Why God allows evil

[zippy2006]

What's the difference between not having authentic, unrestricted, freewill vs having restrictions on your free will via punishment?

Authentic, unrestricted free will relative to the restrictions of the child. It is not unrestricted in the sense that actions do not have consequences. Often society will impose consequences and punishments for certain actions, and yet this is not the same as prevention in the way you outlined in your distinction between willing and acting.

From what I understand you and Kylie are attempting to draw out problematic contradictions between societal intuitions of free will and theological doctrines regarding free will. Yet God imposes consequences and punishments--both temporal and eternal--, that deter sinful acts. He does not outright prevent them. If someone does not repent and turn away from an evil use of their freedom, then there is Hell: the permanent restriction of their actions (and their freedom). That strikes me as exactly parallel to our societal intuitions (e.g. deterrence, second chances, and the possibility of life in prison without parole).

 

[zippy2006]

It follows because even though her daughter is an adult, she should do everything in her ability to prevent her daughter from committing the act, even though she isn't legally responsible for her daughters actions.

Perhaps, but this is a new argument. The previous analogy has failed. Now her legal responsibility is qua citizen, not qua guardian. Yet again, nothing in my post implied that she should not try to deter her daughter from doing evil. "So I should just let my daughter murder people?" is a non sequitur.

Do Christians not believe that God intervenes to influence sinners to turn away from their evil actions? The Christian God is not deistic.

 

[Ken-1122]

Authentic, unrestricted free will relative to the restrictions of the child.

No; that not what I asked. I asked about the difference between authentic unrestricted free will vs restrictions enforced by punishment

It is not unrestricted in the sense that actions do not have consequences. Often society will impose consequences and punishments for certain actions, and yet this is not the same as prevention in the way you outlined in your distinction between willing and acting.

Again I ask; what’s the difference between unrestricted free will vs restrictions enforced by punishment

From what I understand you and Kylie are attempting to draw out problematic contradictions between societal intuitions of free will and theological doctrines regarding free will.

I can’t speak for Kylie, but that isn’t what I’m attempting to point out.

 

[Ken-1122]

Perhaps, but this is a new argument. The previous analogy has failed. Now her legal responsibility is qua citizen, not qua guardian. Yet again, nothing in my post implied that she should not try to deter her daughter from doing evil. "So I should just let my daughter murder people?" is a non sequitur.

Do Christians not believe that God intervenes to influence sinners to turn away from their evil actions? The Christian God is not deistic.

Concerning the atrocities of Mao, Stalin, Amin, or Gacy, did God intervene or did he just sit back and let the innocent die?

 

[Kylie]

That doesn't follow at all. What follows is that if your daughter commits murder as an adult you do not bear the responsibility that you would if she were a child. Non sequitur.

So you think that an adult who is capable of stopping a murder is not under any obligation to try?

If I let someone you care for be murdered when I could have stopped the person who murdered them, would you not blame me?

 

[zippy2006]

So you think that an adult who is capable of stopping a murder is not under any obligation to try?

Where did I say that? Either you're fond of putting words in my mouth or you're particularly bad with non sequiturs.

 

[Kylie]

Where did I say that? Either you're fond of putting words in my mouth or you're particularly bad with non sequiturs.

Why would I not be in a position to attempt to stop her? In my example, she came to me and told me of her plan.

Let me be clear then.

If someone comes to me and tells me of their intent to commit a murder, and I am capable of stopping them, should I stop them or should I allow them to carry out their plans?

 

[zippy2006]

No; that not what I asked. I asked about the difference between authentic unrestricted free will vs restrictions enforced by punishment

Yes, you asked about the nature of restrictions on adult human freedom, and I answered you. To repeat myself, there are three kinds of restrictions I have spoken to:

1. Preventative restrictions on action, but not on will (source).
2. Parental restrictions on children (source).
3. Restrictions of deterrence via consequence and punishment (source).

Again, when I spoke of "authentic, unrestricted free will" it was in reference to Kylie's analogy which represented #2.

Only restriction #3 applies to the freedom of an adult human being. #1 and #2 do not apply. If you still do not understand what I mean by unrestricted adult free will, there is probably little more I can do to aid your understanding.

 

[zippy2006]

Why would I not be in a position to attempt to stop her?

I never said you would not be in a position to attempt to stop her.

If someone comes to me and tells me of their intent to commit a murder, and I am capable of stopping them, should I stop them or should I allow them to carry out their plans?

I would advise stopping them.

 

[RichardY]

Is it right to say God Allows Evil? Or that God Permits Evil?

If he allows Evil, than there is no recourse to the Lord. If he permits Evil, then the consequences fall on those who follow Satan.

 

[Ken-1122]

Yes, you asked about the nature of restrictions on adult human freedom, and I answered you. To repeat myself, there are three kinds of restrictions I have spoken to:

1. Preventative restrictions on action, but not on will (source).
2. Parental restrictions on children (source).
3. Restrictions of deterrence via consequence and punishment (source).

Again, when I spoke of "authentic, unrestricted free will" it was in reference to Kylie's analogy which represented #2.

Only restriction #3 applies to the freedom of an adult human being. #1 and #2 do not apply. If you still do not understand what I mean by unrestricted adult free will, there is probably little more I can do to aid your understanding.

The only point I was trying to make is you will never get to a place in life when you have unrestricted free will because there will always be someone bigger and stronger than you whether it be a parent enforcing the house hold rules or the police enforcing society rules there will always be restrictions in life, unrestricted freewill does not exist

 

[Kylie]

I would advise stopping them.

Why should I stop them?

 

[Kylie]

Is it right to say God Allows Evil? Or that God Permits Evil?

If he allows Evil, than there is no recourse to the Lord. If he permits Evil, then the consequences fall on those who follow Satan.

How are the two different? To allow something and to permit something is the same thing. Could you clearly explain the difference between allow and permit?

 

[Ken-1122]

Is it right to say God Allows Evil? Or that God Permits Evil?

If he allows Evil, than there is no recourse to the Lord. If he permits Evil, then the consequences fall on those who follow Satan.

To allow and to permit is the same

 

[RichardY]

How are the two different? To allow something and to permit something is the same thing. Could you clearly explain the difference between allow and permit?

If God does not Permit Evil, there is no Freewill.
If God allows Evil, there is no freewill either.

Job 1:21 And said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.

 

[Kylie]

If God does not Permit Evil, there is no Freewill.
If God allows Evil, there is no freewill either.

Job 1:21 And said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.

This does not answer my question.

What is the difference between allow and permit in this context?

 

[RichardY]

@Kylie You asked me to explain so I did. To instead define would be to say.

To Permit: is a choice to exercise an option. I have a permit to do X.
To Allow: is to abdicate responsibility. I have an allowance to X.

If God has an allowance to do Evil a certain arbitrary quota to fulfil. Then nothing a person can do will change that. It is not a 2 way system.

 

[Kylie]

@Kylie You asked me to explain so I did. To instead define would be to say.

To Permit: is a choice to exercise an option. I have a permit to do X.
To Allow: is to abdicate responsibility. I have an allowance to X.

If God has an allowance to do Evil a certain arbitrary quota to fulfil. Then nothing a person can do will change that. It is not a 2 way system.

I think you are confusing the different meanings of the word permit. One is to be formally allowed to do a particular thing (I have a permit for this campfire), and the other means to allow somebody to do something (I will permit you to have one and only one cookie).

 

[RichardY]

@Kylie
But just because you permit something, doesn't mean someone has to exercise that option.

I like cookies too, usually if someone offers me a drink or cookie. I think it would be perhaps rude to say no, unless I don't like the flavour, which is usually never. But that's more about the culture, and being English.

If it's an allowance it's either a set limit or somekind of honesty box. But either way responsibility is abdicated. ex Giving children an allowance to buy their own clothes.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

If God is completely good, why didn’t he make US completely good? Had he done that sin would not be a problem.
...
How come being made in his image didn’t include being made completely good?
...
Had God created us completely good, we would still have the capacity to choose something other than God, we just wouldn’t choose to.
...
...
Again; had God made us completely good; without the desire to sin, there would have been no problem to fix in the first place

What makes you say that God did not make man "completely good"?

As I read Genesis 1:31, I see that God pronounced all that He had made as "very good."

It's possible that you have a different definition of "good" than God has.