Time=movement basically. Is there no movement in eternity? By your definition if eternity, then what suggests that there will not be an end to the punishment of the wicked? If eternal punishment just means timeless punishment, or punishment outside of time, then Perhaps it will not be without end?

I am not given an "oppurtunity" to play a part in God's game. I am FORCED to or else eternal hell awaits. Yes I read your answers on the bible texts in question and unfortunately they didnt convince me.Except perhaps if you then admit that the New Testament writers were just exceptionally bad and ungifted writers who couldnt make things clear and properly explain what they actually meant?

"Extend": It doesnt matter, living after death is still an extension of this failed life and existence right? Or do you suggest that there is no life after death?

Romans 9. Try Reading that with an honest mind. Or all those parts in the "gospel" of John where he talks about how many of the jews not Only did not choose to Believe, But COULD NOT believe because God has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts.

I am FORCED to play a part in God's mean little muppet show, that is, I am forced to strive to be with him and exist and live forever. The other alternative is eternal suffering. This sounds like pure tyranny to me. The unfortunate accident of being Born Into this short and horrible life of misery and suffering is enough. Why do you Christians and your God extend that in to all eternity?

The Only one with a truly Free choice is God. If I am not free to choose whether I want to exist eternally or not, If I am FORCED to play a part in God's mean little muppet show, then Calling me free is just a mockery of the concept. To my ears, God is an invisible tyrant. And I feel sorry for mankind. I believe Scripture is obvious: God wants some people to be destroyed.

If I want to destroy myself, but I dont want to want that, what shall I then do? Change my Will? Or pray to God and say "Please make me stop being willing to destroy myself!". Perhaps that Will work. I have tried though. A lot. It is like speaking to empty air. So then how can I be sure that is not what God wants? If I want my own destruction, but at the same time dont want to want my destruction(which is very common among people), then Perhaps the reason for this is that God actually wants my destruction? I guess you have read Romans 9? It seems to suggest something similar

If I want to destroy myself, but I dont want to want that, what shall I then do? Change my Will? Or prsy to God and det "Please make me stop being willing to destroy myself!". Perhaps that Will work. I have tried though. A lot. It is like speaking to empty air. So then how can I be sure that is not what God wants? If I want my own destruction, but at the same time dont want to want my destruction(which is very common among people), then Perhaps the reason for this is that God actually wants my destruction? I guess you have read Romans 9? It seems to suggest something similar

Okay, then Perhaps we do agree to a certain extent. But yet, you as a Christian say that I can not come to God by my free choice without him making me able to through his grace right? He has to reveal himself, is that correct?
To my ears, creation ex nihilo is a mockery of the whole concept of freedom. And of Free will.

Is that all there is to your idea of free will?

"But to say for example that you don't decide what you desire, and therefore you don't have free will (in the Christian sense) is a shameless strawman."

Free will=free choice?

well of you call ny statements a strawman, then we might as well finish this discussion by saying something obvious: All metaphysical talk is a strawman.

"No, you don't control the general tendencies you or your mind has. But you can still choose to give in to them or resist them. For example, if you're a person who is very tormented by lust, you may not choose that, but you certainly do choose whether you give in to it or not."

But didnt Jesus condemn not only the actions but the inclinations towards an action too?

BTW, you lie about me saying I criticize christianity on invented basis. That I should take the moral framework that Christians hold to, not one that I have invented. I don't invent. Critizicing free will as a concept is part of my critique against christianity's "moral framework", because if fails to tell the truth already there.

Do I Believe in the Christian God? I certainly have no faith in him, but that doesnt mean I dont Believe he exists. I am not sure whether or not be exists.

No I have not read all mystics. So? Have you?

I claim Eckehart to be the greatest mystic. In what way did Schopenhauer misunderstand Augustine?

"I think that we have the freedom of choice, but not the freedom to will our will."

+1

This is 100 percent true. Though I would say "We most often have the freedom of choice in situations where a clear choice can be made between A and B".

But the will then isnt Free, because I cant will whatever I want to Will. I can start doing as ascetics and fast and starve myself in order to kill my Will maybe. But to call that free will... That is very unenlightened.

Yes and Eckehart was thought of by many as a heretic, even though he is the greatest of all mystics(along with William Blake).

No it was no strawman Schopenhauer addressed.

How does earthquakes fit Into God's plan? Are they a result of the fall or just something God lets happen for some strange reason?

Crude? Why so? Tell me more. Enlighten me, because you obviously know the truth as a Christian.

"He tried to come up with it? Don't kid yourself, Boheme, Eckhart, Pseudo-Dyonisyus etc. have already thought through that way before Berdyaev." I know he was inspired by them (all Three are three of only a few Christian thinkers worth to read), but his thought differed on a very important aspect: The Three mentioned called the ungrund a part of God, Berdyaev thought it was OUTSIDE of God, something God was even born of and didnt have power over.

"Why is it immoral for people to die in an earthquake? I'd say that's amoral, but not immoral, for to claim it is immoral would be to claim that the earthquake is a moral agent.".

Is God the cause of the earthquake? If so, then there is a "moral" agent behind it: The creator of morality! If I throw a Stone at someone and that someone dies, then are you suggesting that the act is amoral rather than immoral because the stone is not a moral agent?

Why does he hide himself? Is he Good just because he says "I am God, and I say I am good "? You say "The fact that God knows how you will use your free will does NOT mean you're condemned to a certain destiny. You still have free will and you will choose, however God is aware of what you will freely choose. This isn't to say that he controls it, or determines it in any way. He doesn't. Knowing something isn't the same with causing it to be so." but you dont see the inescapable contradiction in this : Namely that God is the prime mover, the one who willed my existence without my possible approval, alone in knowing my fate already before I was born. Seriously, use your brain here. Dont you see the absurdity in this? There is a reason that one of your great russian orthodox christian philosophers Berdyaev tried to come up with a solution to this immense problem by his idea of the ungrund of uncreated freedom. Didnt you read the article of Schopenhauer that addressed this problems? Yet you chose to focus instead on a meaningless sentence about the chinese who laughs.

I said according to your view, it seems like you say "NO man is really important.", then what is the purpose of God's muppet show? One part of Christianity says free will is almost the most important doctrine. Another part says predestination is. If christianity claims two important dogmas, on which not only mankind but Christians themselves have different opinions on whether the one thing is true or the other, and yet our eternal well-being is at stake here, it seems like God and christianity should make itself more clear on these things. You all disagree among eachother, calling eachother heretics, and your God doesnt seem to listen. He appears to be more absent than present. Being somewhere out there and in here, threatening us with terrible consequences for wrong-doings, and yet hiding himself. He doesnt tolerate critique apparently, yet he doesnt make his intentions clear. Is he active or not for example in creation? In what way? Is he the one who destroys cities in earthquakes etc? You Christians disagree about these simple matters. So how is it? Btw, the famous "Ehyeh Aser ehyeh" which is usually translated as "I am that I am", is not the best translation. A more correct one would be "I will be present whenever I will be present", which also then means what logically follows: "I will be absent whenever I choose to be absent". It seems to me like God has for the most part preferred to be absent.

To start with. I believe not in Free will. There, Luther was probably right. Secondly, saying "God is still God and you just a human " just contradicts Everything else you have Said. That is like saying "So what? No man if important. But immorality will still be punished ". A God who created the world just in order to act police. Can that really be Christ's message?

I would really appreciate if you read and commented on the article in the link I posted. So God thinks that it is better to live a short life with free will and then be eternally punished for it (something he apparently foreknew) than to live without Free will or to not live at all? I disagree with God if so. I use my "Free will" to say that I would have prefered one of the other two alternatives. You say my actions are my fault. Sure. But God knew Everything before creating me, and therefore he created me that certain way. In a way, it seems to be his fault of what you say is true.
Eternity is timelessness, I understand that. So then eternity belongs to the one living in the presence without expecting something of the future? So then Perhaps there is an end to the punishment? Or is eternity fixed and without movement? Static, that is?
Didnt Christ say "Do not resort evil "? And yet evil must be repayed with evil?

Besides, you accuse me of teaching horrendous things because I claim that benevolence is recquired towards all except victims. This is utterly false. I dont claim that. But to me it seems like you demand revenge. As if benevolence towards the victim in this short little intermezzo in relation to eternity recquires that the wrongdoer is eternally tortured for something done in time, while the "victim" is rewarded with eternal bliss. Why does the victim need his enemy to be punished eternally as well? Why isnt his own eternal bliss enough? Is it because he so hates the enemy that there can be no bliss unless the enemy is forever suffering? Seriously, let me understand this. How is this compatible with "turn the other cheek"? Or is this just something Christians are supposed to do untill the whole Army of God with Jesus in the forefront goes berserk on all their enemies?

Try to be honest instead. You are incredibly biased. But I guess you understand something that I dont. I would Love to understand therefore. If I say: "If God knew all this about the world would happen and yet approved it in the sense of creating the world in spite of it, but yet doesnt approve with the fact that people do something he knew they would do because he created them 'free', then it seems to me that not creating the world at all would be far better", then many Christians accuse me of blasphemy and Think of me as hellbound. I think better of you Though, and therefore I would really appreciate of you read this article/essay by Schopenhauer and then comment on it, what is wrong with it etc:

https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/religion/chapter6.html

It seems like God's free choice. His knowledge about it and approval of creating the world that way means he wills it. So be wants People in hell then?

All results in the world, all actions and unfortunate destinies, must have been foreseen by him who made mankind, and who, in the first place, made them not better than they are, and secondly, set a trap for them into which he must have known they would fall; for he made the whole world, and nothing is hidden from him. According to these doctrines then, God created out of nothing a weak race prone to sin, in order to give them over to endless torment. Except a few who are saved for reasons one does not know. That is the christianity I find in Aquinas and Augustine.

But did God not know he would become like that before the foundation of the world? Wasn't it God who made the first free choice when he created a bunch of creatures inclined to sin?

why did God create a psycopathic murderer? In fact, why did he create at all? Just in order to play police and judge?

sorry my phone translated automatically. It says the same thing as the one you quoted in the post above.

Vill du veta den stora skillnaden mellan Dostojevskij och de flesta kristna (Augustine och Aquinas ingår)? Dostojevskij found älskvärda trots deras "omoral", trots sina brister och sätt att vara. Eller tydligare: Människor är ontologiskt värd kärlek. Aquinas och Augustinus trodde mycket annorlunda. Människan är av sin natur förkastligt och ovärdigt kärlek. Dostojevskij sade man skall älskad genom Gud. Augustinus och Aquinas trodde man skulle bli älskad för "Guds skull" (särskilt Aquino). Det är en grotesk skillnad.

Guilty as in juridically guilty?

Hmm

So define guilty then.

No they are guilty and unguilty at the same time. That is what Dostoevsky really means; there is Only one true sin: The failure to love. There is no doubt that Dostoevsky is closer to Nietzsche than to Aquinas

Yes. All are guilty. But compare Dostoevsky 's understanding of that to the understanding of Augustine and Aquinas. It is vastly different. Dostoevsky goes so much deeper.

The whole Court of law / juridical language of the bible, at least as understood by western Christianity is in itself against life and love IMO. I cant understand how one can view life as a process of trial. God as some sort of Police. Isnt he Most of all a creator? So then being creative should be one of man's primary concerns.

Moral/immoral are basically words. The whole idea that there is some sort of list that contains "moral/immoral actions" is not even half of the whole story of truth. It is just so obvious when one reads Brothers Karamazov, dont you Think? The "immoral" People there are extremely loveable. They are so to say not guilty not rather unguilty guilty.

I guess you know the famous reply by Dimitri Karamazov when they asked him why he picked up a knife? "Sometimes one just picks up a knife without knowing why"

okay. Then I would say that actions can in a sense be judged by its consequences and motives, but in the deeper Course of things, the majority of immoral actions are not even understood by the one who commits them. And in that sense Christ comes and judges those who judges the "wrong-doers"

You first have to define what morality means according to you.