Post by BrooksiePost by r***@yahoo.comPut your statement into a logic syllogism and show us the
inconsistency, if you can.
Well the bible talks about us having free will and how we are free to
make decisions on the way we live. and how god never interferes with us
or forces us o do stuff.
The bible definitely speaks of God interfering; know the story of
Jonah?
Post by Brooksiebut yet at the same time the bible threatening us with
eternal suffering[.] surly that is interfering and restricting are
freedom of choice.
Is it a threat to tell someone who drank poison, "you drank poison,
you better take the antidote or you will die"?
Would you say that is limiting their freedom? I would personally rather
have true knowledge of the situation. Ignorance will do me harm and
even if I don't want to take the antidote, then I'd still rather at
least know the truth. Knowledge is help to choice, not a hindrance to
it.
This will be complicated to understand, but you are committing a
typical error here by approaching the bible on atheistic terms, which
will absolutely lead you to error every time. In other words, you're
not assessing the situation correctly at all.
The lower level of free will= the independent deliberation process.
If there is no external compulsion/manipulation causing you to choose A
or B, then you are free.
If A signifies the right choice, and B signifies the wrong, then
whenever you choose B, you have sinned.
Sin necessarily separates you from God. That separation is hell.
The chance that you can choose sin/separation/hell is inherent in
freedom. The possibility of hell is inherent in freedom.
At a higher level, we need data in order to accurately deliberate over
choices in front of us. Otherwise it would be a mere toss of the coin
with every decision. But most of us go into BurgerKing and order a
certain thing because we know what the options are. It is an informed
decision. The bible is telling us that we are such that we are by
nature apt to choose sin, which leads to separation/hell. We're
drinking the poison. We need to know if there is an antidote.
When you say "threatening' with eternal suffering, you make it
sound as if it were something arbitrarily imposed on us from the
outside. This is incorrect.
It is inherent in a choice of B.
If it is inherent in a choice of B, then it is not a threat, but a
warning.
God is gracious enough to let you know that IF you do B, then you will
suffer eternally. Since everyone has done B, then effectively all have
swallowed a poison and are in danger of hell.
You can call that a threat if you'd like, but it is no more a threat
than telling someone "you drank poison, you better take the antidote
or you will die".
Post by Brooksiewell obviously we can make decisions but we can't
choose who we are (are personalities and are understanding
of right or wrong or any of the factors that affect
what decision we are guna make), and I cant see why
god should punish us for being what he designed to be.
You have two separate issues here: who we are, and who we were designed
to be.
We are NOT what we were originally designed to be. Man is fallen,
sinful. He was not designed to be that, but inherent in independence is
the possibility that man can sin.
Post by BrooksieI just mean ultimately god made everything so
everything that happens is directly or indirectly
coursed by him, and I think that's undeniable.
OK, let's say [hypothetically] a guy named Ford invents the
automobile. Then undeniably EVERY auto accident and death is indirectly
caused by him. So if a drunk drives, hits and kills your mother, who do
you hold accountable? The drunk? No, you would hold Ford accountable
right?
And isn't that how it should be?
Of course not. It doesn't work like that in life and it doesn't
work like that with God either. You are accountable for what you do
with the tools, you don't hold God accountable just because he gave
you a tool. It is the choice for which you are held accountable, not
the ability to choose.