The Problem of Evil and Free Will

[Chriliman]

That's all well and good, and people having different interpretations doesn't frustrate me, I'm just trying to accommodate everyone. I just get frustrated when people use the same word to mean different things.

Understood, I'll try not to do that

Right, so it is possible, but God chose not to.

What makes you think God chose not to create a perfect son? You know that Jesus is the perfect Son of God, right?

Jesus is sort of and example. Since He also was God, it kind of doesn't count.

Jesus the Son isn't God the Father and God the Father isn't Jesus the Son, rather the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son, as One God. Similarly, my biological mother and father's dna is in me and I was even in my mother who is one flesh with my father through marriage. This is an image of the nature of God the Father, the Holy Spirit and Jesus the Son.

When we look at Jesus the Son we see the nature of the Father. Yes they are both God in the same way me and my biological father are both human. God the Father wants to make more sons like Jesus and we are the candidates (so to speak).

It's logical that when God makes something, there is a process involving time/space and testing in order to purify His creation. I'd argue that it's in this process of testing that evil is manifested and ultimately destroyed.

God tests us for our sake, not for his sake, he already knows what we can handle, but the point is that we don't know what we can handle and through testing we find out what's wrong with us(sin) and we also find out our true and pure God given nature(which God already knew about).

In the case of Jesus, he was also tested by God and he never sinned, he always did the will of God perfectly, this is why he's the key to our salvation.

But He does basically do this when an infant enters Heaven. That infant spent no significant portion of their existence with anything short of being "fully equipped with Godly goodness, love and freedom of will".

The infant argument fails when you realize that a fully matured man and a fully matured woman are required to create a human infant/fetus. God has to first create fully matured humans for infants to even be possible. In the case of Jesus, he was born of the Spirit of God and of a woman virgin and God already knew that Jesus would do his will perfectly, this is why God created him, to save the other's who had and would sin, this is God's will.

Galatians 1:3
"Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins so that He might rescue us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be the glory forevermore. Amen"

So it's not God's will for us to sin, but to be saved from our sins. It's our will to sin. So if you exersize your free will and do what you want, you will end up in sin, but if you do the will of God, you will recognize what is sin and what isn't because God will show you.

God is likely testing you right now and this is for your sake not his.

 

[Moral Orel]

Jesus the Son isn't God the Father and God the Father isn't Jesus the Son, rather the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son, as One God. Similarly, my biological mother and father's dna is in me and I was even in my mother who is one flesh with my father through marriage. This is an image of the nature of God the Father, the Holy Spirit and Jesus the Son.

When we look at Jesus the Son we see the nature of the Father. Yes they are both God in the same way me and my biological father are both human. God the Father wants to make more sons like Jesus and we are the candidates (so to speak).

We don't need to get into a discussion about the trinity. I'll admit that I don't fully understand how Christianity is monotheistic, but it isn't pertinent to the discussion, or necessary for either of our arguments as long as we agree God can create other perfectly good beings.

It's logical that when God makes something, there is a process involving time/space and testing in order to purify His creation. I'd argue that it's in this process of testing that evil is manifested and ultimately destroyed.

This is in direct contrast to what you already said here:

I'm in full agreement that God is capable of creating beings who are like Himself, fully equipped with Godly goodness, love and freedom of will

I'm not going to let you backpedal and say that He isn't capable of creating beings fully equipped, and that the rest of Q has to be developed over time.

God tests us for our sake, not for his sake, he already knows what we can handle, but the point is that we don't know what we can handle and through testing we find out what's wrong with us(sin) and we also find out our true and pure God given nature(which God already knew about).

But He's testing us based on how well He created us. It's like giving a math test to a student that you haven't taught all of the answers to, or an physical test to an athlete that you haven't completely trained. We're being tested on how well we do being made incomplete, whereas we could just be made complete, and then that test becomes meaningless.

In the case of Jesus, he was also tested by God and he never sinned, he always did the will of God perfectly, this is why he's the key to our salvation.

So do you believe there was a chance that Jesus might have sinned and given up His mission and ruined the whole plan that God the father had? There was a chance that was going to happen?

The infant argument fails when you realize that a fully matured man and a fully matured woman are required to create a human infant/fetus. God has to first create fully matured humans for infants to even be possible.

That's just silly. God can create fully formed humans from dust, but He can't create partially formed infants from dust?

So it's not God's will for us to sin, but to be saved from our sins. It's our will to sin. So if you exersize your free will and do what you want, you will end up in sin, but if you do the will of God, you will recognize what is sin and what isn't because God will show you.

In order to be saved from sin, we have to be affected by sin first. So it must be God's will for us to sin in order to save us from it. It sounds, quite honestly, like a case of munchausen by proxy.

 

[Chriliman]

We don't need to get into a discussion about the trinity. I'll admit that I don't fully understand how Christianity is monotheistic, but it isn't pertinent to the discussion, or necessary for either of our arguments as long as we agree God can create other perfectly good beings.

And as long as we agree that when God creates something then it's axiomatic that a process involving time/space and testing for purity is involved. If we can't agree on this then we can't move forward.

This is in direct contrast to what you already said here:

I'm not going to let you backpedal and say that He isn't capable of creating beings fully equipped, and that the rest of Q has to be developed over time.

He is capable of creating beings fully equipped, but like I said, there's a process in creating these beings that you can't deny, unless you render yourself illogical and say there is no process involved when creating something.

But He's testing us based on how well He created us. It's like giving a math test to a student that you haven't taught all of the answers to, or an physical test to an athlete that you haven't completely trained. We're being tested on how well we do being made incomplete, whereas we could just be made complete, and then that test becomes meaningless.

Not a good comparison because it's the math test that's created, not the student. The math test is only as good as he who created it and again there's still a process involved in creating math tests.

So do you believe there was a chance that Jesus might have sinned and given up His mission and ruined the whole plan that God the father had? There was a chance that was going to happen?

Of course, Jesus had true free will and he always chose God's will. It wasn't easy for him by any stretch.

Luke 22:42
"Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."

That's just silly. God can create fully formed humans from dust, but He can't create partially formed infants from dust?

Again, just because God can do something does not mean he will do it.

In order to be saved from sin, we have to be affected by sin first.

True, we are unaware of our sin until God reveals it to us, which can be a painful process for us and only He can forgive us of our sins.

So it must be God's will for us to sin in order to save us from it. It sounds, quite honestly, like a case of munchausen by proxy.

If this were true then Jesus would have sinned because it would have been God's will for him to do that, yet you know that isn't true or at least if you say that then your contradicting what God's will is.

I think this quote explains what Jesus did very well “The innocent was punished voluntarily as if guilty, that the guilty might be gratuitously rewarded as if innocent.”

When it says Jesus was punished as if guilty, it means Jesus was put to death even though he never sinned(punishment for sin is death) and he knew this was going to happen and still willingly allowed it because it would reconcile all God's lost children back to himself, according to God's will.

We know this is true because of what Jesus says here:

John 10:18
"No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

At this point it seems to me that your really trying hard to find fault in all this and I can't stop you from doing that, but I can pray for you and hope that you do find the fault in yourself and seek forgiveness from God.

 

[Hawkins]

Okay, but if a person believes in God, follows all the rules in the Bible, loves God, Loves his neighbors, and confesses and repents whenever he makes a mistake, that person goes to Heaven, right? What if a quadrillion years from now, in Heaven, that person will sin? Does God not let that person in even though He did and felt everything right on Earth before he died?

Somehow, you won't be that person if you will sin in the future heaven. Heaven is a place that only those with faith (in quantity and quality) and willing to obey (in quantity and quality) will survive. So if you do have such quality and quantity, God will show you as who you are/will be. You may consider this as predestination. If you do not have such a quality and quantity, someone else called Satan will make you fail to be such a person (as God allows).

To put it another way, only those who have such a quality and quantity can be a person who believes in God, follows all the rules in the Bible, loves God, Loves his neighbors, and confesses and repents whenever he makes a mistake. Satan on the other hand will active seek out such a person and will try his best to make him fail. If without God's help, such a human will in the end fail.

Revelation 12:10 (NIV)
10 Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: “Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Messiah. For the accuser of our brothers and sisters, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down.

In this situation, you can't expect God, who knows clearly who you are, to pull you out in order for you to screw up Heaven in the future.

 

[Moral Orel]

And as long as we agree that when God creates something then it's axiomatic that a process involving time/space and testing for purity is involved. If we can't agree on this then we can't move forward.

He is capable of creating beings fully equipped, but like I said, there's a process in creating these beings that you can't deny, unless you render yourself illogical and say there is no process involved when creating something.

The time/space part, I guess. I can't imagine another way, so I can only talk about it in that way.
Test for purity, though? Maybe. An infant who goes to Heaven can be tested for purity, but is automatically found to be pure. Agreed? If so, then yes, I agree time/space and a test of purity must be involved, although the purity test can be rendered arbitrary in some cases.

Not a good comparison because it's the math test that's created, not the student. The math test is only as good as he who created it and again there's still a process involved in creating math tests.

I guess I could have said robots or something instead, but that seems to just be unnecessarily clunky. The point is, that God equips us up to a certain level for the test, but He also writes the test because He designed all of reality. He created both, the student and the test. We're tested as to whether we will covet and steal because He created a world with limited resources, for example.

Of course, Jesus had true free will and he always chose God's will. It wasn't easy for him by any stretch.

Luke 22:42
"Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."

So Jesus didn't have Q? Being made from the spirit of God did not impart that quality in Jesus, we're just lucky that He passed the test because there was a chance He would have failed? I just want to be completely sure I get your meaning. I get that He suffered during His test, but I always thought He was guaranteed to pass. But you're saying He was not guaranteed to pass?

Again, just because God can do something does not mean he will do it.

I know, but if you use words like "possible" then I need to point out what is possible. We need to be clear about whether we are talking about what God must do because it is impossible to do any other way, and what God chose to do because that is what He willed. If God draws a circle, it must be round, if God draws a shape, He might choose a square.

Therefore, God does not have to "first create fully matured humans for infants to even be possible".

If this were true then Jesus would have sinned because it would have been God's will for him to do that, yet you know that isn't true or at least if you say that then your contradicting what God's will is.

No, I said, "it must be God's will for us to sin in order to save us from it". Jesus isn't "us". It wasn't God's will to save Jesus from sin, so He is not implicated in my statement.

At this point it seems to me that your really trying hard to find fault in all this and I can't stop you from doing that, but I can pray for you and hope that you do find the fault in yourself and seek forgiveness from God.

You know what? I get that a lot. But I'm not trying really hard to find fault, because the fault I've pointed out hasn't been addressed yet. You're still, in parts, talking about what God must do as opposed to stating why He chose to do something in a certain way.

If God can make beings with Q and free will, since Q doesn't affect free will, then they automatically pass the purity test, never suffer, and evil never comes into existence. Their love is still genuine. They still choose to do good because they want to. Why is this imagined, yet completely possible, universe less desirable than the one we have which is rife with evil?

 

[Moral Orel]

Somehow, you won't be that person if you will sin in the future heaven. Heaven is a place that only those with faith (in quantity and quality) and willing to obey (in quantity and quality) will survive. So if you do have such quality and quantity, God will show you as who you are/will be. You may consider this as predestination. If you do not have such a quality and quantity, someone else called Satan will make you fail to be such a person (as God allows).

To put it another way, only those who have such a quality and quantity can be a person who believes in God, follows all the rules in the Bible, loves God, Loves his neighbors, and confesses and repents whenever he makes a mistake. Satan on the other hand will active seek out such a person and will try his best to make him fail. If without God's help, such a human will in the end fail.

Revelation 12:10 (NIV)
10 Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: “Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Messiah. For the accuser of our brothers and sisters, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down.

In this situation, you can't expect God, who knows clearly who you are, to pull you out in order for you to screw up Heaven in the future.

Interesting. So it seems entrance to Heaven does not impart some magical change to your nature that makes you never ever sin, but instead you learn to never sin on Earth. Being in Heaven likely makes it easier to never sin, and I'm sure your nature changes, sure, but it doesn't do the whole change for you.

That would mean not all infants (if any) go to Heaven. They didn't develop sufficient faith on Earth, so surely, some of them will end up sinning some time in the future without having built that up before entrance to Heaven.

 

[Hawkins]

Interesting. So it seems entrance to Heaven does not impart some magical change to your nature that makes you never ever sin, but instead you learn to never sin on Earth. Being in Heaven likely makes it easier to never sin, and I'm sure your nature changes, sure, but it doesn't do the whole change for you.

That would mean not all infants (if any) go to Heaven. They didn't develop sufficient faith on Earth, so surely, some of them will end up sinning some time in the future without having built that up before entrance to Heaven.

No, you get it wrong. You don't need to learn to do anything. You are who you are and God knows from the very beginning before you are born. However, it's not good enough for God alone to know who you are, He needs to show who you are such that you will be brought to heaven openly and legitimately.

As for infants the Bible doesn't say anything about how they are handled. However with a common sense, they won't be judged to death as Law only applies to adults.

 

[bling]

Whatever Q is, it has always been a part of God. Q is part of who God is. God cannot cease to have Q as a quality, because God cannot change who He is, and choosing to not have Q would be a violation of Q itself as getting rid of it would lead to some less than good action. So, no, God cannot and will not "quench" Q because He cannot change and because he will not choose to do something less than good because of Q. If God can always have it, and not choose to have it because it is simply a part of who He is, then we can always have it, and not choose to have it simply by being part of who we are.

If you say God can always have Q for the entirety of His existence, and that's okay, but humans cannot always have Q for the entirety of their existence, because that means something different, then you are not applying your logic universally.

Remember, Q is the quality that makes someone perfect at making the right choices, and ensures 100% reliability that person will make the right choice, without forcing them to. That is the definition of Q and it does not require someone to choose to have that quality because God does not choose to have that quality. It is not a power that forces someone to make a specific decision, otherwise God would not have free will. He didn't choose to have Q, so we don't have to either.

I am in agreement with Chriliman who says: “While what you're saying is 'logical', it lacks coherence until you define 'Q'. It's like saying "X is true", but I never define X, so it can't actually be known to be true because we have no idea what 'X' is. This kind of thinking leads nowhere.”

I am defining “Q” as being Godly type love which cannot be instinctively placed in a being since that would make it robotic type love. “Q” has always been a part of God and was not created in God, since God was not created, but that cannot be the case with man.

God having free will and choosing to always be Loving, does not mean: our having free will would force us to always choose to Love.

 

[Chriliman]

The time/space part, I guess. I can't imagine another way, so I can only talk about it in that way.
Test for purity, though? Maybe. An infant who goes to Heaven can be tested for purity, but is automatically found to be pure. Agreed?

The test is for the sake of the person being tested, so the end result of what happens to infants after death is simply unknown to us who are mature adults. God tests each individual in different ways at different times because He knows what he's doing. However, we can be certain that God's judgment is sound regarding this matter, even though we don't currently fully understand. It may be that we're not yet meant to understand, that may come later through faith in God.

If so, then yes, I agree time/space and a test of purity must be involved, although the purity test can be rendered arbitrary in some cases.

Nothing God does can be rendered arbitrary. Logically, everything he does would be for a specific reason, resulting in a good outcome.

I guess I could have said robots or something instead, but that seems to just be unnecessarily clunky. The point is, that God equips us up to a certain level for the test, but He also writes the test because He designed all of reality. He created both, the student and the test. We're tested as to whether we will covet and steal because He created a world with limited resources, for example.

Sure.

So Jesus didn't have Q? Being made from the spirit of God did not impart that quality in Jesus, we're just lucky that He passed the test because there was a chance He would have failed? I just want to be completely sure I get your meaning. I get that He suffered during His test, but I always thought He was guaranteed to pass. But you're saying He was not guaranteed to pass?

Every time you mention 'Q', I'm replacing it with free will, until you actually define what 'Q' is. So your comment above does make sense but only because I've replace 'Q' with free will.

So when you say "So Jesus didn't have free will?", I say wrong, he did have free will. God instils us all with free will because we are made in His image, so we are free to listen to him or not, Jesus was the only being who completely listened and did God's will perfectly.

I know, but if you use words like "possible" then I need to point out what is possible. We need to be clear about whether we are talking about what God must do because it is impossible to do any other way, and what God chose to do because that is what He willed. If God draws a circle, it must be round, if God draws a shape, He might choose a square.

Got it.

Therefore, God does not have to "first create fully matured humans for infants to even be possible".

Okay, so God chose to create fully matured humans with reproductive members and then infants resulted from when those humans chose to have sex. God also did this so that he could bring forth the Savior of the world because he knew we'd need a Savior. However, His knowledge of our sin did not in itself cause us to sin. Similarly, my knowledge that my son hit his brother did not cause him to do that, I just happened to be there to witness it when it happened and I took the necessary corrective measures.

No, I said, "it must be God's will for us to sin in order to save us from it". Jesus isn't "us". It wasn't God's will to save Jesus from sin, so He is not implicated in my statement.

God can know what sin is without willing/wanting us to do it. Similarly, I know my kids can get hurt, but I won't will them to get hurt, however, they may make a wrong choice and still get hurt, but not because I willed it.

If no one ever sinned then we wouldn't be in this mess of a world and Jesus wouldn't have to save us, but the love God has for His creation has overcome sin and evil through Jesus Christ, thank God! We still have yet to experience the full effect of the actions of God.

You know what? I get that a lot. But I'm not trying really hard to find fault, because the fault I've pointed out hasn't been addressed yet. You're still, in parts, talking about what God must do as opposed to stating why He chose to do something in a certain way.

Ultimately, I think your honest questions are helpful and I hope they're coming from an honest place in your heart. So far they've helped strengthen my faith. I have no doubt that God is paying attention.

If God can make beings with Q and free will, since Q doesn't affect free will, then they automatically pass the purity test, never suffer, and evil never comes into existence. Their love is still genuine. They still choose to do good because they want to. Why is this imagined, yet completely possible, universe less desirable than the one we have which is rife with evil?

Your logic is entirely based on defining what 'Q' is. You've said its a quality, but you still have to define the quality. Your logic is incomplete, until you do that.

 

[Chriliman]

I am in agreement with Chriliman who says: “While what you're saying is 'logical', it lacks coherence until you define 'Q'. It's like saying "X is true", but I never define X, so it can't actually be known to be true because we have no idea what 'X' is. This kind of thinking leads nowhere.”

I am defining “Q” as being Godly type love which cannot be instinctively placed in a being since that would make it robotic type love. “Q” has always been a part of God and was not created in God, since God was not created, but that cannot be the case with man.

God having free will and choosing to always be Loving, does not mean: our having free will would force us to always choose to Love.

I appreciate your agreement on that issue.

Scripture says God is love, so it seems simpler to say that God can create beings with godly love, but that this process of creation and refinement requires time/space to be completed. We're experiencing the process/refinement right now from the created perspective.

1 John 4:8
"Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love."

Makes sense to me.

God bless!

 

[Moral Orel]

I am defining “Q” as being Godly type love which cannot be instinctively placed in a being since that would make it robotic type love. “Q” has always been a part of God and was not created in God, since God was not created, but that cannot be the case with man.

Every time you mention 'Q', I'm replacing it with free will, until you actually define what 'Q' is. So your comment above does make sense but only because I've replace 'Q' with free will.

So when you say "So Jesus didn't have free will?", I say wrong, he did have free will. God instils us all with free will because we are made in His image, so we are free to listen to him or not, Jesus was the only being who completely listened and did God's will perfectly.

You two... geez. I know you two have read each other's posts because you've been responding to them to each other. Do you see why I have to call it "Q"? One of you would say it is love, and the other says it is "free will" even though I've explicitly said that it couldn't possibly be "free will". Now how in the world am I supposed to define Q, as the non-Christian in this discussion, to the two Christians, in a way that both of you agree?

So once again, I put it to you two to define it for yourselves, and we'll work with that, because I'm taking your claim that God will always choose good, but still has free will, as a given.

So here is the problem. Both God and His created beings have free will. So Q is not free will. All created beings might sin, but God definitely won't sin. Q is the difference. You tell me: what is Q? What is the difference between us and God that enables Him to assuredly, never, ever, sin? You're the Christians, therefore you're the experts, so inform me.

 

[Moral Orel]

As for infants the Bible doesn't say anything about how they are handled. However with a common sense, they won't be judged to death as Law only applies to adults.

The test is for the sake of the person being tested, so the end result of what happens to infants after death is simply unknown to us who are mature adults. God tests each individual in different ways at different times because He knows what he's doing. However, we can be certain that God's judgment is sound regarding this matter, even though we don't currently fully understand. It may be that we're not yet meant to understand, that may come later through faith in God.

You both seem to have an objection to the claim that infants get a free pass to Heaven, so I'll respond to both at the same time. For starters, we can all agree that they aren't going to go to Hell, at the very least, right? Whether you believe in an eternal Hell or not, no omnibenevolent God would send infants to Hell if they didn't get a chance to take the test. Worst case scenario, no matter what, is that they stop existing, right? That seems like a good starting point for what we can all agree on.

But I'll go a step further. I'd say the Bible mentions at least one infant that went to Heaven, David and Bathsheba's son. David was sure He would "go to" his son in Heaven. Is David the only one who gets to see his children in Heaven because he was so special? Or because, by chance, his son would happen to be the type of person who would never ever sin without needing the test on Earth? How would David be privy to that knowledge? Or should we assume that David might have been wrong, and that God inspired the author of 2 Samuel to write that David was sure, even though we shouldn't be sure? Of course that would mean that Heaven had a big disappointment in store for David when he got there...

Now the objections might come from things like "none are without excuse". But that couldn't possibly apply to infants, even if they use the word "none" because clearly, infants do have an excellent excuse for never asking for forgiveness, right? So It should be safe to assume that even if the Bible uses words like "all" or "none" there can still be exceptions.

Thoughts?

I still haven't let up on the idea that God can create beings with most of the same qualities as Himself, save for the whole "uncreated" part, but this is an interesting, and obviously related, topic.

 

[Chriliman]

You two... geez. I know you two have read each other's posts because you've been responding to them to each other. Do you see why I have to call it "Q"? One of you would say it is love, and the other says it is "free will" even though I've explicitly said that it couldn't possibly be "free will". Now how in the world am I supposed to define Q, as the non-Christian in this discussion, to the two Christians, in a way that both of you agree?

So once again, I put it to you two to define it for yourselves, and we'll work with that, because I'm taking your claim that God will always choose good, but still has free will, as a given.

So here is the problem. Both God and His created beings have free will. So Q is not free will. All created beings might sin, but God definitely won't sin. Q is the difference. You tell me: what is Q? What is the difference between us and God that enables Him to assuredly, never, ever, sin? You're the Christians, therefore you're the experts, so inform me.

Why can't Q be free will, since God created us to have free will?

And how do you know Q is not free will when you haven't even defined what Q is?

 

[Moral Orel]

Why can't Q be free will, since God created us to have free will?

And how do you know Q is not free will when you haven't even defined what Q is?

I've given you enough defining characteristics for Q over multiple replies that a response like this to what you quoted is making me think that you are willfully not listening to me. I'll keep waiting for you to before I reply more.

 

[Chriliman]

I've given you enough defining characteristics for Q over multiple replies that a response like this to what you quoted is making me think that you are willfully not listening to me. I'll keep waiting for you to before I reply more.

You've said I can define Q however I like, but aren't letting me define it as free will for some reason. You're denying my freedom in that certain area, why?

My guess is that if you allow me to define Q as free will then your argument falls apart because it's based on Q(whatever it is) not affecting free will at all.

I'll add that I do think God's free will influences our choices, but doesn't take direct control of our choices. His influences are always directed towards strengthening us and making us more like Himself.

 

[Moral Orel]

You've said I can define Q however I like, but aren't letting me define it as free will for some reason. You're denying my freedom in that certain area, why?

Okay, so we have free will, and God also has free will. Tomorrow, I might go torture a puppy, and God might go torture a puppy.

 

[Chriliman]

Okay, so we have free will, and God also has free will. Tomorrow, I might go torture a puppy, and God might go torture a puppy.

Lol, I guess you're right, God could torture a puppy, but again that doesn't mean he will.

Did you see what I did there?

 

[Chriliman]

Okay, so we have free will, and God also has free will. Tomorrow, I might go torture a puppy, and God might go torture a puppy.

But seriously, God could torture puppies, but it's not his will to do that because his will is good.

 

[Moral Orel]

But seriously, God could torture puppies, but it's not his will to do that because his will is good.

"Could" isn't what I said. Obviously He is capable of anything. I said He "might" go torture a puppy. It may happen because we both have free will. If you're sure that God won't go torture a puppy, then what is the difference between God and humans that lets you know for certain that He won't choose to?

 

[bling]

I appreciate your agreement on that issue.

Scripture says God is love, so it seems simpler to say that God can create beings with godly love, but that this process of creation and refinement requires time/space to be completed. We're experiencing the process/refinement right now from the created perspective.

1 John 4:8
"Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love."

Makes sense to me.

God bless!

Sorry but I have some problems with this:


I see: Godly type Love being way beyond anything man can: learn, develop, instinctively have, or pay back God for having, but once obtained it can grow with use.

God wants us to “Love” Him, but that means “Loving” unselfishness which is the way God is, so we are to Love the state of being unselfish which means we will Love others with unselfishness. Unselfishness (doing good for others without gaining anything from it) is virtually contrary to human nature, so how do we obtain it?

Yet, if God “programmed” into an android a “love” which the android thought was his/her own “true” love would that “love”, the android would not know the difference but would God know? Would an instinctive love be as wonderful as a “Love” that was the result of a truly free will choice of the android who has likely other very possible alternatives choices?

The only way I see to obtain this Godly type Love is by what Jesus said and we might have experienced in life: “…he that is forgiven much Loves much…”, so if I truly humbly accept as a purely charitable gift God’s forgiveness of my unbelievable huge debt of sin, I will automatically obtain an unbelievable huge Love (Godly type love). If I do not humbly accept God’s charity in the form of forgiveness for lots of reasons, I will not obtain this Love, so how else do I get it?