Board index ‹ Free Will

[Yummy Yummy]

What are we supposed to think of the benevelolence of god if humans were created with the ability to rape children but not house flies?

[jimwalton]

Oh my. This is a pretty severe misunderstanding of God, humanity, and free will. Free will is free, by definition. Everything has its pros and cons. A hand can be used to nurture or to torture; it can be used to build or to tear down. A knife can be used as a tool or as a weapon. The problem is not the entity but the motives of the user. Any good thing that can be used for good can also be used for bad in the hands of a bad person. The creator is not to blame, nor is the thing, but only the wielder of the thing and the actor of the action. You seem to want free will that isn't free. You seem to want to be an independent agent that isn't independent, and you seem to blame God for the willful evil of human beings. Human perpetration of evil is not a reflection on the benevolence of God but on the wickedness of the human heart and mind.

[Yummy Yummy]

You completely ignored my comment in order to uphold your emotional attachment to an omnibenevolent god in the face of contrary evidence. I'm not surprised, but I was hoping for a little more intellectual honesty. Have a good day.

[jimwalton]

Oh my. I do grow weary of people who don't read what I said and accuse me of dishonesty. Here's the argument, again.

1. Free will is, by nature, free.
2. Free will is, by nature, an exercise of the will.
3. For an exercise of the will to be truly free, a full set of fulfillable options must be at play. (We can't expect absurd or self-contradictory options to be at play.)
4. Therefore any element of action within our sphere of possibilities includes a full set of fulfillable options, whether they be good (beneficial; contributing to human wellbeing) or evil (detrimental, contributing to human disadvantage).
5. The responsibility for free will therefore resides in the agent making the choices and taking the actions, and not in the plethora of options available.
6. The omnibenevolent God is therefore not culpable for the free will decisions of free agents acting on their own recognizance.

I would love to see your "contrary evidence". All you made was an unfounded declaration: "What are we supposed to think of the benevelolence of god if humans were created with the ability to rape children but not house flies?"

[Communist Crab]

> Perfectionism is a heresy. It is impossible to eradicate the sin nature from ourselves.

Even after baptism and confession?

> Christian doctrine doesn't say that sin is extracted from us, but instead that we are set free from having to obey its power.

So...after putting some effort in, you could learn to live a sinless life by not falling prey to its "power"

[jimwalton]

> Even after baptism and confession?

Right, even after baptism and confession. There is no sacramental force in baptism and confession that makes me perfect. Baptism is a symbol of identification with Christ in His death and resurrection; confession is an expression of repentance that opens the door for Christ to forgive our sins. Neither of them make anyone perfect.

> So...after putting some effort in, you could learn to live a sinless life by not falling prey to its "power"

No. No amount of effort takes me to a sinless life. Paul is quite emphatic about such things: We need the power of Christ every day in our lives to be able to live outside of the grip of sin, but we can never learn to be sinless. I John 1.7 & 9 are clear.

[Jaw Johnny]

> Free will is the same kind of entity regardless of the category, whether familial, governmental, or religious. The analogy holds because free will is a constant entity across categories.

You can't just say this without supporting logic. I gave you my reasoning why it's not the same across both groups (humans to humans vs deity to humans), you give no reasoning here, just that you believe it's the same regardless. It's not.

Again, a deity established our environment and our capabilities, including our neurology which is the way we interpret, sense, understand and respond to stimuli (the environment He created). He is literally responsible for All. So when you say we are freely exerting our will, it is only as free as the capabilities He gave us and only to the extent that it can be exhibited in the environment He created. So it's limited and confined to a scope He established, and it's (our response set) predictable given our limitations and the limitations of the environment.

So to use an analogy of a parent and child (peer to peer/human to human) is not the same category as deity and human. The deity has far more responsibility and control than the parent who is merely responding to the situation created by the deity.

This problem is littered throughout your comments as I'll show below.

> God has no sovereign control over the dynamics of a situation made fluid by personal choice.

Yes he does, or did. He established the range of possibilities for choices and outcomes from the very beginning. And He also established extra outcomes/punishments for those choices which follow you into the afterlife.

> The serpent chose to enter in conversation, he choose to present a moral dilemma, and they chose to respond in the way they did. God neither created that environment nor dictated the outcome.

This is wrong x100. God created the serpent and gave it the ability to enter the garden and confront Adam and Eve. God also clearly created the moral dilemma by establishing this scenario where there was an off-limits area. He also created curious, truth-seeking beings (Adam and Eve) that He knew would seek out this off-limits area. And not only did He literally create the environment (Eden), but He also created boundaries that, when infringed upon, would result in punishment/expulsion.

So He created beings with a personally created neurological make-up, put them in a test environment with a built-in fail mechanism (essentially a fishing lure), and then created a penalty when they bit.

> God doesn't desire that any human goes to hell

Then why did He set up the game so that billions end up there? Again, you keep speaking of the situation as if He's a slave to it. He created All, including Hell, and the possibility that humans end up there. Didn't have to be that way.

> then separation from Him is the only possibility (which is death).

Ok, fine. I die. That's it, right? Nope, how about an additional ever-lasting death in Hell. He chose to make that a bonus for people like me. Keeping us out of Heaven wasn't enough.

> All choices have consequences. God didn't set the consequences, the consequences set themselves by the nature of the choice

God absolutely defined the consequences because He created the environment upon which we all play, and He created additional consequences in the afterlife.

> He wants the best, but can only counsel you, He cannot force.

He certainly coerces. He's made it clear that certain behaviors and choices will lead to either reward or punishment. Coercion, threats, these are not the way to leave humans to choose freely.

> You have to be free to choose, but I sure want you to make wise choices.

I'm glad you want that, but that's not where it ends with God. He demands it. The Bible is full of commandments and criteria we must meet in order to be living in His grace/will and in order to get into Heaven. That's alot more than just counseling and hoping for us to be good.

> To the man and the woman he said, "Look what you've done. From now on here's what things will be like because of what you have done." It was natural consequences, not punishment.

Who created nature? Who created consequences? There are a range of possible consequences to all actions. God decided that range when He created everything. He decided what must happen when Adam & Eve went where He told them not to go. It didn't have to be that way. He set those parameters. He created the garden they were in with a "special" area. It didn't have to be that way, and the punishment for their actions didn't have to be what it was. He designed all of it.

[jimwalton]

You seem to have some dreadful confusion between causality and determination. Just because I cause something doesn't mean I determine it. As an illustration, I have a child. I MADE that kid. He came into the world because of me. He has my genes. He is the direct result of my activity. I caused him. I established his environment.

But that kid isn't me. He has my genes, but a different genetic make up. He has a different blood type. He has a different set of predispositions and a different set of experiences. And he has a will of his own. He doesn't have my will. I can love him, mold him, manipulate him, shape him, but he makes his own choices. My causality is distinct from determination.

This is EXACTLY the situation with God. I am created not by direct fiat but by natural processes. I am caused, but not determined. In response to your statements, God created my environment generally, but not specifically. He didn't build this house, my city wasn't designed and planned by him, but by the free will choices of other humans. God didn't specifically design my capabilities—they also are part of natural processes. He designed my neurology, but only indirectly. That also is part of natural processes that God allows to take their shape in a dynamical natural context. God is not at all literally responsible for all. Since you are on a site where you want to know what Christians think, then I have to tell you what the Bible teaches, and it is NOT that God is literally responsible for all. Determinism is not a biblical doctrine. That's why you are incorrect, and the analogy of parent and child is valid. We are caused, but not determined, and we must keep those categories separate, because the Bible does.

> Yes he does, or did. He established the range of possibilities for choices and outcomes from the very beginning.

This is not biblical doctrine. There was a full range of choices, and the outcomes were the natural and inevitable consequences of those choices. You fall off a cliff, you go down. You kill something, it stops living. Cause and effect, not the direct actions of God.

> God created the serpent and gave it the ability to enter the garden and confront Adam and Eve.

God created the serpent different than what it chose to be. God gave it abilities, but it chose to use them in contrary ways. God is not complicit in the serpent's behavior. The serpent was not determined.

> So He created beings with a personally created neurological make-up, put them in a test environment with a built-in fail mechanism (essentially a fishing lure), and then created a penalty when they bit.

There is nothing true about this. God does not directly and manipulatively design the genetic make up of each individual. Nature has a dynamic cause and effect process in play, and that's what happens. The environment God put them in did not have a built-in fail mechanism. There was every element in place for their success. The penalty when they bit was a natural consequence, not a curse from God. If you want to know what the Bible says, it isn't what you are claiming.

> He certainly coerces. He's made it clear that certain behaviors and choices will lead to either reward or punishment.

Pointing out consequences is different from coercion. Because I say to you, "If you don't study, you won't do well on your test," doesn't mean that I have coerced anything. My words are not determinants, but only observations and warnings.

> He demands it.

Finally right about something. He demands it because it's the only way to life. If you live in Canada and want to get to Mexico, I'm going to demand you head south. Not because I'm demanding, but because it's the only way.

[Hender Williamshot]

Are you sure that there are only two options;
Choose to sin, or
Accept the free gift of salvation?

Where does that leave people who earnestly seek God and strive daily to follow the teachings of their religion, if their religion is different enough from your "correct" denomination to leave them just short of "your" denomination's requirements for salvation?

[jimwalton]

Yes, I'm sure, and it has nothing to do with my denomination or an "correctness" bias of which you are accusing me, or a denominational bias on requirements. It has to do with what the Bible teaches, which, it would seem should be obvious, is the source of our theological truths as Christians.

Those who earnestly seek God, who confess their sins and repent of them, and who give their lives to Jesus, have in that process accepted the free gift of salvation. Those who do not choose to remain in their sins.