To Immanuel Can

[Immanuel Can]

Lewis specifically states: "...and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it."
It couldn't be clearer that deciding to think for oneself will result in damnation.

That's not at all what he says.

"Nothing could be clearer" than that you're deliberately misrepresenting. In other words, telling "porkies."

What Lewis says is that you choose what happens to you. He says nothing at all there about "thinking for oneself" being bad. One can "think for oneself" and come to good conclusions, or "think for yourself" and come to bad ones.

[Dontaskme]

A god who would condemn based on that distinction is no better than any other human tyrant who ever lived.

Quite the contrary: a "tyrant," by definition, never gives you what you ask for. Instead, he tells you what he thinks you need or should want, and totally disregards your will in the matter. If you protest, he overrides your will with force. And he may even regard himself as benign...after all, he believes that he knows what you should want, even if, as he thinks, you don't.

God gives you freedom. There's no tyranny in that. But what you choose to do with it, that's on you. Nowhere is it ever the case that choices come without consequences. What you choose, that's what you get -- if your choice is being honoured, that is.

A tyrant will never grant you so much.

Completely incorrect! Everyone by now knows you like to turn facts into pretzels or simply refute it without further ado in defence of your god!

Lewis specifically states: "...and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it."

It couldn't be clearer that deciding to think for oneself will result in damnation. So obviously, being so explicitly stated, choosing independence of thought will amount to a crime as it would to any tyrant who insists on conformity...or else the eternal gulag! It's all there! The entire sentiment reeks of tyranny! Something so definitively stated requires no further interpretation.

So again! Where's the "choice" when god guarantees the consequences of not holding the line as he would have it? Where's the freedom?

Choice is always self-evident in the actual direct experience of knowing... instruction is a self-sustaining feedback loop of knowing in the experience of being...when something feels wrong, it is your own knowing, known in the instance, same goes for if something feels right, then certainly in the instance you're good...it is always your own experience and knowing... Even a young child will automatically learn to obey the simple truth of knowing what feels wrong and right through the law of cause and effect which is it's own inbuilt innate programming. The experience of ''Selfing'' is a feedback loop upon itself, of which there is no 'other' agency involved here, but self alone. Self alone is self-creating.

The belief in a ''creator other'' is nothing more than a man-made psyop in the mind of human imagination that IC and many others just happen to enjoy masturbating to...it's embarrassing for other to have to watch this human bizarre spectacle which apparently never seems to fail to amuse and make happy the Christians.

They are gaslighting themselves. And will NEVER admit it to themselves. You'll never win an argument with a gaslighter...you can only point this bizarre human behaviour out to them...they can't see it, no more than they can see egg on their own face, until they look in the mirror. One can hold up the mirror, but one cannot force one to look in it.

Belief in God is a subtle form of self abuse, inverted. In the mistaken belief that they cannot know themself without some other source instructing them. They fail to understand that source is self sourcing, from source to source an endless spring.

This behavior all started when their parents gave them a name, when in reality they had no name and had no requirement for a name to be. Just as animals in the wild do not need instruction to be. Animals are functioning absolutely fine without the need for conceptual knowing.

[bahman]

We could live in paradise in peace if there was no tree of life.

Yes, you could. However, that wasn't the question. It's not "could you have lived," but "what kind of being would you have had to be, if that was the sort of arrangement God had made?" And you would have been one without free will.

No, I had free will. I just would not have the opportunity to do evil. If there is an opportunity to do evil even if you go to Heaven then you eventually commit evil!

If there had been no alternative but to do whatever God wished of you, could you be said to be free? Could you be a person? Could you have independent volition? Could you "choose" anything?

These things require an alternative to obedience. If you "chose" to obey, it must have been the case that you had a choice also NOT to obey, one you chose not to take. If you made a "free" decision, it must have been that you also had freedom to choose to make a different decision. If your relationship with somebody was of your volition, it must have been the case that you had a choice to discontinue or never start such a relationship...and if you had none of these alternatives, then in no sense were they free, chosen or yours.

There was another alternative. I could be a person with free will. I just won't have the opportunity to do evil.

Now, we are living in a state of suffering...

Hardly.

The sun still shines, the river runs and the fish swim. This may not be heaven, but it's also certainly not Hell.

There was another option: a paradise without the tree but God didn't choose it.

Yes, God could have done that. His freedoms are not in question here, of course.

But His wisdom is the subject of the question here.

But if He had, what would have happened to your ability to choose? That's the more important question.

Nothing would happen for my ability to choose.

More on that, there are people who are going to be in Hell eternally. Which type of merciful and wise God He is?

One merciful and wise enough to secure those people two great goods: first, personal freedom and volition, and secondly, a free offer of salvation. As for those whose disposition is otherwise, I point you back to the sage words of C.S. Lewis:

“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." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened.”

But some people just cannot believe Jesus. They think they are just stories that are made to keep people under control. People realize the thing when they are dead but that is so late!

[Immanuel Can]

...you would have been one without free will.

No, I had free will. I just would not have the opportunity to do evil.

Actually, there would be no freedom. If you have to do what God wants, and there isn't even the option of doing otherwise, then you had no choice.

If there is an opportunity to do evil even if you go to Heaven then you eventually commit evil!

That doesn't follow.

When one agrees to marry somebody, all that's required for freedom is that you once had at least one opportunity to choose somebody else, or nobody at all, instead. Once you've made your choice, it's genuinely your choice ever afterward.

There was another alternative. I could be a person with free will. I just won't have the opportunity to do evil.

Then you'll have to explain what "free will" would mean. Because you could never do otherwise than the good. You could not choose it, because there was never a time when you even had the option to choose anything else.

But if He had, what would have happened to your ability to choose? That's the more important question.

Nothing would happen for my ability to choose.

Hmm...think again: what does it mean to say, "I had the ability to choose, but there was no option." Make sense of that, if you can.

...some people just cannot believe Jesus.

Romans 1 says that's not so. It says they choose not to. It says, "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not [a]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their reasonings, and their senseless hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools..." (Romans 1:20-22)

[Dubious]

Lewis specifically states: "...and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it."
It couldn't be clearer that deciding to think for oneself will result in damnation.

That's not at all what he says.

"Nothing could be clearer" than that you're deliberately misrepresenting. In other words, telling "porkies."

What Lewis says is that you choose what happens to you. He says nothing at all there about "thinking for oneself" being bad. One can "think for oneself" and come to good conclusions, or "think for yourself" and come to bad ones.

To repeat:

Choose god's will and you're okay; choose your will and you're not okay, even though presumably he gave us that will!

True indeed, there is a choice! Submit or go to hell! Had it been made by a non-theist, the threat inclusion is obvious.

[Immanuel Can]

To repeat:

Choose god's will and you're okay; choose your will and you're not okay, even though presumably he gave us that will!

True indeed, there is a choice! Submit or go to hell! Had it been made by a non-theist, the threat inclusion is obvious.

But you don't believe the "threat," as you call it -- though in actuality, it's more of a promise, and really, just a natural consequence of the choice itself. And nobody's going to change your mind, apparently.

You have your choice. If you don't want to know God, He's not going to force you; and if you don't want a relationship with the Source of all goodness, light, health, truth and joy, you will have none.

It's entirely your choice...and you are presently proving.

So you are exercising your free will, unimpeded by anything from that quarter. You have nothing to complain about: you have your freedom, and you own your consequences.

Will you be happy with that choice?

[Dubious]

They are gaslighting themselves. And will NEVER admit it to themselves. You'll never win an argument with a gaslighter...you can only point this bizarre human behaviour out to them...they can't see it, no more than they can see egg on their own face, until they look in the mirror. One can hold up the mirror, but one cannot force one to look in it.

That's so very true. It's often been pointed out in matters pertaining to god and religion that the true fanatic can never be convinced of anything which counters his views whether by science, history or logic, etc. Any fact you confront them with immediately becomes quarantined as counterfactual. Nonetheless, in spite of having known that for a very long time, I still enjoy striking a match in the midst of all that hot air. Their modus consists of a completely closed loop. It depends on the fact that a mind capable of accepting such absurdities must be the same as the one required to defend it. Without that parity, theism would have ceased to exist long ago.

Belief in God is a subtle form of self abuse, inverted. In the mistaken belief that they cannot know themself without some other source instructing them. They fail to understand that source is self sourcing, from source to source an endless spring.

Nicely put! In an impersonal universe we source and extract our own values, or what's human consciousness for? Whatever is conditioned as true by humans - who have been here for how long! - has no validity in a universe which allows the inclusion and expression of every kind of thought modulation encountered anywhere within its entire domain.

This behavior all started when their parents gave them a name, when in reality they had no name and had no requirement for a name to be. Just as animals in the wild do not need instruction to be. Animals are functioning absolutely fine without the need for conceptual knowing.

Yes, and likely the reason these so-called dumb animals are going to out-last the smart human kind...unless the smart human kind nukes the planet to kingdom come! That's the problem with "intelligence"! It comes into being surrounded with an equal or greater amount of stupidity whose ability to destroy everything can be nearly instantaneous. Real intelligence understands very well the true art of compromise, wherever, whenever required. It's how we neutralize the negative aspects of intelligence to make it work for us, not against us.

[Dubious]

To repeat:

Choose god's will and you're okay; choose your will and you're not okay, even though presumably he gave us that will!

True indeed, there is a choice! Submit or go to hell! Had it been made by a non-theist, the threat inclusion is obvious.

But you don't believe the "threat," as you call it -- though in actuality, it's more of a promise, and really, just a natural consequence of the choice itself. And nobody's going to change your mind, apparently.

What I believe has nothing to do with it. No "I", yours or mine, is included here. Only the statement as rendered and what it explicitly states being clear enough to anyone who can read simple English. Your incoherent ramblings aren't going to change in the least what it promises to those who assert their own will.

[Immanuel Can]

To repeat:

Choose god's will and you're okay; choose your will and you're not okay, even though presumably he gave us that will!

True indeed, there is a choice! Submit or go to hell! Had it been made by a non-theist, the threat inclusion is obvious.

But you don't believe the "threat," as you call it -- though in actuality, it's more of a promise, and really, just a natural consequence of the choice itself. And nobody's going to change your mind, apparently.

What I believe has nothing to do with it.

It has everything to do with it.

It's going to determine your eternal situation.

Be careful how you employ that faculty of free will you have been granted.

[Dontaskme]

That's so very true. It's often been pointed out in matters pertaining to god and religion that the true fanatic can never be convinced of anything which counters his views whether by science, history or logic, etc. Any fact you confront them with immediately becomes quarantined as counterfactual. Nonetheless, in spite of having known that for a very long time, I still enjoy striking a match in the midst of all that hot air.

Thanks for your understanding response Dubious.

Within the known conceptual sphere of mind, aka what appears to be known as ( imagination masturbation ) there is what can only appear to be self taking to itself. It is known that concepts, aka ''objects'' cannot talk, lets not forget that... ... and yet it seems many 'talking heads' do apparently look as though they are really talking.

And so of course it's every 'talking heads' prerogative to be partisan to their own narrative, it's as and through their own narrative that they believe they know themself.

...NO 'other' mind can take away the reality of one's mind ...even though the mind is a myth in that it is just a 'talking head'...an object of knowing which can know nothing.

Reality: is very simple in fact, in that there's just ''What Is'' that remains as pure truth.. everything else is misleading human story telling that has nothing to do with pure truth that is not - knowing.

Traversing the duality of mind brings one to the pure truth, which is there is no division between matter and spirit. And that the only way you are sent to heaven or hell is through your own thinking only. No other one can think for you..only you can be you.

[Dubious]

But you don't believe the "threat," as you call it -- though in actuality, it's more of a promise, and really, just a natural consequence of the choice itself. And nobody's going to change your mind, apparently.

What I believe has nothing to do with it.

It has everything to do with it.

It's going to determine your eternal situation.

Be careful how you employ that faculty of free will you have been granted.

Thank you, I appreciate the warning! So, just to verify, if I choose "my will" you know, the one I was endowed with by your god supposedly, then I'm screwed. If I also don't believe in Jesus, I'm doubly screwed! The bible makes it so easy to screw oneself! Why must that be?? The contravention of any one of these two indispensable conditions for salvation will commission your entrance into hell. If one screwed up twice well, according to Dante, hell has its layers.

Bloody hell, as Inspector Brackenreid would say. I'm so bloody screwed!

[Immanuel Can]

So, just to verify, if I choose "my will" you know, the one I was endowed with by your god supposedly, then I'm screwed. If I also don't believe in Jesus, I'm doubly screwed!

You get what you ask for. If you have decided you want no part of God, then that is exactly what you get. As Lewis said,“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."

What is your will?

What are you going to ask for?

What you want is what you'll get.

[bahman]

...you would have been one without free will.

No, I had free will. I just would not have the opportunity to do evil.

Actually, there would be no freedom. If you have to do what God wants, and there isn't even the option of doing otherwise, then you had no choice.

Actually, there would be freedom. In Heaven, you can only do good and you are still free.

If there is an opportunity to do evil even if you go to Heaven then you eventually commit evil!

That doesn't follow.

It follows.

When one agrees to marry somebody, all that's required for freedom is that you once had at least one opportunity to choose somebody else, or nobody at all, instead. Once you've made your choice, it's genuinely your choice ever afterward.

No, humans have the potential to do evil even in Heaven.

There was another alternative. I could be a person with free will. I just won't have the opportunity to do evil.

Then you'll have to explain what "free will" would mean. Because you could never do otherwise than the good. You could not choose it, because there was never a time when you even had the option to choose anything else.

Free will is the ability to freely choose between two options, two goods for example instead of one good and one evil.

But if He had, what would have happened to your ability to choose? That's the more important question.

Nothing would happen for my ability to choose.

Hmm...think again: what does it mean to say, "I had the ability to choose, but there was no option." Make sense of that, if you can.

As I mentioned I still would be free to choose between two good options, what is going to happen in Heaven.

...some people just cannot believe Jesus.

Romans 1 says that's not so. It says they choose not to. It says, "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not [a]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their reasonings, and their senseless hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools..." (Romans 1:20-22)

What do you mean?

[Immanuel Can]

In Heaven, you can only do good and you are still free.

You can only be said to be "free" there because you once DID have the choice to do otherwise.

If there is an opportunity to do evil even if you go to Heaven then you eventually commit evil!

That doesn't follow.

It follows.

No, it doesn't.

As I pointed out...

When one agrees to marry somebody, all that's required for freedom is that you once had at least one opportunity to choose somebody else, or nobody at all, instead. Once you've made your choice, it's genuinely your choice ever afterward.

No, humans have the potential to do evil even in Heaven.

They don't, actually.

But that's a matter we'll have to determine based on what the Bible says...because there's no other source to which we could look for information on what you call "heaven." That is, unless you have another source...

Free will is the ability to freely choose between two options, two goods for example instead of one good and one evil.

That's a sufficient definition of "choice" in a general way, but not adequate for describing specific cases.

For example, can a woman be said to "freely consent" if you drugged or programmed her so that all she could say was "Yes"? Or could a robot be said to have a "choice" if the robot was programmed by you only to do what you wanted it to do? Could a robot of that kind be your "friend"? Could you say, "Look at how much my robot loves me; he always chooses the things I want him to do"?

Of course not. Neither the female victim nor the robot actually had volition. In our hypothetical cases, you robbed the former of her personhood, and never gave any to the robot, and then declared them both to have "chosen."

More importantly, can a man "choose" God if he has no choice of anything else?

...some people just cannot believe Jesus.

Romans 1 says that's not so. It says they choose not to. It says, "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not [a]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their reasonings, and their senseless hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools..." (Romans 1:20-22)

What do you mean?

You can read it for yourself. It's explained there. But I'll paraphrase.

Every man knows, in his heart of hearts, that there is a God. We've all thought about that. You're thinking about it right now. There is enough evidence in nature itself to make us think about God, and to understand certain basics about His character as well, Romans says. But men choose to shut that down, to deny what they know in their hearts, and defy the facts. They do so because thought they know God, they don't want to honour him as God, as Romans puts it. They want to be "god" of their own lives.

But because of what they actually do know, they are "without excuse."

It's kind of funny, when you think about it: this creature that did not make itself, and that is very limited epistemically, and lives for only perhaps 75 years, imagines he's capable of overthrowing the Creator, declaring himself unilaterally free, calls himself his own "god," and then carries on as if that will somehow stick. It's actually a little pathetic: but that's what Romans says people do.

[bahman]

In Heaven, you can only do good and you are still free.

You can only be said to be "free" there because you once DID have the choice to do otherwise.

Can you do evil in Heaven?

That doesn't follow.

It follows.

No, it doesn't.

As I pointed out...

When one agrees to marry somebody, all that's required for freedom is that you once had at least one opportunity to choose somebody else, or nobody at all, instead. Once you've made your choice, it's genuinely your choice ever afterward.

No, humans have the potential to do evil even in Heaven.

They don't, actually.

But that's a matter we'll have to determine based on what the Bible says...because there's no other source to which we could look for information on what you call "heaven." That is, unless you have another source...

What about Heaven? Can you do evil there?

Free will is the ability to freely choose between two options, two goods for example instead of one good and one evil.

That's a sufficient definition of "choice" in a general way, but not adequate for describing specific cases.

For example, can a woman be said to "freely consent" if you drugged or programmed her so that all she could say was "Yes"? Or could a robot be said to have a "choice" if the robot was programmed by you only to do what you wanted it to do? Could a robot of that kind be your "friend"? Could you say, "Look at how much my robot loves me; he always chooses the things I want him to do"?

Of course not. Neither the female victim nor the robot actually had volition. In our hypothetical cases, you robbed the former of her personhood, and never gave any to the robot, and then declared them both to have "chosen."

More importantly, can a man "choose" God if he has no choice of anything else?

It is not about programming humans. Humans would be still free in Paradise if there was no tree of knowledge.

Romans 1 says that's not so. It says they choose not to. It says, "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not [a]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their reasonings, and their senseless hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools..." (Romans 1:20-22)

What do you mean?

You can read it for yourself. It's explained there. But I'll paraphrase.

Every man knows, in his heart of hearts, that there is a God. We've all thought about that. You're thinking about it right now. There is enough evidence in nature itself to make us think about God, and to understand certain basics about His character as well, Romans says.

I don't see God in my heart. I have an argument against God.

But men choose to shut that down, to deny what they know in their hearts, and defy the facts. They do so because thought they know God, they don't want to honour him as God, as Romans puts it. They want to be "god" of their own lives.

But because of what they actually do know, they are "without excuse."

It's kind of funny, when you think about it: this creature that did not make itself, and that is very limited epistemically, and lives for only perhaps 75 years, imagines he's capable of overthrowing the Creator, declaring himself unilaterally free, calls himself his own "god," and then carries on as if that will somehow stick. It's actually a little pathetic: but that's what Romans says people do.

I don't think if there is any rational person who knows that there is a good close the door. The people just don't believe because there are not enough evidences.