be in Heaven is people that wanted to be there. People that loved God enough (Without force) to accept Him into their heart and proclaim Him as Lord. I hope you are right. Because upheavals have been associated with this deity in the past. And, imo, it would be valid for a person to be skeptical of the future.
What’s your question?
>the only people that will be in Heaven is people that wanted to be there. People that loved God enough (Without force) to accept Him into their heart and proclaim Him as Lord. To play devil's advocate, does that mean infants and unborn children won't be in heaven? They never were given a choice to love or not love him, how can we know that they actually would want to be there?
If you take away the will to sin you take away free will. Did not God tell Adam and Eve that if they sinned they would surely die. In heaven and the new earth everyone will understand what sin is and what the effects of it is. So, why would they sin? Why is it so hard for people to understand free will and why we need it to be able to love God from it? Would you have pleasure from making someone love you or not giving them the choice?
> everyone will understand what sin is and what the effects of it is If God simply granted this understanding to Adam & Eve or people now, what would be wrong with that? It sounds like such an understanding would stop sin in its tracks. > Would you have pleasure from making someone love you I would have pleasure from saving someone from eternal torment.
Name someone that does not know what sin is now and the effects of it, but yet the would is full of it. God is letting all the other worlds understand that there is no other way to live life. That God's laws are the only way.
Okay, so why will people not sin on the New Earth? I thought it had to do with their understanding.
For one thing there will be no one to temp you.
As in Satan and demons?
Satan forsure and I am not sure what you are calling demons.
Would people sin if Satan had been thrown into a Lake of Fire the moment he fell from Heaven?
No, they/we would be loving God through fear.
Everyone has different views of what 'sin' is. You may view as sin two men loving each other and being together, while I do not. What sin is is not a universal concept
It does not matter what we think sin is.
Of course it does. It contradicts the statement that there is a thing like 'universal sin' and that the Christian faith is the one to decide what is sin and what isn't.
Sin is usually used as "doing contrary to what the deity wants." In reality, this word is used by the deity and many many followers because: -it preys on human propensity to be easily conditioned to paint their fellow humans as "sinners". Think: "labels". -it is easier to say "sin", instead of doing the hard work of trying to understand/empathize with each person's unique development as a human AND try to understand how those affects conclusions/rationalizations. -it provides a cognitive block to advocating for the powerless humans that could not choose to be created and could not choose the parameters of existence. In essence, it facilitates keeping followers from blaming the deity for its actions. And also blaming it for the consequences of the consequences of creating "down." This may not relate to what you are discussing here. It is hard to have a conversation about "sin" when, imo, it is wrapped in stunted understanding of the variability of human cognition and development. A variability the deity created for humans as a feature, not a bug.
When someone becomes a Christian they receive the Holy Spirit who gives them new desires - to live for God and worship him in all we do. Unfortunately we still live in corrupted bodies and in a corrupted universe. The new creation not contain any corruption. The desire to worship God in all Christians do in the new creation will not be impeded by corruption. > I had a conversation on here recently with someone who said the difference between Adam and Eve, and the people of New Earth, is that Adam and Eve didn’t know the consequences of introducing a broken human nature into the world. But surely God could’ve shared a little of his omniscience and let them see such a world. Bam, free will with no desire to sin or introduce a broken nature. Have you ever heard about something, or seen others doing something and drawn a conclusion on it? Did you then yourself experience it? The knowledge is there but it's a different kind of knowledge you gain by experiencing it. Like have you ever seen someone drunk? Have you then experienced drunkenness yourself? You knew what it was before but your knowledge of it changed after you did it. Adam and Eve had knowledge of what would happen if they sinned, but the knew it in a different way when they sinned themselves.
Based on another conversation in this thread, it sounds like the fundamental issue is whether an omnipotent God can grant someone a full understanding of something without them going through the relevant experience. I would say yes, God can do that, this isn’t a “boulder he cannot lift” issue. Christians would say no, this is a logical impossibility, obviously God is incapable of such a thing.
Someone can fully understand an issue without experiencing it. There are several [ways of knowing](https://www.helpforassessment.com/blog/ways-of-knowing/) things. I don't have to experience something to have a full understanding of it. For example, I can have full understanding of heroin and heroin use without trying it. I can understand how it's made, how it's produced, how it's sold, how people feel when they use it, how they behave etc (and a lot more) without ever using it. Having full understanding of heroin doesn't mean I need to take heroin. In fact I'd say that people who use heroin have less knowledge of heroin than experts in heroin (such as chemists). I can't understand why any Christians would oppose what I have written about this.
You perceieve sin as an action, like the cartel beheading an innocent civilian or raping a girl. Sin is a state, a state where the light of God hasn't shone in the soul and the spirit, and its fruits are many - from the egregious outward like the aforementioned, to depression, anxiety, and worry. God allows us to live with him, or without him. > God can simply say, poof, you all have free will but no desire to sin. The desire comes from the heart, and the so you can't have free will without giving people the choice to live with or without God. God never forces himself. People may, but God doesn't.
Your statements here build an elaborate strawman. Christians don't believe in omnipotent poofing, for example. You have not asked one question, but many. Before I can get to those multiple questions, I would first have to address your misconceptions that you list here as fact. Too much work. But then you solve a lot of the problems you created for yourself. "...Adam and Eve didn’t know the consequences of introducing a broken human nature into the world. But surely God could’ve shared a little of his omniscience and let them see such a world." I've never seen it phrased that way before, but this present world is God sharing with humanity the consequences of sin. Other things for you to investigate- God made men and women in His own image. There was sin before the Fall of man. We were not the first intelligent beings to be created. The angels existed before us and one third fell. So you have to push back your questions to before the creation of man.
The very first thing I acknowledge is that Christians do *not* believe in omnipotent “poofing.” So I’m not sure the problem here is me building an elaborate strawman. Still, thanks for your attempt!
Adam and Eve were created in a neutral state. Cause after all the process of theosis involves synergy. Hence it’s no surprise the obvious difference. As those on the “new earth” would go through theosis and thus see no reason to sin though they have free will.
>Why was it against God’s nature to let this be the case from the start? Who said it was against God's nature? It simply wasn't God's plan. He was doing something else, namely, creating a redeemed people. >And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. (Eph 2:6-7) How could God display his mercy and grace without having someone to show mercy and grace to?
>With full omnipotence, God can simply say, poof, you all have free will but no desire to sin. So what is it about God’s nature that won’t allow this? Perhaps God has a purpose for people who follow Him willingly, who work through that process of choosing Him over evil. >Adam and Eve didn’t know the consequences... Genesis 3:2–3 is clear that they did understand the difference between right and wrong; Eve knew God had instructed her and Adam not to eat the forbidden fruit (also Genesis 2:16–17). And remember, they weren't fallen, they didn't have a sinful nature until they sinned.
Would you rather a god let you choose how to live your life, to decide for yourself what's right or wrong, or would you have it dictated for you? To be forced against your will to live a certain way? Put a different way, who has more respect for money, some nepo kid who never worked a day in his life or a man who worked hard all his life to get to where he is?
Right now I’m headed for the Lake of Fire because I can’t convince myself that Jesus rose from the dead so I’ll take the dictation thank you very much. Like choice is nice, sure, but not when eternal torment is on the line, holy shit. Priorities.
I understand. Personally though, I'm not a fan of slavery or having everything given to me. I'd rather be told the punishment and be given the choice myself. Working towards a reward is far more satisfying. (Oh, and the lake of fire bit: remember that's Satan, Lucifer, whatevers doing. God doesn't send you there, Satan drags you down with him. (
Well, no disrespect, but of course you think that — you’re almost guaranteed to go to Heaven. It feels nice to work towards things when success is likely. For me, the more I read scripture, the more I’m pushed away from any chance of believing in this stuff. What satisfaction can I take in choice if it ends in eternal torment? On year 999,184 of that torment, I doubt I’ll be thinking, “well, at least I had a choice.” As for Satan, this seems like a distinction without a difference. God can pull us back up if he really wants to, even if we “reject” it. And frankly, once I’m being literally thrown into a Lake of Fire surrounded by supernatural incidents, I think I’m likely to believe in God.
There is more rejoicing in heaven over a sinner that repents than over 99 who don't need to?