What do you mean by "free will?"

[Holdasown]

(quote)
Hi Holdasown (interesting nic--is there a story behind it?)
I am interested in your comments, although I admit, it is a bit different from anything that I have studied in my Bible searches. for example, you said:
"Any of the gods that exist and interact with humans on Earth"

Would that be 'human' gods, or unseen spirit creatures?

It would be gods. Beings who exist somewhere other then Earth but can access Earth astral/spiritually.

Goes the 'god' need to be alive, or can it be simply an image, or a thing created by men?

I think the gods exist. I don't think they are creations of men.

How would they 'interact' with humans?

Shamanic techniques, shaman, dreams, omens, divination, ordeal work.

thanks for allowing me to ask for your understanding on the matter.

Peace

(quote)

No problem.

 

[Enoch07]

I hope the weather is tolerable where you are, and that you and yours are warm and well.

peace

Thanks, and the same to you!

 

[Vaderecta]

If the persistent jingle is me, why must I believe that an external force is the cause of it? It's just me. Someone else wrote it, but the persistent thought is nothing but me.

It's the reality running on your hardware/software and an as an afterthought an explanation of why that result is just you. (Or anyone)

Obvious variations include people reacting to the same experience with different upbringings, genetics or of identical people of various ages.

Current age me would have much to say to younger me if current me didn't know anything I said wouldn't likely matter. The me from then has changed drastically from the me today. You can perform the same experiment and invalidate your own argument.

 

[Renascibilitas]

I would peg the first step as the fiction.

So OP said step 1 was a person have an evil desire. What part is fiction? Their desires, morality of the desires or the concept of people?

 

[Willamena]

So OP said step 1 was a person have an evil desire. What part is fiction? Their desires, morality of the desires or the concept of people?

Topically, that a person does deliberate "evil acts" based on a conveniently matching "evil desire" is fiction. It is circumstance portrayed in such a way as to cast "evil" as something real.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Even if a person recognizes that their action(s) will only lead to a negative result, this person might still do it.
For instance, a murderer might be fully aware of the negative consequences his actions might have, such as all the suffering and pain he is going to cause, and yet, still go ahead and do it.

So, the mere act of "recognizing that it will only lead to a negative result" is not sufficient to refrain from doing something.

.....And that is free will, our ability to act or refrain from any desire

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The free will argument is a scapegoat for evil. It ultimately means that god cares more about letting us do what we want and cares less about the actual suffering that can be caused. The human system would wish to prevent the more heinous crimes, not wait for it to happen just so you can punish someone.

"The human system" was created perfect. Being perfect, Adam had to force himself to disobey. That's why the deception of the "Original Serpent (Revelation 12:9)" was focused on Eve, the most precious person in Adam's life, apparently more precious than Jehovah, his Life-giver (Father).

With our fallen "system", we easily have bad desires, and incline toward disobedience of authority. Adam was inclined toward obedience. So was Eve, but she was deceived.

How can we come to this conclusion? Because of four
things:

1) That whatever God makes to suit His purpose is perfect, per Deuteronomy 32:4;

2) 1 Timothy 1:8 reveals a fact about Law, and this applies to...

3) Adam and Eve. They weren't given any set of laws to follow, as to what was right or wrong. Only one prohibitive law that was very simple and easy to follow. Nothing about not slapping your spouse or hurting the animals, or even littering the environment. They just weren't inclined to commit a wrong, or even to disobey their Authority. And...

4) They were only going to die, if they disobeyed! That means, if they had obeyed, they would still be alive today, never having to die!! Regarding their children...that's why, even seven generations later, they were living over 900 years, still passing on near perfect genetics. Until, by Moses' day humans had reached a limit life span of 70 to 80 years.

 

[Vaderecta]

Topically, that a person does deliberate "evil acts" based on a conveniently matching "evil desire" is fiction. It is circumstance portrayed in such a way as to cast "evil" as something real.

Not disagreeing... maybe... Trying to to parse this statement. Can you give an example?

 

[Vaderecta]

.....And that is free will, our ability to act or refrain from any desire

Thanks mate! Funny as expletive! The use of free will and our is just so god damn silly and you took time to underline and italicize! Awesome.

 

[Vaderecta]

So OP said step 1 was a person have an evil desire. What part is fiction? Their desires, morality of the desires or the concept of people?

I'm not sure the question accurately portray's the OP's question but why does it matter? What if all three examples offered were all misaligned? What if given further time to explore and examine their actions ended with them agreeing with you? What is fiction? As non-condescending as I can portray in text format is your understanding of the issue.

 

[Nous]

Considering deliberate evil acts inflicted by one person on another, there's a three-step process:

1. The person has an evil desire.
2. The person chooses to act on their evil desire.
3. The person causes the evil desire to happen.

Any description of free will I've ever heard deals with step 2: the decision to act. It doesn't deal with step 1, since we generally can't choose our desires.

People exert willful control over their desires everyday. There is the 1200-calorie piece of cake staring one in the face, but one also remembers there are the 50 pounds that one needs to lose in order to get out of the obesity category, and, despite one's quite robust and enduring desire to have the cake in one's mouth, one chooses to not put it there.

In any case, the whole thesis about evil desires and acts introduces unnecessary complication. There is no reason that choosing to engage in an evil act is necessarily different than choosing to engage in a virtuous act. Indeed, virtuous acts can often be the least immediately rewarding.

 

[syo]

1. The person has an evil desire.
2. The person chooses to act on their evil desire.
3. The person causes the evil desire to happen.

free will is to negate the evil desire. the evil desire isn't set in stone.