The Problem of Evil and Free Will

[Fizzywig]

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?

How? Keeping it simple, as the mystics say ( from out of various Faiths ):- "God is His own gift".

All else is works.

 

[bling]

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.

Q then would be the free will choice to allow Godly type Love to control your actions, but here in lies the problem: God has always had Godly type Love and man is here on earth to mainly obtain Godly type Love and secondly grow that Love. Man cannot “start out” from birth allowing Godly type Love to control his thoughts and actions because he does not start out with Godly type Love, Godly type Love cannot be made instinctive to man or by definition it is not Godly type Love.

You can address the following also:

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?

 

[Fizzywig]

Q then would be the free will choice to allow Godly type Love to control your actions, but here in lies the problem: God has always had Godly type Love and man is here on earth to mainly obtain Godly type Love and secondly grow that Love. Man cannot “start out” from birth allowing Godly type Love to control his thoughts and actions because he does not start out with Godly type Love, Godly type Love cannot be made instinctive to man or by definition it is not Godly type Love.

You can address the following also:

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?

Again. How?

God is His own Gift.

How the the gift is given is unique to each. The "one way" is the gift itself, not a particular way.

 

[RDKirk]

There was an old Beavis and Butthead quote where Beavis said, "If nothing sucked, how would you know what was cool?".

Of course, God knew what evil was going to be before we existed, understood it, and understood that it was bad, right? So it doesn't have to actually exist for us to know what evil is.

I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead.

Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. -- Romans 7

If God had planted the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil but had never said, "Do not eat of it," there would not have been a potential for sin. Sin did not lie in the tree itself--the fruit was not toxic. There was no potential for sin until God uttered the command; God created the potential for sin by uttering the command...and He knew that.

Then, if Paul is to be believed, by God's uttering the command not only was sin made potential, it's manifestation was made inevitable (IMO, what made sin inevitable was that God had engineered Satan as a catalyst, and I think that is what Paul is implying by "sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment").

 

[RDKirk]

If this is true, then infants who go to Heaven are robot puppets because they didn't choose to love God.

...God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved...-- 1 Timothy 2

For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost -- Luke 19

Something to keep in mind in these considerations: God is not a neutral judge on salvation. God is biased toward salvation.

 

[Fizzywig]

H'm

and one said
speak to us of love
and the preacher opened
his mouth and the word God
fell out so they tried
again speak to us
of God then but the preacher
was silent reaching
his arms out but the little
children the ones with
big bellies and bow
legs that were like
a razor shell
were too weak to come

(R S Thomas)

I find questions (about "evil") more useful than "answers". Often "answers" act as an anaesthetic. Often "answers" are insular.

As I see it, "answers" often make us blind to the many actual answers that can be seen each and every day. For instance, when someone runs for charity simply because a love one has died. And not to be sentimental, to offer a smile rather than a frown, to give others time. Simple empathy.

Free will? I have seen statistics that claim that historically over 50% of those born have never reached the age of responsibility. Think about it.

 

[Moral Orel]

Q then would be the free will choice to allow Godly type Love to control your actions

Nope, that cannot be, based on the parameters I've set. If you might choose to stop being guided by this "Godly type love", then you might do evil.

Step 1. Stop being influenced by "Godly type love"
Step 2. Sin

Therefore, if we define Q the way you just described, God might decide to disregard His "Godly type love" and turn evil. Is there a chance of that happening? I'm not asking if God is capable of doing evil deeds. I'm asking if there is anything more than a 0% chance that God would choose to do something evil.

Unless you think that God might turn evil one day, then Q has to be a permanent part of His character or nature or essence or whatever you want to call it.

As a side note, can you tell me what you mean when you say "instinctive"? Because I don't think we would use it the same way.

 

[Moral Orel]

...God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved...-- 1 Timothy 2

For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost -- Luke 19

Something to keep in mind in these considerations: God is not a neutral judge on salvation. God is biased toward salvation.

I'm not sure how this is directed at me. I don't actually think infants who go to Heaven are robot puppets. Someone said that if people received salvation without choosing to accept it on Earth then they would be robot puppets. I was actually disagreeing with them by showing what their statement means.

 

[Moral Orel]

I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead.

Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. -- Romans 7

If God had planted the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil but had never said, "Do not eat of it," there would not have been a potential for sin. Sin did not lie in the tree itself--the fruit was not toxic. There was no potential for sin until God uttered the command; God created the potential for sin by uttering the command...and He knew that.

Then, if Paul is to be believed, by God's uttering the command not only was sin made potential, it's manifestation was made inevitable (IMO, what made sin inevitable was that God had engineered Satan as a catalyst, and I think that is what Paul is implying by "sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment").

If you agree with me that God is ultimately responsible for sin being in the world because He wanted things this way, then more power to you. Most people want to shift all the blame to Adam though.

 

[RDKirk]

I'm not sure how this is directed at me. I don't actually think infants who go to Heaven are robot puppets. Someone said that if people received salvation without choosing to accept it on Earth then they would be robot puppets. I was actually disagreeing with them by showing what their statement means.

My point is that people create reasons for people not being saved that God never states, not realizing that God is biased toward salvation and does not erect any barriers to Himself.

I know people who assert that if a man truly accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior and is on the way to church to be baptized, but gets hit and killed by a truck, he is condemned because he failed to meet the requirement of baptism. That's someone who does not understand that God is biased toward salvation.

 

[Chriliman]

I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead.

Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. -- Romans 7

If God had planted the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil but had never said, "Do not eat of it," there would not have been a potential for sin. Sin did not lie in the tree itself--the fruit was not toxic. There was no potential for sin until God uttered the command; God created the potential for sin by uttering the command...and He knew that.

Then, if Paul is to be believed, by God's uttering the command not only was sin made potential, it's manifestation was made inevitable (IMO, what made sin inevitable was that God had engineered Satan as a catalyst, and I think that is what Paul is implying by "sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment").

This goes inline with something I said earlier, which was that if God doesn't speak/command then we can't understand anything, neither good or evil.

IOW, had God not made any commands then none of us would understand or comprehend anything at all, it would be as if we didn't exist.

 

[bling]

Nope, that cannot be, based on the parameters I've set. If you might choose to stop being guided by this "Godly type love", then you might do evil.

Step 1. Stop being influenced by "Godly type love"
Step 2. Sin

Therefore, if we define Q the way you just described, God might decide to disregard His "Godly type love" and turn evil. Is there a chance of that happening? I'm not asking if God is capable of doing evil deeds. I'm asking if there is anything more than a 0% chance that God would choose to do something evil.

Unless you think that God might turn evil one day, then Q has to be a permanent part of His character or nature or essence or whatever you want to call it.

As a side note, can you tell me what you mean when you say "instinctive"? Because I don't think we would use it the same way.

Is God powerful enough to control his own will and not sin?

What you are saying is: "God not sinning must mean it is a knee jerk reaction for God, but is that the only way you think an all powerful God could keep from sinning?

Instinct can be like a knee jerk reaction (one that is not the result of choice). But more broadly and which you may thing is your own choice, instinct would mean hard wired in your mind to do something a particular way.

 

[RDKirk]

This goes inline with something I said earlier, which was that if God doesn't speak/command then we can't understand anything, neither good or evil.

IOW, had God not made any commands then none of us would understand or comprehend anything at all, it would be as if we didn't exist.

Paul is referring to commands that are moral dictates. God could have created man and made no moral dictates, which would have made nothing either "sinful" or "righteous"--all actions would be amoral.

By uttering moral dictates, God created the potentials for "sin" and "righteousness." The question, then, would be "Why would He do that?"

My theory is that God actually wanted man all along to understand good and evil in order eventually to judge angels, but that understanding also requires a long, absolutely thorough lesson in its consequences.

"Free will" has no scriptural basis. Augustine and Aquinas plucked the concept from Greek philosophy in order to counter pagan arguments that God created a strictly deterministic universe, but their use of "free will" is not exactly as the earlier Greek philosophers describe it, nor is their use "free will" as modern philosophers discuss the concept.

Scripture actually denies "free will." Scripturally, man has--by the grace of God--a single choice between God as master and sin as master. "Choice of master" is not "free will." This single choice is what Augustine and Aquinas call "free will," but whenever a Christian gets involved with a secular philosopher on this matter, the Christian needs to make clear that by "free will" he's talking about a very limited concept.

 

[RDKirk]

Is God powerful enough to control his own will and not sin?

What you are saying is: "God not sinning must mean it is a knee jerk reaction for God, but is that the only way you think an all powerful God could keep from sinning?

Instinct can be like a knee jerk reaction (one that is not the result of choice). But more broadly and which you may thing is your own choice, instinct would mean hard wired in your mind to do something a particular way.

God does not sin because God is the moral standard whose actions and commands define righteousness and sin. What God does is righteous because He does it; what He commands is righteous because He commands it.

God does not adhere to some moral standard greater than Himself...if He did, that standard would be His god.

 

[danny ski]

Paul is referring to commands that are moral dictates. God could have created man and made no moral dictates, which would have made nothing either "sinful" or "righteous"--all actions would be amoral.

By uttering moral dictates, God created the potentials for "sin" and "righteousness." The question, then, would be "Why would He do that?"

My theory is that God actually wanted man all along to understand good and evil in order eventually to judge angels, but that understanding also requires a long, absolutely thorough lesson in its consequences.

"Free will" has no scriptural basis. Augustine and Aquinas plucked the concept from Greek philosophy in order to counter pagan arguments that God created a strictly deterministic universe, but their use of "free will" is not exactly as the earlier Greek philosophers describe it, nor is their use "free will" as modern philosophers discuss the concept.

Scripture actually denies "free will." Scripturally, man has--by the grace of God--a single choice between God as master and sin as master. "Choice of master" is not "free will." This single choice is what Augustine and Aquinas call "free will," but whenever a Christian gets involved with a secular philosopher on this matter, the Christian needs to make clear that by "free will" he's talking about a very limited concept.

Free will is certainly Scriptural. The one of the main messages of the Book of Deuteronomy is "choice". The Book of Genesis teaches exactly the same thing, see Cain's conversation with Gd. Free will is one of the cornerstones on which our relationship with Gd is based on.

 

[RDKirk]

Free will is certainly Scriptural. The one of the main messages of the Book of Deuteronomy is "choice". The Book of Genesis teaches exactly the same thing, see Cain's conversation with Gd. Free will is one of the cornerstones on which our relationship with Gd is based on.

Did you finish reading what I wrote?

Scripture actually denies "free will." Scripturally, man has--by the grace of God--a single choice between God as master and sin as master. "Choice of master" is not "free will." This single choice is what Augustine and Aquinas call "free will," but whenever a Christian gets involved with a secular philosopher on this matter, the Christian needs to make clear that by "free will" he's talking about a very limited concept.

 

[Moral Orel]

Is God powerful enough to control his own will and not sin?

What you are saying is: "God not sinning must mean it is a knee jerk reaction for God, but is that the only way you think an all powerful God could keep from sinning?

Instinct can be like a knee jerk reaction (one that is not the result of choice). But more broadly and which you may thing is your own choice, instinct would mean hard wired in your mind to do something a particular way.

I'm not really trying to say "must be this way" so much as I'm trying to understand how you understand it to be a certain way. But perhaps I'm making assumptions and getting ahead of myself. So I'll just start by asking: is there a chance, no matter how small, that God will sin in the future? If there is no chance whatsoever, then what is it about God that makes you certain He never will sin? If you aren't certain, well, then that opens up a whole bunch of other questions...

 

[DogmaHunter]

This goes inline with something I said earlier, which was that if God doesn't speak/command then we can't understand anything, neither good or evil.

IOW, had God not made any commands then none of us would understand or comprehend anything at all, it would be as if we didn't exist.

And you base this claim on....what exactly?

 

[Chriliman]

Did you finish reading what I wrote?

Scripture actually denies "free will." Scripturally, man has--by the grace of God--a single choice between God as master and sin as master. "Choice of master" is not "free will." This single choice is what Augustine and Aquinas call "free will," but whenever a Christian gets involved with a secular philosopher on this matter, the Christian needs to make clear that by "free will" he's talking about a very limited concept.

I think this is accurate. When I refer to free will, I'm referring to my ability to listen to God and do His will or not. If I continually ask God for His will to be done in my life then it will be done, it may be a struggle for me, but it will be done and the struggle is part of learning and growing spiritually. Even Jesus went through this struggle of requesting for God's will to be done and not his own will.

 

[Chriliman]

And you base this claim on....what exactly?

I base it on scripture:

Matthew 4:4
"Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'"

This suggest that we can't even live unless God speaks.