I understand this isn't obvious from the layout of this thread-thing, but my last comment was actually in response to this remark of Paul's:
"You have free choice, but I'll fry you if you chose something I don't like" limits my ability to chose, I think
To which I retort as above. Or, if you prefer: Your ability to choose is not diminished but the fact that your choices have certain consequences. Let's be rigorous here. (Also, "I'll fry you if you choose something I don't like" is an utter caricature, as I explained to Paul, like, a year ago).
But then Paul said to Rob:
Why do we deserve punishment? If it is because of our wrong choices, my argument applies
What argument is that? Surely not the argument that we don't really have free choices because some choices have horrible consequences - after all, now we're talking about those consequences! You think it's this, I guess:
He did say that choices that every human being makes shouldn't have the consequence of eternal torture
But he didn't say exactly that, either. Not at this point in the discussion. What he said was:
Given how bad Hell is, it'd be better not to have been able to make those choices
which is a stronger claim ((p & ~q is better than p & q) isn't as strong a claim as (~p & ~q is better than p & q)), and is far from obvious, given: (1) I have no idea what life would be like without free will. (2) There are choices which lead to catastrophic consequences, but there is another choice which makes everything alright, namely (3) "Given how bad Hell is" is one thing, but how good Heaven is has so far been left out of this discussion.
Standard Evangelical Position on this, which so far as I can tell is what you're offering here
It is (I hope!). That said, I believe that (so far) this is also the standard Roman Catholic position and the standard Eastern Orthodox position as well - although I am of course open to correction on this point by any RC or EO believers out there.
"Nice soul you've got here. Shame if anything happened to it, eh?"
At the start of this thread, Paul was calling Christianity a parasite. I asked him for a supporting argument, and he declined. Now you're comparing evangelism to unscrupulous insurance sales or something. OK. I'm simply going to ignore this kind of baseless slander as of (three, two, one) now. If you don't think sin is serious, I don't know what I can say that will change your mind. I admit that.
Paul,
Sorry to end up talking about you in the third person on your own blog.
no subject
"You have free choice, but I'll fry you if you chose something I don't like" limits my ability to chose, I think
To which I retort as above. Or, if you prefer: Your ability to choose is not diminished but the fact that your choices have certain consequences. Let's be rigorous here. (Also, "I'll fry you if you choose something I don't like" is an utter caricature, as I explained to Paul, like, a year ago).
But then Paul said to Rob:
Why do we deserve punishment? If it is because of our wrong choices, my argument applies
What argument is that? Surely not the argument that we don't really have free choices because some choices have horrible consequences - after all, now we're talking about those consequences! You think it's this, I guess:
He did say that choices that every human being makes shouldn't have the consequence of eternal torture
But he didn't say exactly that, either. Not at this point in the discussion. What he said was:
Given how bad Hell is, it'd be better not to have been able to make those choices
which is a stronger claim ((p & ~q is better than p & q) isn't as strong a claim as (~p & ~q is better than p & q)), and is far from obvious, given:
(1) I have no idea what life would be like without free will.
(2) There are choices which lead to catastrophic consequences, but there is another choice which makes everything alright, namely
(3) "Given how bad Hell is" is one thing, but how good Heaven is has so far been left out of this discussion.
Standard Evangelical Position on this, which so far as I can tell is what you're offering here
It is (I hope!). That said, I believe that (so far) this is also the standard Roman Catholic position and the standard Eastern Orthodox position as well - although I am of course open to correction on this point by any RC or EO believers out there.
"Nice soul you've got here. Shame if anything happened to it, eh?"
At the start of this thread, Paul was calling Christianity a parasite. I asked him for a supporting argument, and he declined. Now you're comparing evangelism to unscrupulous insurance sales or something. OK. I'm simply going to ignore this kind of baseless slander as of (three, two, one) now. If you don't think sin is serious, I don't know what I can say that will change your mind. I admit that.
Paul,
Sorry to end up talking about you in the third person on your own blog.