If Free Will Is More Important Than Preventing Suffering...

[K]

Many Christians argue that evil exists because of humanity's free will. God deems free will a greater good than the prevention of suffering.

Does this mean that stepping in, calling for help, or in any way intervening to stop a rape or mugging is a sin? Afterall, these actions attempt to lessen suffering at the expense of free will.

Continuing this further, is it sinful to incarcerate criminals and thereby restrict their free will? How about locking doors or safekeeping valuables? These actions interfere with the free will of those who would wish to steal from us.

If God finds the free will to be so important that even He won't interfere with it, then surely it must be sinful for us to do so.

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by K
Does this mean that stepping in, calling for help, or in any way intervening to stop a rape or mugging is a sin? Afterall, these actions attempt to lessen suffering at the expense of free will.


It's only a sin if god does it. ;)

[Jane Bovary]

Many Christians argue that evil exists because of humanity's free will. God deems free will a greater good than the prevention of suffering.

If it is more important for us to have freewill than no suffering, then what happens in Heaven? Isn't there supposed to be no suffering there? Does that mean there's no freewill in Heaven? There must be, since its considered so important....MORE important than no suffering. So...if its possible to have freewill AND no suffering [as in Heaven] then why can't we have it here?

[Trekkie With a Phaser]

Originally posted by Jane Bovary
If it is more important for us to have freewill than no suffering, then what happens in Heaven? Isn't there supposed to be no suffering there? Does that mean there's no freewill in Heaven? There must be, since its considered so important....MORE important than no suffering. So...if its possible to have freewill AND no suffering [as in Heaven] then why can't we have it here?

I think Christians would answer this in one of two ways: 1) Adam and Eve's sin made man aware of good and evil. As a result, man was free to knowingly choose between the two options. Those who make it into heaven are the ones who have shown that they will willingly choose good. That means, however, that some will choose evil wich will result in suffering, or 2) People in heaven can choose evil (after all, Lucifer did), but they will generally choose not to because things are so incredibly great in heaven.

The non-believer, on the other hand, would say that it ruins the story if earth is like heaven. I mean, what would you be striving for if things were great on earth? What justification would god have had for killing millions of people when they didn't do what he wanted? All of the drama of the story would disappear.

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by Trekkie With a Phaser
I think Christians would answer this in one of two ways: 1) Adam and Eve's sin made man aware of good and evil. As a result, man was free to knowingly choose between the two options. Those who make it into heaven are the ones who have shown that they will willingly choose good. or 2) People in heaven can choose evil (after all, Lucifer did), but they will generally choose not to because things are so incredibly great in heaven.


If they didn't know until after they ate the fruit, punishing them was unjust.

[Trekkie With a Phaser]

Originally posted by winstonjen
If they didn't know until after they ate the fruit, punishing them was unjust.

I agree. The only defense I've heard Christians use to this is something about A&E knowing the difference between right and wrong, just not good and evil. In other words, they knew it was wrong to disobey god but they did so anyway. Therefore they can still be held responsible.

I think this is bunk, but (as far as I know) this is the best defense the Christians have come up with. Personally, I think in a situation like that, good and evil are directly tied in with right and wrong; so much so that it's illogical to say that A&E could be responsible for understanding their actions.

[Jane Bovary]

I think Christians would answer this in one of two ways: 1) Adam and Eve's sin made man aware of good and evil. As a result, man was free to knowingly choose between the two options. Those who make it into heaven are the ones who have shown that they will willingly choose good. That means, however, that some will choose evil wich will result in suffering, or 2) People in heaven can choose evil (after all, Lucifer did), but they will generally choose not to because things are so incredibly great in heaven.


That still doesn't answer the problem of suffering on Earth though, since here suffering falls upon people indiscriminately, on those who have chosen *good over evil* as well those who haven't.

Nor does it seem very moral of God to allow suffering to His children[us] just so we can be morally tested in some way. It's one thing to bring children up with a sense of morality, it's another to deliberately expose them to suffering and evil just so we can judge them. If hardly anyone would choose evil in Heaven because there is no suffering, then why not create that state on Earth and eliminate both evil and suffering? Why is the "test" necessary?

[winstonjen]

I think that the logical conclusion is:

"God loves to watch people suffer."

Hence, god = sadist.

QED.

[DMB]

I have never understood why 70 years on earth is needed to prepare one, train one, whatever, for an eternity elsewhere.

BTW is free will mentioned anywhere in the bible? I don't recall it.

[Biff the unclean]

Obviously "Free Will" is not a Christian concept. It flies in the face of what both the old and the new testaments teach. And it is completely out of keeping with church tradition.
So does anybody know who thought it up as an apologetic and how old it is?

[sophie]

Biff the unclean : If free-will can be wrought out of the texts then it must have been there for an 'eternity', waiting for some clever mind to unlock its secrets.

However if free-will's discovery lacks completeness within the texts, then this should point to either of two problems. The texts have been muddled or free-will was misunderstood.

[Kruzkal]

Originally posted by sophie
Biff the unclean : If free-will can be wrought out of the texts then it must have been there for an 'eternity', waiting for some clever mind to unlock its secrets.


Your assertions:
1 - X can be wrought out of the texts implies X existed for eternity.
2 - X can be wrought out of the texts implies X contains secrets.
3 - Secrets in assertion 2 have the concept of time e.g. the ability to wait.

What do you mean by "can be wrought out of text?" What is your definition of eternity? How may secrets (information) have the concept of time? Please provide evidence to prove of at least support your assertions 1 to 3.

Originally posted by sophie
However if free-will's discovery lacks completeness within the texts, then this should point to either of two problems. The texts have been muddled or free-will was misunderstood.

Another assertion:
4 - Free-will's discovery lacks completeness within the texts if true implies texts have been muddled or free-will was misunderstood. By the way this implies the texts defined free-will with completeness without error!

Is free-will a discovery? What do you mean by lacks completeness? Do you mean not fully defined? Do you mean omniDog could've missed that one out for some obsene (oh I mean divine) reasons? Nope. It can't be. We must have screwed something up somewhere along the way. Afterall, omniDog's perfect words are so clear about free-will, and life, uniververse, and everthing that it must be our own stupidity that we don't understand WTF he/she/it is talking about. Please provide evidence to prove or at least support assertion 4.

__________________

On the 7th day
Man created god in his own image

[Division By Zero]

One would think that, if there is free will in heaven and people there always choose not to commit evil acts (despite their free will), life on earth is an unnecessary step.

Also, if every human has free will to commit evil acts against other humans, but some choose not to, why couldn't God just refrain from creating those humans who would have chosen evil? After all, wouldn't we still have the free will to choose it, just like in heaven?

[Jamie_L]

I'm always saying the same things in these free-will discussions, but I love to say them. So, apologies to those who've heard me rant about all this before.

1. Many people have mental illnesses that make them cause suffering. These people represent a situation in which free will is reduced, but suffering is increased, and their condition is not the result of the free will of other humans (unless you try to trot out the Adam and Eve, original sin argument). If God truely valued free will above suffering, these mental illnesses would not exist.

2. Our supposed "free will" is clearly slanted towards causing suffering. If I could heal a wond as easily as I can cause one, I would truely have a free choice between causing and alleviating suffering. If we could end hunger as easily as drop a bomb, or heal the emotional wounds of a rape victim in the amount of time it took to rape her, then we could talk about having true free will to choose between good and evil. As it stands, it's much more difficult to do good - meaning we don't have as much free will to do good as we have to do evil.

3. Imagine the most moral human in the world. He or she is out there somewhere. That person has free will (supposedly) and that person does good more often than not. God knows everything about that person. God created that person. An omnipotent God could creat that person again. Would the duplicate of that person have free will? If God created him/her the first time with free will, surely God could do it again. If God created that person again, would they be as moral as they could be? I see no compelling reason why not. So, God can make a person with free will who chooses to be moral. Why didn't he create us all that way? Free Will does not have to entail as much suffering as we see on this planet.

4. The OP has it right. If God is maximally benevolent, He allows no suffering that is unnecessary. Thus, any suffering we observe must be necessary to God. I.E. that suffering is God's will. Trying to stop that suffering goes against God's will. Acting in opposition to God's will is the very definition of sin. Stopping suffering is a sin.

Jamie

[Senlatheil]

Originally posted by Jane Bovary


If it is more important for us to have freewill than no suffering, then what happens in Heaven? Isn't there supposed to be no suffering there? Does that mean there's no freewill in Heaven? There must be, since its considered so important....MORE important than no suffering. So...if its possible to have freewill AND no suffering [as in Heaven] then why can't we have it here?

That is bloody brilliant logic. :D

[Doctor X]

Indeed, the problem is the fairy tale cannot account for reality.

"Free will" becomes a dodge. It lets the deity off the hook for the Holocaust and country-western music because it accords blame to the evil men behind both. Of course, that opens the deity to a major moral dilemma--how can something that is good allow something so evil . . . do we just drive by the road accident . . . or do we stop and take bets on who survives [Stop that!--Ed.]

"Free will" becomes a point not worth mooting when we confront unjust suffering that is not a part of will. I have a favorite example, and another poster posted one on another thread.

IF a deity exists he becomes evil for wanting unjust suffering, or he becomes incompetent for not figuring out how to avoid it in his "Plan," or he becomes irrelevant because he does nothing period. Of course, he can also prove a combination of those three . . . depending on what his horoscope says.

More problems exist, of course, if you have a deity of any worth . . . well then he must know everything so whither free will? Why did he not intervene, et cetera.

Regarding the OT--those scriptures with eternal secrets and all of that--it is prehaps unfair to judge the gods there by our standards today. Deities were generally not objects of emulation. They are rather human. The Genesis myths demonstrate this--with a deity that prevents humans from becoming like gods, having to walk around the garden to find Adam . . . all the way to a deiity repenting of killing off his creation.

The writers of such myth were not interested in "free will" debates. Would an "All Loving All Forgiving Big Daddy" cast out his creation? Do you think Adam may have said, "sorry."? That was not the point of the story.

Incidentally, a later retelling--the Lamu Creation Myth which has an Islamic basis--does address that point. Adam begs forgiveness but Eve refuses--the minx! Adam "gentleman he was" turns down Allah's forgiveness so that Eve will not be alone in the world outside of Eden! He volunteers to suffer mortality, disease, hardship, and higher interest rates for her benefit.

. . . and look at how they thank us!

--J.D.

[sophie]

Kruzkal : you muddled the logical repressentation of what I wrote.

Try again this time include all of the following :

free will
texts
secrets
eternity


Please provide evidence to prove of at least support your assertions 1 to 3.It is a discussion. Perhaps an empty vacuous discussion but a discussion nevertheless.

By the way this implies the texts defined free-will with completeness without error! Crazy logic. The texts will imply this discovery. Why is it a discovery is because it may be an underlying concept within the texts which may or may not have been evident! !

However to obtain the correct logical impulse of the understanding I again suggest following the first paragraph.

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by sophie
Crazy logic. The texts will imply this discovery. Why is it a discovery is because it may be an underlying concept within the texts which may or may not have been evident! !


So despite having many errors the bible is actually error-free! Wow! I never knew that! Praise! I'm going to church! [/sarcasm]

:boohoo: :boohoo:

[sophie]

winstonjen : So despite having many errors the bible is actually error-free! Wow! I never knew that! Praise! I'm going to church! [/sarcasm]That's a leap of faith, not a leap in logic.

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by sophie
winstonjen : That's a leap of faith, not a leap in logic.

It also requires an ignorance of logic and its implications.

[sophie]

winstonjen : It also requires an ignorance of logic and its implications.At least you are picking up a few clues, now we only have to surge past the basics.

[the_cave]

Originally posted by Trekkie With a Phaser
I think Christians would answer this in one of two ways: 1) Adam and Eve's sin made man aware of good and evil. As a result, man was free to knowingly choose between the two options. Those who make it into heaven are the ones who have shown that they will willingly choose good. That means, however, that some will choose evil wich will result in suffering, or 2) People in heaven can choose evil (after all, Lucifer did), but they will generally choose not to because things are so incredibly great in heaven.

Actually, these are pretty good alternatives for the Christian. At least, I agree with them...

[the_cave]

Originally posted by Jamie_L
1. Many people have mental illnesses that make them cause suffering. These people represent a situation in which free will is reduced, but suffering is increased, and their condition is not the result of the free will of other humans (unless you try to trot out the Adam and Eve, original sin argument). If God truely valued free will above suffering, these mental illnesses would not exist.

Hi Jamie--similarly, if I've tried to reply to these before, I apologize if I'm repeating myself!

To address the original OP, I think that the thing is, everyone needs to be granted the opportunity to choose the good. If we happen upon someone against whom a crime is being committed, or if we discover a criminal, we need the opportunity to stop them or arrest them. If an angel saved everyone all of the time, our freedom to do that would be denied. Frustrating, but at least consistent.

I view mental illnesses as the equivalent of acts of god--earthquakes, etc. They are natural phenomena that cause suffering. I admit that many traditional Christian theodicies (i.e. attempts to explain evil) don't do a very good job of explaining acts of god, but I feel they are a necessary part of a universe in which we have free will. In order to have natural beings, like us, who have natural free will, nature itself must have a certain amount of chaos--or freedom, if you will--to produce such beings. It's a controversial and perhaps radical claim, but there it is. That's what I believe.

2. Our supposed "free will" is clearly slanted towards causing suffering. If I could heal a wond as easily as I can cause one, I would truely have a free choice between causing and alleviating suffering. If we could end hunger as easily as drop a bomb, or heal the emotional wounds of a rape victim in the amount of time it took to rape her, then we could talk about having true free will to choose between good and evil. As it stands, it's much more difficult to do good - meaning we don't have as much free will to do good as we have to do evil.

But couldn't you turn this around and note the amount of suffering one saves by refraining from acts of evil? Think of how much suffering is prevented by the millions who do not committ acts of extreme violence (like rape). So it would seem very easy to do a lot of good.

That's one perspective, anyway. But it seems you might still not be satisfied, because of how easy it still is to take that good away. I guess I would begin to answer that question by questioning whether an act of evil is really just a single, isolated act--or whether it's actually related to a long chain of evils. Generally speaking, people with good dispositions don't suddenly snap and turn into roving murderers. They go through a history that helps to cause their actions, and that history might take as long to create as it takes to undo the results of their evil acts. I admit that's not an airtight argument, but regardless I find it sobering, personally.

3. Imagine the most moral human in the world. He or she is out there somewhere. That person has free will (supposedly) and that person does good more often than not. God knows everything about that person. God created that person. An omnipotent God could creat that person again. Would the duplicate of that person have free will? If God created him/her the first time with free will, surely God could do it again. If God created that person again, would they be as moral as they could be? I see no compelling reason why not. So, God can make a person with free will who chooses to be moral. Why didn't he create us all that way? Free Will does not have to entail as much suffering as we see on this planet.

Well, actually, no, there woudn't be any guarantee that they would be exactly as good. That's what free will is all about--in my opinion, if we're really talking about free will, then there's always a chance they'll make different decisions (if you have a different definition of "free will" than I do, we're going to disagree about this.)

4. The OP has it right. If God is maximally benevolent, He allows no suffering that is unnecessary. Thus, any suffering we observe must be necessary to God. I.E. that suffering is God's will. Trying to stop that suffering goes against God's will. Acting in opposition to God's will is the very definition of sin. Stopping suffering is a sin.

The amount of suffering is not necessary to God--the possibility of suffering, however, is. God doesn't will the suffering, but s/he does will the possibility.

Throwing the criminal into prison is a good act--so we should choose it. We're not denying the criminal the possibility of choosing evil--they can still do bad things in prison, after all (beat up cellmates, think bad thoughts, spit in people's food, plan their revenge, etc.) We certainly shouldn't deny our freedom to do good in favor of their freedom to do evil. The point of free will is the possibility to choose evil--not to carry it out. That's what I argue, anyway.

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by sophie
winstonjen : At least you are picking up a few clues, now we only have to surge past the basics.

Sorry, but I will not abandon reason, logic or the scientific method. Unlike you, I require evidence before I will believe in something.

[K]

the_cave:

I think you're missing the point. Jamie_L stated it very well.

If we do anything at all to impede a person's actions in any way, we have lessened (not eliminated) the free will of that individual. If we intervene to stop a rape, we are restricting the free will of the rapist in this situation in order to reduce suffering.

If stopping the rape reduces the amount of good in the world (due to a restriction of the rapist's free will) then intervening is clearly a sin.

If stopping the rape does not reduce the amount of good in the world, then there is no reason for God not to stop the rape Himself. Any omnibenevolent diety - by definition - would have to intervene.

[dienekes]

but what about "God's plan"? doesn't this make freewill seem an illusion? If God has already planned everything then we don't have freewill at all. He has already chosen a path for us. It seems that we have a choice but in reality we do not. We only see the "other" choices we have but we don't/cannot choose it because "everything is happening according to God's plan".

[the_cave]

Originally posted by K
the_cave:

I think you're missing the point. Jamie_L stated it very well.

I agree, she did.

If stopping the rape does not reduce the amount of good in the world, then there is no reason for God not to stop the rape Himself. Any omnibenevolent diety - by definition - would have to intervene.

Sorry, I may have not made myself clear. I tried to suggest a solution to this thusly:

[quote][b]If we happen upon someone against whom a crime is being committed, or if we discover a criminal, we need the opportunity to stop them or arrest them. If an angel saved everyone all of the time, our freedom to do that would be denied. Frustrating, but at least consistent.[quote][b]

See? We ourselves need to be granted the free will to prevent evil! It's kind of tricky, but personally I like it.

Besides, even an atheist might hold liberty to be a highly valued principle. But would that mean they themselves would refrain from denying someone else the liberty to cease from their evil actions, when those actions were directly harming another person? I doubt it--so why should they hold God to a higher standard?

[DMB]

For me, one of the most disgusting xian ideas is that someone else's suffering (in this case the rape victim's) is OK if it affords someone else the chance for spiritual development (also evidenced by Mother Teresa).

[Philosoft]

Originally posted by the_cave

To address the original OP, I think that the thing is, everyone needs to be granted the opportunity to choose the good. If we happen upon someone against whom a crime is being committed, or if we discover a criminal, we need the opportunity to stop them or arrest them. If an angel saved everyone all of the time, our freedom to do that would be denied. Frustrating, but at least consistent.
Okay, but the average person lives her life without ever willfully preventing a crime. Many more crimes succeed than are prevented by ordinary citizens, so all that accomplishes is allowing a handful of law-enforcement specialists the opportunities to put a bunch of criminals in jail. It seems if God was able to reduce crime by some arbitrary amount, say 25%, there would still be plenty of criminals for the law-enforcement specialists to deal with.
I view mental illnesses as the equivalent of acts of god--earthquakes, etc. They are natural phenomena that cause suffering. I admit that many traditional Christian theodicies (i.e. attempts to explain evil) don't do a very good job of explaining acts of god, but I feel they are a necessary part of a universe in which we have free will. In order to have natural beings, like us, who have natural free will, nature itself must have a certain amount of chaos--or freedom, if you will--to produce such beings. It's a controversial and perhaps radical claim, but there it is. That's what I believe.
Again, it seems that God might reduce natural chaos further still without impinging on free will. The argument can be made that disasters like massive earthquakes, hurricanes, etc, bring people together to work for some common good, i.e. the rescue of survivors. Also, you might see secondary effects, like a man whose brother dies in an earthquake who dedicates his professional life to designing safer structures.

But what about the orphan in Pakistan who is trapped alive under rubble for nine days? She suffers immensely, dying of dehydration, rescue crews have no idea she's there. She has no family to be inspired by her death. How would the prevention of this child's death harm free will at all?
The amount of suffering is not necessary to God--the possibility of suffering, however, is. God doesn't will the suffering, but s/he does will the possibility.
Then it certainly seems that God has the freedom to eliminate some unnecessary suffering that occurs.

[Biff the unclean]

Originally posted by DMB
For me, one of the most disgusting xian ideas is that someone else's suffering (in this case the rape victim's) is OK if it affords someone else the chance for spiritual development (also evidenced by Mother Teresa).

Well look for a monent at what the whole "free will" concept is. It's god doing nothing.
God does nothing in this world for the simple reason that god is a fictional character. In the fictional world he lives in he's a superhero. He's very pro-active, not a sparrow falls without his involvement.
But the real world? Nothing.
This is the same "free will" that Superman honors when you lean too far out a window and fall to your death. If you lived in Metropolis free will wouldn't be so harmful to you. Superman would catch you as you fell, and he'd get the helicopter with his other hand.
If you lived in the fictional world of god you'd be saved as surely as Clark Kent saves people, the sea would part in the nick of time or your schirophrenia would be sucked out of you and put in a herd of piggies. Tah Daaah!! This looks like a job for God. Up, up and awaaaaaay!!!!!!

That Xians ignore human suffering isn't that odd when you consider everything else they ignore...like reality itself

[sophie]

Philosoft : Then it certainly seems that God has the freedom to eliminate some unnecessary suffering that occurs.Are you implying two sets of rules?

[BlessNot]

Originally posted by K
If God finds the free will to be so important that even He won't interfere with it, then surely it must be sinful for us to do so.

How can god interfere with anything we do since he knew exactly what was going to happened before it ever happened? He is supposedly omniscient.

If Christians and theists think they have freewill, they are seriously deceiving themselves. Freewill totally contradicts the omniscience and omnipotence of God.

If god is onniscient as theists claim, then he knows every decision they are going to make unless they think they can fool god by changing their minds at the last minute. Can the theist think he can surprise god? If so, he is not omniscient.

In other words, if God knows what we're going to do, how can we do anything other than that which he has foreseen?

Of course the arguments used by theists in support of freewill are very flawed to say the least.

[K]

the_cave:

See? We ourselves need to be granted the free will to prevent evil! It's kind of tricky, but personally I like it.

Exactly. We could go ahead and prevent the rape and thereby restrict the free will of the rapist. That doesn't change the fact that our actions go against God's desires and must therefore be sinful. The free will defense is based on the fact that God values the free will of humanity greater the lessening of suffering. I'm not saying that we don't have the free will to stop a rape. I'm just saying that doing so must be a sin because it lessens suffering by restricting free will.

Besides, even an atheist might hold liberty to be a highly valued principle. But would that mean they themselves would refrain from denying someone else the liberty to cease from their evil actions, when those actions were directly harming another person? I doubt it--so why should they hold God to a higher standard?

This appears to be a faulty analogy. The free will defense claims that God values OUR free will over lessening of OUR suffering. Therefore, when we use our free will to lessen suffering by restricting the free will of another, we have made a choice that is in direct opposition God's values (as stated in the free will defense). If we make a choice that is in direct opposition to God's values, how could that choice be considered anything short of sinful?

[K]

Biff:

Well look for a monent at what the whole "free will" concept is. It's god doing nothing.

Well put.

[K]

BlessNot:

If Christians and theists think they have freewill, they are seriously deceiving themselves. Freewill totally contradicts the omniscience and omnipotence of God.

As an atheist, I don't even believe in "free" will. But being designed and created by an omniscient being would take any debate out of the matter.

[Philosoft]

Originally posted by sophie
Philosoft : Are you implying two sets of rules?
I don't think so. If we stipulate that some natural evil is necessary for greater good, then I think I can make an argument that some other natural evils don't appear to lead to any greater good. Thus, the latter natural evils are nonessential, and preventable by God.

[the_cave]

Originally posted by Philosoft
It seems if God was able to reduce crime by some arbitrary amount, say 25%, there would still be plenty of criminals for the law-enforcement specialists to deal with.

Well, if you're going to put it that way, how do you know God hasn't already done so?

(It also seems to me that if crime were reduced by some greater power, our freedom would be curtailed by an equal degree.)

Again, it seems that God might reduce natural chaos further still without impinging on free will.

Again, maybe God has...I admit this point is more or less a degree of faith for me, but there's really no way to prove it either way. It just seems to me that if I'm to have freedom, being an evolved physical and biological creature, the natural world around me needs to have it, too.

The argument can be made that disasters like massive earthquakes, hurricanes, etc, bring people together to work for some common good, i.e. the rescue of survivors.

Well, I don't make that argument...

But what about the orphan in Pakistan who is trapped alive under rubble for nine days? She suffers immensely, dying of dehydration, rescue crews have no idea she's there. She has no family to be inspired by her death. How would the prevention of this child's death harm free will at all?

I'll be honest; I have no idea. But let me put it this way:

There is no good created thing that is greater than the cosmos, whether I'm an atheist or a theist. That cosmos includes a lot of suffering for sentient beings such as ourselves, as a result of a lot of chaos--i.e. the propensity for things to happen in an unpredictable manner. My god is the creator of the cosmos--so I feel no more animosity towards this god than I would towards the cosmos as a whole were I an atheist, because in both cases, we're talking about the source of the universe's existence, including all the good things as well as the bad. If I were an atheist, I certainly wouldn't hate the cosmos--I would indeed love it in important respects, despite the suffering I see.

Also, I only hold god responsible for putting freedom into the world. Freedom, to me (and I think to anyone sensible) entails that god will not know the outcome of an event. So when I see suffering, I don't reason god knew it would happen; it's as upsetting to god as it is to me.

[K]

the_cave:

It doesn't sound like your god needs a free will defense. The free will defense is an attempt to rebut the problem of evil. The problem of evil is only a problem for an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god - like many of the standard versions of the Christian God.

There is no problem of evil for the cosmos. Likewise, it doesn't sound like there is a problem of evil for your god (which seems to be possibly omnipotent, but not omnibenevolent).

[Defiant Heretic]

Originally posted by K
If we intervene to stop a rape, we are restricting the free will of the rapist in this situation in order to reduce suffering. But by restricting the free will of the rapist, we prevent the free will of the victim from being restricted. So the total amount of free will is equal in either case, and one must find another factor, such as minimizing suffering, that determines what the moral choice would be.

[K]

Defiant Heretic:

Bot God doesn't intercede on behalf of the victim to lessen suffering while maintaining a constant amount of free will. The free will defense says that He doesn't stop rapists - even when they are restricting the free will of others - because He values free will more than the lessening of suffering. We could stop the rapist, but it would be sinful since it goes against God's values.

The rapist would go to Hell for fornication and restricting the free will of the victim. We would go to Hell for restricting the free will of the rapist. And all the onlookers who stood by and did nothing would have no blemishes on their souls.

[BlessNot]

Originally posted by K
BlessNot:As an atheist, I don't even believe in "free" will. But being designed and created by an omniscient being would take any debate out of the matter.

As an atheist, you would have freewill because omniscience doesn't exist and didn't dictate all your actions before you were created or born.

Of course that is just my opinion, I could be wrong, so correct me if I am.

[Rational BAC]

An omniscient God is a problem for Christians who subscibe to the concept of free will.

I do not understand why a Supreme Being would necessarily have to know the future. (A good guesser perhaps because of His vast intelligence------whereupon all the Biblical prophecies)

Personally, I don't think God does know the future. Why should He have to? Anyone consider the possibility that knowing the future just flat out can't be done even by a Supreme Being?

[BlessNot]

Originally posted by Rational BAC
An omniscient God is a problem for Christians who subscibe to the concept of free will.

I do not understand why a Supreme Being would necessarily have to know the future. (A good guesser perhaps because of His vast intelligence------whereupon all the Biblical prophecies)

Personally, I don't think God does know the future. Why should He have to? Anyone consider the possibility that knowing the future just flat out can't be done even by a Supreme Being?

If I were to accept anything less than omniscience, why believe in the existence of such a deity in the first place ?

It would be pointless.

[Rational BAC]

Why does omniscience have to include knowledge of the future? That may not be possible in our physical universe. I would think that even an omniscient God would have to deal with reality.

Here is my definition of omniscience-----knowing all that is possible to be known.

[BlessNot]

Originally posted by Rational BAC
Why does omniscience have to include knowledge of the future? That may not be possible in our physical universe. I would think that even an omniscient God would have to deal with reality.

Here is my definition of omniscience-----knowing all that is possible to be known.

Does that mean omnipotence is out of the question too ?

Why would any theist accept anything less than omnipotence and/or omniscience ?

Wouldn't be much of a god wouldn't it ?

[Rational BAC]

I don't see any problem with omnipotence------except for the usual "can God make a rock so heavy He can't lift it"? type of thing which has been argued many times.

[Mageth]

Here is my definition of omniscience-----knowing all that is possible to be known.

Here's a problem I have with that definition: how is it possible to know that "you" (God) know all that is possible to be known? God cannot know what he does not know, so to speak.

God could certainly not prove his omniscience to us (he would have to make us "omniscient" to do so), nor could he prove it to himself. If I ever face God, and he claims to be omniscient, I'll ask him to prove that there is not a fact X which he does not know.

The problem extends to the other omni-attributes, e.g. omnipotence. How could God prove to you, or to himself, that he was indeed omnipotent, that there was not a power that he did not have?

The omni-attributes will always remain an assertion, and can never be proven, even by God.

[Haylow]

Originally posted by K
Many Christians argue that evil exists because of humanity's free will. God deems free will a greater good than the prevention of suffering.

Does this mean that stepping in, calling for help, or in any way intervening to stop a rape or mugging is a sin? Afterall, these actions attempt to lessen suffering at the expense of free will.

Continuing this further, is it sinful to incarcerate criminals and thereby restrict their free will? How about locking doors or safekeeping valuables? These actions interfere with the free will of those who would wish to steal from us.

If God finds the free will to be so important that even He won't interfere with it, then surely it must be sinful for us to do so.


Yes i think so, if nobody interfered none of these terrible things would happen, so if by not interfereing we will rid the world of these things then that is how we must live.

[premjan]

is more important than suffering. Definitely. free will permits evolution. Suffering combined with lots of free will creates even faster evolution. so the best state is suffering plus free will. not saying we should actively promote suffering though. that would be kinda artificial.

[Light]

Originally posted by K
Many Christians argue that evil exists because of humanity's free will. God deems free will a greater good than the prevention of suffering.

"If Free Will Is More Important Than Preventing Suffering." (?)

NO!

You only have to look at the example of The Christian Master.

Christ suffered for the sins of all those who committed fault ... against ... Him.

For ALL of the faults that people commit against each other too.

[Enlighten Me]

Originally posted by Light
"If Free Will Is More Important Than Preventing Suffering." (?)

NO!

You only have to look at the example of The Christian Master.

Christ suffered for the sins of all those who committed fault ... against ... Him.

For ALL of the faults that people commit against each other too.


.....So you say, but atheists reject the belief that mankind was born under an evil spell which was broken when a Man/god was killed as a blood sacrifice to an angry Sky/god....

[Darth Dane]

Is your personal Free Will, the possibility to do as you wish, more important than preventing suffering(by working for the hungry and poor)?

How do you balance this out?

How do you expect someone else to do this?

Do you expect and find it reasonable to hold others to a higher standard than your own?

[Light]

Originally posted by Enlightened Lady
So you say, but atheists reject the belief that mankind was born under an evil spell which was broken when a Man/god was killed as a blood sacrifice to an angry Sky/god.

I long ago rejected this type of sacrificial belief for a fully enlightened scientific one.

Intelligent people do not engage in ritualised human sacrifice.

But many people are needlessly superstitious and dabble in occult belief systems which are entirely out of date.

Ritual observance is NOT what is needed here. Actual PRACTICAL application to the wrongs of Mankind is needed to alleviate poverty, ignorance and suffering.

The beauty of the scientific Truth is that it is clear and NOT shrouded or veiled in mystery, mystique or mysticism.

That is quite enough of this Polish farce.

[spurly]

Originally posted by winstonjen
If they didn't know until after they ate the fruit, punishing them was unjust.

They did know the consequences. They knew that eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil would bring about death. They knew that eating of it would break God's command. That's all they needed to know.

God wanted to keep them innocent. Unfortunately, that innocence was ruined and paradise was lost. Fortunately, one day, paradise will be regained.

Kevin

[spurly]

Originally posted by DMB
I have never understood why 70 years on earth is needed to prepare one, train one, whatever, for an eternity elsewhere.

BTW is free will mentioned anywhere in the bible? I don't recall it.

Free will is mentioned all over the Bible, from beginning to end. I don't know if those two words are juxtaposed next to each other in the text, but the thought is there from Adam and Eve all the way to Revelation.

Kevin

[spurly]

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
Obviously "Free Will" is not a Christian concept. It flies in the face of what both the old and the new testaments teach. And it is completely out of keeping with church tradition.
So does anybody know who thought it up as an apologetic and how old it is?

Free will is very Biblical. God has given his people choices since the beginning of time. Adam and Eve had a choice. The Israelites had tons of choices, and they had the consequences laid out for them. Follow God and this will happen, turn away from him and this will happen - it is your choice.

In the NT we come to him out of our own free will. Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

If there were no free will, we would all simply be puppets doing exactly what God commanded. However, since so many people do evil and deny he exists, this can not be the case. Free Will is Biblical and has its foundation in God.

[ChangeWave]

Originally posted by spurly
They did know the consequences. They knew that eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil would bring about death. They knew that eating of it would break God's command. That's all they needed to know.

God wanted to keep them innocent. Unfortunately, that innocence was ruined and paradise was lost. Fortunately, one day, paradise will be regained.

Kevin
How would that be possible. Before this, there was no death. How did they understand the concept of a non-existent event?

[Mageth]

Originally posted by spurly
In the NT we come to him out of our own free will. Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

So if I exercise my free will to not call on the name of the Lord, God will honor my free will decision by leaving me alone in peace, with either my life ending in annihilation and oblivion or in an eternal, peaceful place where I can continue my own free intellectual or pleasurable pursuits, correct? With the free will option to terminate my life if I want, correct? There won't be any dire consequences for exercising the free will God so graciously gave me, will there? He did give it to me to exercise freely, as I wish, didn't he, with no strings attached?

[Philosoft]

Originally posted by spurly
They did know the consequences. They knew that eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil would bring about death. They knew that eating of it would break God's command. That's all they needed to know.
Actually, God's admonition, "you shall surely die" or whatever, turned out to be woefully uninformative, didn't it? God forgot to mention injuries, diseases, disasters, pretty much the whole nine. Instead, he tells them they'll die, which, at least from my perspective, amounts to little more than an abstraction. I mean, I know I'm going to die, but I really don't have any idea what it entails. I can't imagine A&E having any more of a clue than I do.

[Nil Desperandum]

Very good point, Philosoft.

Not only was God's admonition woefully uninformative, he also let Adam Live... what, another 900 years after said event in which "....[he] shall surely [have] die[d]..."???

I'd have expected the two to drop dead immediately, especially after such disobedience. But nope, they got to Live for quite some time afterward.

How interesting.

[Pouye]

So if I exercise my free will to not call on the name of the Lord, God will honor my free will decision by leaving me alone in peace, with either my life ending in annihilation and oblivion or in an eternal, peaceful place where I can continue my own free intellectual or pleasurable pursuits, correct? With the free will option to terminate my life if I want, correct? There won't be any dire consequences for exercising the free will God so graciously gave me, will there? He did give it to me to exercise freely, as I wish, didn't he, with no strings attached?

You are just about right!

One problem, though... we are, according to the Bible, created as eternal beings -- so no annihilation, and no ending your life.

God will honor your decision... but a decision not to be with God and those things which are associated with good (and therefore, with God, including love, peace, kindness, pleasure, intimacy, etc.) is a decision to be without God and also without goodness. Peace is good, so being without God is to live without peace for eternity.

BTW, God did not create "hell". God doesn't torture people in hell. That is a farce.

God is the most generous, loving, wonderful, attractive being in the cosmos. He has made humans with free will and he has made us for a purpose: to relate lovingly to Him and others. I don't believe we are accidents, modified monkeys or random mistakes. And if we fail over and over again to live for the purpose for which we were made -- a purpose, by the way, which would allow us to flourish more than living any other way -- then God will have absolutely no choice but to give us what we've asked for all along in our lives, which is separation from Him. That is what you are asking for, Mageth. The choice is up to you.

When any society is built, the first thing they build is definately not prisons. Prisons are built because people refuse to live in a way which society can tolerate. Their own actions do not allow them access to the rest of society. Hell is similar to a prison in this regard. Hell is the natural consequences of people living a life where they say, "I don't care if I am seperated from God, and therefore I will choose not to even believe in Him. I want to do things my way, so I will declare myself as a god."

People's character is not formed by decisions all at once, but by thousands of little choices they make every day. Each day people are preparing themselves for either an eternity with God or eternity without Him. In fact, if a person doesn't fall passionately in love with God, then to force that person to be around Him forever -- doing the kinds of things that people who love Him would want to do -- would be utterly uncomfortable. I am excited about being with Jesus for eternity. The thought of being with God, His Father, who loved me enough to sacrifice His own Son so that I can have a relationship with Him, gives me more than just goosebumps! I love God. Plain and simple. I love people, too... not just because God loves them, but because I realize how incredible people really are and how much they matter.

Rock

[Light]

Pouye.

Rock,

So where do you think that Heaven is?

What will you do when you ... get ... there?

[Pouye]

The short answer: Heaven is where God dwells. When Christ comes to reign on the earth for a thousand years, He will basically rule the world (All the nations will still be around just like they are today...). Christians will serve in positions of authority with Him. After that the earth will be re-created and "heaven" (God's dwelling place) will be moved to the new earth.

The long answer: Revelations 20-22.

It's a good read!

Rock

[Hail]

Does free will have to mean someone has to suffer?
Did Mother Teresa work to alleviate suffering by her free will?
:cool:

[Light]

Originally posted by Pouye
The short answer: Heaven is where God dwells. When Christ comes to reign on the earth for a thousand years, He will basically rule the world (All the nations will still be around just like they are today...). Christians will serve in positions of authority with Him. After that the earth will be re-created and "heaven" (God's dwelling place) will be moved to the new earth.

The long answer: Revelations 20-22.

It's a good read!

Rock

How very true and how VERY intelligent of you.

I am most pleased that you like reading. :)

[Light]

Originally posted by Hail
Does free will have to mean someone has to suffer?
Did Mother Teresa work to alleviate suffering by her free will?
:cool:

Mother Theresa, poor misguided woman, worked to relieve the endless suffering of a people who were brought endless poverty by her own religion, which only seeks to crucify them in its OWN vanity, for this ridiculous Papal hole-i-man, so that he can fleece the poor, preying on them.

Let US prey, hehehe! The sadistic little joker.

Catholic fatalism. It is prevalent everywhere.

[sakrilege]

Originally posted by spurly
If there were no free will, we would all simply be puppets doing exactly what God commanded. So this is what heaven will be like.

[Dargo]

I just realized something. Prisons are unbiblical! The Old Testament laws gave fines, restitution, and death as the only penalties for crimes. There is not one mention of prison sentences. This is obviously because prisons violate the inmates free will. Evangelical Christians should be campaigning for all prisons to be eliminated.

[Light]

Just a personal view. Whilst I appreciate that God Created the Universe, as it is so easy to prove that nobody here present did it, I think that the church has made far too much nonsense about sin and praying for forgiveness.

What should have happened instead of all of this mysticism is that a RE Legion, originally Egyptian, should have produced a carefully controlled population expansion to populate the planet with people who know what they are doing.

Basically a RE Legion is more of a Military Operation, and therefore a Modus Operandi for success.

What has happened is all too evident from reading this forum. Thousands of different ideas about the One God and the one condition of being other than God, namely Human beings.

Meanwhile the CATHOLIC Church plays Heaven and hell with a nudge-nudge, wink-wink, suggestivity about matters sexual, a "suggestive biscuit" (the ceremonial wafer) and dire warnings about even thinking about loving.

A lot of UTTER nonsense if you look at the original Egyptian model.

However instead of organising things on a MILITARY basis, Egypt too talks about work and sin but NOT in the same way, and where it makes its BIGGEST mistake is to think in terms of personal wealth or any other as a measure of the person.

In fact it is about LOVING caring and NOT about carelessness.

This is evident from the Maat which is the sign of justice. A measure of just how much the Pharaoh cared for God's Creation and how much He loved God (Ptah) and Loved His own Consort (wife).

Two mature Human Beings, of opposite gender, Who understand the Egyptian way can Marry each other without any priest from any church.

Even in the common law two TRUE Lovers Male-Female can co-habit and be considered fully Married after Seven years, as it used to be, now one year for legal reasons such as property ownership and divorce.

Why any Pharaoh should need a lawyer to allow Him to Love His Consort is another stupidity of man-made laws and lawyers.

When reading the bible one should look more to the Pharaohs and to God (Ptah) than any of these disciples or priests.

If this ENTIRE planet was run as a Ship on Military lines then it would be run as an efficient operation where personal wealth did NOT come into the equation, just the Command structure.

In a fully knowledgeable society this could be done if people were NOT dealing in a LOT of fringe activities, many of which would NOT be allowed by any Ship-board Commanding Officer.

You CAN consider God to be that very same Commanding Officer.

In Dutch religious ceremonies God is referred to as, "The Skipper of Heaven & Earth". And so it is.

But this does NOT work well in a civilian society as there is insufficient real organisation and FAR TOO MUCH pleasure seeking.

A Shipboard operation would NOT have any holes in it otherwise the ship would sink.

The Commanding Officer would NOT ride on a donkey, and NOBODY would be fooled by this infantile performance of complete nonsense about babies, or fiddle about with rosaries.

My suggestion is to, for GODs sake, grow up.

I have never heard so much pathetic drivel in all my life as is spewed from these feather-brained limp-wristed imbeciles.

What a pathetic performance.

Instead of spiritual religion people should be looking at a PRACTICAL RE Legion instead of playing Heaven and hell with a double-dealing pack of cards with two jokers.

These Jokers are laughing at you, whilst you suffer.

It is a lot of UTTER nonsense.

[Light]

Originally posted by sakrilege
So this is what Heaven will be like.

You are standing ... ON ... Heaven.

[Queen of Swords]

Originally posted by spurly
They did know the consequences. They knew that eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil would bring about death.

How did they know about death? Did God kill an animal and say to them, "Look, that's what'll happen to you if you eat the fruit"?

God wanted to keep them innocent.

Why did he want to keep them innocent? What was so bad about the knowledge of good and evil, that he refused to let them have it? Did he feel threatened by the idea of his creation wanting to be like him?

Unfortunately, that innocence was ruined and paradise was lost. Fortunately, one day, paradise will be regained.

If "paradise" means wandering naked and without knowledge through a garden for eternity, I'll take a large order of hell, to go, please.

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by QueenofSwords
Why did he want to keep them innocent? What was so bad about the knowledge of good and evil, that he refused to let them have it? Did he feel threatened by the idea of his creation wanting to be like him?

Well, definitely. Genocidal, evil dictators can't allow any competitors in the country, can they? ;)

[K]

Pouye:

God will honor your decision... but a decision not to be with God and those things which are associated with good (and therefore, with God, including love, peace, kindness, pleasure, intimacy, etc.) is a decision to be without God and also without goodness. Peace is good, so being without God is to live without peace for eternity.

I enjoy love, peace, kindness, pleasure, intimace, etc. I still don't believe in God - not because I choose not to, but because I'm simply unable to believe such a ridiculous story.

Now let's say God actually does exist. I assume I'll be able to use my free will to choose love, peace, kindness, ..., right?

[Sensei Meela]

Originally posetd by Jamie_L:
If God is maximally benevolent, He allows no suffering that is unnecessary. Thus, any suffering we observe must be necessary to God. I.E. that suffering is God's will. Trying to stop that suffering goes against God's will. Acting in opposition to God's will is the very definition of sin. Stopping suffering is a sin.
Technically, I think this is an equivocation of terms. In Greek (at least), two words for 'will' are used -- one which means His 'counsel' (or determination) and another which means His 'desire'. The former is unchallengable, the latter everyone challenges.

God 'wills' (Sense 1) that evil exist because He 'wills' (Sense 2) that we choose good over evil -- such a choice would logically require evil. (I assume that suffering is caused by evil, for the sake of argument).

Our Free Will* depends upon 1) our ability to distinguish between Good and Evil (assuming God is just) and 2) our ability to choose between them (obviously).

So, 'restricting' Free-Will by preventing a rape (and thus reducing suffering) could still be in accordance with God's 'will' (Sense 2) in that He 'desires' for us to reduce suffering because it wouldn't violate either condition for Free Will to exist. This, of course, assumes that it is the mere existence of Free Will and not the magnitude that is important to God, and ignores that 'omnisciencevsfreewill' train-wreck.

We won't ever be able to eliminate suffering -- only God can do that. But it looks like He won't, if one believes in an eternity of Hell-fire. So God cannot be maximally belevolent unless one considers the vastness of suffering promised to be endured there 'necessary'. And with an omnipotent God, I don't see why that would be.

*(Free Will has various meanings: 'the ability to choose between Good and Evil', 'the ability to choose to believe in God'...of course, this little diatribe of mine uses the former sense)

[Light]

If you look in your dictionary, you will see that Christ used the word suffering in its archaic sense.

CLEARLY this means Permit or allow.

Allow the little Children to come unto me.

Christ suffered for the unnecessary suffering of people who were mismanaged by the church and their ridiculous inquistion.

There are many beliefs on this planet in a Great Spirit which are the same idendical beliefs in a Creator.

For example there is Mani 'to, sometimes spelled Manitou. And there is the "cult" of Io.

I think all North Americans know about Manitou, and it is very interesting to note that this is a "paradise belief" which is pantheistic and natural.

It implies that ALL things people, animals and all of God's Creation came from God and should be treated with respect.

The "cult" of Io is interesting as it is a reference to the planet Io which is next to Jupiter which is also regarded as part of God's Creation, being Jovian in nature.

In this belief imagery, Io is looked upon as a Son of God Who is next to His Father Jove.

So you see there are many people who believe in One God, but in many different ways.

Consequently there is not one "true" religion, there is only one true belief in the One Creator.

Egypt shows how this works, but the morality involved is standard and follows the ten commandments & common-sense.

Basically this really boils down to good behaviour and friendship amongst all people on this Space-Ship Earth which was was Created by The "Skipper" of Heaven & Earth, as God is referred to in Dutch religious services.

Basically it ALL comes down to Common-Sense and to having a Common-Sense of purpose.

If the planet and its people are run as if it were a Shipboard operation then it would all be ship-shape and tidy and this is the best way of looking at it all.

It really requires running on Navy lines and requires discipline, rather than disciples.

Of course this can be regarded as being the same thing, but it ALL needs less mysticism and more practical application for it all to work properly.

You may imagine that family planning on board ship is an essential if the "crew", the people, is not to find itself short of accomodation.

Hence the story about Christ being born in a Stable.

Of course the "crew" needs feeding and so adequate provision for the voyage around Our Father will have to be made.

Hence the Parable of the Loaves and Fishes.

Of course good behaviour on board ship is essential. After all we wouldn't want to let The Skipper down, would we?

o essential there should be good behaviour, no smoking and no pornography, and the last thing The Skipper needs is a mutiny, otherwise we might all go down with the ship.

So excercise caur-tion in your affairs and sit down and CAREFULLY project the future befre having children who might not be able to find a job, or accomodation, and which might only find themselves fighting with each other.

This will only disturb the Peace in Paradise and upset the Skipper.

Naturally a ship does NOT require holes in it so the SOONER these holes are filled in the better. We would NOT want to sink because of too much holiness and insufficient planning.

There are NO devils, NO satans, NO superstitions, just realistic common-sense, and now that I have explained that there are NO religions, just ONE Belief you will see that there is only ONE human Race Created by ONE GOD living on ONE Planet who have to get along together and keep the peace, carefully planning and providing for everything for the future of this epic voyage.

So the FACT is that with NO religion but just ONE Common Belief there are ONLY Men and Women, all of whom are human beings, and NO separate sectarian identities, even though there are still those who may care to think so.

So just forget about religion and endless praying and use your common sense.

All you have to ask yourself is, What would God want me to do?

Thank you. :)

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Pouye
BTW, God did not create "hell". God doesn't torture people in hell. That is a farce.
Ok, you convinced me. Atheist that I am, I nevertheless am perfectly prepared to believe that Hell does not exist. However, since I'm not an expert in the field, I'm going to defer to those that do seem to know more about it.

So when you convince the rest of the Christian faithful that Hell does not exist, then I'll believe you.

Get back to me when you've done that, ok?

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Light
The "cult" of Io is interesting as it is a reference to the planet Io which is next to Jupiter which is also regarded as part of God's Creation, being Jovian in nature.
Io is not a planet.

Egypt shows how this works, but the morality involved is standard and follows the ten commandments & common-sense.
Is this the same Egypt of the 7-day war? Or some other Egypt?

If the planet and its people are run as if it were a Shipboard operation then it would all be ship-shape and tidy and this is the best way of looking at it all.

It really requires running on Navy lines and requires discipline, rather than disciples.
Ah, yes, yet another religious pean to fascism.

So just forget about religion and endless praying and use your common sense.

All you have to ask yourself is, What would God want me to do?

But if I use my common sense, I realize there is no God, and hence it can't possibly matter what He would want.

[Light]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Io is not a planet.

Is this the same Egypt of the 7-day war? Or some other Egypt?

Ah, yes, yet another religious pean to fascism.

But if I use my common sense, I realize there is no God, and hence it can't possibly matter what He would want.

Io is a planetary body that is regarded by some as a moon of Jupiter.

However the Moon, our Moon is the moon and Io is a planet.

The symbolism of "ancient" Egypt shows the workings of God, it is where religious belief stems from.

The Egyptians naturally believed in the same God Who they called Ptah. Ptah translates into the Latin, Pater which means Father.

Nothig whatsoever to do with fascism but only to do with living in a world of order instead of people fighting and starving in the present conditions of chaos. Order from chaos. Still waters cleared of confusion.

"By still, my troubled Heart."

If instead you would use your "common-sense" to undesrstand that only God could have Created this world then you would come to comprehend Someone MUCH Greater than you.

If you only think of yourself and do not consider ALL of your fellow human beings, men and women, then you are only being selfish.

Or maybe you just do not care for there to be sufficient social order and discipline so that all people may live in peace.

Real Strength comes from Humanitarianism.

A Humanitarianism that does NOT crucify people.

[Light]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Ok, you convinced me. Atheist that I am, I nevertheless am perfectly prepared to believe that Hell does not exist. However, since I'm not an expert in the field, I'm going to defer to those that do seem to know more about it.

So when you convince the rest of the Christian faithful that Hell does not exist, then I'll believe you.

Get back to me when you've done that, ok?

Hell is what people do to each other right here.

But if they were kind and loving then this would be the Paradise that it should be.

You say, "But if I use my common sense, I realize there is no God, and hence it can't possibly matter what He would want."

If you really used your common sense then you would realise that what you want is what God wants, peace, harmony and goodwill, and respectful love.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Light
Io is a planetary body that is regarded by some as a moon of Jupiter. However the Moon, our Moon is the moon and Io is a planet.
Just chock full o' nuts!

1. A planetary body is not a planet, even though all planets are planetary bodies.

2. Regarded by some? Can you name anyone who doubts that Io is a moon of Jupiter?

3. You do realize that the word "moon," when not capitalized, refers to objects other than the Moon, right?

4. The proper name of Earth's moon is generally regarded as "Luna." Certainly if you use the proper names "Terra" and "Luna" no one will be confused about what objects you are referring to.

The symbolism of "ancient" Egypt shows the workings of God, it is where religious belief stems from.
Are you saying that a) the Australian abborigne religoin is derivative of Egyptian religion, or b) the Australian abborignes do not have religious beliefs?

Nothig whatsoever to do with fascism but only to do with living in a world of order instead of people fighting and starving in the present conditions of chaos. Order from chaos. Still waters cleared of confusion.
I'm a big fan of law and order. But I think laws should be based on reasons, arguments, and evidence: and you think they should be based on your crackpot theories about ancient Egypt and invisible sky-fairies. Guess which one of us is a fascist?

If instead you would use your "common-sense" to undesrstand that only God could have Created this world then you would come to comprehend Someone MUCH Greater than you.
Try to pay attention: even if I conceded that God created the universe, how am I entitled to conclude He still exists? From all appearences, the place runs without any particular intervention, so what makes you think your Creator didn't expire minutes after the Creation? Logically demonstrating that the universe was created tells you nothing about the creator other than the fact that it could create. Your assumptions that the creator is good, or still able to create, or even still existant are simply assumptions.


If you only think of yourself and do not consider ALL of your fellow human beings, men and women, then you are only being selfish.
Irony meter overheating.

Real Strength comes from Humanitarianism.

A Humanitarianism that does NOT crucify people.
Say... why don't you go convert all those Christians first, ok? You can work on us atheists after you've convinced the Catholics to give up their crucifixes, ok?

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Pouye
You are just about right!

OK, but apparently there are strings attached.

One problem, though... we are, according to the Bible, created as eternal beings -- so no annihilation, and no ending your life.

So, if I use my free will to choose annihilation, I'm SOL? God insists that I must eternally suffer excluded from his presence, whether that's in a hell he created or in a hell he didn't create? (BTW, if God didn't create Hell, whatever it is, who or what did?) That's one big string there.

God will honor your decision... but a decision not to be with God and those things which are associated with good (and therefore, with God, including love, peace, kindness, pleasure, intimacy, etc.) is a decision to be without God and also without goodness. Peace is good, so being without God is to live without peace for eternity.

There's that big string again. Exercise your free will to choose to believe in and serve God or not, but if you don't, you'll live "without peace" and "without goodness" for eternity. And without free will choice to avoid, or escape, that fate.

(BTW, I've never made a "decision not to be with God". I simply don't believe the myth).

BTW, God did not create "hell". God doesn't torture people in hell. That is a farce.

Who, pray tell, set up the system where those who "fail the test" are doomed to spend an eternity without goodness or peace, and without any escape from that miserable, never-ending existence? If hell is the absense of God, then God creates it by withdrawing his presence, God tortures the people there by withdrawing his presence, and God insures that their suffering will be eternal (and denies their free will) by not allowing them to escape the suffering.

What's a "farce" is this typical lame reasoning to try to get God off the hook for the very system he created.

God is the most generous, loving, wonderful, attractive being in the cosmos.

And also the most absent. Why is that? (And why would such a "generous, loving, wonderful, attractive being in the cosmos" allow the majority of humanity to suffer for eternity as you describe? Surely such a God would not allow that...)

He has made humans with free will and he has made us for a purpose: to relate lovingly to Him and others.

So the "free will" allows us to either choose this purpose or suffer for eternity? Sounds like a might big string attached - to the trigger of a gun held to our heads - to me.

I don't believe we are accidents, modified monkeys or random mistakes.

Well, good for you. Neither do I.

And if we fail over and over again to live for the purpose for which we were made -- a purpose, by the way, which would allow us to flourish more than living any other way -- then God will have absolutely no choice but to give us what we've asked for all along in our lives, which is separation from Him.

So God doesn't "torture" us in Hell, but he "gives us what we're asking for." NOTE: neither I, nor anyone else, asks for an eternity of suffering, however it's described or ascribed.

That is what you are asking for, Mageth. The choice is up to you.

No, that's not what I'm asking for. Remember, I don't believe in god(s), so I don't ask god(s) for anything, and I see, nor exercise, no "choice" in the matter.

When any society is built, the first thing they build is definately not prisons. Prisons are built because people refuse to live in a way which society can tolerate. Their own actions do not allow them access to the rest of society. Hell is similar to a prison in this regard. Hell is the natural consequences of people living a life where they say, "I don't care if I am seperated from God, and therefore I will choose not to even believe in Him. I want to do things my way, so I will declare myself as a god."

Great. I'm safe, then, because I have never said that in my life, I don't choose not to believe in God, and I've never declared myself a god. Woo hoo.

People's character is not formed by decisions all at once, but by thousands of little choices they make every day. Each day people are preparing themselves for either an eternity with God or eternity without Him. In fact, if a person doesn't fall passionately in love with God, then to force that person to be around Him forever -- doing the kinds of things that people who love Him would want to do -- would be utterly uncomfortable.

If God doesn't want us to be uncomfortable, then why any kind of Hell at all?

I am excited about being with Jesus for eternity. The thought of being with God, His Father, who loved me enough to sacrifice His own Son so that I can have a relationship with Him, gives me more than just goosebumps! I love God. Plain and simple.

Well, bully for you. But I thought Jesus was currently sitting, exalted, at God's right hand? So what's this supposed sacrifice you speak of?

I love people, too... not just because God loves them, but because I realize how incredible people really are and how much they matter.

So do I. That's why I'd never condemn nor allow anyone to suffer for eternity in any sort of "hell", whether the literal fire-and-brimstone type or the "chosen", namby-pamby "absense of goodness" hell you describe. I can only assume that the God you speak of doesn't love people as much as I. Nor would I get "more than just goosebumps" from the thought of being with such a God for eternity.

[Light]

Originally posted by Yahzi

1. A planetary body is not a planet, even though all planets are planetary bodies. Hmmm???

2. Regarded by some? Can you name anyone who doubts that Io is a moon of Jupiter?

3. You do realize that the word "moon," when not capitalized, refers to objects other than the Moon, right?

4. The proper name of Earth's moon is generally regarded as "Luna." Certainly if you use the proper names "Terra" and "Luna" no one will be confused about what objects you are referring to.

Are you saying that a) the Australian aborigne religion is derivative of Egyptian religion, or b) the Australian aborignes do not have religious beliefs?

No. But if you want to know how God works take a look at Egypt. This is the basis of Christian Religion. (RE Legion)

I'm a big fan of law and order. But I think laws should be based on reasons, arguments, and evidence: and you think they should be based on your crackpot theories about ancient Egypt and invisible sky-fairies. Guess which one of us is a fascist?

Have you even researched the Egyptian belief system? I don't believe in Fascism. Law and order is a good idea. .:rolleyes: Hey, the Military could have shot Al Capone and then they wouldn't have to go to war! Fantastic!

Try to pay attention: even if I conceded that God Created the Universe, how am I entitled to conclude He still exists? From all appearences, the place runs without any particular intervention, so what makes you think your Creator didn't expire minutes after the Creation? Logically demonstrating that the Universe was Created tells you nothing about the Creator other than the fact that He could Create. Your assumptions that the Creator is good, or still able to Create, or even still existant are simply assumptions.

Eternal has a time limit, according to you? He IS Good ... but are you?

Say... why don't you go convert all those Christians first, ok? You can work on us atheists after you've convinced the Catholics to give up their crucifixes, ok?

How about if I can convince the Catholics to give up their crucifixes AND convince the devil and satan from playing silly buggers?

Imagine the dummy that wears a symbol of torture as His or Her religious symbol. Must be masochists I suppose.

Maybe I could convince the people to form normal married couples and convince the criminals to become decent people too. I could convice the terrorists to stop terrorising people and we could all live in peace.

I could try convincing everyone that corruption does not help and neither does having more than one child. Spending trillions on warfare and anti-crime measures is not really as productive as family planning to reduce population, and curtailing the activities of criminals, and many other things. Resources don't last forever you know. Decent people need them too.

Even Christ didn't have much luck getting people to give up on crucifiction.

Actually there is quite a bit of variation. Mars is said to have two moons, so they are given different names.

Io and Europa are more planet sized. It depends who you talk too, or what you are reading and its age. Sometimes a moon is referred to as a satellite

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Light
But if you want to know how God works take a look at Egypt. This is the basis of Christian Religion.
This presumes that Christian Religion is correct. This assumption is wholly unsupported, and unwarranted. You will find that people on this message board will not accept unsupported assumptions.


Have you even researched the Egyptian belief system?

Perhaps English is not your native langauge, but you are so sloppy with proper nouns that I actually have no idea what you are talking about. What Egyptian belief system? Do you mean Ra or Allah? Did you miss the last few hundred years, where Egypt became a Muslim nation?


Eternal has a time limit, according to you? He IS Good ... but are you?

This is so irrelevant to the comment it follows that I can only conclude you are having difficulties with the langauge.


How about if I can convince the Catholics to give up their crucifixes

I concede that will be a difficult task. The point was that convincing atheists of your views is both a) more difficult, and b) utterly pointless, since we agree with you that crucifixes are silly. Just for rather different reasons.


Actually there is quite a bit of variation. Mars is said to have two moons, so they are given different names.

You really need to brush up on your English literacy. This comment not only agrees with my original point, but demonstrates that you failed to grasp the idea that the name of Earth's moon is Luna.


Io and Europa are more planet sized. It depends who you talk too, or what you are reading and its age.
Citation, please.

Sometimes a moon is referred to as a satellite

I know that. Really, I understand this subject. The problem is that you do not.

[Light]

But then you don't understand that the "ancient" Egyptian belief system IS the CORRECT Belief system and that is why you STILL say that you don't believe in God, whereas I do.

This system shows how God works, it is therefore common to ALL people, whatever their religion.

I mean Ptah, Pater, Father. The God Force. Nobody that you can see here.

I am Scottish and educated in England and Singapore.

We invented the language.

"The Stargate Conspiracy" should make good reading for you.

And you shoud compare the Bible to Egypt and the Original System.

Pharaoh = Enlightened One.

[Sensei Meela]

....can we get this thread back on track? Whether Io is a planet or not is a thread for a different forum, Egyptology vs. whatever too.

Originally posted by Sensei Meela
Technically, I think ["It is God's will that suffering exist, and reducing suffering goes against His will"] is an equivocation of terms. In Greek (at least), two words for 'will' are used -- one which means His 'counsel' (or determination) and another which means His 'desire'. The former is unchallengable, the latter everyone challenges.

God 'wills' (Sense 1) that evil exist because He 'wills' (Sense 2) that we choose good over evil -- such a choice would logically require evil. (I assume that suffering is caused by evil, for the sake of argument).

Our Free Will* depends upon 1) our ability to distinguish between Good and Evil (assuming God is just) and 2) our ability to choose between them (obviously).

So, 'restricting' Free-Will by preventing a rape (and thus reducing suffering) could still be in accordance with God's 'will' (Sense 2) in that He 'desires' for us to reduce suffering because it wouldn't violate either condition for Free Will to exist. This, of course, assumes that it is the mere existence of Free Will and not the magnitude that is important to God, and ignores that 'omnisciencevsfreewill' train-wreck.

We won't ever be able to eliminate suffering -- only God can do that. But it looks like He won't, if one believes in an eternity of Hell-fire. So God cannot be maximally belevolent unless one considers the vastness of suffering promised to be endured there 'necessary'. And with an omnipotent God, I don't see why that would be.

*(Free Will has various meanings: 'the ability to choose between Good and Evil', 'the ability to choose to believe in God'...of course, this little diatribe of mine uses the former sense)

Sorry to subject you to this once again.