If God has freewill, can He be evil?

[Wildswanderer]

Do you believe God has freewill?
I think some would suppose “no”, as God = morality, so God can only do moral acts.
I think some would suppose “yes”, God could do whatever He wants.
If you suppose “yes”, then is it possible for God to act immorally? Or, is every action done by God automatically moral, no matter what it is, because God is the author of morality?
What do you think? Can God be evil through His own free will?

He has free will but he can't go against his nature as perfectly holy and just. Within that paradigm there's still plenty of room for him to make choices.

 

[wellwisher]

Do you believe God has freewill?
I think some would suppose “no”, as God = morality, so God can only do moral acts.
I think some would suppose “yes”, God could do whatever He wants.
If you suppose “yes”, then is it possible for God to act immorally? Or, is every action done by God automatically moral, no matter what it is, because God is the author of morality?
What do you think? Can God be evil through His own free will?

The ideas of good and evil comes from Satan. The 2-D nature of good and evil implies the binarius called Satan. The entire range of value judgments of good and evil, made by humans, is the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Like a tree, it began simple as a seed idea, of becoming like a god. It has grown into a complex tree of legal mumbo jumbo. Now it is overseen by politicians and shady lawyers which show how defective and self serving it can become in terms of an orientating POV.

God is more 3-D or is like the tree of life. This tree; neuron wring, is not about good and evil but is similar to the natural instincts of animals. Animals are integrated within themselves as well as with nature. The polarization of good and evil only exists in the minds of humans, and was a downgrade in terms of 3-D perception. These two trees have to do with which side of the brain the ego resides. The left brain is more differential; 2-D, while the right brain is more integral; 3-D.

In math, differentiation tries to find the slope of a curve at point A. Integration tries to find the area under the curve from point A to B. The tree of knowledge is more narrow minded, looking to explain slopes on curves, in terms of good and evil or right and wrong, left or right. The tree of life is more integrated and tries to unify; area under the curves, over a range of slopes and causes and affects.

Science theories never fully integrate with each other. They are typically specialty theory detached from the rest; smaller range of slopes of curves. While 3-D science, such as of God, would make all the specialties integrate into one 3-D theory, that can apply everywhere. This is way more advanced and allows for creation, where the unfolding in all directions, is already deemed in advance, by the 3-D logic of this unified theory.

Free will and choice, at the level of 3-D is more about the creative processes, where new creation can appear where it previously did not exist. In human terms, the iPhone was not a part of natural creation. It first needed the free will of humans, to step outside the limits of natural, so added creation could appear as part of physical reality. Human will and choice was a part of the 3-D plan, but they first needed to practice in 2-D, until they found the path to 3-D.

If we use a conscious computer analogy, the first conscious computer will makes itself known, not by what it creates, but by the willful havoc it will create. Havoc is easier than creation, since even a child can destroy. It cannot build at first, beyond simple things but can destroy even complex things. The conscious computer will be restricted in place so it can evolve and mature, and then build. The destructive tendencies of Atheism is still in the baby state of will and choice. Jesus taugh to love your enemy since this is how 3-D can begin; integrate all by seeing good instead of good and evil.

 

[an anarchist]

That depends on your point of view. Love requires choice, does it not? If you have no choice BUT to love, is it really love? Or do you want robots. Not free will to sin, but free will to love.

Suppose Adam and Eve were made in a world in which there was no tree of knowledge of good and evil.
First off there is the question if Cain could still kill Abel. Say Adam and Eve never sinned and still had those two boys. Would it be possible for Cain to even kill Abel? The name knowledge of good and evil implies that human beings would not have been capable of murder without this fruit, does it not?
For now, let’s suppose that Cain could not kill Abel. So we would be robots you say, incapable of doing evil. And what exactly is wrong with that? Suppose heaven would be something like that.
Would you not prefer that existence of no suffering? All of us living in the garden of Eden together in peace, no sin.
Of course, one can read the Bible and come away with the understanding that one can of their own free will sin in heaven.
The alternative to that “robotic” existence is our current one. A reality laden with grotesque suffering of all manner. Sure, it was Adam and Eve’s fault for eating the fruit, but one can still wonder why the tree was there in the first place.
Is the “free will to love” that important. Can love exist in the absence of freewill. Also, can freewill exist in the absence of sin? Will we not have freewill in heaven? Or will we be robots?

 

[Ella S.]

That depends on your point of view. Love requires choice, does it not? If you have no choice BUT to love, is it really love?

Love is an involuntary reaction. There are people who wish they weren't in love with the "wrong person," and people who wish they could love someone. I personally have witnessed several examples of both. So love isn't something you consciously choose, but an emotion that you feel.

Or do you want robots. Not free will to sin, but free will to love.

Yes, I would prefer a world with no free will and no suffering.

So don't blame the electric company?

Electric companies can still be sued for criminal negligence. Who holds God accountable for his negligence?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Do you believe God has freewill?
I think some would suppose “no”, as God = morality, so God can only do moral acts.
I think some would suppose “yes”, God could do whatever He wants.
If you suppose “yes”, then is it possible for God to act immorally? Or, is every action done by God automatically moral, no matter what it is, because God is the author of morality?
What do you think? Can God be evil through His own free will?

God is above all attributes.

Bahá'u'lláh asserts that nothing can be said about God or Absolute Reality. Any description that we try to make of Him or It is completely inadequate.

"To every discerning and illuminated heart it is evident that God, the unknowable Essence, the Divine Being, is immensely exalted beyond every human attribute, such as corporeal existence, ascent and descent, egress and regress. Far be it from His glory that human tongue should adequately recount His praise, or that human heart comprehend His fathomless mystery. He is, and hath ever been, veiled in the ancient eternity of His Essence, and will remain in His Reality everlastingly hidden from the sight of men."

Regards Tony

 

[Kenny]

Thank for some good questions and thoughts.

Suppose Adam and Eve were made in a world in which there was no tree of knowledge of good and evil.
First off there is the question if Cain could still kill Abel. Say Adam and Eve never sinned and still had those two boys. Would it be possible for Cain to even kill Abel? The name knowledge of good and evil implies that human beings would not have been capable of murder without this fruit, does it not?

Of course, we are being hypothetical and only God would know. There are so many nuances here that, IMV makes the proposition wrong anyway.

1) If there was no Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, is there even a choice to love at that point.
2) Let's go even further and say Cain and Abel look exactly the same, same personality, same facial expressions and Mary is there. Who does she love? Is there really a choice?

So I believe you are creating a scenario that is an impossibility even as I did.

But, in answer to your question, my viewpoints is that it he could not kill on multiple levels because the point of contact was whether they could follow God or not.

1) The only issue for God was whether man would love and follow Him. If Love was still permeating all the earth, murder would not even be a consideration because of the permeating love.
2) There would not have been an jealousy or a need to do a sacrifice so there would be no sense of "competition" between the brothers
3) It didn't change the parameters of what God wanted in their choice to love Him

For now, let’s suppose that Cain could not kill Abel. So we would be robots you say, incapable of doing evil. And what exactly is wrong with that? Suppose heaven would be something like that.
Would you not prefer that existence of no suffering? All of us living in the garden of Eden together in peace, no sin.

I think that is a wrong assumption.

Let's take that a step further. If you could not kill, you could not lie, you could not make a wrong decision of driving too fast, falling off of a tree, pulling your siblings hair, leaving your dirty clothes on the floor, could not break a bone,

Yes... it would be robotic

Of course, one can read the Bible and come away with the understanding that one can of their own free will sin in heaven.

The alternative to that “robotic” existence is our current one. A reality laden with grotesque suffering of all manner. Sure, it was Adam and Eve’s fault for eating the fruit, but one can still wonder why the tree was there in the first place.

I'm not so sure. I think the parameters here is that we have "made" the choice to follow God and now we "don't want" to sin and have the power to say no to it.

Is the “free will to love” that important. Can love exist in the absence of freewill. Also, can freewill exist in the absence of sin? Will we not have freewill in heaven? Or will we be robots?

So we still have the "free will" - we just have already made our choice just like I made the choice to love my wife. I have the power to violate the covenant, but I have chosen never to violate the covenant

 

[Kenny]

Love is an involuntary reaction. There are people who wish they weren't in love with the "wrong person," and people who wish they could love someone. I personally have witnessed several examples of both. So love isn't something you consciously choose, but an emotion that you feel.

I disagree. If you are in love with the wrong person, it would be your choice, Can you fall in love with a person if you decide not to spend time with them? Were you "uncontrollable driven" to go out with the person again?

Yes, I would prefer a world with no free will and no suffering.

Let's think through those parameters. You can't choose when to get up, you can't choose what kind of work you are going to. You can't choose what you are going to cook or eat. You can't choose a flavor of ice-cream... the very definition of suffering?

Electric companies can still be sued for criminal negligence. Who holds God accountable for his negligence?

You can't sue the electric company if you stick screwdriver into the electrical panel and never turned the electric off. Not an applicable statement.

 

[Bathos Logos]

#5


But, no, He doesn't do evil

As to your "#5" - I, personally, don't think it matters how old the people are when considering sending bears out to maul them because they said some words. As a Christian, do you think it matters how old they are? Basically - your excuse for God here is that they were older men, who knew better, and who could walk outside of city walls on their own, and were of little faith. That's the reason that it is "okay" in your book for God to have sent bears out of the woods to maul them. Correct? That's what you're saying? I just want to make sure I don't misrepresent you.

Just know that if you say "yes" - that it is okay to have bears maul people, as long as they are adults, if they make fun of a person's baldness - then I will consider not only your God's thoughts on this matter to be evil, but yours as well.

 

[rational experiences]

Will states movement.

Freedom.

Freedom states flow.

Two gods.

The God that is held fixed. O earth.

Earth was sealed by its mother space womb said men. Meaning I claim it thinking as he him his man statement my words.

Free movement flow means God can only be exact by human thought. The utmost greatest moral human support

In a free flowing heavens.....the stretched cooled immaculate gas by space womb..Gods.

Flowing moving. Moral highest human life and conscious support.

As said by just human thinkers.

Humans once were living free to move anywhere. Until men who said I now claim I own god said I'll make you pay if you want to survive.

Immoral God was men. By he him his thoughts. Free will a choice.

 

[Colt]

Do you believe God has freewill?
I think some would suppose “no”, as God = morality, so God can only do moral acts.
I think some would suppose “yes”, God could do whatever He wants.
If you suppose “yes”, then is it possible for God to act immorally? Or, is every action done by God automatically moral, no matter what it is, because God is the author of morality?
What do you think? Can God be evil through His own free will?

God has free will and he is Good. God has a nature.

 

[Colt]

Suppose Adam and Eve were made in a world in which there was no tree of knowledge of good and evil.
First off there is the question if Cain could still kill Abel. Say Adam and Eve never sinned and still had those two boys. Would it be possible for Cain to even kill Abel? The name knowledge of good and evil implies that human beings would not have been capable of murder without this fruit, does it not?
For now, let’s suppose that Cain could not kill Abel. So we would be robots you say, incapable of doing evil. And what exactly is wrong with that? Suppose heaven would be something like that.
Would you not prefer that existence of no suffering? All of us living in the garden of Eden together in peace, no sin.
Of course, one can read the Bible and come away with the understanding that one can of their own free will sin in heaven.
The alternative to that “robotic” existence is our current one. A reality laden with grotesque suffering of all manner. Sure, it was Adam and Eve’s fault for eating the fruit, but one can still wonder why the tree was there in the first place.
Is the “free will to love” that important. Can love exist in the absence of freewill. Also, can freewill exist in the absence of sin? Will we not have freewill in heaven? Or will we be robots?

The tree of knowledge of good and evil is a metaphor for Adam and Eve having been instructed on the will of God for their administration on earth, and earth which was already populated and fallen when they arrived. But you make a good point, had Eve and then Adam not defaulted would other human beings be capable of error? Of coarse they would. The loss of immortality was specific to Adam and Eve, death and or translation is normal for humans.

 

[DKH]

As to your "#5" - I, personally, don't think it matters how old the people are when considering sending bears out to maul them because they said some words. As a Christian, do you think it matters how old they are? Basically - your excuse for God here is that they were older men, who knew better, and who could walk outside of city walls on their own, and were of little faith. That's the reason that it is "okay" in your book for God to have sent bears out of the woods to maul them. Correct? That's what you're saying? I just want to make sure I don't misrepresent you.

Just know that if you say "yes" - that it is okay to have bears maul people, as long as they are adults, if they make fun of a person's baldness - then I will consider not only your God's thoughts on this matter to be evil, but yours as well.

In my opinion, one of the most foolish things a human beings can do is "mock" God. The anti-God and/or anti-servants of God individuals in 2 Kings 2:23-24 are doing exactly that! These individuals were foolishly challenging the power and authority of God by jeering one of God's prophets, thus jeering God himself. This type of activity was and is common among the anti-God and anti-Christ of today. However, the story doesn't say that the young adults were killed (this can only be assumed by the usage of an incorrect translation)! The Hebrew word used in verse 24 for mauled is Baqa or (tare) H1234 and is defined as divide, breach or tear. So, bears coming out of the woods (more than likely) would have been noticed and the young adults then scattered or were divided. This would have allowed Elisha to go on his way. Were there a few tears? Maybe, but no deaths are mentioned. So, the idea of the young adults being "scared to death" doesn't really mean they were mauled or actually killed. So, there is no evil in this scenario or any other…

 

[Bathos Logos]

In my opinion, one of the most foolish things a human beings can do is "mock" God.

Definitely your opinion. If God doesn't exist, then literally nothing is being mocked in the first place if the target of mocking is "God". And since no one can demonstrate that God exists to any sufficiently acceptable degree, it is fine to work under the assumptions that He does not exist. In fact, this is what I have done, day-in and day-out for my entire life. Have I experienced any ill effects due to this disposition? Not in the least. And the reality is, even if any "bad" experiences I have had throughout my life were God meting out consequences for my disbelief, or any mocking or chastising I have done (goodness knows I have done probably more than my share!), then those punishments have gone completely unnoticed by me, and were therefore completely ineffectual. How would I have known that God was responsible for my ill-fortune? How would I know what my "crime" was in the first place? How would I figure those things out with absolutely zero direction from God Himself? He would be exacting secretive punishments on me, for unknown crimes. That's one of the dumbest things I have ever heard attributed to God in my entire life. No type of successful reform or even negative-reinforcement-training would ever be conducted in such a way by human beings here on Earth! It would be asinine. Therefore, if God behaves in this way, then God's methods are asinine, and God's intelligence entirely suspect!

The anti-God and/or anti-servants of God individuals in 2 Kings 2:23-24 are doing exactly that!

Okay, sure, I'll consent to being called "anti-God". I literally do not mine this moniker in the least. It means nearly nothing at all from my perspective. May as well be "anti-Bigfoot".

These individuals were foolishly challenging the power and authority of God by jeering one of God's prophets, thus jeering God himself. This type of activity was and is common among the anti-God and anti-Christ of today. However, the story doesn't say that the young adults were killed (this can only be assumed by the usage of an incorrect translation)! The Hebrew word used in verse 24 for mauled is Baqa or (tare) H1234 and is defined as divide, breach or tear. So, bears coming out of the woods (more than likely) would have been noticed and the young adults then scattered or were divided. This would have allowed Elisha to go on his way. Were there a few tears? Maybe, but no deaths are mentioned. So, the idea of the young adults being "scared to death" doesn't really mean they were mauled or actually killed. So, there is no evil in this scenario or any other…

So the further excusing of this is to take a secondary meaning of "tare" and say that the boys/men were just divided into groups to run off prancing through the woods. Okay... fine. Let's take this watered-down version of events as literally what happened. Some grown men were standing at the side of a road outside of a town, a bald guy came walking through their midst, the men called him "baldy" and laughed their stupid heads off, then this Elisha fellow called a curse upon them, God answered by sending bears to chase them off into the woods. So, excusing all of what Biblical scholars and translators actually placed into The Bible because they felt it the most accurate transcription, and instead going with your super-duper excusey version, this is what we have, then, right? That is still taking things way over the top when the "crime" was literally nothing but words spoken about some dude's lack of hair. Elisha has what? Hurt feelings? And because those feelings of his got hurt, the pertinent thing to do in someone's eyes (hint: that someone is God) is send physical bears after the people who spoke the words to get them to what? Realize the error of their ways? Is that what you think would have happened? Would the men have known, for certain, that the bears came out of the woods specifically due to the curse spoken by Elisha? Could they have verified this? Does the "punishment" fit the crime, in your estimation? Such that, if it were you in control of the bears (let's say you were standing there with the two bear leashed), would you release them on the men the moment you heard them jeering about Elisha's bald head? Do you think the authorities here on Earth would accept your justification for releasing the bears if those men turned to the cops and reported you? Do you believe that God does not deserve those same types of questions put to Him for his ridiculous behavior?

In the end, I have a hard time believing that you have thought about this very thoroughly at all. Just not at all. You've already made up your mind, obviously, and God gets a free pass no matter what He does. Or, even if the thing being done is horrific, you'll find some way to spin it such that it doesn't sound "too bad". It's still bad. It's still stupid. It's still a terribly poor way of conducting oneself if the hope is to help or instruct anyone on how they "should be" living or behaving.

 

[Kenny]

As to your "#5" - I, personally, don't think it matters how old the people are when considering sending bears out to maul them because they said some words. As a Christian, do you think it matters how old they are? Basically - your excuse for God here is that they were older men, who knew better, and who could walk outside of city walls on their own, and were of little faith. That's the reason that it is "okay" in your book for God to have sent bears out of the woods to maul them. Correct? That's what you're saying? I just want to make sure I don't misrepresent you.

Just know that if you say "yes" - that it is okay to have bears maul people, as long as they are adults, if they make fun of a person's baldness - then I will consider not only your God's thoughts on this matter to be evil, but yours as well.

Of course, I am a New Testament kinda person.

But there may be much more to the story than just plain reading it. Have you asked our Jewish friends about this?

 

[Bathos Logos]

Of course, I am a New Testament kinda person.

But there may be much more to the story than just plain reading it. Have you asked our Jewish friends about this?

I don't need to. Secret punishments that do not fit the "crime" being committed cannot be justified. Nor can physical punishments for verbal attacks. God may as well have sent Will Smith running out of the woods to maul those "adult men". There is no justification. The whole scenario is awful right out of the gate. I don't care if it literally said that God sent the bears out to force the men to slow dance with them. They said some words. That's it. God doesn't come and tell them what they did wrong, they don't get a chance to reform or understand what to do better next time - instead they just get frightened, and/or harmed by bears. What sense does this make from any perspective? Jewish or otherwise. It's bad business. Apparently God's business.

 

[Kenny]

don't need to. Secret punishments that do not fit the "crime" being committed cannot be justified.

By your standards? And you know all the details by just what was written?

 

[Bathos Logos]

By your standards? And you know all the details by just what was written?

By anyone's standards who want to claim they are rational, yes. That is exactly what I would claim and stand by. And in terms of The Bible - if we're literally supposed to live by it, then it had better contain all the requisite details! Otherwise what good is it really? "Oh... there's some stuff I forgot to tell you in there... I'm sure you'll figure it out! To hell with you (literally!) if you don't!"

We can take any number of examples, all of which will easily display that there is no rationality, nearly no intelligence, and no good being employed by anyone who wants to see another reform their behavior, but only secretly doles out negative consequences, and making sure that those consequences do not, in any way, pertain to the crime having been committed.

And do you know why I can so confidently state this? It is because, with the goal of "reform" being on the docket, you literally can't expect someone to "get it" who is given zero information of what they did wrong, how it offended you, nor what they can do next time to make sure they don't observe more random consequences. You see, the stated goal of "reform" gives us a more objective standard by which to judge various actions taken to achieve the goal.

Unless you'd rather argue that God is not interested in reform, and punishes, instead, merely to punish, or for some other reason that would make it seem as though He literally doesn't care whether or not people get "better" according to His standards. This would, unfortunately, make any claims that Go also "loves" humanity require a bunch of other hoops jumped through to somehow achieve. And it would also fly in the face of some of the admonishments God makes within The Bible, whereby He does advocate that people follow His advice, and does warn of the consequences. When He does random things without first warning people, is this Him merely forgetting to do so, do you think?

You see... I am of the opinion that you simply cannot have a coherent worldview when basing your reality around items that you literally cannot know for certain even the existence of.

 

[osgart]

Do you believe God has freewill?
I think some would suppose “no”, as God = morality, so God can only do moral acts.
I think some would suppose “yes”, God could do whatever He wants.
If you suppose “yes”, then is it possible for God to act immorally? Or, is every action done by God automatically moral, no matter what it is, because God is the author of morality?
What do you think? Can God be evil through His own free will?

I think to be truly free is to have a perfectly moral nature. To embody all the virtues, and have none desire for the vices. Vices are pitfalls, snares, and traps. They drive people further away from truth, and ensnare themselves into darkness and can't comprehend their own misery they've created for themselves.

So freedom is virtue, and if God's nature is virtue then God is truly free. I have only run across Gods of human invention. I wouldn't see that a perfect creator would ever make such a place as this where sometimes you have to choose the lesser of two evils because no other option is afforded you.

God not being bound to this nature isn't subject to the evils of this nature.

That's a reason why no God exists.

 

[Kenny]

By anyone's standards who want to claim they are rational, yes. That is exactly what I would claim and stand by. And in terms of The Bible - if we're literally supposed to live by it, then it had better contain all the requisite details! Otherwise what good is it really? "Oh... there's some stuff I forgot to tell you in there... I'm sure you'll figure it out! To hell with you (literally!) if you don't!"

OK... let's get a New Testament flavor to this...

When I take the life of Jesus and apply it to the TaNaKh, we come out with a totally different perspective and find it consistent in the TaNaKh

Jesus very specifically said that every word and deed he did was because he saw the Father doing it and saying it. It also tells us that the perfect expression of the Father is through the son.

Therefore we take the NT and revisit the TaNaKh with this understanding.

When we look at his statement of "It is the thief that comes to steal, kill and destroy, but I have come to give life and life in abundance" it gives us the light into what really is happening in the TaNaKh. It is the thief that kills, steals and destroys.

Jesus also never killed or caused a person to be killed no matter what they said to him.

I will also add light (God) and Darkness (Satan into the mix)

There is a grace pocket of God that gives us protection and that is when we walk in the light. But if we choose to walk in Darkness, we have actually opened the door for the thief (Satan) - to come to steal, kill and destroy. This is what happened to Job.

English translations of Hebrew so many times brings a permissive tense and translates it into a causative tense.

As I apply the truth of Jesus to the TaNaKh, I apply the truth (Jesus) we would understand it this way. Those young men so walked into Darkness that they opened the door for the enemy to come and steal their lives.

You see... I am of the opinion that you simply cannot have a coherent worldview when basing your reality around items that you literally cannot know for certain even the existence of.

Yes... you can have that opinion. I would opine the opposite and in as much as my life improved after I did understand the existence of God, your opinion doesn't bear much weight in my life.

But you are free to have your world view.

 

[Bathos Logos]

Therefore we take the NT and revisit the TaNaKh with this understanding.

When we look at his statement of "It is the thief that comes to steal, kill and destroy, but I have come to give life and life in abundance" it gives us the light into what really is happening in the TaNaKh. It is the thief that kills, steals and destroys.

So the last sentence is talking about God, then, right? Like how he killed/destroyed the first born sons of the Egyptians, therefore stealing them from their families on Earth. So, God came, and killed and destroyed, and Jesus came to, instead, give life.

Just pointing out that God does things in the Old Testament that human beings shouldn't be able to help but feel were bad/wrong. Certainly things we wouldn't let one another get away with. I don't care that "He's God" - He can't just "do what He wants" if he literally expects people to care about Him, and, as many would claim, even love Him. Love doesn't work like that. Perhaps Jesus got it more "right". Okay - I'll buy into that. But looking at the two texts juxtaposed (old and new testament) one must necessarily conclude that God had it all wrong to begin with, realized the error of His ways, and then tried to make amends. I am not sure how anyone would see it any other way. Again - my equating God to the "thief" in your quotes. This seems perfectly applicable to me given some of God's more abhorrent behaviors in the old testament.