The basis for being rewarded with an afterlife?

[Mutcer]

It's my understanding that choosing to believe something exists is something we don't have control over. For example, you can't just choose to believe that I own an interstellar spacecraft.

If there is an afterlife, upon what basis do Christians believe we should be rewarded with an afterlife because of a belief we had for which we didn't have control over?

[Uccisore]

James 2:19

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

It's my understanding that choosing to believe something exists is something we don't have control over. For example, you can't just choose to believe that I own an interstellar spacecraft.

If there is an afterlife, upon what basis do Christians believe we should be rewarded with an afterlife because of a belief we had for which we didn't have control over?

What I find interesting about the Christian afterlife, namely heaven, is the concept that God allows free will, and the result is suffering and or evil.

Yet, if God doesn't want robots in this life, and so insists on us having free will, then those in heaven also have free will. And since there is no suffering in heaven it is obvious that free will and no suffering can coexist. Thus we too, if God wanted it, could have free will without suffering.

So God, free will or not, allows suffering in this life ... when he could clearly stop it ... the meany ... and is either not all powerful, or is not all loving.

And the free will argument, that Christians like to use, as the cause of suffering, doesn't hold water.

[Uccisore]

And since there is no suffering in heaven it is obvious that free will and no suffering can coexist.

Who ever said free will and a lack of suffering can't coexist?

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

And since there is no suffering in heaven it is obvious that free will and no suffering can coexist.

Who ever said free will and a lack of suffering can't coexist?

Hey Uccisore, hope yer doin' well. Glad to see you out here.

And the answer to your question, for one, would be Richard Swinburne :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyswB-3sxBo

Dinesh D'Souza also on youtube.

Just to name two ...

[Uccisore]

I don't have audio at my present computer, but.

It seems to me that free will includes the possibility (however remote) of every free being choosing to do what is right.

So it's not 'the absence of suffering' which is incompatible with free will, but rather 'the GUARANTEE of the absence of suffering'. I have a hard time believing Swinburne would disagree with that, but I can watch that video when I get off work if you insist that he does.

That said, I don't know that Heaven is ever explicitly described doctrinally enough to base a position on it one way or another. I assume we would have free will there, as I see that as essential to being a person, and with free will I would think the possibility of doing wrong must come with it.

[James S Saint]

A responsible person cannot make a decision without having a clear idea of the "pro and con".
Without knowing the misery, upon what basis could one know to choose anything else?

"Let the young boy fall out of the small tree [the trials of life], else he will not know to avoid climbing the really big one [eternal misery]."

[Mutcer]

It's my understanding that choosing to believe something exists is something we don't have control over. For example, you can't just choose to believe that I own an interstellar spacecraft.

If there is an afterlife, upon what basis do Christians believe we should be rewarded with an afterlife because of a belief we had for which we didn't have control over?

What I find interesting about the Christian afterlife, namely heaven, is the concept that God allows free will, and the result is suffering and or evil.

Yet, if God doesn't want robots in this life, and so insists on us having free will, then those in heaven also have free will. And since there is no suffering in heaven it is obvious that free will and no suffering can coexist. Thus we too, if God wanted it, could have free will without suffering.

So God, free will or not, allows suffering in this life ... when he could clearly stop it ... the meany ... and is either not all powerful, or is not all loving.

And the free will argument, that Christians like to use, as the cause of suffering, doesn't hold water.

Very good point. As Sam Harris says, God - if it exists - either doesn't care or is incapable of stopping pain and suffering. In other words, God is either impotent or evil.

[Typist]

As Sam Harris says, God - if it exists - either doesn't care or is incapable of stopping pain and suffering. In other words, God is either impotent or evil.

And if Sam Harris was actually interested in reason, he would have also said that if a something as big as a God exists, it's extremely unlikely something as small as human beings would be able to analyze it.

You guys are heretics to your own reason religion.

[omar]

I don't have audio at my present computer, but.

It seems to me that free will includes the possibility (however remote) of every free being choosing to do what is right.

So it's not 'the absence of suffering' which is incompatible with free will, but rather 'the GUARANTEE of the absence of suffering'. I have a hard time believing Swinburne would disagree with that, but I can watch that video when I get off work if you insist that he does.

That said, I don't know that Heaven is ever explicitly described doctrinally enough to base a position on it one way or another. I assume we would have free will there, as I see that as essential to being a person, and with free will I would think the possibility of doing wrong must come with it.

The argument does not establish that evil is a necessary consequence of free will but that free will makes suffering and evil a possibility.
But you and I have to understand that for many their conclusion is their new religion. It is not open to argument and every argument that comes their way, at least from what I have seen, is absorbed only as an argument that has already been refuted! Never is there an honest encounter with the Silence, the deep the infinite, but with an idea, which is not even worthy of respect, no, it is an error, a stupidity they have overcome...at least that is the opinion I leave with.
Don't get me wrong Uccisore. You and I would disagree over various aspects, but like Bob and Felix, there is a more honest approach. I guess I simply do not like dogmatism in either theistic or atheistic form because it insulates a person behind an idea that was consumed by them rather than produced by them.
V, if you're listening, that's my message when I challenged you.

[James S Saint]

If there is an afterlife, upon what basis do Christians believe we should be rewarded with an afterlife because of a belief we had for which we didn't have control over?

Truth.

You guys are heretics to your own reason religion.

Ayup.

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

V, if you're listening, that's my message when I challenged you.

Am listening. Got it. Dogmatism closes the door of learning ... and is a type of blinder to other views.

[Mutcer]

As Sam Harris says, God - if it exists - either doesn't care or is incapable of stopping pain and suffering. In other words, God is either impotent or evil.

And if Sam Harris was actually interested in reason, he would have also said that if a something as big as a God exists, it's extremely unlikely something as small as human beings would be able to analyze it.

You guys are heretics to your own reason religion.

And if God did exist, it wouldn't serve his agenda well to appear no different than if no God existed.

[Typist]

And if God did exist, it wouldn't serve his agenda well to appear no different than if no God existed.

And you are qualified to know what a God's agenda would be, and how they would best serve their agenda? Absurd.

[ZenKitty]

If there is an afterlife, upon what basis do Christians believe we should be rewarded with an afterlife because of a belief we had for which we didn't have control over?

Calvinism and pre-determination. Question answered.

[Mutcer]

And if God did exist, it wouldn't serve his agenda well to appear no different than if no God existed.

And you are qualified to know what a God's agenda would be, and how they would best serve their agenda? Absurd.

How does it serve God's agenda to appear no different than if there were no God?

[James S Saint]

If there is an afterlife, upon what basis do Christians believe we should be rewarded with an afterlife because of a belief we had for which we didn't have control over?

Cleaning up the gene pool.
You know it better as "Evolution".

[Mutcer]

If there is an afterlife, upon what basis do Christians believe we should be rewarded with an afterlife because of a belief we had for which we didn't have control over?

Cleaning up the gene pool.
You know it better as "Evolution".

Unless we procreate in Heaven and the babies populate the earth, then that wouldn't apply.

[Moreno]

It's my understanding that choosing to believe something exists is something we don't have control over. For example, you can't just choose to believe that I own an interstellar spacecraft.

If there is an afterlife, upon what basis do Christians believe we should be rewarded with an afterlife because of a belief we had for which we didn't have control over?

Christians do believe there is a choice. Though one could also use this argument to say that someone who does not believe in cars should not be 'punished' by being run over when he or she wanders into the street. And I agree, but then, I am not a Christian. It's just your sense of causal relations and punishment seems confused to me. IOW we accept, most of us, even non-religious people, that certain beliefs lead to consequences, including negative ones. And most people tend not to consider this unfair, regardless of whether we have a choice or not.

[James S Saint]

If there is an afterlife, upon what basis do Christians believe we should be rewarded with an afterlife because of a belief we had for which we didn't have control over?

Cleaning up the gene pool.
You know it better as "Evolution".

Unless we procreate in Heaven and the babies populate the earth, then that wouldn't apply.

Maybe not to You, but obviously God has a different opinion (not that God could know anything more than You of course).

[Mutcer]

Unless we procreate in Heaven and the babies populate the earth, then that wouldn't apply.

Maybe not to You, but obviously God has a different opinion (not that God could know anything more than You of course).

OK, so deceased people populate heaven and then procreate.

Would you enjoy watching an x-rated version of Dawn of the Dead, in which a bunch of dead people are having sex? It sounds like that's what you're saying God wants.