Freethought & Rationalism Archive

K · 08-10-2003, 08:23 PM

Many Christians argue that evil exists because of humanity's free will. God deems free will a greater good than the prevention of suffering.

Does this mean that stepping in, calling for help, or in any way intervening to stop a rape or mugging is a sin? Afterall, these actions attempt to lessen suffering at the expense of free will.

Continuing this further, is it sinful to incarcerate criminals and thereby restrict their free will? How about locking doors or safekeeping valuables? These actions interfere with the free will of those who would wish to steal from us.

If God finds the free will to be so important that even He won't interfere with it, then surely it must be sinful for us to do so.

winstonjen · 08-10-2003, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by K
Does this mean that stepping in, calling for help, or in any way intervening to stop a rape or mugging is a sin? Afterall, these actions attempt to lessen suffering at the expense of free will.

It's only a sin if god does it.

Jane Bovary · 08-10-2003, 08:52 PM

Many Christians argue that evil exists because of humanity's free will. God deems free will a greater good than the prevention of suffering.

If it is more important for us to have freewill than no suffering, then what happens in Heaven? Isn't there supposed to be no suffering there? Does that mean there's no freewill in Heaven? There must be, since its considered so important....MORE important than no suffering. So...if its possible to have freewill AND no suffering [as in Heaven] then why can't we have it here?

Trekkie With a Phaser · 08-10-2003, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jane Bovary
If it is more important for us to have freewill than no suffering, then what happens in Heaven? Isn't there supposed to be no suffering there? Does that mean there's no freewill in Heaven? There must be, since its considered so important....MORE important than no suffering. So...if its possible to have freewill AND no suffering [as in Heaven] then why can't we have it here?

I think Christians would answer this in one of two ways: 1) Adam and Eve's sin made man aware of good and evil. As a result, man was free to knowingly choose between the two options. Those who make it into heaven are the ones who have shown that they will willingly choose good. That means, however, that some will choose evil wich will result in suffering, or 2) People in heaven can choose evil (after all, Lucifer did), but they will generally choose not to because things are so incredibly great in heaven.

The non-believer, on the other hand, would say that it ruins the story if earth is like heaven. I mean, what would you be striving for if things were great on earth? What justification would god have had for killing millions of people when they didn't do what he wanted? All of the drama of the story would disappear.

winstonjen · 08-10-2003, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Trekkie With a Phaser
I think Christians would answer this in one of two ways: 1) Adam and Eve's sin made man aware of good and evil. As a result, man was free to knowingly choose between the two options. Those who make it into heaven are the ones who have shown that they will willingly choose good. or 2) People in heaven can choose evil (after all, Lucifer did), but they will generally choose not to because things are so incredibly great in heaven.

If they didn't know until after they ate the fruit, punishing them was unjust.

Trekkie With a Phaser · 08-10-2003, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by winstonjen
If they didn't know until after they ate the fruit, punishing them was unjust.

I agree. The only defense I've heard Christians use to this is something about A&E knowing the difference between right and wrong, just not good and evil. In other words, they knew it was wrong to disobey god but they did so anyway. Therefore they can still be held responsible.

I think this is bunk, but (as far as I know) this is the best defense the Christians have come up with. Personally, I think in a situation like that, good and evil are directly tied in with right and wrong; so much so that it's illogical to say that A&E could be responsible for understanding their actions.

Jane Bovary · 08-10-2003, 11:39 PM

I think Christians would answer this in one of two ways: 1) Adam and Eve's sin made man aware of good and evil. As a result, man was free to knowingly choose between the two options. Those who make it into heaven are the ones who have shown that they will willingly choose good. That means, however, that some will choose evil wich will result in suffering, or 2) People in heaven can choose evil (after all, Lucifer did), but they will generally choose not to because things are so incredibly great in heaven.

That still doesn't answer the problem of suffering on Earth though, since here suffering falls upon people indiscriminately, on those who have chosen *good over evil* as well those who haven't.

Nor does it seem very moral of God to allow suffering to His children[us] just so we can be morally tested in some way. It's one thing to bring children up with a sense of morality, it's another to deliberately expose them to suffering and evil just so we can judge them. If hardly anyone would choose evil in Heaven because there is no suffering, then why not create that state on Earth and eliminate both evil and suffering? Why is the "test" necessary?

winstonjen · 08-10-2003, 11:57 PM

I think that the logical conclusion is:

"God loves to watch people suffer."

Hence, god = sadist.

QED.

08-11-2003, 09:22 AM

I have never understood why 70 years on earth is needed to prepare one, train one, whatever, for an eternity elsewhere.

BTW is free will mentioned anywhere in the bible? I don't recall it.

Biff the unclean · 08-11-2003, 09:52 AM

Obviously "Free Will" is not a Christian concept. It flies in the face of what both the old and the new testaments teach. And it is completely out of keeping with church tradition.
So does anybody know who thought it up as an apologetic and how old it is?

08-10-2003, 08:23 PM	#1
K Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,485	If Free Will Is More Important Than Preventing Suffering... Many Christians argue that evil exists because of humanity's free will. God deems free will a greater good than the prevention of suffering. Does this mean that stepping in, calling for help, or in any way intervening to stop a rape or mugging is a sin? Afterall, these actions attempt to lessen suffering at the expense of free will. Continuing this further, is it sinful to incarcerate criminals and thereby restrict their free will? How about locking doors or safekeeping valuables? These actions interfere with the free will of those who would wish to steal from us. If God finds the free will to be so important that even He won't interfere with it, then surely it must be sinful for us to do so.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-10-2003, 08:52 PM	#3
Jane Bovary Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: The Fatal Shore Posts: 900	Many Christians argue that evil exists because of humanity's free will. God deems free will a greater good than the prevention of suffering. If it is more important for us to have freewill than no suffering, then what happens in Heaven? Isn't there supposed to be no suffering there? Does that mean there's no freewill in Heaven? There must be, since its considered so important....MORE important than no suffering. So...if its possible to have freewill AND no suffering [as in Heaven] then why can't we have it here?

08-10-2003, 11:39 PM	#7
Jane Bovary Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: The Fatal Shore Posts: 900	I think Christians would answer this in one of two ways: 1) Adam and Eve's sin made man aware of good and evil. As a result, man was free to knowingly choose between the two options. Those who make it into heaven are the ones who have shown that they will willingly choose good. That means, however, that some will choose evil wich will result in suffering, or 2) People in heaven can choose evil (after all, Lucifer did), but they will generally choose not to because things are so incredibly great in heaven. That still doesn't answer the problem of suffering on Earth though, since here suffering falls upon people indiscriminately, on those who have chosen good over evil as well those who haven't. Nor does it seem very moral of God to allow suffering to His children[us] just so we can be morally tested in some way. It's one thing to bring children up with a sense of morality, it's another to deliberately expose them to suffering and evil just so we can judge them. If hardly anyone would choose evil in Heaven because there is no suffering, then why not create that state on Earth and eliminate both evil and suffering? Why is the "test" necessary?

08-10-2003, 11:57 PM	#8
winstonjen Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 3,425	I think that the logical conclusion is: "God loves to watch people suffer." Hence, god = sadist. QED.

08-11-2003, 09:22 AM	#9
DMB Guest Posts: n/a	I have never understood why 70 years on earth is needed to prepare one, train one, whatever, for an eternity elsewhere. BTW is free will mentioned anywhere in the bible? I don't recall it.

08-11-2003, 09:52 AM	#10
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	Obviously "Free Will" is not a Christian concept. It flies in the face of what both the old and the new testaments teach. And it is completely out of keeping with church tradition. So does anybody know who thought it up as an apologetic and how old it is?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.