Epicurus' riddle

[Koldo]

It's all a matter of perspective. That's the problem: people keep treating theology as if it's some absolute, provable and measurable something.

I have no qualms with this position.

 

[sojourner]

Sojourner,

You state that God can't create the world any way.

Whose rules must God follow when creating? Does the entity that informs God how he can and can't create have a name? Why do you call God, God, if he has to adhere to rules he doesn't design?

Thanks.

No, I said that a God didn't create the world in any way. I said that we work with what we have -- with what is, rather than what we wish we're the case. God follows the natural laws that God set forth in beginning.

 

[sojourner]

Sojourner,

When a child is being hurt or molested why does God allow the molester all the free will he wants to molest but does not give the child any free will to escape the molestation?

Thanks.

God allows everyone equal free will. It's up to each what each one does with it. God created adults stronger than children so that adults can take care of themselves and the children. God's not responsible for how the adults use (or misuse) their free will. God doesn't give free will "to molest." God gives free will to love.

 

[prometheus11]

Not accepted.

If God ACTUALLY cared about free will, he wouldn't always give it to the person with the bigger gun and let the weaker person languish without free will.

Of course God gives free will to child molesters. Where else would they get it?

What kind of God ALWAYS honors the person with the most physical power with the most free will? A god who's addicted to power above all else, regardless of how much evil that powerhouse causes.

 

[sojourner]

Not accepted.

If God ACTUALLY cared about free will, he wouldn't always give it to the person with the bigger gun and let the weaker person languish without free will.

Of course God gives free will to child molesters. Where else would they get it?

What kind of God ALWAYS honors the person with the most physical power with the most free will? A god who's addicted to power above all else, regardless of how much evil that powerhouse causes.

Everyone has free will, though. Everyone. Even the weak have free will. Free will has nothing to do with size, color, sex, age, or any other variable. Your argument is moot.

God doesn't honor the person with the most physical power with free will. All people have free will. God's not responsible for how we choose to use it.

I don't know where you're getting your information but it's a huge straw man.

 

[prometheus11]

You're saying that God gives free will. I'm saying its a pretty **** poor God that ALWAYS "backs up" the free will of the person with power over the person without as much power.

The child's free will is non existent when her molester is bigger. Why doesn't God let the child have HER free will INSTEAD of the disgusting molester who gets his free will.

Here's the point, if free will is ALWAYS attained most by power NOT RIGHTEOUSNESS then what shouldn't every person ONLY seek more power. After all, acquiring more power gets you more of gods free will so you can go and take free will away from those with less power than you.

What about this is so hard for you to understand?

 

[Thief]

Since Adam and Eve decided to rebel against God by eating what God had forbidden, I think it is obvious they had free will before Satan's slanders against God induced Eve to sin. I think it is similar to a gang leader urging a new gang member to steal a car. The new gang member already had free will to steal a car. The gang leader merely urged him to do so.

I do not agree all together, as my view of the garden event seems unique.....
however....
I like your rebuttal

 

[Thief]

Many religious people feel gambling is a sin.

During the Job incident, God made a wager with the Devil. I think gambling with Satan is pretty sinful

gambling with the devil is dangerous.
and God held a stacked decked......He and Job had nothing to prove.

 

[sojourner]

You're saying that God gives free will. I'm saying its a pretty **** poor God that ALWAYS "backs up" the free will of the person with power over the person without as much power.

The child's free will is non existent when her molester is bigger. Why doesn't God let the child have HER free will INSTEAD of the disgusting molester who gets his free will.

Here's the point, if free will is ALWAYS attained most by power NOT RIGHTEOUSNESS then what shouldn't every person ONLY seek more power. After all, acquiring more power gets you more of gods free will so you can go and take free will away from those with less power than you.

What about this is so hard for you to understand?

Not buying it. "Will" and "ability" are two different things. What about this is so hard for you to understand?

Free will isn't "attained."

 

[prometheus11]

Nope. Free will is given. If it exists.

That your god supposedly gives it isn't to his credit. How do you keep failing to recognize this fact?

 

[sojourner]

Nope. Free will is given. If it exists.

That your god supposedly gives it isn't to his credit. How do you keep failing to recognize this fact?

You said in post #146 that "...free will is ALWAYS attained..." So, which is it??? Is it attained, or is it given? Apparently you haven't got quite the handle on it that you fancy you have. Heck! You can't even seem to grasp the difference between "ability" and "will." Until you read "My First Big Picture Book of Theology" (illustrated by Richard Scarry) and get a better handle on the fundamentals, so we can discuss intelligently, I think we're done here.

 

[prometheus11]

Ha! If you need such an excuse to dodge the issue, fine. Of course, in such cases, any excuse would do. Try grasping concepts rather than looking for a semantic loophole.

Quote mining to the degree that you have to be sure to cut off the rest of the sentence in order to misrepresent my meaning is tantamount to lying. I'm surprised to see you stoop that low, but I appreciate learning that you flippantly display such disgusting qualities and at this early stage.

How do you keep failing to recognize the fact that it is NOT to your gods credit yo have given free will?

Stop dodging questions.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I read over much in the links you shared, and the discussion/debate/argument always plays out with one theme always playing in the background that is perhaps one of the "most sweeping" and "arrogant" assumptions of all time.

Then read with better comprehension.

 

[sojourner]

Ha! If you need such an excuse to dodge the issue, fine. Of course, in such cases, any excuse would do. Try grasping concepts rather than looking for a semantic loophole.

Quote mining to the degree that you have to be sure to cut off the rest of the sentence in order to misrepresent my meaning is tantamount to lying. I'm surprised to see you stoop that low, but I appreciate learning that you flippantly display such disgusting qualities and at this early stage.

How do you keep failing to recognize the fact that it is NOT to your gods credit yo have given free will?

Stop dodging questions.

Did I misquote you? Let's look at the whole sentence and see:

Here's the point, if free will is ALWAYS attained most by power NOT RIGHTEOUSNESS then what shouldn't every person ONLY seek more power.

I think the whole sentence only serves to intensify the point that you did, in fact, mean exactly what you wrote (and what I gleaned from my partial quote) -- namely that you said that free will is attained, especially through our acts of seeking power. Then you turn around and say, "Nope. Free will is given (emphasis mine).

This is no "semantic loophole." It's a failure on your part to grasp a concept.

Which is it? Stop dodging questions (even if it is uncomfortable getting caught with your pants down).

BTW, it's only your failure to grasp the concept that makes you claim that free will is not to God's credit. Since such a gift is the only thing that enables us to love, I'd say that it is to God's credit.

P.S. I'll accept your retraction prior to your stating it, that I've lied. Just to help you save face.

You're welcome.

 

[prometheus11]

How ridiculous. I'm amazed.

Try reading again.

I didn't say that you lied, I said that you quote mined a portion of a sentence in order to more effectively misrepresent my perspective and that it was TANTAMOUNT to lying. I don't care whether or not you admit it, and it wouldn't save much face to admit it now and apologize for that sleazy behavior. And I'm glad to know you so willingly engage in such slimy tactics. It a good note to remember in future. Try seeng as a judge would if that helps you.

YOU are saying God gives free will. If he does, he's giving it to the people that attain it through sheer brute force.

And freaking DUhhhhh, free will isn't a "good" gift if it serves to separate ANY PERSON from God.

You people with the stupid notion that somehow God NEEDS people to choose to dislike him. I swear. I've never heard such abject foolishness.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Then read with better comprehension.

Haha. I'm fine thanks.

 

[rusra02]

Yah. He did.

Got evidence to go with that assertion?

 

[rusra02]

But you said they had no desire to do wrong, so therefore could have no desire to rebel.

Eve developed the desire under Satan's influence. Genesis 3:6 explains; "Consequently, the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was something desirable to the eyes, yes, the tree was pleasing to look at." Her wrong desire led her to commit her terrible sin. (James 1:14,15)

 

[rusra02]

Also, you failed to supply an answer as to whether you think free will is a good thing or not?

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)

 

[sojourner]

How ridiculous. I'm amazed.

Try reading again.

I didn't say that you lied, I said that you quote mined a portion of a sentence in order to more effectively misrepresent my perspective and that it was TANTAMOUNT to lying. I don't care whether or not you admit it, and it wouldn't save much face to admit it now and apologize for that sleazy behavior. And I'm glad to know you so willingly engage in such slimy tactics. It a good note to remember in future. Try seeng as a judge would if that helps you.

YOU are saying God gives free will. If he does, he's giving it to the people that attain it through sheer brute force.

And freaking DUhhhhh, free will isn't a "good" gift if it serves to separate ANY PERSON from God.

You people with the stupid notion that somehow God NEEDS people to choose to dislike him. I swear. I've never heard such abject foolishness.

"You people?" You have no idea who I am, or what people I may associate with. Talk about ridiculous.

If what you wrote isn't what you meant, I might suggest a writing class, because you clearly wrote that free will is attained through the grabbing of power in one post, and in the next you wrote -- and I quote: "Nope. Free will is given."

Nonetheless, your vitriolic bombast aside, you (apparerntly) claim that, if God gives free will, God's giving it to the people that attain it through sheer brute force.

First, if God gives it, we don't attain it ourselves through "brute force." It's either a gift (given), or it's an accomplishment (attained by us). it can't be both. Either somebody gives us a cup of coffee, or we go out and attain a cup, ourselves. I assert that free will is an innate quality of the human being. Human beings are born with free will. In the theological milieu, that innate quality is a gift from God.

Second, free will isn't a quantitative attribute. Or are you saying that Chuck Norris has 10 volts of free will, while someone with no arms or legs has only 1 decibel of free will? Or however free will is "measured?" Free will is an unquantifiable attribute. It can't be "attained," and no one has "more" free will than another. A child with no arms or legs still has as much will to choose as Arnold Schwartzenegger does. Arnold simply has greater and simpler means to accomplish his choices. In some important ways, someone like Stephen Hawking may have greater and simpler means to accomplish his choices than Arnold does. In your assessment, the "beautiful people" are worth "more" than the rest of us, because they've got the looks, the health, and the power to "get what they want." I pity the soul for whom the world and the humans who fill it are so shallow and cheap.

Third, separatioin -- differentiation -- is the only way that human beings can achieve healthy love relationships. As Kahlil Gibran says, "Let there be spaces in your togetherness, And let the winds of the heavens dance between you. Love one another but make not a bond of love: Let it rather be a moving sea between the shores of your souls. Fill each other's cup but drink not from one cup. Give one another of your bread but eat not from the same loaf. Sing and dance together and be joyous, but let each one of you be alone, Even as the strings of a lute are alone though they quiver with the same music. Give your hearts, but not into each other's keeping. For only the hand of Life can contain your hearts. And stand together, yet not too near together: For the pillars of the temple stand apart, And the oak tree and the cypress grow not in each other's shadow.”
― Kahlil Gibran, The Prophet

Any other kind of relationship is tantamount to codependency. Separation is a good, healthy, and normal part of the maturation process for the human being. Is letting your child go live her or his own life when s/he's grown a good thing? How utterly ridiculous to think otherwise! Unless, of course, you're codependent, yourself. Then smothering someone and directing their lives seems logical and proper. Got news for you: God doesn't have Munchausen Disorder.


God is love, and love can't be forced or coerced. We can only really love God if it's a choice -- not a constraint.

I swear, I've never heard such abject foolishness. Perhaps you'd benefit from Richard Scarry's My First Big Picture Book of Theological Concepts before you stick any more feet in your mouth by bumbling through a theological debate completely unprepared.