Absolutely brilliant thank you Miscella!

Satan is not human, he was an angelic being the highest order among them. He was basically second in command to God. Which is why he got such a big head and thought he could be like God himself.
Original man (Adam) had no knowledge of good and evil, he only knew good because he was created in a perfect world. When the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil was eaten in disobedience, man's eyes were opened and we had the same knowledge the angels have. Unfortunately we're not able to handle the knowledge of good and evil, as evidenced from the past several millennia of war and horror we've inflicted on the world.

We still have free will in heaven, but we've been purged of sin at that point. You'll have no sinful nature, you'll not have a desire to commit any offense
That does not compute. Isn't it so that Satan originally did not have a sinful nature? And yet he rebelled against God.
(Note: I invite not only
your
response, but also the responses of those who actually
believe
what they are posting.)

The blessing of being completely feckless and naive?
No.
If we have to give up our humanity,
That's not what he said, and it's not how it is.
Economics is not a science.

we've been purged of sin at that point
we'll be a restored humanity just like Adam and Eve before the fall
Uh huh. So tell me, what was "the fall?" I'd like to hear your explanation as to how it
wasn't
sin.
We won't be the people we are now, we'll be a restored humanity just like Adam and Eve before the fall as they conversed with God in a garden.
So what "restored humanity" is this? The blessing of being completely feckless and naive? Explain to me how that's not a revocation of our free will? If we have to give up our humanity, what's the point of being human? And what was the point of having free will in the first place?

nope, that isn't what it's like at all. We still have free will in heaven, but we've been purged of sin at that point. You'll have no sinful nature, you'll not have a desire to commit any offense. Pretty much the only desire you'll have is to praise God and enjoy His presence. We won't be the people we are now, we'll be a restored humanity just like Adam and Eve before the fall as they conversed with God in a garden.
And by the way, if you do end up in hell you'll be wishing you couldn't "feel" anything.

It's always amusing to hear about the limits people have to place on their allegedly omnipotent god in order to make the concept fit with reality.
And every time I hear something to the effect of "suffering is necessary for free will" I have to think that heaven must be a hell of its own. No free will to enjoy eternal paradise, and instead we just become mindless worship batteries? Give me the fire if it means I can actually feel something.

It seems an attempt to add "rational" to "eternal, independent, self-explanatory, necessary, unmoved, and uncaused," but I'm not sure how it ties in to suffering and free will

In conjunction with your first cause thread. What are your thoughts on Lewis' Argument from reason?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_reason

I didn't read the whole thing.
You quoted the part that mattered for what I posted. If that was not the theme of the article than why even have it in the article?
The rest of the article was kind of dry.
What else did you want me to discuss from it?
If I were you, I'd wanna be me too.

You read and absorbed that whole thing in less than 3 minutes? Wow! Or did you just skim and cherry pick something with which to blindly disagree?

a scintillating examination of the concept of free will in a material universe and why suffering is not only a natural but an essential part of the human experience.
I disagree with this.
If I were you, I'd wanna be me too.

I don't like little pithy quotes like this though.
That quote was just an introduction to the article. You should read it.

If he had studied Buddhism, he might have realized that suffering is actually a human construct that is a result of attachment more so than some emotion that makes us human.
I agree.
Suffering is like a mental trap, and in order to escape a trap you examine how the trap is made, that's Buddhism.
Running away from suffering is running away from the opportunity to learn from suffering.
If you've never meditated on the nature of attachment and on things like death and suffering, your suffering will be all the worse when you invariably encounter it. You can't run away from deaths and the fact that everything is temporary.

Like, he accepted that suffering is part of being human and not suffering somehow affects his humanity.
My issue with the quote has more to do with the notion that suffering is a good thing and equates to living which is untrue.
Suffering sucks and you don't walk into it. You run away from it like you run out of a rainstorm.
However, it's unavoidable at times and some types of suffering can result in a good thing. The suffering itself, though, sucked.
If I were you, I'd wanna be me too.

I was under the impression you were saying Buddhism teaches how to avoid suffering.
Overcome is probably a better word than avoid, but, basically, yes; that's what Buddhism teaches.
Lewis' quote seemed resolved to me. Like, he accepted that suffering is part of being human and not suffering somehow affects his humanity. If he had studied Buddhism, he might have realized that suffering is actually a human construct that is a result of attachment more so than some emotion that makes us human.
"
In this scene, you will gargle with mouthwash! Andaction!
"

I'm saying it's irrelevant in relation to what Lewis is saying. Suffering is unavoidable. I was under the impression you were saying Buddhism teaches how to avoid suffering.
There is a huge different from avoiding suffering to minimizing it to avoid as much as possible.
If these are one and the same or that is what Buddhism teaches, then there is no contradiction.
My point is that humans need to deal with suffering although it's silly to look forward to it too.
If I were you, I'd wanna be me too.

How can you say Buddhism is irrelevant and then turn around and say this:
the goal should be to avoid as much suffering as possible and deal with it when it does happen.
That's pretty much Buddhism in a nutshell.
"
In this scene, you will gargle with mouthwash! Andaction!
"

Not you.

Sooo^ ^ this
Wait, who is that for?
If I were you, I'd wanna be me too.

Sooo^ ^ this

In a normal lifespan with normal people, suffering is experienced throughout that life
Is it? I don't know your personal circumstances, obviously, but I doubt I have ever really experienced genuine, ongoing, suffering on my own account. That's not to say I haven't witnessed it, on the news say, but doubt that is what you mean.
Again the goal is to avoid it [suffering], not embrace it or think that's what makes life complete.
While I agree with the sentiment - that it is best to live life for the best, not for the worst it brings, the Bible says otherwise. Which helps explain why the faithful often seem to revel in contemplating the process of their own miseries:
More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. [Rom 5:3-5]
I'm well aware that railing does no good
kurt2000

For some of course, dying could be a great relief. From pain for instance. Or from those who assure them that they head for hellfire.
Well, I was saying that at best as we try to avoid suffering, [nearly] everyone eventually experiences it at death.
In a normal lifespan with normal people, suffering is experienced throughout that life. Again the goal is to avoid it, not embrace it or think that's what makes life complete.
After all, regardless of what religious people think salvation is, it ultimately is a tool to end suffering which means it's not natural to experience. Even the notion that death ends suffering is just another offshoot of that.
If I were you, I'd wanna be me too.

You assume too much. I wasn't talking about life after death which is why I didn't say anything about life after death.
Fair enough, but it is a Christian trope that many who die will, ostensibly, suffer much with eternal damnation, hellfire, deprivation from God & etc so my assumption was understandable.
Dying is suffering
For some of course, dying could be a great relief. From pain for instance. Or from those who assure them that they head for hellfire.
To those ones who died peacefully in their sleep while healthy, I apologize and am happy that you died happy although if this happened to you, you probably don't know I'm typing this.
No one can slip things past you, can they? LOL
I'm well aware that railing does no good
kurt2000