Epicurus' riddle

[Mycroft]

I believe free will is a precious gift from God. Otherwise, we would be robots. Our living Creator gives us freedom to make choices while holding us responsible for the choices we make. (Deuteronomy 30:19)

But without eating of the fruit, people would never have had free will.

So, ultimately, was the eating of the fruit a good thing, or a bad thing?

 

[prometheus11]

I'm saying that all human beings have free will. We have the ability to make choices. That can either be placed within a theological framework, or not. Whether or not it's "an actual thing," we do have the ability to make choices. In a theological framework, God creates us and endows us with our human qualities. In a scientific framework, brain function comes into play.

Since we're dealing with a theological argument, we have to argue within a theological framework, so it's assumed that free will, as a human attribute, was endowed in us by God. If you don't want to argue theologically, I'm sure there are any of several threads here that you can participate in. But to refuse to argue theologically only serves to derail a thread that is entertaining a theological argument. So, I'd just as soon we not derail the thread and work within the framework of a theological argument.

Your theological point is that "[God] gives free will so that people can choose or not choose God." I'd tweak that to say that God gives us the freedom to self-identify, thus creating the possibility for healthy relationships. You said that, "if God didn't give free will, no one would have the ability to select to be OUT of God's will." That's true, but as I said earlier, that would create an unhealthy, more codependent type of relationship. Since God is love, that action wouldn't be congruent with God's nature (love), so I think we can rule that action out as "bad theology."

Then you say that, "when God gave free will, [God] separated some people out that would have been in." But that's a fallacy. In the theological milieu, "in" is defined by a love relationship. If there's no choice, there's no love relationship. Therefore, if God had not given free will, no one would be "in." Free will is the only logical choice to make, if a love relationship is the aim (and it is, according to the theological construction with which we're working). Further, when God gave free will, God didn't "separate some out." Some people separate themselves. Those people are responsible for the separation (sin), not God. God may have provided the door, but God never invites nor pushes anyone through the door. In fact, God admonishes us not to walk through. But it's our choice and our responsibility.

Without free will EVERY person would be in gods perfect will. So giving people free will has caused people to be excluded from his perfect will.

As to God needing genuine love, (I'm not sure why he would need such a thing), I wouldn't call a being "God" if he couldn't just call it into existence.

Whose rules is God having to follow where he MUST provide free will in order to do other things?

 

[sojourner]

But without eating of the fruit, people would never have had free will.

So, ultimately, was the eating of the fruit a good thing, or a bad thing?

It was a fall, but it was a fall up.

 

[sojourner]

Without free will EVERY person would be in gods perfect will. So giving people free will has caused people to be excluded from his perfect will.

As to God needing genuine love, (I'm not sure why he would need such a thing), I wouldn't call a being "God" if he couldn't just call it into existence.

Whose rules is God having to follow where he MUST provide free will in order to do other things?

1) No. Without free will, humanity would be held in its infancy state. Only babies are "pristine." God's will is for us to build a love relationship. Where did you get the idea that being controlled is God's perfect will?" We are not perfectly "in God" until we come full circle, through self differentiation and self actualization to a unity with God that is a covenantal relationship of love.

2) I never said that God "needs" love. God desires our companionship wherein we reflect God fully (we are the imago dei). Love isn't just "called into existence." Love must be built between two parties with full consent of each -- or it's not love. That's why free will is necessary.

3) God follows God's rules and God's nature. When a theological construction is argued, we always start with what we have -- with the world as it is -- not with some nonexistent, fantasyland of our own imagining. The world is the world is love and life are deep -- even as our eyes are wide, to borrow an apropos phrase. God works within the bounds of the world, in the framework of love.

 

[prometheus11]

If God makes the rules, then he could find a way to get what he wants without losing any souls through providing free will. As it is, YOU state that he MUST use free will and that the gift of free allows people to reject God.

I never said that gods perfect will was to control us. (Are you projecting?) I said that God giving free will to people costs him many humans.

I assume that if God makes the rules, he could bring humanity out of its state of "infancy" without free will and without losing any souls.

You keep limiting your god. Saying what he must do and what he must have in order to do something else or other. I didn't know your god was so weak that he had to follow rules.

 

[sojourner]

If God makes the rules, then he could find a way to get what he wants without losing any souls through providing free will. As it is, YOU state that he MUST use free will and that the gift of free allows people to reject God.

I never said that gods perfect will was to control us. (Are you projecting?) I said that God giving free will to people costs him many humans.

I assume that if God makes the rules, he could bring humanity out of its state of "infancy" without free will and without losing any souls.

You keep limiting your god. Saying what he must do and what he must have in order to do something else or other. I didn't know your god was so weak that he had to follow rules.

1) Your first paragraph breaks the third point of my last post. Remember, in any theological argument, we start with what is. God made the rules the way they are, because that's the way it is. I state that God must use free will, because that's how love relationships work. Any other scenario is wishful thinking.

2) If we had no free will, that would mean that God made all our decisions for us, which means that God would control us.

3) What makes you think that God will "lose souls?" Where does that come from? There is ample biblical and theological evidence that salvation is universal. God need not "lose souls" in the current cosmology.

4) God is limited only by God's own nature, which is reflected in the natural order. In what way is following rules "limiting?" We are not limited because we don't have the capability to time-travel. We are what we are. God is who God is. In fact, that's God's name: I Am Who I Am. God is reality the way it is. You seem to want to keep taking flights of fancy that have nothing to do with the world as it is, and making God fit into some kind of science fiction B movie scenario. This isn't Doctor Who -- it's the world-as-it-is. Theology deals with the world as it is. Anything else isn't a theological argument. It's ... fiction.

 

[prometheus11]

It's not my problem that your god is so weak. Being God, I'd figure he could do what he wants. If he is so stupid to REQUIRE free will that allows for strong people to slaughter the weak and molest children instead of figuring out another way to get love, then rape, slaughter, and child molestation are his doing.

Free will not only allows rape and child molestation, but it lets people choose to observe gods absence. He makes gravity obvious yet unexplainable, but provides ZERO detectable evidence for himself.

What a stupid God.

 

[sojourner]

It's not my problem that your god is so weak. Being God, I'd figure he could do what he wants. If he is so stupid to REQUIRE free will that allows for strong people to slaughter the weak and molest children instead of figuring out another way to get love, then rape, slaughter, and child molestation are his doing.

Free will not only allows rape and child molestation, but it lets people choose to observe gods absence. He makes gravity obvious yet unexplainable, but provides ZERO detectable evidence for himself.

What a stupid God.

It's not my problem that you think God is weak. God did do exactly what God wanted. But somehow, that's not good enough for you. If you're so smart as to stand in judgment of reality (God), you tell me how love can be effected without free will.





I'm waiting.





[Hears crickets chirping]


Hello?


Nothing?

Didn't think so.


What a stupid (non)theological position to take.

 

[sojourner]

What a stupid gambit.

You're the one saying what God must do because he has to follow rules.

My God wouldn't honor the free will of a child molester to molest when he could just as easily honor the free will of the child who would rather not be molested.

I'm not God, but my god would be smart enough to figure out how to get love without ALWAYS giving free will to the powerful and withholding it from the weak who don't want to be slaughtered, raped, or molested.

Your god can create universes, but he can't figure out how to get love and withhold free will from those who slaughter and rape? Lol!!!!

What a stupid God you believe in.

Yeah, and I'm not the only one saying it. This is how theological constructs work. God follows rules, because rules represent order, and in the beginning, God created by providing order in the primordial soup of chaos. It's elementary to an understanding of the Abrahamic God that can't just be "changed" on a whim, or because you don't "like" it.

'F you don't like the way God operates, no one's twisting your arm to believe. That's the beauty of free will: It's your choice -- and I think you're fine no matter what choice you make.

'K. How, exactly would your God do that? You must have some kind of idea, otherwise your assertion is worthless.

As far as I know, God Is Who God Is. God created according to the way things are. Our job is to learn how to cope with reality. Unless, of course, you'd rather waste energy whining about it.

I believe in a God who is Being and Reality, itself. The beauty of free will is that you're free to think reality is stupid, if you like. But fair warning: Reality is all you got, you're part of it, too, and when you disparage reality, you're only disparaging yourself.

 

[prometheus11]

Look, it's not my problem that your god is so stupid that the only way he can figure out how to get love and worship is by giving free will to the powerful and violent and ignoring it in the weak and helpless. If your god is too weak or stupid to figure out a better way, it's your problem. I wouldn't worship such a stupid, disgusting God.

I'm not disparaging myself; clearly, I'm disparaging God. I don't believe in such a stupid God.

Not my circus; not my monkey.

 

[prometheus11]

The universe is brutal and cold. Obviously no good god. Perhaps an evil and disgusting one though?

 

[sojourner]

Look, it's not my problem that your god is so stupid that the only way he can figure out how to get love and worship is by giving free will to the powerful and violent and ignoring it in the weak and helpless. If your god is too weak or stupid to figure out a better way, it's your problem. I wouldn't worship such a stupid, disgusting God.

I'm not disparaging myself; clearly, I'm disparaging God. I don't believe in such a stupid God.

Not my circus; not my monkey.

You already said that, and it still doesn't hold water. I've asked you three times now to post your "better way," if you have one. If you don't have one, you don't have a leg to stand on in your judgment of the way things are.

At least God figured out a way. Which, judging by your not-answer is more than I can say for you.

 

[sojourner]

The universe is brutal and cold. Obviously no good god. Perhaps an evil and disgusting one though?

The universe is also loving and warm. Obviously a good God. I'm sorry you feel the universe is brutal and disgusting.

 

[rusra02]

There is not such a thing as "unique in perfection". All perfect things are equally perfect, by definition of perfection.

Y cannot be perfect if X can be more perfect than Y, because if it was, then Y was missing something that would make it even better. Ergo, Y was not perfect to start with.

You see?

Ciao

- viole

Since God sets the standards for perfection, he decides what perfection means, I think. This quote explains perfection better than I can: "Perfection of any other person or thing [other than God], then, is relative, not absolute. (Compare Ps 119:96.) That is, a thing is “perfect” according to, or in relation to, the purpose or end for which it is appointed by its designer or producer, or the use to which it is to be put by its receiver or user. The very meaning of perfection requires that there be someone who decides when “completion” has been reached, what the standards of excellence are, what requirements are to be satisfied, and what details are essential. Ultimately, God the Creator is the final Arbiter of perfection, the Standard-Setter, in accord with his own righteous purposes and interests.—Ro 12:2
As an illustration, the planet Earth was one of God’s creations, and at the end of six creative ‘days’ of work toward it, God pronounced the results “very good.” (Ge 1:31) It met his supreme standards of excellence, hence it was perfect. Yet he thereafter assigned man to “subdue it,” evidently in the sense of cultivating the earth and making the whole planet, and not just Eden, a garden of God."
The tent, or tabernacle, built in the wilderness at God’s command and according to his specifications served as a type or small-scale prophetic model of a “greater and more perfect tent,” the Most Holy of which is Jehovah’s heavenly residence into which Christ Jesus entered as High Priest. (Heb 9:11-14, 23, 24) The earthly tent was perfect in that it satisfied God’s requirements, served its appointed end. Yet when God’s purpose concerning it was accomplished, it ceased to be used and passed out of existence. The perfection of that which it represented was of a far higher type."
(Insight on the Scriptures ll, p.602)

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Love is little more than hormones and social pair bonding rituals

 

[viole]

Since God sets the standards for perfection, he decides what perfection means, I think. This quote explains perfection better than I can: "Perfection of any other person or thing [other than God], then, is relative, not absolute. (Compare Ps 119:96.) That is, a thing is “perfect” according to, or in relation to, the purpose or end for which it is appointed by its designer or producer, or the use to which it is to be put by its receiver or user. The very meaning of perfection requires that there be someone who decides when “completion” has been reached, what the standards of excellence are, what requirements are to be satisfied, and what details are essential. Ultimately, God the Creator is the final Arbiter of perfection, the Standard-Setter, in accord with his own righteous purposes and interests.—Ro 12:2
As an illustration, the planet Earth was one of God’s creations, and at the end of six creative ‘days’ of work toward it, God pronounced the results “very good.” (Ge 1:31) It met his supreme standards of excellence, hence it was perfect. Yet he thereafter assigned man to “subdue it,” evidently in the sense of cultivating the earth and making the whole planet, and not just Eden, a garden of God."
The tent, or tabernacle, built in the wilderness at God’s command and according to his specifications served as a type or small-scale prophetic model of a “greater and more perfect tent,” the Most Holy of which is Jehovah’s heavenly residence into which Christ Jesus entered as High Priest. (Heb 9:11-14, 23, 24) The earthly tent was perfect in that it satisfied God’s requirements, served its appointed end. Yet when God’s purpose concerning it was accomplished, it ceased to be used and passed out of existence. The perfection of that which it represented was of a far higher type."
(Insight on the Scriptures ll, p.602)

God pronounced the results very good? Can you imagine a perfect being doing something that is not very good?

I don't know you, but if I were aware to be perfect I would not need to check upon the quality of my work and acknowledge (to myself) that is very good.

Ciao

- viole

 

[prometheus11]

You already said that, and it still doesn't hold water. I've asked you three times now to post your "better way," if you have one. If you don't have one, you don't have a leg to stand on in your judgment of the way things are.

At least God figured out a way. Which, judging by your not-answer is more than I can say for you.

Lol. I prefer to acknowledge the fact that your god is supposed to be so powerful and great, but he just can't figure out a way to get what he wants some other way.

The universe is col, brutal, and heartless. No problem in my world view. That you have to reconcile that with your supposedly good and loving God is your problem.

 

[prometheus11]

The universe is also loving and warm. Obviously a good God. I'm sorry you feel the universe is brutal and disgusting.

I never said the universe was disgusting. It's beautiful.

 

[sojourner]

Lol. I prefer to acknowledge the fact that your god is supposed to be so powerful and great, but he just can't figure out a way to get what he wants some other way.

The universe is col, brutal, and heartless. No problem in my world view. That you have to reconcile that with your supposedly good and loving God is your problem.

Are you so self-centered that you think God should do things your way -- even though you have failed to provide a way?

The universe is also warm, loving and has a lot of heart. That's evidence enough that the God whose body is the universe, is good.

 

[sojourner]

I never said the universe was disgusting. It's beautiful.

The universe is God's body. Therefore, if God is disgusting, so is the universe.