The Problem of Evil and Free Will

[com7fy8]

Is "the spirit of evil" eternal like God? Has it always existed just like He has?

So is God incapable of destroying this "spirit of evil"? He is only capable of redirecting it down a sewer, but not really capable of making it cease to exist? That would be strange to me.

understd

And the Bible does not directly go into this. But I consider that if God is all good, there is no way He could have brought Satan's evil spirit into existence. He could not have even thought of there being it . . . if He was nothing but good so He could only think of what is good and if there were at some point nothing less than He is.

So, I also consider that if God had at some point been all in existence, then there could not have been any whatever of inferior existence and therefore there never would be. So, I consider that things that have been made are organizations of what is inferior, so the stuff they are made of are not just all over the place, with no form or organization, at all. And God can have ones in the form of Jesus where He can enjoy us like He enjoys Jesus. And in us, while He is dealing with controlling all that is in this evil and inferior world, He can make Himself at home in us who are more and more growing in Jesus as our new inner Person > Galatians 4:19.

So, whatever we might philosophize about if evil's spirit ever came into existence, now it is good to trust our Heavenly Father to transform us into the image of Jesus so that in us He can enjoy being at home in us while He is taking care of everything around us > we love Him by becoming more Christlike >

"rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God." (1 Peter 3:4)

My opinion is, if God could have taken the spirit of evil out of existence, He already would have. And the argument that He gives us free will so we are capable of choosing evil or choosing to love Him is, in my opinion, not so. God is love and God is not capable of evil, James 3:13 does say. So, in order to love another, it is not necessary that you have the ability to choose evil. If I have such an ability, then I still am not like God, and so this sort of free will is sin . . . inferior to how God is, I mean.

If I am capable of making my own choices because I am somehow apart from God, this is a problem . . . to be separate from God. Because only in union and communion with the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:17) are we capable of loving and obeying God. Only His grace makes us able to love Him.

And I think we can see how humans in our free wills have not been choosing this. Our own nature has kept us from freely choosing to be one with God in His love, and submit all the time to how He personally rules us in His own peace in our hearts > Colossians 3:15. But God is the One who changes us so we do better in all this. This, Nicholas, is what the Bible clearly says God is able to do, whether or not He is able to put the spirit of evil out of existence; so I offer it is good to give our attention to all which the Bible clearly states God is able and committed to doing with us > trust in Jesus for all which He guarantees He does with His sheep.

 

[Greg J.]

But that isn't true. God has perfected free will, which means He will never choose to sin. Adam did choose to sin, therefore Adam did not have that quality. Why didn't God give Adam perfected free will? Remember, God can and does give people perfected free will without ever needing to choose God while here on Earth, refer back to the OP if you don't remember how I arrived at that conclusion.

You have objectified free will. Perfected free will means an unhindered ability to choose. Adam did have that quality. He had a choice, and he chose wrongly. Don't read too much into the fact that we know God knows the future. Every time God has a choice, it is like Adam's situation. But he always chooses to do what is right. That's one of the reasons God is awesome (and was still more awesome than Adam before Adam sinned). If it's hard to understand how God could be like that, it is because none of us has lived with people like that (or even met them).

 

[Greg J.]

Before evil existed, it was defined by God's goodness. Evil is what is contrary to God's nature. Because of that nature, when Satan sinned, he became more contrary to God and his goodness. But it wasn't a gradual change for Satan, because he was full of God. He basically rejected all that had made him who he was up to that point and all he could become at that point was a form of complete contrariness to God.

 

[Moral Orel]

Every time God has a choice, it is like Adam's situation. But he always chooses to do what is right.

Right, and like you said we will be exactly the same way in Heaven. So why not start people off this way, instead of starting them off in a way that they will choose evil?

 

[Greg J.]

He did start us off that way, but we were separate beings. What happened afterwards is that we screwed up and to save us, God gave us and gives us the opportunity to enter into a kind of unity with him and rather than be more like him, to be more him. Our salvation is to no longer exist as separate beings from God. (There was nothing wrong with making us separate beings in the first place.) In this life, however, we still experience a (different kind of) separateness from him (due to our choices).

 

[Moral Orel]

He did start us off that way, but we were separate beings. What happened afterwards is that we screwed up and to save us, God gave us and gives us the opportunity to enter into a kind of unity with him and rather than be more like him, to be more him. Our salvation is to no longer exist as separate beings from God. (There was nothing wrong with making us separate beings in the first place.) In this life, however, we still experience a (different kind of) separateness from him (due to our choices).

Okay, so God can't make separate beings that will always choose to do good and will never choose to do evil. Only He can have free will and always choose the good and never choose the evil. And the only way that we can make choices in such a manner is to "be more Him".

Does "being more Him" mean not having free will anymore? Taken all way to the extreme end of people in Heaven, do Heaven's residents have free will?

 

[Greg J.]

"Being more him" means having more free will, but choosing to always do good, just like you are saying you wish he had made us from the beginning. You wonder why he didn't start us that way, and perhaps that has to do with the fact that he had to die to create the conditions for that, along with the fact that there was nothing immoral about the way he did it at first.

However, the real problem you face is that you have a problem with Adam being created such that he could choose evil (then you descending from him). However that is intellectual. In practice you testify that you agree with Adam's choice to do evil whenever you sin. You do the very same thing he did. You don't have to choose evil, so why do you?

The fact of reality is that we can affect each other—our ancestors have affected us. Again, that is because that is from God's nature. He decided to make both reality and humans perfect (in his own image). He couldn't have made anything superior to that, as you want to suggest.

 

[toLiJC]

"I make peace, and create evil." That isn't direct enough for you?

the answer i can give depends on what you mean by "direct", because, for example, the literal sense of the biblical words is not the perfectly right one, but there is a special spiritual sense... - here is one typical example of this:

Revelation 11:8 "the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt"

apart from the possible literal and figurative sense/meaning of the words, there is also a spiritual one, especially when it comes to the biblical words, a very typical example of this is the hebrew verb "bara"(h1254) whose most general sense is "to make/create", for example, God can make something happen, He can also make something fail to happen, He said "let there be light" and there was "light" - He saw that the "light" was good, therefore He divided the "light" off from the "darkness", because the "darkness" was not good, and called the "light" "Day", while the "darkness" "night"...

Exodus 20:12 "Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee."

there is a special spiritual language used in the Bible

Blessings

 

[AwakeInTheMatrix]

Because Christians keep telling me He can't because they think it is a logical contradiction. If you agree that God can create humans that have both free will and an infallible predisposition towards doing good and never doing evil, then we can move on.

I guess our impasse is at the word "infallible." If we had been created infallible, then free will and choice are no longer part of the conversation anymore. I believe he is fully capable of creating someone to have an infallible predisposition, but he wanted us to choose him freely, so he allowed fallibility in us.

Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! -- 1 Corinthians 6:3

I had forgotten the scripture. Thank you for providing it. It would make sense that those who are part of the heavenly class, as co-rulers with Jesus during his reign, would indeed be responsible for judging all creation during that time.

 

[Moral Orel]

I guess our impasse is at the word "infallible." If we had been created infallible, then free will and choice are no longer part of the conversation anymore.

God is infallible, and God has free will. Making something infallible does not take away it's ability to freely choose.

 

[Moral Orel]

"Being more him" means having more free will, but choosing to always do good, just like you are saying you wish he had made us from the beginning.

Okay, then "being more Him" is the quality that we lack that God has.

You wonder why he didn't start us that way, and perhaps that has to do with the fact that he had to die to create the conditions for that

Is there any reason to assume that God's abilities are limited in this manner, or is it simply a choice of His to do things in this way?

along with the fact that there was nothing immoral about the way he did it at first.

Well, that's your assertion, but I would like to know why you would think that is true if he could have accomplished His plan without evil ever existing, and with all created beings still having free will.

However, the real problem you face is that you have a problem with Adam being created such that he could choose evil (then you descending from him). However that is intellectual. In practice you testify that you agree with Adam's choice to do evil whenever you sin. You do the very same thing he did. You don't have to choose evil, so why do you?

This is simply untrue. There are times that people choose to sin, there are times that people don't. Most importantly, you're ignoring the Biblical concept of Sin Nature in this statement. If it were really true that you never have to choose evil, then there would be more than just Jesus who never sinned. Or at best, Christians would completely cease to sin once they become Christians. Are you claiming to never sin, or do you agree with Adam?

The fact of reality is that we can affect each other—our ancestors have affected us. Again, that is because that is from God's nature. He decided to make both reality and humans perfect (in his own image). He couldn't have made anything superior to that, as you want to suggest.

Explain to me how my numbered process does not work. Is anything in the OP about that numbered process false? Do babies go to Heaven? Do they automatically "be more Him"? If these things are true, then God does on a regular basis make things superior to that.

 

[Greg J.]

"Being more him" means having more free will, but choosing to always do good, just like you are saying you wish he had made us from the beginning

Okay, then "being more Him" is the quality that we lack that God has.

Being God is not a 'quality' (that we lack or have). We aren't God. "Being more Him" is a poor way to describe what it is, but I don't know a better way, other than to use Biblical terminology which requires understanding multiple passages, and is historically even more confusing.

You wonder why he didn't start us that way, and perhaps that has to do with the fact that he had to die to create the conditions for that

Is there any reason to assume that God's abilities are limited in this manner, or is it simply a choice of His to do things in this way?

God does not lack the power to do anything. He lacks the will to do all kinds of things (such as do evil). We aren't responsible for things we haven't done yet, and neither is God. You believe God was responsible for things that hadn't happened yet only because you heard he knew the future. But no one can correctly integrate a fact that is from God's (infinite and un-understandable) perspective (that we only know because he told us, but without details about it) into a chain of human logic that is bound by the passage of time and who we are in our finite selves.

God executed his plan perfectly: to create beings like himself in relationship with him (modeled after his Triune nature). Adam chose to reject his nature that was in perfect communion with God and it transformed his own nature into one where God was not a part. The nature of sin is that it cannot be cleansed out of something; it's end only comes by destruction. It always heads in the direction of self-destruction, although it can be also destroyed from without.

along with the fact that there was nothing immoral about the way he did it at first.

Well, that's your assertion, but I would like to know why you would think that is true if he could have accomplished His plan without evil ever existing, and with all created beings still having free will.

He could not accomplish his plan without the potential for evil, because that is part of the nature of free will. But he didn't create evil in any way shape or form. In fact, he distinctly does not want it to exist and he demonstrates that hundreds of times in the Bible. He was like that from day 1 of Adam's life.

However, the real problem you face is that you have a problem with Adam being created such that he could choose evil (then you descending from him). However that is intellectual. In practice you testify that you agree with Adam's choice to do evil whenever you sin. You do the very same thing he did. You don't have to choose evil, so why do you?

This is simply untrue. There are times that people choose to sin, there are times that people don't. Most importantly, you're ignoring the Biblical concept of Sin Nature in this statement. If it were really true that you never have to choose evil, then there would be more than just Jesus who never sinned. Or at best, Christians would completely cease to sin once they become Christians. Are you claiming to never sin, or do you agree with Adam?

There are times people choose to sin and times they don't because they have free will. This would not be possible without free will. It is true that a person never has to choose evil. Every time you have a choice and choose good you demonstrate that. While the fact that you were born tainted with sin isn't your fault, the fact that you have chosen to sin is your fault, and furthermore testifies that either it is ok with you that people before you sinned or that you are a hypocrite.

The fact of reality is that we can affect each other—our ancestors have affected us. Again, that is because that is from God's nature. He decided to make both reality and humans perfect (in his own image). He couldn't have made anything superior to that, as you want to suggest.

Explain to me how my numbered process does not work. Is anything in the OP about that numbered process false? Do babies go to Heaven? Do they automatically "be more Him"? If these things are true, then God does on a regular basis make things superior to that.

You wrote, "2. Bestow upon that being the infinitely good nature that allows it to never sin without controlling its will."

A good nature cannot exist without free will. By definition a good action can only happen if there is something other than the good action that can be done, otherwise it is an amoral operation by a robot. Perhaps you are imagining some sort of "limited free will," but there is no such thing. You may be blending in the concept of coercion of someone with free will, but coercion does not affect a person's free will; it affects how hard it is to exercise it. Sin does affect a person's free will. God told people how to get out of that, but the humans at those times rejected that (just as we do today).

The things I've said are at the point where further questions could very well tangent out into whole other huge topics (such as what happens to infants who die). If you aren't going to accept someone's explanations, at some point, your only option is to pursue the possibility of discovering God by faith and not through having your questions answered.

Logic is good for furthering a person's faith, but it is not required for the faith to discover the reality of God's existence, and it is only by faith that you can come to know God. After you believe in Jesus Christ and obey his commands a while, you will get the proof you want. Salvation is by faith alone. There is no other avenue to discover God. If he gave you proof, you could no longer be saved, and because he loves you, he's not going to withdraw that option for you. I know that seems backwards. That's our fault, too.

 

[Moral Orel]

While the fact that you were born tainted with sin isn't your fault, the fact that you have chosen to sin is your fault, and furthermore testifies that either it is ok with you that people before you sinned or that you are a hypocrite.

Ad hominem attacks let me know I'm right. Shouldn't it be the evil atheist that has to descend into impoliteness at the sight of his argument crumbling?

If you aren't going to accept someone's explanations, at some point, your only option is to pursue the possibility of discovering God by faith and not through having your questions answered.

Your explanations are contradictory. If God can have free will and have a guaranteed 0% chance of ever doing an evil action, and if God can do absolutely anything, then He can create another being who has free will and has a guaranteed 0% chance of ever doing an evil action. Every explanation you've given either states that God doesn't have free will, because having the possibility of doing evil is the only way to have free will, or God lacks the capabilities to create another being just like Himself. Just like Himself. Not kind of like Himself. Not a lot like Himself. Exactly like Himself.

 

[Greg J.]

Ad hominem attacks let me know I'm right. Shouldn't it be the evil atheist that has to descend into impoliteness at the sight of his argument crumbling?

I frequently use "you" just as a way to express a generality. I wasn't attacking you, but trying to make the sentence slightly easier to digest (1st person rather than 3rd person). I apologize. What would have been less challenging is still true:

"While the fact that a person was born tainted with sin isn't their fault, the fact that they have chosen to sin is they're fault, and furthermore testifies that either it is OK with them that people before them sinned or that they are a hypocrite." We all have some hypocrite in us, btw.

Your explanations are contradictory. If God can have free will and have a guaranteed 0% chance of ever doing an evil action, and if God can do absolutely anything, then He can create another being who has free will and has a guaranteed 0% chance of ever doing an evil action. Every explanation you've given either states that God doesn't have free will, because having the possibility of doing evil is the only way to have free will, or God lacks the capabilities to create another being just like Himself. Just like Himself. Not kind of like Himself. Not a lot like Himself. Exactly like Himself.

No, they're not. You simply seem to not believe that a being can exist who can choose to do good or evil but always chooses to do good. Presumably this is from the influence of (all of our) spiritual blindness and life experiences. None of us have gotten to see such a person living their life—in person. However, we can read about Jesus' life from those that did see him living his life.

I think our exchanges have reached the end of their usefulness. Note that I answered your questions, your follow-up questions, and follow-up questions to those. I question whether there are logical answers that you would find acceptable until you want to find God with a submissive (humble, really) attitude. People that aren't disposed to acknowledging God is GOD and they themselves are not (a facet of which is willingness to accept that he has the right to tell people what is right and what is wrong and hold them accountable), and as a result don't have a submitting (yielding, really) heart to God usually never find him (there's exceptions).

This is why a lot of people find God who have been in significant pain so long that it breaks their false idea they can be self-sufficient enough that they look for other answers. It's not because they somehow have become easier to deceive, but rather that they are willing to look more deeply into hopes with hopefulness, rather than being quick to dismiss claims for which there is no proof.

God didn't make individuals to be able to function on their own. It is our cultures that have hammered the thought in us that "everything is OK," but things are far from OK. It is the control that knowledge of our world and technology has given us that makes us think so, but we still have absolutely no control over our own future. Any of us could be dead in an hour against our will.

Best wishes.

 

[Moral Orel]

You simply seem to not believe that a being can exist who can choose to do good or evil but always chooses to do good.

If you think this is my position, then you've misunderstood me from the very beginning. This being existing is the very premise of my argument. I'm accepting as a given that God is such a being, Jesus was such a being, and any human in Heaven is such a being.

What you're failing to recognize is that even before Adam sinned, he was not such a being. There is a difference between Adam and all of these other beings in that there is no guarantee that he won't sin, whereas there is a guarantee that none of these other beings will sin. That guarantee does not remove free will, as my premise states. And that guarantee is an enormous defining factor about these beings which you seem to find insignificant.

 

[bling]

That being said, does that have an impact on what you said about Godly love and what is necessary for us to receive it? I understand that it is given by grace, but we don't have to make a choice to receive it. And does that have any impact on the rest of what you posted if what you said was based on the idea that we must choose God?
.

The truth is the truth.

I understand the current system that is in place. What I am asking about is a different system. The Earth isn't necessary to bestow on us all the positive personality traits like humility, that you mentioned. My illustration shows that the exception can become the rule, and the end result of God's plan can be achieved without pain and suffering of any kind ever existing.

You said “ I understand that it (Godly type Love) is given by grace, but we don't have to make a choice to receive it.”

So you believe God offers the “love” to us at gun point so we have to take it? (That does not sound very loving on God’s part and the “love” you received in such a manner would not be Godly type Love.)

If you believe God instinctively places this “Love” in a human, how is that different from a robotic type of love?

This world provides the very best situation to humble us, but that does not mean they will be humbled enough to accept pure charity.


Here is the “problem”: God must make us with a survival instinct, to value eternal life if nothing more. It is also part of being human, but all animals have this instinct. To want to personally survive having self-preservation, you must have personal awareness, self-awareness, and thus self-concern. All this requires some degree of self-desire or selfishness. This desire for “self” (pride) works against being humble, but everyone has the ability to be humble and will be put in situations where they can exercise humility.

 

[Moral Orel]

You said “ I understand that it (Godly type Love) is given by grace, but we don't have to make a choice to receive it.”

So you believe God offers the “love” to us at gun point so we have to take it? (That does not sound very loving on God’s part and the “love” you received in such a manner would not be Godly type Love.)

If you believe God instinctively places this “Love” in a human, how is that different from a robotic type of love?

This is why I regrettably have to bring up infants who pass away. There's no choosing going on in that scenario, but it isn't a gun point, and it doesn't make them robots.

 

[bling]

This is why I regrettably have to bring up infants who pass away. There's no choosing going on in that scenario, but it isn't a gun point, and it doesn't make them robots.

I do not mind talking about babies that pass away. I do not hold to the doctrine of “original sin”, so a Baby would be in a save condition not needing to be saved sin the baby is not lost.

A baby or anyone that had not matured to the point of being responsible for their actions or never had the opportunity to accept the Creator’s Charity, would go to heaven with just a child for wonderful parent type love. They will not have or be able to develop a Godly type Love, but will be cared for constantly.

 

[Hawkins]

Freewill means one can choose between 0 and 1 by will. God's omnipotence means He can choose, say 0, all the times.

To simplify the answer for better understanding, God can foresee the future such that whoever sinning in heaven would have been removed when they were still on earth.

The end result is that humans in heaven won't sin. At the same time and in a sense, their degree of freewill is openly measurable. If on the other hand, God makes only entities with freewill without sinning, the degree of freewill is not measurable by anyone else but God Himself. That is, whether humans are truly with freewill can hardly be told with reference and under open witnessing, that is, you won't be able to tell if they can choose to sin.

To put it anther way, God just let go everything as it is such that those choosing 0 will choose 0 and those choosing 1 will choose one, with their freewill expressed openly under open witnessing, such that the righteous (i.e., those choose 0) can be legitimately/lawfully brought to heaven with a said standard (made known to angels and humans).

 

[Moral Orel]

A baby or anyone that had not matured to the point of being responsible for their actions or never had the opportunity to accept the Creator’s Charity, would go to heaven with just a child for wonderful parent type love. They will not have or be able to develop a Godly type Love, but will be cared for constantly.

That's kind of weird. Infants have to stay infants forever in Heaven?

Then we still need to get back to this though:

If you believe God instinctively places this “Love” in a human, how is that different from a robotic type of love?

Is this "love" instinctively part of God? This "love" is just part of His nature, does that make it robotic love?