Free Will & the Afterlife in Christianity and Islam

[lovemuffin]

In a way, I hope that the theological positions I'm taking are reasonably in line with orthodox positions, or at least eastern orthodoxy. I could quote from some handful of eastern saints. Although I do imagine I would probably take things a bit farther, and end up potentially being heterodox. But perhaps not by as much as you might think.

In any case, I didn't mean that you were obligated to respond to "unorthodox" positions, or even to suggest that you were wrong to criticize. I think the implicit criticism of the theology of mainline Christianity you are offering is valid. Hence why, rather than arguing against you, I'm suggesting that theology needs to be revised. But there is at least a lot of tradition within Christianity from which to draw in terms of that revision.

 

[gsa]

well named can speak for himself but ehh I'm pretty sure his views are well within the orthodox school of Orthodoxy.

I was not aware that the Orthodox could reject divine omnipotence, or accept that "[w]hoever does not experience eternal life here should not aspire to it, because it does not exist afterwards," much less his interpretation of scripture and his apparent belief that the Christian church should end its teaching of contempt for sexual minorities.

I could be wrong about that, of course.

 

[lovemuffin]

That quote comes one of the only 3 saints in the eastern orthodox tradition to be called "Theologian", which doesn't so much indicate the sort of logical philosophical study that the word does now, but theoria, the experience of God. Unfortunately I don't have a good reference for that quote. I borrowed it from this book, but this is one of the few cases where there doesn't seem to be a footnote citation, and the internet hasn't been helpful. Given Panikkar's academic credentials, I don't have any reason to doubt the authenticity of the quote though. On the other hand, it should maybe be clarified that the quote shouldn't be taken to mean that Symeon didnt' believe in an "afterwards". What he believed was that eternal life was union with God and that we must begin to experience that union in this life.

I don't believe I've posted any interpretation of scripture here that is outside of the eastern orthodox tradition. The opinion I share with the author of the article about "contempt for sexual minorities" is unorthodox, although unrelated to this subject.

 

[gsa]

In a way, I hope that the theological positions I'm taking are reasonably in line with orthodox positions, or at least eastern orthodoxy. I could quote from some handful of eastern saints. Although I do imagine I would probably take things a bit farther, and end up potentially being heterodox. But perhaps not by as much as you might think.

In any case, I didn't mean that you were obligated to respond to "unorthodox" positions, or even to suggest that you were wrong to criticize. I think the implicit criticism of the theology of mainline Christianity you are offering is valid. Hence why, rather than arguing against you, I'm suggesting that theology needs to be revised. But there is at least a lot of tradition within Christianity from which to draw in terms of that revision.

I see where you are coming from. I just approached this thread trying to figure out how one can hold these apparently contradictory beliefs simultaneously.

 

[gsa]

That quote comes one of the only 3 saints in the eastern orthodox tradition to be called "Theologian", which doesn't so much indicate the sort of logical philosophical study that the word does now, but theoria, the experience of God. Unfortunately I don't have a good reference for that quote. I borrowed it from this book, but this is one of the few cases where there doesn't seem to be a footnote citation, and the internet hasn't been helpful. Given Panikkar's academic credentials, I don't have any reason to doubt the authenticity of the quote though. On the other hand, it should maybe be clarified that the quote shouldn't be taken to mean that Symeon didnt' believe in an "afterwards". What he believed was that eternal life was union with God and that we must begin to experience that union in this life.

I don't believe I've posted any interpretation of scripture here that is outside of the eastern orthodox tradition. The opinion I share with the author of the article about "contempt for sexual minorities" is unorthodox, although unrelated to this subject.

I am only going to address the Symeon quote: Is that compatible with the teaching of Eastern Orthodoxy on the subject of the afterlife? I know that the Orthodox position on hell is different, but that quote suggests something radically different.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You have a pretty one-dimensional view of what Heaven, Hell and free will are. In Heaven, you are not a mindless drone praising God forever. In Hell, you are not "tortured" by red devils with pitchforks forever, either. Heaven and Hell are more appropriately understood as states of being that the soul ascends or descends to after death.

Heaven is a state of perfect communion not only with God, but with all other Saints in Heaven. It is the state of perfect holiness and sanctity of the soul. You would still have free will, but due to the transfiguration of the soul through its choice of maintaining friendship with God and cultivating holiness, they would not desire to break this communion, this perfect unity of God's love. They are perfected, and granted the beatific vision, the direct sight and presence of God.

Hell, on the other hand, is the rejection of communion, holiness and friendship with God. I personally prefer the Eastern Christian concept of Hell as being God rejected and His passionate radiant love being experienced as torment. So the torment is not coming from God or any other outside agent but is due to the rejection of it and a scorning of it. This would explain the imagery of Hell being a fiery torment. But this torment is not literal fire burning the damned.

"The Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that heaven and hell are relations to or experiences of God's just and loving presence[36][37] There is no created place of divine absence, nor is hell an ontological separation from God.[38] One expression of the Eastern teaching is that hell and heaven are dimensions of God's intensifying presence, as this presence is experienced either as torment or as paradise depending on the spiritual state of a person dwelling with God.[36][39] For one who hates God and by extension hates himself as God's image-bearer, to be encompassed by the divine presence could only result in unspeakable anguish.[40][41][42]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_Hell#Basic_Orthodox_teachings_on_hell

Basically, Heaven is the ultimate end of the soul gradually ascending to God through consciously making choices that result in the growth of holiness in this life. Hell is the ultimate end of rejecting the call to cultivating holiness and seeking union with God.

 

[lovemuffin]

I am only going to address the Symeon quote: Is that compatible with the teaching of Eastern Orthodoxy on the subject of the afterlife? I know that the Orthodox position on hell is different, but that quote suggests something radically different.

To the best of my knowledge the answer is yes, although I would hesitate to suggest that most orthodox would hear it in a completely literal sense, i.e suggesting that if you do not have some particular experience of God in this life you will absolutely not have eternal life. Orthodoxy isn't generally dogmatic in that way. mystical union with God is fairly fundamental to the Orthodox understanding of Christian life and the quote is an exhortation to that aspiration.

(I am orthodox, in the Orthodox Church of America, converted a couple years ago, but I offer the caveats because I'm not sure I can speak authoritatively...)

 

[gsa]

You have a pretty one-dimensional view of what Heaven, Hell and free will are. In Heaven, you are not a mindless drone praising God forever. In Hell, you are not "tortured" by red devils with pitchforks forever, either. Heaven and Hell are more appropriately understood as states of being that the soul ascends or descends to after death.

Heaven is a state of perfect communion not only with God, but with all other Saints in Heaven. It is the state of perfect holiness and sanctity of the soul. You would still have free will, but due to the transfiguration of the soul through its choice of maintaining friendship with God and cultivating holiness, they would not desire to break this communion, this perfect unity of God's love. They are perfected, and granted the beatific vision, the direct sight and presence of God.

Hell, on the other hand, is the rejection of communion, holiness and friendship with God. I personally prefer the Eastern Christian concept of Hell as being God rejected and His passionate radiant love being experienced as torment. So the torment is not coming from God or any other outside agent but is due to the rejection of it and a scorning of it. This would explain the imagery of Hell being a fiery torment. But this torment is not literal fire burning the damned.

"The Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that heaven and hell are relations to or experiences of God's just and loving presence[36][37] There is no created place of divine absence, nor is hell an ontological separation from God.[38] One expression of the Eastern teaching is that hell and heaven are dimensions of God's intensifying presence, as this presence is experienced either as torment or as paradise depending on the spiritual state of a person dwelling with God.[36][39] For one who hates God and by extension hates himself as God's image-bearer, to be encompassed by the divine presence could only result in unspeakable anguish.[40][41][42]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_Hell#Basic_Orthodox_teachings_on_hell

Basically, Heaven is the ultimate end of the soul gradually ascending to God through consciously making choices that result in the growth of holiness in this life. Hell is the ultimate end of rejecting the call to cultivating holiness and seeking union with God.

I want to address the section that I bolded: For what possible reason would an all loving deity give you a form of free will that prevents you from sinning in heaven, but not in this world, to avoid sin altogether?

And although it is described as the chief torment in the RCC, the separation from God is not necessarily the only torment, is it? Also it is still described as "unspeakable anguish," which is a form of torture. For eternity.

 

[gsa]

To the best of my knowledge the answer is yes, although I would hesitate to suggest that most orthodox would hear it in a completely literal sense, i.e suggesting that if you do not have some particular experience of God in this life you will absolutely not have eternal life. Orthodoxy isn't generally dogmatic in that way. mystical union with God is fairly fundamental to the Orthodox understanding of Christian life and the quote is an exhortation to that aspiration.

(I am orthodox, in the Orthodox Church of America, converted a couple years ago, but I offer the caveats because I'm not sure I can speak authoritatively...)

But that quote suggests that eternity is experienced in this life. That there is no eternity "beyond" this life. How do you read the quote?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I want to address the section that I bolded: For what possible reason would an all loving deity give you a form of free will that prevents you from sinning in heaven, but not in this world, to avoid sin altogether?

You are assuming that God takes away the free will. He doesn't. The person has made the conscious choice to pursue holiness and union with God. Heaven is the result of the transfiguration of the person's soul and so they do not desire to break this union. So it is an exercise of their free will.

And although it is described as the chief torment in the RCC, the separation from God is not necessarily the only torment, is it? Also it is still described as "unspeakable anguish," which is a form of torture. For eternity.

As I said, I prefer the Eastern concept of Hell because the Western one seems to go against God's omnipresence. I never really understood how someone could be separated from God so the idea of Hell as an inversion of Heaven makes more sense to me.

Whatever torment they experience is self-imposed due to their choice of rejecting God. That was my point. Christians may also maintain the hope that all may be saved. We are not required to believe that anyone is in Hell, honestly (although with my knowledge of the depths of human evil, that seems unlikely, imo).

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

Free will is often cited as the justification for reward and punishment in these twin Abrahamic religions. But how does this work?

Supposedly, slaves-submitters ("believers") and rebellious hellions ("sinners") both have free will in this life. In fact free will is very important, particularly in most forms of Christianity, for explaining the fall. Sophisticated theologians also explain that free will is retained in heaven, which causes people to sin, which results in their perpetual punishment being "just" because it is the sin that they choose that justifies their torture forever and ever.

Conversely, free will does not appear to exist in heaven. Believers are happy slaves-submitters who spend eternity praising God. In fact they do not have free will, per said sophisticated theologians, because they cannot rebel against God and choose evil.

What is the logic here? How can free will be so necessary and wonderful in this life, but be the "gift" of the damned in the next life? Why not just create people without free will initially, and lose this whole problem of free will and punishment altogether?

The free will problem is very much tied to the mind-body problem. You may be interested in an extensive treatment of these problems, not a review of other people's ideas, but a presentation of my own, involving a long effort to refrain from being ambiguous (ambiguity being present, I feel, in all those presentations by others that I have read).
FOR EVERYONE: Mind-Body Problem (& Free Will vs. Determinism)

 

[Glaurung]

In fact free will is very important, particularly in most forms of Christianity, for explaining the fall. Sophisticated theologians also explain that free will is retained in heaven, which causes people to sin, which results in their perpetual punishment being "just" because it is the sin that they choose that justifies their torture forever and ever.

Free will doesn't cause people to sin. We sin, because we have the ability to make choices that can be sinful. Our freedom to sin is not the cause of our sin per se. Once we have made that final choice to either accept God or reject him, our wills are irrevocably aligned towards that end. This is a result of our own choice, and that choice is the reason we are given this life in the first place.

Why not just create people without free will initially, and lose this whole problem of free will and punishment altogether?

What would be the point of creating beings to share and enjoy in your love if they are but automated robots not truly capable of actually loving in any meaningful sense? (Would such beings even be sentient?) I don't think atheists who think this is a point have thought though what they are really asking here. Why did God make me sentient? Are you afraid of your own responsibility so much as to demand God make you but an unconscious program?

 

[gsa]

Free will doesn't cause people to sin. We sin, because we have the ability to make choices that can be sinful. Our freedom to sin is not the cause of our sin per se. Once we have made that final choice to either accept God or reject him, our wills are irrevocably aligned towards that end. This is a result of our own choice, and that choice is the reason we are given this life in the first place.

This is completely incoherent to me. On the one hand, you say that humans choose sin, but free will is not responsible. But free will is what gives humans the ability to prefer good to evil. It is what facilitates the choice of good over evil, or evil over good. On top of it, by being purified in heaven, you will have no real choice, since you will be intrinsically inclined to choose only good. So you are comfortable with God making you an automon, but only after you have been rewarded or punished for choosing good or evil in this life.

What would be the point of creating beings to share and enjoy in your love if they are but automated robots not truly capable of actually loving in any meaningful sense? (Would such beings even be sentient?) I don't think atheists who think this is a point have thought though what they are really asking here. Why did God make me sentient? Are you afraid of your own responsibility so much as to demand God make you but an unconscious program?

I am not afraid of my own responsibility at all. Your god doesn’t provide enough evidence to justify belief in it, and the evidence provided by your church is, as I said above, completely incoherent. Who would want to worship such a being? Who could believe that such a being is made of love?

And if you cannot reject God in heaven, how can you truly love him? You’re just an automon, by this reasoning.

 

[Glaurung]

I never really understood how someone could be separated from God so the idea of Hell as an inversion of Heaven makes more sense to me.

You cannot be truly separated from God in an ontological sense as everything is dependant on God for its existence. I maintain Hell is both a place and a state wherein there is a total loss of grace. You cannot see God or anything that is good, but only the horror that is everything contrary to God. Everything that is good comes from God. In Hell, you are separated from that and are left with only pain, grief, horror and malice.

I do not believe that the dammed are poked with pitchforks by demons. (How can the damned justly punish the damned?) I take the old visual representations as metaphorical for the sheer hopelessness of the situation. Not as a literal description of what goes on there. (Which nobody really knows).

 

[Glaurung]

This is completely incoherent to me. On the one hand, you say that humans choose sin, but free will is not responsible

Let's say you come across an injured person on the road. You have choice to either ignore or help him. Your freedom to do either is enabled by your ability to make choices, but your mere ability to make a choice is not the cause of whatever choice you make. You're confusing the mechanism in which we commit sin with the source or cause of sin. You may ignore him because you are lazy or cowardly, or you may help him because you have empathy.

I am not afraid of my own responsibility at all.

Yet you ask for the negation of your will as to remove human responsibly so that all can be saved. I'm saying such a salvation is meaningless.

Your god doesn’t provide enough evidence to justify belief in it

Unrelated topic.

And if you cannot reject God in heaven, how can you truly love him? You’re just an automon, by this reasoning.

You are either not understanding, you're simply refusing to. I'm going with the latter.

 

[gsa]

Let's say you come across an injured person on the road. You have choice to either ignore or help him. Your freedom to do either is enabled by your ability to make choices, but your mere ability to make a choice is not the cause of whatever choice you make. You're confusing the mechanism in which we commit sin with the source or cause of sin. You may ignore him because you are lazy or cowardly, or you may help him because you have empathy.

Yes, but if I am inclined only to choose good, then it doesn’t matter. I will choose to do good. The elimination of any inclination to choose evil will not eliminate the choosing, so how am I an automon? Unless I am one in heaven, where I no longer desire to choose evil? This is the incoherence.

Yet you ask for the negation of your will as to remove human responsibly so that all can be saved. I'm saying such a salvation is meaningless.

How is it meaningless? And how could you even know it was meaningless?

You are either not understanding, you're simply refusing to. I'm going with the latter.

So predictably Christian of you.

 

[lovemuffin]

But that quote suggests that eternity is experienced in this life. That there is no eternity "beyond" this life. How do you read the quote?

Yes to the former. No to the latter. With regard to the latter, I'm taking into account other things St Symeon also wrote, and also general orthodox belief, but I think he means something more like "if it doesn't exist for you here, it won't exist for you later", rather than there not being a later in an absolute sense. The later isn't separate from the present, might be a better way of saying it. It's a response against a common Christian way of thinking that treats Christian life as only a matter of believing the right things and acting the right way now in order to be saved later. So for example in the Philokalia he writes:

"The Son of God has become Son of Man in order to make us, men, sons of God, raising our race by grace to what He is Himself by nature, granting us birth from above through the grace of the Holy Spirit and leading us straightway to the kingdom of heaven, or rather, granting us this kingdom of heaven within us (Luke 17:21), in order that we should not merely be fed by the hope of entering it, but entering into full possession thereof should cry: our ‘life is hid with Christ in God’ (Col. 3:3)."
​

So I read the "it does not exist afterwards" in the light of not merely being fed by a future hope, as in it does not exist afterwards separately from the present

 

[Glaurung]

Yes, but if I am inclined only to choose good, then it doesn’t matter. I will choose to do good. The elimination of any inclination to choose evil will not eliminate the choosing, so how am I an automon? Unless I am one in heaven, where I no longer desire to choose evil? This is the incoherence.

The eternity of Heaven is never ending, but it's not temporal in the sense that we have time here on Earth. It's but a single moment that lasts forever.The very state of being in Heaven is to be aligned with God and the joy that comes with that. It's a choice you make at the moment of death and forever afterwards you are in a perpetual state of making that choice. The perpetual yes to God is Heaven. How can one perfectly in line with God choose against him? It's incoherent because you are assuming Heaven and Hell as extensions of this world with more or less the same rules. No.

How is it meaningless? And how could you even know it was meaningless?

God created beings to share in his joy, not unconscious programs playing out a script for no particular audience. What would be the point in that? Who are you saving? Who would there be for God to actually love since none of those robots are capable of knowing that they're loved except insofar as they're programmed to pretend to be sentient. It's incoherent to insist that God is in the wrong for doing something so horrible as to give his creations real agency, (that monster) because some will use that agency to hurt themselves.

 

[lovemuffin]

But that quote suggests that eternity is experienced in this life. That there is no eternity "beyond" this life. How do you read the quote?

It was bothering me, not being able to find the original source and context, but I've tracked it down. It turns out it's not a direct quote, it's a paraphrase of a small part of the first of Symeon's Hymns:

"And those that suppose that they have You, the light of all the cosmos,
yet say that they do not see you, that they do not live in the light
they are not enlightened, they do not continually contemplate you, O Savior.
May they learn that you have neither enlightened their mind, nor dwelt in their hearts
and in vain do they exult in their empty hopes,
expecting that they will see your light after death...

For if the death of each obtains a final closure,
and likewise for all, after death, one can effect nothing,
and one cannot do either good or worthless things,
my Savior, without question each will remain as they were found at death"​

In the introduction to this translation, the authors write:

"Hymn 1 insists on the necessity of seeing God in this life for salvation in the next. The basic assumption is that if one is spiritually blind and out of touch with God in this life, then so also in the afterlife. There is no way to develop one's spiritual vision after death.Thus spiritual blindness, though subjective, is hell itself because it cuts one off from God... Symeon's teaching that luminous vision is necessary for one's very salvation puts him on the fringe of traditional orthodoxy, and it is one of the teachings that his monks found most difficult to accept."​

 

[rusra02]

So you have free will in heaven to reject God?

Also are you denying that there is a hell?

Yes, free will is a gift God will never take away. However, I believe those granted everlasting life, whether in heaven or on earth, will have proven their loyalty and love for God.
The Bible does not teach that God punishes the wicked by torturing them in a mythical hellfire. He told Adam that if Adam sinned, "you will certainly die.” (Genesis 2:17) When God sentenced Adam for his sin, God said; “Because you listened to your wife’s voice and ate from the tree concerning which I gave you this command, ‘You must not eat from it... you [will] return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return.” (Genesis 3:17-19)