Is there "free will" in Heaven? [Archive]

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

28th March 2011, 21:20

I came across this interesting blog post (http://thebeattitude.com/2009/10/11/is-there-free-will-in-heaven/) concerning the Christian conception of Heaven. The concept of Hell is easily criticised as manifestly unjust, hence many of the "nicer" Christians reject or re-interpret it, effectively sidestepping the issue. However, it turns out that the concept of Heaven is no less absurd. Since it's a short piece, I'll reproduce it here for the benefit of those averse to clicking links:

Is there “free will” in heaven?
By theBEattitude

http://thebeattitude.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/free-will-heaven.gif

Under Christian theology, humans have the free will choice to accept or reject God and to follow or reject the temptation of sin. Assuming this version of reality is true, what happens when you go to heaven? Do you stop wanting to sin? Is it impossible to sin? Or can you still choose to reject God and be sent to hell?

I would guess that most Christians never think about this. And it brings up a number of questions.
If you stop wanting to sin in heaven:

1. If sin is a choice in heaven, you can still be immoral and harm other people. Thus making heaven an imperfect place.
2. The only deterrent to evil behavior is fear of consequences and guilt. If heaven has no fear, guilt or consequences, what is stopping people from evil behavior?
3. If God has the power to stop people from wanting to sin in heaven, why can’t he do it on earth?

If God makes it impossible to sin in heaven:

1. Why not bypass earth and create all people in heaven? Does God get joy from watching people suffer? Why put his “beloved” humans on an imperfect planet? Is our existence on earth some sort of twisted game?
2. If your free will taken away from you in heaven, how is that a reward? Do you become a slave with every day controlled like a mindless robot? If your free will is taken away, that makes you a prisoner.
3. Lastly, how did Satan fall away from God if he couldn’t sin in heaven?

If you can reject god and/or sin in heaven:

1. If you can sin in heaven and be sent to hell, how is it different than earth?
2. How could evil things happen in a so-called perfect place?
3. People would spend eternity avoiding sin and fearing God’s wrath. That doesn’t sound like a joyful eternity.

The idea of a perfect Christian heaven is flawed no matter how you look at it. Either you are a mindless drone, or God is some sort of ruling dictator in heaven still threatening people with hell. Under either description, heaven isn’t a perfect place.

Or there is always the possibility that heaven is an imaginary place invented by ancient Jewish men.

Communist Guy

28th March 2011, 21:42

There are many ways I could find to argue against this, although it is an incredibly interesting point.

If temptation comes from the devil, who is not present in heaven, you will have no urge to sin in heaven although you would be able. Furthermore, you would gain no pleasure from sinning in heaven, so there is no point in doing it.

We can also safely assume God's laws on Earth apply only on Earth. Our lives on earth are meant to be a test to gain entry to heaven, so sins on earth may no longer be sins in heaven.

At any rate, many sins would be impossible in heaven, like suicide, theft or murder.

The one thing I think you've missed is that God is omniscient. Thus we are infinitely less intelligent than him. One could argue it is simply above our mental abilities to understand such concepts. The idea of a perfect heaven is just too much for us to understand. But using that argument you could argue pretty much anything :p

But as I said, this is a very interesting point you've raised.

Sosa

29th March 2011, 08:05

Free Will is an illusion...and so is heaven

Viet Minh

29th March 2011, 13:32

The question that always got me was, no matter how evil Satan is/ was, why would he punish those who did bad things? God is so kind, he can't possibly torture people in Hell for commiting sin, so obviously it has to be Satan. And as we know you are punished according to the severity of your sins, so someone who ogles his neighbours wifes ass is a sinner, but not on the scale of one who does stuff on a sunday. And Satan happily complies, shoving red hot pokers up the asses of those who break God's holy covenant with man.

I actually tried selling my soul for a nice quiet corner of hell, with all the bad girls, and a shitload of tequila and cigarettes, but no reply as yet..

hatzel

29th March 2011, 15:46

The question that always got me was, no matter how evil Satan is/ was, why would he punish those who did bad things?

Satan isn't evil. At all. He's benevolent. If you're going to use the Hebrew word, don't go superimposing ideas of the Christian Devil or whatever on top of it :lol:

Nah, seriously, I don't care...

Last thing I heard, when we die, we relive our current life, but as our soul, experiencing all the same stuff we do in our Earthly life, but from a totally different perspective. Therefore: welcome to heaven, chaps, albeit in a physical form! :)

Viet Minh

29th March 2011, 15:55

Satan isn't evil. At all. He's benevolent. If you're going to use the Hebrew word, don't go superimposing ideas of the Christian Devil or whatever on top of it :lol:

Nah, seriously, I don't care...

Last thing I heard, when we die, we relive our current life, but as our soul, experiencing all the same stuff we do in our Earthly life, but from a totally different perspective. Therefore: welcome to heaven, chaps, albeit in a physical form! :)

Ah okay sorry, you learn something new every day! :) Yeah I was talking about the Christian Devil.

Do you think the soul has any relation to the subconscious? Because that I find intriguing..

RATM-Eubie

29th March 2011, 16:00

I think there would be....
Idk this is a tricky question.
Does the bible say anything about it?

Bud Struggle

29th March 2011, 16:02

It's like asking if there will be free will after the revolution--when we ALL want to be Communists and no one will be interested in making a profit off of someone elses work and we all will want to work hard for the betterment of society--not for personal advancement and we all take what we need and nothing extra that other people might need.

I guess the answers to both questions are the same--we won't really know till we get there.

Do you think the soul has any relation to the subconscious? Because that I find intriguing..

Woah! Is there a subconscious?

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

29th March 2011, 16:14

If temptation comes from the devil, who is not present in heaven, you will have no urge to sin in heaven although you would be able. Furthermore, you would gain no pleasure from sinning in heaven, so there is no point in doing it.

The thing is that humans are supposedly sinful by nature - it doesn't matter that Satan is not present or that we would gain no pleasure from sinning, we would sin because it's part and parcel of who we are as humans, much like emotions.

We can also safely assume God's laws on Earth apply only on Earth.

Really? Considering how capricious Yahweh is, I wouldn't bet on it. Hell for all we know, there might be worse laws in Heaven.

At any rate, many sins would be impossible in heaven, like suicide, theft or murder.

If such things are impossible, then there is no free will and the human inhabitants of heaven are little more robots programmed to please God.

The one thing I think you've missed is that God is omniscient. Thus we are infinitely less intelligent than him. One could argue it is simply above our mental abilities to understand such concepts. The idea of a perfect heaven is just too much for us to understand. But using that argument you could argue pretty much anything :p

Which is why it's worthless.

hatzel

29th March 2011, 16:27

Do you think the soul has any relation to the subconscious? Because that I find intriguing..

I feel this is an issue that we should address. I think it depends entirely on what we mean by 'soul', what we mean by 'subconscious' and what we consider to be the roles of either / both in the individual. I'd say that the soul is subconscious, because we're almost entirely unaware of its existence, let alone its actions, thoughts, nature, so clearly it is subconscious in as much as its not part of our conscious 'I', but I don't know if we might want to define the subconscious as something different from that :)

This is hardly the place for me to start blabbering on about a load of esoteric levels of the soul or anything like that, but if we take Hebrew as our starting point (as I inevitably would, hah!), and we take that lowest level of the soul, the ruach...this is what most people mean when they say the word 'soul' in English. Technically it just means 'wind', but it's used to talk about a soul, or a spirit, in compounds like ruach hakodesh, the holy spirit. But it extends beyond that. For instance, your matsav ruach (literally 'situation wind') is your mood, if you've got ruach krav, then you've got fight, like 'there's fight left in him yet', but a ghost is also a type of ruach, as is a solar wind, even dissatisfaction is a 'disapproval wind', if we translate it literally. And let's not even get started on the various German meanings of the word Geist, because that would take all day, but it does show us something. What do we mean by 'soul'? Is a Zeitgeist really a soul, for example? And if it's not, what's the link between all these different uses of the word...it suggests there's something confusing going on, and I feel that your interpretation of the soul might be based, to some extent, on your language. Considering in English the word 'soul' is so...bland and lifeless, it only means one thing, you might get a different impression of it than you would if you spoke of the soul as a ruach or a Geist or whatever, linking it in with all these other uses of the word. Silly English. I suggest a vocabulary reform!

Randomly (though clearly linked)...I also like the word 'dusha', the Russian for 'soul' (or 'darling'; I use it in this meaning on a regular basis, when not even speaking Russian :laugh:). Even a quick look on Wiktionary gives a handful of the vast array of phrases the Russians have including that beautiful little word:

от души — from the heart
душа нараспашку — frank-hearted, heart on one's sleeve
в глубине души — deep in one's heart
брать за душу — touch the heart
душа в душу — in perfect harmony/concord
душа не на месте — anxious, worried
не по душе — displeases
кривить душой — to equivocate, prevaricate, bend the truth
стоять над душой — to pester/harass/plague smb.
душа в пятки ушла — to have one's heart in one's mouth
залезать в душу кому-л. — to worm oneself into smb.'s confidence
души не чаять - to worship, to dote
сколько душе угодно - to one's heart's contentI'm sure you non-Russian-speakers could use Google translate to find a literal word-for-word translation for these phrases, if you care enough :)

ComradeMan

29th March 2011, 20:49

.... but if we take Hebrew as our starting point (as I inevitably would, hah!), and we take that lowest level of the soul, the ruach...this is what most people mean when they say the word 'soul' in English. Technically it just means 'wind', but it's used to talk about a soul, or a spirit, in compounds like ruach hakodesh, the holy spirit. But it extends beyond that. For instance, your matsav ruach (literally 'situation wind') is your mood, if you've got ruach krav, then you've got fight, like 'there's fight left in him yet', but a ghost is also a type of ruach, as is a solar wind, even dissatisfaction is a 'disapproval wind', if we translate it literally....

What I find fascinating about this is how different languages and cultural groups have similar etymologies. I do lament the lack of etymological study into the "original" meanings of words.

Hebrew -רוח ruach- "wind"
Hebrew- נפש nephesh- "vital breath"
Italian- anima- from Latin anima- wind/air/breath cf.
Latin- has thus animus.
Greek- άνεμος "anemos"- "wind"
Greek- πνεύμα "pneuma"- "breath of life" or ψυχῶν "psychon" from a root meaning "to blow"
Irish Gaelic- anam- derivation???
Swedish- ande- "spirit"- andas "breathe"
Saami- heagga- "soul" and hïegke "breath"
Finnish- henki -"soul" and hing "breath"
Lakota Sioux- (a)šicun, (b)tun (c)ni (d)nagi : ni = "life"or "breath"

Genesis 1:20 Creavitque Deus cete grandia, et omnem animam viventem atque motabilem

This is usually translated as living creature- hence animal- yet we have the alternative translation of living soul- that puts a different perspective on the whole interpretation. The Greek uses ψυχῶν ζωσῶν- the "psykon" or soul

Now, not all languages have a similar etymology for their word(s) for soul and not all language groups even have the same concept of soul(s) either, but it is striking that so many languages from different language families and geographically different areas- Saami in the far north and Semitic Hebrew in the Arabian Peninsula and Levant, and Native Americans should have similar ideas or perhaps it's Jungian. ;)

Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk

29th March 2011, 21:07

Sosa

29th March 2011, 21:27

so who tempted the devil before he was the devil? maybe the Super devil? :laugh:

JTB

12th April 2011, 19:14

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/08/who-has-killed-more-satan-or-god.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IABptlAhyJw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWHzB6H718w

The matter is settled.

hatzel

12th April 2011, 19:33

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/08/who-has-killed-more-satan-or-god.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IABptlAhyJw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWHzB6H718w

The matter is settled.

The matter would be settled, if this thread was 'who's like killed more people or whatever?', However, you may have noticed, this thread is about whether or not their is free will in heaven. So the matter sure as fuck isn't settled on the back of some totally unrelated links, sorry :confused:

JTB

12th April 2011, 20:15

I was referring to Sosa's post regarding the super-devil

Sadena Meti

13th April 2011, 13:47

aren't we angels in heaven? surely without the sin we are tempted into through satan? would angels not be more perfect than humans, without all the sin and emotional drawbacks, in short, perfect christians without even the temptation to sin? how could the notion of free will apply to beings without the ability to even engage in sinful acts? their will would only be god's will.

A common misconception. There are actually no major Christian religions that teach that we become angels in heaven, with the the possible except of Mormonism, which teaches that the best people become heavenly parents who get to create souls for future humans (sex in heaven?).

Angels were created before humans, and are supernatural beings. If they existed at all, that is.

hatzel

13th April 2011, 14:39

I was referring to Sosa's post regarding the super-devil

Then surely you needed only define the Satan?

In the Book of Job, ha-Satan is a member of the divine council, “the sons of God” who are subservient to God. Ha-Satan in this capacity is many times translated as “the prosecutor,” and is charged by God to tempt humans and to report back to God all who go against His decrees.

[...]

The Talmud mentions the Satan in many places. In all of these places, the Satan is an agent of God, and has no independent existence. [...] Commenting on the Book of Job, the rabbis express sympathy that his job was to "break the barrel but not spill any wine."

So...ah...yeah...how about we get back to the question of free will now? :)

Revolution starts with U

13th April 2011, 16:39

You have about as much free will in candy land as you do in heaven.

ComradeMan

13th April 2011, 16:51

Belinda Carlisle may have been right...

vFPajU-d-Ek

hatzel

13th April 2011, 16:57

You have about as much free will in candy land as you do in heaven.

And how much free will do you have there?

http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/2800000/Candy-Land-Wallpaper-candy-land-2843701-1024-768.jpg

ComradeMan

13th April 2011, 17:11

Of course if everyone is united with the "Divine Consciousness" that has its own free will then of course everyone will be part of this free will and thus the answer to the question is, techincally, yes.

Seriously, you guys are into this whole duality thing in a big way. :tt2:

Revolution starts with U

13th April 2011, 17:14

So you're saying because humans (supposedly) have free willl, and humans program robots... then robots have free will? (to be more precise, use a heart moniter. It becomes part of a free willed thing, and now has free will?)

hatzel

13th April 2011, 17:16

Revolution starts with U

13th April 2011, 17:22

And the heart moniter? What if I implement a calculator into my nervous system (to step into the sci fi for a moment), it's united with me, and it can "think." Does the calculator now have free will because I have free will?

(Oh yeah, and my one comment.... Candy Land doesn't exist, was my point.)

hatzel

13th April 2011, 17:34

(Oh yeah, and my one comment.... Candy Land doesn't exist, was my point.)But but but but but I showed you a picture and everything...what's with the 'pics or it didn't happen' idea if pics don't prove it happened? :crying:

ComradeMan

13th April 2011, 19:20

The robots in this case aren't united with the human. They remain a distinct entity :)

Hence the comment about duality and non-duality. ;)

But in terms of physics we are all part of the same wavelength, or hologram! :lol:

Revolution starts with U

13th April 2011, 19:58

What physics are they teaching you?
We exist in a variety of wavelengths, from sonic, to visual, to infared.

ComradeMan

13th April 2011, 20:19

What physics are they teaching you?
We exist in a variety of wavelengths, from sonic, to visual, to infared.

And what are they part of?

Revolution starts with U

13th April 2011, 21:07

ComradeMan

13th April 2011, 22:48

It matters not. First, sonic wavelengths are not a direct part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Second, it is very facetious to group the entire spectrum as "one wavelength." That shows an utter misunderstanding of electromagnetism and the concept of wavelengths.

But it is all right to throw all relgion, spirituality and religious belief into one bag? Is not that showing an utter misunderstanding of spirituality and belief systems?

You fell for the trap mwahahaha :lol:

Revolution starts with U

13th April 2011, 22:51

You only fall for an ambush if you don't know it's coming. So, I ask you once again, what argument against God is not a straw man?
If all that can be attacked is straw men, than expect people to attack popularly held straw men beliefs.

ComradeMan

13th April 2011, 22:54

You only fall for an ambush if you don't know it's coming. So, I ask you once again, what argument against God is not a straw man? If all that can be attacked is straw men, than expect people to attack popularly held straw men beliefs.

But who established this idea that all arguments are strawmen?

Sophistry at its worst.

psgchisolm

13th April 2011, 22:55

when i find out ill make sure to tell you guys.

Revolution starts with U

13th April 2011, 23:02

But who established this idea that all arguments are strawmen?

Sophistry at its worst.

YOU HAVE. Or can you name one argument against the existence of God that is not a straw man to you?

A sophism is taken as a specious argument used for deceiving someone.

You know in ancient Babylon it was death for falsely accusing someone.... back up your charge or GTFO!

Dr Mindbender

13th April 2011, 23:26

The question in my mind as always been, wouldnt heaven be rather shit if your idea of paradise was doing ungodly stuff like, drinking booze and watching porno all day?

Besides which if its going to be full of no one but tiresome right wing hacks like Dubya and Glenn Beck then put me on the fasttrack to Beelzebub's throneside.

ComradeMan

14th April 2011, 10:34

YOU HAVE. Or can you name one argument against the existence of God that is not a straw man to you?

You know in ancient Babylon it was death for falsely accusing someone.... back up your charge or GTFO!

I suggest you look up sophisty and the meanings attached to the word.

:thumbdown:

Revolution starts with U

14th April 2011, 18:10

ComradeMan

14th April 2011, 19:56

Yes, reread my post. I provided the definition of sophistry. If you can show me where I'm being misleading, I'll gladly take the charge. But you can't. I'm simply responding to your calling every argument against the existence of a God a straw man... because you do. And I can go back through your posts and prove it.
Unless you can provide us with one argument against the existence of God that is not a straw man.....
Im being very anti-sophist in my want to see truth as the highest ideal, not efficiency. In fact, were I accusatory, I would turn the tables and say "once again Comrademan falsely accuses others of doing what he does, like he does with straw men." :tt2:

Unfortunately most of the arguments that are presented about what "believers" believe are presented by non-believers and don't actually reflect, most of the time, what the believers/spiritual people- at least here- believe. Furthermore, in the digression on Dawkins. His book, the God Delusion did not merely argue about the existence of God but he went on to attack religion outright citing all kinds of examples and naming it the "root of all evil"- so it's hardly a strawman to point out his strawmen when the topic so digresses.

Nor have I said that every argument against the existence of God is a strawman, that is yet another of your strawmen. Once more, unfortunately, it seems that the level of debate- as characterised here at RevLeft so often- is about the same as those who take a superficial analysis of what suits themselves and then use that to attack religion outright- a bit like saying religion is the "root of all evil"- in my opinion.

"see truth as the highest ideal"

Well, you could be accused of being an idealist here, however, Deus veritas est does come to mind.:lol:

Revolution starts with U

14th April 2011, 21:25

Unfortunately most of the arguments that are presented about what "believers" believe are presented by non-believers and don't actually reflect, most of the time, what the believers/spiritual people- at least here- believe.
Im saying this is a cop-out. You think because you have a liberal attitude towards religion that everyone else does. But they don't. Most often you have someone's entire family shunning them if they so much as hint at being an atheist. We can only deal with arguments we've heard. And the fact that everyone has a different argument (meaning every theist) only further reiterates the futile nature of discussions on God.

Furthermore, in the digression on Dawkins. His book, the God Delusion did not merely argue about the existence of God but he went on to attack religion outright citing all kinds of examples and naming it the "root of all evil"- so it's hardly a strawman to point out his strawmen when the topic so digresses.
It's not. But when you attack one of his arguments on the history of religion, and try to imply that makes his arguments against God wrong... that is the definition of a straw man. And it's exactly what you did.

Nor have I said that every argument against the existence of God is a strawman, that is yet another of your strawmen.
You lable every argument you see on here a straw man. So I can only infer that every argument, to you, is a straw man. Unless of course youc an name me ONE argument that is not.....

Once more, unfortunately, it seems that the level of debate- as characterised here at RevLeft so often- is about the same as those who take a superficial analysis of what suits themselves and then use that to attack religion outright- a bit like saying religion is the "root of all evil"- in my opinion.

So.. .whenever you can present an argument against the existence of God that is not, to you, a straw man.....
When you point, you have 3 fingers pointing back at you.

"see truth as the highest ideal"

I was simply pointing out the historical nature of the anti/sophist debate.

So... whenver you want to produce an argument against the existence of God that is not, to you, a straw man.....

ComradeMan

14th April 2011, 22:17

Im saying this is a cop-out. You think because you have a liberal attitude towards religion that everyone else does. But they don't. Most often you have someone's entire family shunning them if they so much as hint at being an atheist. We can only deal with arguments we've heard. And the fact that everyone has a different argument (meaning every theist) only further reiterates the futile nature of discussions on God......

So why do you keep discussing it? :rolleyes:

It's not. But when you attack one of his arguments on the history of religion, and try to imply that makes his arguments against God wrong... that is the definition of a straw man. And it's exactly what you did.

Where did I imply that made his arguments against God wrong? Was it not more in reference to his attack on religion and the fact that it had been brought into discussion by another poster?

You lable every argument you see on here a straw man. So I can only infer that every argument, to you, is a straw man. Unless of course youc an name me ONE argument that is not.....

:laugh: Well perhaps people should stop posting strawmen then. ;) So because of a finite number of arguments you judge all of them? Generalising....

So.. .whenever you can present an argument against the existence of God that is not, to you, a straw man.....
When you point, you have 3 fingers pointing back at you......

Why would I? I am not arguing against the existence of God.:lol:

Revolution starts with U

14th April 2011, 23:02

So why do you keep discussing it? :rolleyes:

hey, I dont start the fires :lol:

Where did I imply that made his arguments against God wrong? Was it not more in reference to his attack on religion and the fact that it had been brought into discussion by another poster?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2076927&postcount=117

:laugh: Well perhaps people should stop posting strawmen then. ;) So because of a finite number of arguments you judge all of them? Generalising....

Until you can produce one argument arguing against the existence of God that is not, to you, a straw man, I'm gona have to say you're just running away from the issue.

Why would I? I am not arguing against the existence of God.:lol:

Then either stop calling every argument against it a straw man, or admit that you're misusing the term straw man, or that every argument against the existence of God is, in fact, a straw man, to you.

ComradeMan

15th April 2011, 09:34

hey, I dont start the fires :lol:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2076927&postcount=117.

Err.... that was an example of one of his arguments against religion that I found to be faulty.

Until you can produce one argument arguing against the existence of God that is not, to you, a straw man, I'm gona have to say you're just running away from the issue. .

So let's see, people present strawman arguments against God and religion in general, they are called out for it and then- the other camp have to now produce arguments themselves against their own positions that are not strawmen?

Then either stop calling every argument against it a straw man, or admit that you're misusing the term straw man, or that every argument against the existence of God is, in fact, a straw man, to you.

Cunning demand- but fallacious too. I think you'll find that in this thread one of the main arguments against the existence of God that was presented was that of evolutions- and one of the most well-known exponents of this argument and a main protagonist in the modern debate is a certain evolutionary biologist who presents this very argument in his attack on religion in which God becomes a deluision and religion a root of all evil.

Revolution starts with U

15th April 2011, 17:55

Err.... that was an example of one of his arguments against religion that I found to be faulty.
Yes and you brought it up as an implicit way to attack his arguments against God.

So let's see, people present strawman arguments against God and religion in general, they are called out for it and then- the other camp have to now produce arguments themselves against their own positions that are not strawmen?
I haven't even see you quote one of his arguments against God... only religion.
The reason I want you to bring up a non-straw man anti-theist argument is because everyone who brings up an argument against God you say "straw man, that's not what all believers believe." So where is it? Where is the one argument against God that could not be a straw man?
From Epicurus to Dawkins, nothing but straw men. There's no objective basis for God, so there's no real argument to be made. One can only argue against what they hear. Your attempts to untie popular notions of God from God itself is disingenuous at best, and outright dishonest at worst.

Cunning demand- but fallacious too. I think you'll find that in this thread one of the main arguments against the existence of God that was presented was that of evolutions- and one of the most well-known exponents of this argument and a main protagonist in the modern debate is a certain evolutionary biologist who presents this very argument in his attack on religion in which God becomes a deluision and religion a root of all evil.
So... are you going to quote one of his arguments against God, or just keep thinking his fallacious arguments against religion somehow disproves his arguments against God?

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

1st May 2011, 20:34

Furthermore, in the digression on Dawkins. His book, the God Delusion did not merely argue about the existence of God but he went on to attack religion outright citing all kinds of examples and naming it the "root of all evil"- so it's hardly a strawman to point out his strawmen when the topic so digresses.

I wish people would stop repeating this baseless canard. Dawkins doesn't believe that religion is "the root of all evil"; in fact, it was only after arguing with media execs that he got a question mark appended to the title of the documentary with that name. Dawkins would have preferred a different title, in fact it was later retitled The God Delusion.

tradeunionsupporter

1st May 2011, 20:48

I think in Christianity there is no free will in Heaven.

ComradeMan

1st May 2011, 22:09

I wish people would stop repeating this baseless canard. Dawkins doesn't believe that religion is "the root of all evil"; in fact, it was only after arguing with media execs that he got a question mark appended to the title of the documentary with that name. Dawkins would have preferred a different title, in fact it was later retitled The God Delusion.

He still went along with it though, didn't he?

☭The Revolution☭

1st May 2011, 22:22

Pfft, all you non-believers. Heaven exists, and I have the blueprints of it right here!

http://www.smartmoscow.com/map/bigmap.JPG

hatzel

2nd May 2011, 14:15

I have several friends who live in Moscow, and the whole of Russia. Almost all of them want to get out of the country as soon as they possibly can. If that's heaven, I might aim for hell, instead...

Jazzratt

3rd May 2011, 02:01

He still went along with it though, didn't he? So? People have put up with far more meddling on the part of their editors/producers/distributors in order to get their stuff out amongst the public.

Astarte

4th May 2011, 22:16

Satan isn't evil. At all. He's benevolent. If you're going to use the Hebrew word, don't go superimposing ideas of the Christian Devil or whatever on top of it :lol:

Nah, seriously, I don't care...

Last thing I heard, when we die, we relive our current life, but as our soul, experiencing all the same stuff we do in our Earthly life, but from a totally different perspective. Therefore: welcome to heaven, chaps, albeit in a physical form! :)

Is that Heaven or Hell? My understanding of "Heaven" has always been more of a supersession of the material world - that is no longer coming back to an Earthly life. That supersession of material existence would make things like "free-will" sort of a non-issue since the discussion of whether or not there is "free-will" is a mortal affair and concern - ascension would concern a greater kind of "Knowing" rather than a contemplation of free-will.

hatzel

5th May 2011, 10:33

Is that Heaven or Hell?Well, I don't have any Hell, so...it would have to be Heaven :thumbup1: Though it could just as easily be Hell, it depends on what you do. It was just in a little piece I'd read around about that time, the relevant section of which I will quote here:

When we leave our bodies, we re-experience everything we have done in our lives, this time around spiritually, as souls. The quality of our eternity is very much a direct result of the alterations we ourselves have produced in our souls. Our entire eternity consists of experiencing what we have done spiritually instead of physically. There is no question that our sense of identity is fully retained. After all, we are only re-experiencing our own choices.

Rabbi Chaim of Voloz'hin (in his work Nefesh Hachaim, Gate 1,12) explains that this is the meaning of the Mishna in Pirke Avot (Ch.4,2) "the reward for a mitzvah is the mitzvah itself, whereas the punishment of a transgression is the transgression itself." Life after death consists of nothing more than reliving our earthly experiences spiritually. If we have devoted ourselves to doing mitzvoth, we will experience the spiritual joy generated by our mitzvoth throughout eternity, whereas the pain of our transgressions will envelop us in a spiritual Hell full of pain and misery, the spiritual effects of our transgressions.

The Mishna (Sanhedrin 10,1) says all Jews have a portion to the World to Come, instead of in the World to Come. In Hebrew the word 'In' conveys the idea of being located within a place. Had the Mishna used 'In', this would imply that the World to Come is an actual place where all Jews will be transported after death. 'To' is used because the Mishna wants to teach us that we should regard the World To Come as a transformation of where we already are. We are already in the right place, so we had better get busy and turn it into a decent habitat for eternity. The World to Come is nothing more than the world we are in, except that it is experienced spiritually.

Before anybody kicks up a fuss, remember that the Mishna doesn't say that only Jews have a portion to the World to Come, alright? :rolleyes:

Astarte

6th May 2011, 09:45

Well, I don't have any Hell, so...it would have to be Heaven :thumbup1: Though it could just as easily be Hell, it depends on what you do. It was just in a little piece I'd read around about that time, the relevant section of which I will quote here:

Before anybody kicks up a fuss, remember that the Mishna doesn't say that only Jews have a portion to the World to Come, alright? :rolleyes:

I see, I misunderstood before you elaborated and thought you meant something like the premise of this Twilight Zone episode http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_Play_(1961_The_Twilight_Zone_episode)

i.e. this part particularly: "The opening scene recurs as he's sentenced to death for murder once again, albeit with the same people in different roles (e.g. a fellow inmate is now the judge at the trial)."