here is a topic for us nerds.
lets assume heaven exists.
are we able to sin in heaven, can someone who is already in heaven sin and can he be cast out of heaven?
I ask because there was something I read that stated if you go to hell there is no coming back, so is that the same for heaven once you are there you are stuck.
I've actually read that hell is only temporary and that you can come back from it. I'll try to find the linkage. I do believe that in heaven, sin is not welcome. Maybe to get to heaven you must be an enlightened one who sees no gain out of sin. If we bring up Lucifer, he was cast out of heaven for his sins so I guess you can be. Maybe that's where reincarnation comes into play. Lol I'm talking out my ass but it sure does spark the mind. 
No, you cannot sin in Heaven. Supposedly, Heaven is a place where the Devil cannot enter. Sin is brought upon by the Devil. No Devil equals no sin.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| No, you cannot sin in Heaven. Supposedly, Heaven is a place where the Devil cannot enter. Sin is brought upon by the Devil. No Devil equals no sin. |
so in effect there is no free will in heaven since to be able to have free will i should be able to choose even if its a sin | Bannik wrote: |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | No, you cannot sin in Heaven. Supposedly, Heaven is a place where the Devil cannot enter. Sin is brought upon by the Devil. No Devil equals no sin. |
so in effect there is no free will in heaven since to be able to have free will i should be able to choose even if its a sin |
I don't think that it works like that. The only reason human beings have the desire to sin (this is all assuming that God/Devil/Heaven exists) is because the Devil tempts us. Sin can only exist where the Devil is. So if we're in a place without the Devil, then the concept of sin doesn't exist. How can you choose or not choose something that doesn't exist? We wouldn't have the desire to sin.Mathematically neither heaven or hell would be 'escapable' -> so when you reincarnated - > didn't you pass the test to either heaven or hell???????
Hell isn't usually a permanent punishment. It depends on what you've done/how you've lived.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Hell isn't usually a permanent punishment. It depends on what you've done/how you've lived. |
**
but once in hell can you leave?.....hell is eternal is it not, so if someone like Hitler truly repented in hell would i see him in heaven?
if you think about if.
lets say a person does not believe in god, a true atheist, but upon death he sees that heaven and hell are real and because and lets assume he lived his life in sin he should be sent to hell.
once in hell can he repent and go to heaven? | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| I don't think that it works like that. The only reason human beings have the desire to sin (this is all assuming that God/Devil/Heaven exists) is because the Devil tempts us. Sin can only exist where the Devil is. So if we're in a place without the Devil, then the concept of sin doesn't exist. How can you choose or not choose something that doesn't exist? We wouldn't have the desire to sin. |
So presumably, by the same logic, there is no 'good' either? Since without temptation to do evil there is no merit in not doing evil and, instead, doing good.... | spinout wrote: |
| Mathematically neither heaven or hell would be 'escapable' -> so when you reincarnated - > didn't you pass the test to either heaven or hell??????? |
Math doesn't come into play with heaven and hell. Formulas and equations wont get you into or out of either of them.
| bikerman wrote: |
| So presumably, by the same logic, there is no 'good' either? Since without temptation to do evil there is no merit in not doing evil and, instead, doing good.... |
Exactly. To lead you even further than the "....", by the logic you speak, "its impossible to sin in heaven", then you would not be able to good deeds in hell.
I agree that being able to sin is part of free will. That would not make sense to be in heaven but not have free will. That is also why I "joke around" and throw theories out such as reincarnation. Maybe you can be cast out of heaven for too many sins, returning you to the life to learn again to do what you needed to. Also, you would be able to leave hell, as it would be ungodly to damn his people forever and not let them have chances to repent. He forgives you in life and if you die and are bad enough to go to hell, you would be able to return, to try again.
Last edited by Bryan_Bezzle on Thu Jan 31, 2008 4:22 am; edited 1 time in total | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| No, you cannot sin in Heaven. Supposedly, Heaven is a place where the Devil cannot enter. Sin is brought upon by the Devil. No Devil equals no sin. |
But, wait, I thought that Lucifer sinned (i.e. rebelled against God) and was cast down to Hell.
Does this not mean that sin is possible in Heaven, and that people can be cast down from Heaven?
Assuming, of course, that this is a topic of Christianity.Also - if no devil = no sin, who tempted Lucifer?
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Also - if no devil = no sin, who tempted Lucifer? |
BAM theres the knockout punch. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Also - if no devil = no sin, who tempted Lucifer? |
Don't worry 
They'll come up with something convenient. | liljp617 wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | Also - if no devil = no sin, who tempted Lucifer? |
Don't worry They'll come up with something convenient. |
Oh I know that. I was educated by the Salesian Brothers (a sort of poor-man's Jesuits) and I know exactly how ingenious they are at 'interpreting' theological matters to wriggle out of apparent paradoxes.
The classical 'wriggle' for this one is that Lucifer had free-will and that free-will led him (it?) to sin. (This of course destroys the argument that sin is not possible in heaven, as Soulfire says).
This also means that free will is enough in itself for temptation, without any external agency such as Devil, which then begs the question what is the devil for?
Why not simply leave the Devil out of the equation, and rely on free-will to sort it all out? | Bikerman wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | | Also - if no devil = no sin, who tempted Lucifer? |
Don't worry They'll come up with something convenient. |
Oh I know that. I was educated by the Salesian Brothers (a sort of poor-man's Jesuits) and I know exactly how ingenious they are at 'interpreting' theological matters to wriggle out of apparent paradoxes.
The classical 'wriggle' for this one is that Lucifer had free-will and that free-will led him (it?) to sin. (This of course destroys the argument that sin is not possible in heaven).
This also means that free will is enough in itself for temptation, without any external agency such as Devil, which then begs the question what is the devil for?
Why not simply leave the Devil out of the equation, and rely on free-will to sort it all out? |
Devil is there to give sustenance to evil. Without the power of evil good would not be considered good it just would be. Since evil is not natural nor humanely or ethical, there must be something causing it.But surely the example of Lucifer shows us that evil is a consequence of free will. Since humans have free will then they are free to commit evil. Evil is defined, in this context, as acting against the wishes of God.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| But surely the example of Lucifer shows us that evil is a consequence of free will. Since humans have free will then they are free to commit evil. Evil is defined, in this context, as acting against the wishes of God. |
Actually, add another o. Evil would be, in this context, acting against the wishes of good. For if an atheist man commits an act of evil, he does not acknowledge God exists, therefore defies the power of good. Although God does portray the power of good.Well, I was using evil in the Judeo-Christian sense which is, loosely stated 'that which results from dissociation from God's will'. That's a classic 'cathechism' which I think applies to most if not all of Christian sects as well as Judaism.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Well, I was using evil in the Judeo-Christian sense which is, loosely stated 'that which results from dissociation from God's will'. That's a classic 'cathechism' which I think applies to most if not all of Christian sects as well as Judaism. |
Oh sorry I'm using Bezzleism... You understand.The problem can be simply stated.
Lucifer was perfect. Lucifer had free-will. Lucifer sinned. Sin is, therefore, an exercise of free-will which is against the wishes of God. Sin requires no Devil, simply free-will.
Yeah I actually started to argue my own statement I dont know whats up with that. Shit this is all heresay anyway. I do not know what exactly is, but I do believe in God and since I do I also believe in Satan. I think Satan uses the power of evil influence to his advantage. So evil may not be his own. If he was once in heaven and was cast out then evil already existed in free will.
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
| Yeah I actually started to argue my own statement I dont know whats up with that. Shit this is all heresay anyway. I do not know what exactly is, but I do believe in God and since I do I also believe in Satan. I think Satan uses the power of evil influence to his advantage. So evil may not be his own. If he was once in heaven and was cast out then evil already existed in free will. |
Don't feel bad. These issues have boggled some of the great minds in history. | Soulfire wrote: |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | No, you cannot sin in Heaven. Supposedly, Heaven is a place where the Devil cannot enter. Sin is brought upon by the Devil. No Devil equals no sin. |
But, wait, I thought that Lucifer sinned (i.e. rebelled against God) and was cast down to Hell.
Does this not mean that sin is possible in Heaven, and that people can be cast down from Heaven?
Assuming, of course, that this is a topic of Christianity. |
I don't know. I'm just quoting what I was told in church. I actually asked that same question one time when I was told this and that person didn't know what to say either. I'm not a biblical scholar, or anything, I was just repeating that I heard.Well this is where you enter theological debate proper.
According to Catholicism, for example, Heaven is eternal and having attained heaven, the spirit is incapable of sin.
In a masterpiece of theological reasoning the Church argues | Quote: |
| And surely, if the blessed knew that their happiness was ever to come to an end, this knowledge alone would prevent their happiness from being perfect. |
Personally speaking, I quickly tire of theology nowadays. I used to enjoy debating the Brothers who taught me, but I now find the exercise rather sterile and pointless, since I don't believe the underlying 'truths' that theology is supposed to flesh out. I still remember enough to be able to hold my own in most debates but my heart isn't really in it Well in Islam this question isn't really a brain-blocker, as God and his angels and Satan/Lucifer were not in HEAVEN, but in Arsh. Arsh, specifically, is said to be the "Throne" of God, but obviously it is not a "throne" throne (ie. a chair).
Adam and Eve were put into Heaven (which is not where the angels and God were), and after Satan defied God in ARSH, not in Heaven, Satan was allowed into Heaven to see whether he could entice Adam and Eve or not.
Obviously they ate from the tree and got banished to Earth.
Anywhere where Satan goes, there is sin. Basically he has the power to sin and make others sin. So, when he went into Heaven, he could make people sin there. But if he is going to be sent to Hell at the end of the universe, well then Heaven will become a pure place, because there is no Satan.
Theoretically, let's assume Earth WASN'T destroyed at the end of the universe (well obviously it would be, but for discussion's sake let's say it wasn't), then there would be no sinning on Earth, either. But this doesn't make Earth, or our universe for instance, perfect because Heaven totally lacks the imperfections of Nature, natural disasters, etc. This is why Heaven is a peaceful, perfect place.
Maybe god being this bad as player, gave lucifer the free will which led him to evil, in order to give humanity free will. he new this shit would go down, so as lucifer went tits up he was sent to hell. so in hell lucifer aint not there and neither is sin so we can chill out in heaven free of sin, but god, being all powerfull and stuff can still influence good in people in hell? allowing the escape...
i like this arguement, i dont believe in god, but i like the idea of it all, its a thinker.
and i dont allways talk like this, i just fancied a change.
ciao
So if one soul, yours, will turn out so bad you got to 'hell' - after you got there you find you are completely stuck - and more unhappy souls joins you in infinity. Finanlly all energy in the universe (souls) are gathered on 2 sides. Since they are stuck the whole universe collapse since it's built on infinite soul movement.... So that idea of eternal heaven or hell can go into the bin... OK?
Hitler therefore can't be in hell, atleast not forever -> so he got to heaven after a while or got reincarnated or just went to be the mass of God. OK? (or just laughs for not beeing in hell ...)
Hm, well if there is a god, omnipotent n good, then God would not have installed a hell.... OK?
lol, installed a hell. i love the way you phrased that.
oh yeah, just put it over there next to the heaven please. left a bit. bit more, perfect
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Well in Islam this question isn't really a brain-blocker, as God and his angels and Satan/Lucifer were not in HEAVEN, but in Arsh. Arsh, specifically, is said to be the "Throne" of God, but obviously it is not a "throne" throne (ie. a chair). |
That still does not explain what made Lucifer commit sin. If the devil is necessary for sin (as you have said) then what made the devil sin? | Bikerman wrote: |
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: | | Well in Islam this question isn't really a brain-blocker, as God and his angels and Satan/Lucifer were not in HEAVEN, but in Arsh. Arsh, specifically, is said to be the "Throne" of God, but obviously it is not a "throne" throne (ie. a chair). |
That still does not explain what made Lucifer commit sin. If the devil is necessary for sin (as you have said) then what made the devil sin? |
In heaven, Lucifer was an angel. Angels were given a will with a free moral choice. Lucifer's sin was pride and covetousness. He was jealous of God and thought he should be in his place. God did not intend on evil existing, but it is the yang to the power of goods yin. So evil is basically part of free will. It is embedded in us the ability to do both good and evil. The angels were made to be perfect but Lucifer made a choice. That choice got him cast out of heaven unto hell and earth along with 1/3 of the angels.
Those who allow Jesus into their hearts and follow his word are immune to Satan's authority because Jesus died on the cross, taking with him the burden of our humanly sins. He was reborn and brings life to those who follow him.
The reason Lucifer is called Satan is because Lucifer was his name as an angel whilst he was perfect. Satan comes from a hebrew word that signifies an adversary, an enemy, and an accuser. Since he is against God, therefore he was given the name Satan. | Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | HalfBloodPrince wrote: | | Well in Islam this question isn't really a brain-blocker, as God and his angels and Satan/Lucifer were not in HEAVEN, but in Arsh. Arsh, specifically, is said to be the "Throne" of God, but obviously it is not a "throne" throne (ie. a chair). |
That still does not explain what made Lucifer commit sin. If the devil is necessary for sin (as you have said) then what made the devil sin? |
In heaven, Lucifer was an angel. Angels were given a will with a free moral choice. Lucifer's sin was pride and covetousness. He was jealous of God and thought he should be in his place. God did not intend on evil existing, but it is the yang to the power of goods yin. So evil is basically part of free will. It is embedded in us the ability to do both good and evil. The angels were made to be perfect but Lucifer made a choice. That choice got him cast out of heaven unto hell and earth along with 1/3 of the angels.
Those who allow Jesus into their hearts and follow his word are immune to Satan's authority because Jesus died on the cross, taking with him the burden of our humanly sins. He was reborn and brings life to those who follow him.
The reason Lucifer is called Satan is because Lucifer was his name as an angel whilst he was perfect. Satan comes from a hebrew word that signifies an adversary, an enemy, and an accuser. Since he is against God, therefore he was given the name Satan. |
are you sure you got your facts right, Lucifer didn't want to be god nor was he jealous of god he was angry because god told him to bow down to Adam and Eve which Lucifer did not want to do. It wouldn't make sense for someone to be jealous of an all powerful being when you will never become all powerful, honestly would anyone here try to go against god if they knew that god existed and he was the all creator, no I don't think so.
sry if I am wrong its just that I was always brought up with my version.
also thatWhen the angels were told to bow down to Adam, the righteous angels obeyed God and bowed to Adam. Satan/Lucifer, however, was made of fire and thought that he, a creature of fire, is better than a creature of earth (metaphorically) and that he shouldn't have to bow to him.
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | Also - if no devil = no sin, who tempted Lucifer? |
BAM theres the knockout punch. |
I totally agree. This topic can be closed. | tombula wrote: |
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | | Also - if no devil = no sin, who tempted Lucifer? |
BAM theres the knockout punch. |
I totally agree. This topic can be closed. |
So says you. This is a Philosophy/Religion forum where, believe it or not, concepts of religions will be discussed no matter how much you disbelieve them.But if Lucifer, the first amongst all angels can sinned, then all can make sin's in heaven. Sin is a result of free will with bad judgment of some things/sytuations.
| tombula wrote: |
| But if Lucifer, the first amongst all angels can sinned, then all can make sin's in heaven. Sin is a result of free will with bad judgment of some things/sytuations. |
Sin is free will. The angels were created to be perfect. God gave them free will. Lucifer's sins were caused by his ability of free will.Sin is sin and free will is free will. You may mean that sin is dependant on free will and is a consequence of the exercise of that free will. They are not, however, the same thing.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Sin is sin and free will is free will. You may mean that sin is dependant on free will and is a consequence of the exercise of that free will. They are not, however, the same thing. |
No I mean what I say. Sin is free will just as an act of good is free will. You are reading too far into it and should I say..splitting hairs? | Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | Sin is sin and free will is free will. You may mean that sin is dependant on free will and is a consequence of the exercise of that free will. They are not, however, the same thing. |
No I mean what I say. Sin is free will just as an act of good is free will. You are reading too far into it and should I say..splitting hairs? |
I'm not splitting hairs. The statement 'sin is free will' is ridiculous. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | | Sin is sin and free will is free will. You may mean that sin is dependant on free will and is a consequence of the exercise of that free will. They are not, however, the same thing. |
No I mean what I say. Sin is free will just as an act of good is free will. You are reading too far into it and should I say..splitting hairs? |
I'm not splitting hairs. The statement 'sin is free will' is ridiculous. |
Ridiculous to someone who refuses to read into what I am implying and would rather split hairs. Makes sense to me. I can draw it out for you with scientific method if that would ease your pain. | Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
| Ridiculous to someone who refuses to read into what I am implying and would rather split hairs. Makes sense to me. I can draw it out for you with scientific method if that would ease your pain. |
No I don't think you could. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: | | Ridiculous to someone who refuses to read into what I am implying and would rather split hairs. Makes sense to me. I can draw it out for you with scientific method if that would ease your pain. |
No I don't think you could. |
hmmm.. that was a joke but..
Question : Is sin free will?
Research shows that indeed sin if part of free will. So a new question arrives.
Can you say sin is free will and people understand what you mean by reading the rest of your sentence?
My hypothesis is yes that some people are capable of understanding what one means without picking apart their statement either a. gramatically or b. philosophically
Test A : Does Bikerman get what I am trying to say?
Well he didn't seem to understand my initial quote wasnt directed towards him nor did he read the last sentence of that post that would pretty much stop his argument because that is what he is arguing against. I tried to explain to him that sin is free will as well as a good deed is free will. He did not understand what I am trying to say A. GRAMATICALLY, so I guess I shouldve used of. Sin is of free will. But B. PHILOSOPHICALLY I do think he understands that sin is of free will so that part passed.
Well I guess from test A I can say that my hypothesis is partially true since test A subject did not understand without picking apart gramatically but he did indeed have the same belief as I on the philosophical part.
Sorry I wont be furthering my testing due to Test B not giving a damn. | Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
Question : Is sin free will?
Research shows that indeed sin if part of free will. So a new question arrives. |
What research is that then? If sin is PART of free will is that the same as saying sin IS free will? | Quote: |
| Can you say sin is free will and people understand what you mean by reading the rest of your sentence? |
In other words can people correct your faulty use of words by reading ahead? Why not simply use the correct words in the first place - then they don't need to read ahead?.
| Quote: |
| My hypothesis is yes that some people are capable of understanding what one means without picking apart their statement either a. gramatically or b. philosophically |
It is much easier, however, to say what you mean rather than rely on the reader to have to work it out. | Quote: |
| Test A : Does Bikerman get what I am trying to say? |
Invalid test because you have no possible experimental procedure to test the hypothesis.
| Quote: |
| Well he didn't seem to understand my initial quote wasnt directed towards him nor did he read the last sentence of that post that would pretty much stop his argument because that is what he is arguing against. I tried to explain to him that sin is free will as well as a good deed is free will. He did not understand what I am trying to say A. GRAMATICALLY, so I guess I shouldve used of. Sin is of free will. But B. PHILOSOPHICALLY I do think he understands that sin is of free will so that part passed. |
Invalid conclusion because you have no way to test it. In reality Bikerman thinks that the statement 'sin is free will' is simply wrong.
| Quote: |
| Well I guess from test A I can say that my hypothesis is partially true since test A subject did not understand without picking apart gramatically but he did indeed have the same belief as I on the philosophical part. |
Since you don't know what my philosophical beliefs on this are, I find that a strange conclusion.wow again...you win bikerman...its not worth it. I am a normal person. You are a picky person who likes to pick apart everything everyone says both gramatically and philosophically. That was the most BS post Ive made and you took it seriously and literally......and decided to pick it apart. Have at it bro.
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
| wow again...you win bikerman...its not worth it. I am a normal person. You are a picky person who likes to pick apart everything everyone says both gramatically and philosophically. That was the most BS post Ive made and you took it seriously and literally......and decided to pick it apart. Have at it bro. |
Sorry if my 'style' upsets you. The reason I'm 'picky' is because this is a philosophy and religion forum, so I believe that we should examine statements with some rigour and not simply accept them without question. I'm sorry if you think I pick-apart postings on purely grammatical grounds - I try not to, except when there is a genuine point of meaning at stake.
I *do* take postings seriously, yes, because I assume that the poster means what they post.Calm down guys. We all agree sin is possible in heaven. What is sin and is it really exist, is another thing.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| ... Lucifer was perfect. Lucifer had free-will. Lucifer sinned. Sin is, therefore, an exercise of free-will which is against the wishes of God. Sin requires no Devil, simply free-will. |
But atheist don't belive in God so they cant act against God will, so .. no sin? Or, You build a robot and programmed him to kill somebody. Robot has no free will but does this mean he no't sinned? Or maybe sin don't exist. | tombula wrote: |
Calm down guys. We all agree sin is possible in heaven. What is sin and is it really exist, is another thing.
| Bikerman wrote: | | ... Lucifer was perfect. Lucifer had free-will. Lucifer sinned. Sin is, therefore, an exercise of free-will which is against the wishes of God. Sin requires no Devil, simply free-will. |
But atheist don't belive in God so they cant act against God will, so .. no sin? Or, You build a robot and programmed him to kill somebody. Robot has no free will but does this mean he no't sinned? Or maybe sin don't exist. |
Quite correct. For me personally (as an atheist) there is no concept of sin. There is a concept of right and wrong, which is derived from my own ethics, but I don't see 'wrong' as 'sin' since, as you point out, I don't believe in a God so I don't believe we can act against God's will.I'm not an atheist but I dont believe in 'sin as a act against God will'. He give us free will and left us. No one can define what sin is. This quote describe it perfectly:
| Quote: |
| One man's tragedy can by another man's holiday |
| Bikerman wrote: |
| I'm not splitting hairs. The statement 'sin is free will' is ridiculous. |
I agree. Sinning is defying God; performing good deeds is pleasing God.
Free-will is simply the choice to do either one.
