Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jon Curry · 03-20-2002, 05:40 AM

PB

Quote:

You didn't address my most important point, that Lewis' argument fails to make a case convincing enough to establish his conclusion, because the notion that a man could be the incarnation of a god is more incredible than the notion that a man could lie or be a "lunatic" and still make valid moral statements. Do you agree with this position?

Lewis's conclusion is that it is inconsistent to call Jesus a good moral teacher and also believe that Jesus is not God unless you also recognize that he was a liar or a lunatic. He's not trying to show that Jesus is in fact God. Lewis never in this paragraph claims that Jesus is not a liar or a lunatic. He very well could be. He is either God or he is a liar or lunatic (if you accept that the gospels record accurate history). He is merely pointing out an inconsistency in the thinking of some people. I have a lot of experience with these types of people.

MM

Quote:

Regardless, we can think of many examples of people who lied about what was central to their teaching. Thomas Jefferson does not cease to be admirable because he owned slaves. We don't ignore the courage of the Spirit of St. Louis because its pilot was a Nazi sympathizer. People can still be 'lofty men' even if they cheat on their taxes. The briliance of a Patton is not dimished because he happened to believe he was a reincarnated Roman.

I grant that it is possible to call Jesus a good moral teacher and also call him a liar or lunatic. But the target audience of Lewis's statement does not do this. They do not acknowledge that they think he is a liar. I've met many many people that are inconsistent in this way. They speak very lofty of Jesus, but deny he is God. They don't recognize that they are calling him either a liar or lunatic. Lewis is trying to get them to recognize this. Don't act like this is directed to the skeptic. I said before that it was directed to wishy washy Christians, but really it is directed to a sub group of non-Christians. It's just people that generally think highly of Jesus, but think Christians have gone too far. These people don't recognize that they are implicitly calling Jesus a liar or a lunatic.

Vorkosigan · 03-20-2002, 07:46 AM

turton:Lewis' is working another one of his fallacious "If A, then B, we have B, so A must be true" arguments. He loves this argument form, because it seems deep, even though it is stupid.

It runs:

1. If Jesus were divine, he'd be a great moral teacher.
2. Jesus is a great moral teacher.
CON: Therefore he is Divine.

Curry: I defy you to show me from Lewis' statements that he makes this argument you attribute to him.

Well, Jon, what does Lewis say?

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic-on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg--or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

So the question arises: how is

A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher.

different from:

1. If Jesus were divine, he'd be a great moral teacher.

I realize that the statement is in the negative form and thus, harder to spot. What Lewis says is: if he wasn't god, he wouldn't be a great moral teacher.

Lewis' argument that Jesus is a great moral teacher is made implicitly several times in that paragraph. With rhetorical exaggeration:

-- or else he would be the Devil of Hell

and implied in the first sentence where Lewis says it is foolish to consider Jesus only a great moral teacher, which of course means that Lewis thinks he is a great moral teacher.

The conclusion is obvious from the premises Lewis thusly establishes.

Further, as if any more proof were needed, Lewis uses this same argument in the problem of pain. It is originally from GK Chesterton, I believe, another sly apologist, though one much wiser and wittier than Lewis. See The Everlasting Man.

You only damage your own credibility with these type of statements. And given your inability to read demonstrated by you attributing to Lewis an argument he never made, I really don't think you're competent to say this.

You mean, YOU missed the argument, and assumed it was ME who must be stupid. Hear that flapping sound? It's the corvus you're about to eat.

Do you think any Christians are smart? I assume you don't. People are idiots by virtue of being Christians.

No, causation runs the other way.

Oh, quit handing me straight lines. Of course I don't think people are idiots for being Christians. In the other thread, I referenced two websites of Xtian philosophy, and several Christian philosophers who I considered much brighter than CS Lewis. See the post <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000067&p=2" target="_blank">4/5 of the way down here</a>. In fact, in that same thread I mentioned 3 theists who frequent Infidels whom I thought were probably superior to Lewis in their thinking.

This only reveals your own lack of objectivity.

Or your overheated imagination crediting me with positions I do not hold.

Some Christians are smart. Others are not.

Yes, and I classify Lewis with the "others are not."

Ask bd-from-kg (who in my opinion is one of the smartest agnostics on these boards) whether Lewis is a "pompous lightweight."

Please do. I'd be curious to see his answer.

Michael

Jon Curry · 03-20-2002, 09:02 AM

Quote:

So the question arises: how is

A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher.

different from:

1. If Jesus were divine, he'd be a great moral teacher.

Well, first of all, these statements are different. Lewis says that "a man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said" (translation - A man that claims to be God but in fact is not) "would not be a good moral teacher." It doesn't follow that a man that is divine will be a great moral teacher. However, I don't dispute the truth of this first premise. I of course agree that a divine being would be a great moral teacher. I also agree with your second premise. Jesus is a great moral teacher. The obvious problem is with the form of the argument. The conclusion just doesn't follow from the premises, as you recognize. Show me how it is that Lewis actually draws these conclusions from these premises.

Quote:

Lewis' argument that Jesus is a great moral teacher is made implicitly several times in that paragraph.

No. Lewis doesn't conclude that Jesus was in fact a great moral teacher in this paragraph. His point is, he is either a great moral teacher and he is God, or he is not a great moral teacher and he is a liar or lunatic. If you are going to call him a great moral teacher, be consistent and call him God. It doesn't make a lot of sense to consider a liar or lunatic a great moral teacher. What is so hard about this?

MadMordigan · 03-20-2002, 09:10 AM

I grant that it is possible to call Jesus a good moral teacher and also call him a liar or lunatic.

In other words, you grant that the trilemma is faulty on its face, regardless of its exhaustiveness or not.

Jon Curry · 03-20-2002, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MadMordigan:
<strong>I grant that it is possible to call Jesus a good moral teacher and also call him a liar or lunatic.

In other words, you grant that the trilemma is faulty on its face, regardless of its exhaustiveness or not.</strong>

Seems we're going around in circles. All I can do is redirect you to what I've already said. His target audience is those that affirm that Christ is a great moral teacher but don't recognize that when they deny he is God they call this "great moral teacher" either a liar or lunatic. Can you call him a liar and a great moral teacher? Sure. But who do you know that does that? I have yet to meet such a person. Maybe some exist, but again, this is not the target of Lewis's statement.

As to bd's view, I suppose we could just ask him, but I did remember that he did offer some commentary somewhere, and I was able to find it. From:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=14&t=000275&p=" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=14&t=000275&p=</a>

Here are some of bd's comments on Lewis:

As to Lewis, he was one of the most logical writers I have ever read. I don't have a copy of Mere Christianity handy, but I would give good odds that he did not contradict himself on this point. But I could be convinced otherwise if you can cite an appropriate quotation from the book. (Note that, as an agnostic and most definitely a disbeliever in Christianity, I am not a "fan" of Lewis in the sense of agreeing him on most things. But I love his lucid, logical style, and I think that his critique of subjectivist morality is brilliant.)

BD cites Lewis approvingly throughout the thread.

Pomp · 03-20-2002, 09:52 AM

Jon Curry,

I said:

Quote:

Lewis' argument fails to make a case convincing enough to establish his conclusion, because the notion that a man could be the incarnation of a god is more incredible than the notion that a man could lie or be a "lunatic" and still make valid moral statements.

You replied:

Lewis's conclusion is that it is inconsistent to call Jesus a good moral teacher and also believe that Jesus is not God unless you also recognize that he was a liar or a lunatic.

Or mistaken...or speaking allegorically...and so forth.

He's not trying to show that Jesus is in fact God.

Excuse me, but bull. His clear intent with the trilemma is to encourage his target audience to believe that Jesus was god.

Lewis never in this paragraph claims that Jesus is not a liar or a lunatic. He very well could be. He is either God or he is a liar or lunatic (if you accept that the gospels record accurate history). He is merely pointing out an inconsistency in the thinking of some people.

Emphasis added.

I have no idea which specific paragraph you are talking about. Nitpicking aside, Lewis simply does not make a strong case. He fails even to make the weaker point you claim he was trying to make, as he does not demonstrate that his three possibilities are exhaustive. Even granting him that point, he obviously intends the reader to agree with him that no one could be a "great moral teacher" and simultaneously be a lair or a lunatic and he encourages this conclusion with loaded language, not reason. It's a apologetic tool, not a serious argument. No one who does not have a prior inclination toward the Jesus-as-god scenario is going to take it seriously.

MadMordigan · 03-20-2002, 09:55 AM

His target audience is those that affirm that Christ is a great moral teacher but don't recognize that when they deny he is God they call this "great moral teacher" either a liar or lunatic.

I see, so its ok to have a faulty arguement if your target audience can't see it? What is this, relativalistic logic?

Can you call him a liar and a great moral teacher? Sure.

This is precisely OPPOSITE to what Lewis says. He specifically states that one cannot do this.

Vorkosigan · 03-20-2002, 01:41 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jon Curry:
His target audience is those that affirm that Christ is a great moral teacher but don't recognize that when they deny he is God they call this "great moral teacher" either a liar or lunatic. Can you call him a liar and a great moral teacher? Sure. But who do you know that does that? I have yet to meet such a person

That's because that audience doesn't believe he is a liar. They also don't believe he is god. There exist other alternatives; like, for example, Jesus sincerely believed that he was the messiah and thought he would rise, but was mistaken, or that everyone simply misunderstood what he was saying.

That is why it is so hard for me to take Lewis seriously as a thinker. He uses fallacious reasoning, as I have outlined above, and fails to examine alternatives anyone could dream up in two seconds.

(Note that, as an agnostic and most definitely a disbeliever in Christianity, I am not a "fan" of Lewis in the sense of agreeing him on most things. But I love his lucid, logical style, and I think that his critique of subjectivist morality is brilliant.)

Good god! Well, that's what I get for asking. I wonder which book BD is referring to.

On the other hand, Lewis' style is apparently clear and logical, and easy to fall in love with. I like it too.

Well, first of all, these statements are different. Lewis says that "a man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said" (translation - A man that claims to be God but in fact is not) "would not be a good moral teacher."

But Lewis only gives us three out of the possible choices -- Jesus is either god, nuts or lying. Note that phrase "merely a man." It hinges on that word "merely." If Lewis really was a flexibly-minded as the way you read it, why didn't he use a more nuetral word like "not?" Lewis premise here assumes the position that Jesus is either both human and divine[/i] or he is not. What a coincidence that the "both human and divine" position is that of the Christian Church!

It doesn't follow that a man that is divine will be a great moral teacher.

Thanks. It's good to know you think the Trilemma is false on its face. I made this exact argument above. Lewis never recognizes this possibility at all .

The conclusion just doesn't follow from the premises, as you recognize. Show me how it is that Lewis actually draws these conclusions from these premises.

Lewis clearly draws this conclusion:

"But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."

Jon, what about He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. isn't clear to you?

I ask this because this is on thousands of Xtian websites around the web as a devastating proof of Jesus being god using the Trilemma. Everyone else, Jon, reads it the way I do, and the way Lewis intended.

I find it somewhat ironic that after you accused me of being unable to read, I have to perform an exegesis of this simple passage for you.

Michael

MadMordigan · 03-20-2002, 02:56 PM

Don't act like this is directed to the skeptic. I said before that it was directed to wishy washy Christians, but really it is directed to a sub group of non-Christians.

An example of the No True Apologist fallacy.

luvluv · 03-21-2002, 05:07 PM

"To coercively interfere with someone's freedom to do evil either is or is not morally right. Either way, it is the same whether I do it, a police officer does it, or a god does it. This presents a dilemma. If coercively interfering with someone's ability to do evil is morally good, then god fails to do a moral good, and is thus not omnibenevolent. If it is morally wrong, then our governments and law-enforcement are guilty of a vast moral wrong."

Governments and law-enforcement interfere to stop people from doing things that are ILLEGAL, not evil. You are asking God to stop us from doing EVIL. Would you be supportive of a government or a law-enforcement body which incarcerated people for cursing, lying, masterbating, looking at dirty magazines, being envious, materialistic, greedy, etc...

Of course the ability to do these things does not constitute freedom, but to have someone coercively prevent you from doing all of these things would be so restrictive as to constitute slavery. If you don't think the folks in countries like Iraq under Wahabism are less free then we are, then I suggest you spend some time over there. They arrest people for not saying their prayers and for public dancing. That is what happens when you try to stop people from doing all evil, as opposed to trying to stop people from doing what is illegal. I would not support any society which tried to stop their citizens from doing every thing that God considers evil, because it would be unenforcable and it would end in tyranny. Governments only stop enough evil activity to allow society to function. The answer to your "either=or" argument is that it is not at all so cut and dry. The government is certainly justified in stopping evil up to a point, beyond that point it is unable and unqualified to stop it. That is when government becomes a theocracy.

And I still say that REAL love is impossible unless it is freely given by it's participants. You are asking God Almighty to be satisfied with a relationship that you yourself would not be satisfied with. If you could replace your wife with a creature who was pre-programed to love you, who had no choice in the matter, would you do it? If you could give your children a drug which would take away their ability to do evil, would you do it?

What I don't think you're getting is that moral freedom is the grounds for REAL LOVE as well as REAL EVIL. NEITHER is possible without moral freedom. You CANNOT really love someone, unless you have a choice in the matter. You might consider good in the Confucist manner ("Do NOT do unto others as you would NOT have them do unto you), but to fulfill the Christian ethic (DO unto others, as you would have them DO unto you) it would require LOVE. The Bible tells us that it is sin not to help a person in need. How can you compel someone to help everyone who is in need and not have them be a slave? The greatest experessions of love, that of self-sacrifice, giving, commitment... these are impossible without real freedom. Not only would God never experience real love, but we also would be deprived of it. By removing the potential for evil, you would also have removed the possibility for good.

All of the real freedoms we have are moral freedoms. I don't understand. Can you paint me a picture of a free man who has no moral freedom. If you could be such a person, would you?

As to the parent analogy, it of course does not totally track because the job of God is different from the job of a parent. Whatever God is up to must require that he take a laissez-faire approach to the everyday choices of His children. I can also tell you that in your assumption that free will is unnecessary to do good, you are neglecting the Bible's central virtue... that of faith. Faith, perhaps more properly translated as Trust, is not possible without free will. And it is this trust in God which is held to be the supreme virtue in Christianity. I as a Christian can tell you of the extreme benefits of the virtue of trust... the peace it brings. It is not an arbitrary or imagined virtue, it is the essence of what real relationships are built on. And Trust is meaningless without a choice.

I think God's intention is to populate the universe with free beings to whom he can give love and from whom He can recieve love, and who can give and recieve love from each other. IT IS NOT HIS PRIMARY PURPOSE TO RID THE UNIVERSE OF EVIL. I think that is the category mistake that a lot of you folks are making. I think His primary purpose is to give to those who will take it the opportunity to share in His love and to share the love of others. THE PRESENCE OF LOVE IS BETTER THAN THE ABSENCE OF EVIL. I think that is the point of the Gospel of Christ, and the point of existence.

As to all of this stuff about the Trilema... Folks it's a waste of time. This is ABSOLUTELY NOT what the book is about.

03-20-2002, 07:46 AM	#42
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	turton:Lewis' is working another one of his fallacious "If A, then B, we have B, so A must be true" arguments. He loves this argument form, because it seems deep, even though it is stupid. It runs: 1. If Jesus were divine, he'd be a great moral teacher. 2. Jesus is a great moral teacher. CON: Therefore he is Divine. Curry: I defy you to show me from Lewis' statements that he makes this argument you attribute to him. Well, Jon, what does Lewis say? I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic-on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg--or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. So the question arises: how is A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. different from: 1. If Jesus were divine, he'd be a great moral teacher. I realize that the statement is in the negative form and thus, harder to spot. What Lewis says is: if he wasn't god, he wouldn't be a great moral teacher. Lewis' argument that Jesus is a great moral teacher is made implicitly several times in that paragraph. With rhetorical exaggeration: -- or else he would be the Devil of Hell and implied in the first sentence where Lewis says it is foolish to consider Jesus only a great moral teacher, which of course means that Lewis thinks he is a great moral teacher. The conclusion is obvious from the premises Lewis thusly establishes. Further, as if any more proof were needed, Lewis uses this same argument in the problem of pain. It is originally from GK Chesterton, I believe, another sly apologist, though one much wiser and wittier than Lewis. See The Everlasting Man. You only damage your own credibility with these type of statements. And given your inability to read demonstrated by you attributing to Lewis an argument he never made, I really don't think you're competent to say this. You mean, YOU missed the argument, and assumed it was ME who must be stupid. Hear that flapping sound? It's the corvus you're about to eat. Do you think any Christians are smart? I assume you don't. People are idiots by virtue of being Christians. No, causation runs the other way. Oh, quit handing me straight lines. Of course I don't think people are idiots for being Christians. In the other thread, I referenced two websites of Xtian philosophy, and several Christian philosophers who I considered much brighter than CS Lewis. See the post <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000067&p=2" target="_blank">4/5 of the way down here</a>. In fact, in that same thread I mentioned 3 theists who frequent Infidels whom I thought were probably superior to Lewis in their thinking. This only reveals your own lack of objectivity. Or your overheated imagination crediting me with positions I do not hold. Some Christians are smart. Others are not. Yes, and I classify Lewis with the "others are not." Ask bd-from-kg (who in my opinion is one of the smartest agnostics on these boards) whether Lewis is a "pompous lightweight." Please do. I'd be curious to see his answer. Michael

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

03-20-2002, 09:10 AM	#44
MadMordigan Beloved Deceased Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 2,704	I grant that it is possible to call Jesus a good moral teacher and also call him a liar or lunatic. In other words, you grant that the trilemma is faulty on its face, regardless of its exhaustiveness or not.

03-20-2002, 09:55 AM	#47
MadMordigan Beloved Deceased Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 2,704	His target audience is those that affirm that Christ is a great moral teacher but don't recognize that when they deny he is God they call this "great moral teacher" either a liar or lunatic. I see, so its ok to have a faulty arguement if your target audience can't see it? What is this, relativalistic logic? Can you call him a liar and a great moral teacher? Sure. This is precisely OPPOSITE to what Lewis says. He specifically states that one cannot do this.

03-20-2002, 01:41 PM	#48
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jon Curry: His target audience is those that affirm that Christ is a great moral teacher but don't recognize that when they deny he is God they call this "great moral teacher" either a liar or lunatic. Can you call him a liar and a great moral teacher? Sure. But who do you know that does that? I have yet to meet such a person That's because that audience doesn't believe he is a liar. They also don't believe he is god. There exist other alternatives; like, for example, Jesus sincerely believed that he was the messiah and thought he would rise, but was mistaken, or that everyone simply misunderstood what he was saying. That is why it is so hard for me to take Lewis seriously as a thinker. He uses fallacious reasoning, as I have outlined above, and fails to examine alternatives anyone could dream up in two seconds. (Note that, as an agnostic and most definitely a disbeliever in Christianity, I am not a "fan" of Lewis in the sense of agreeing him on most things. But I love his lucid, logical style, and I think that his critique of subjectivist morality is brilliant.) Good god! Well, that's what I get for asking. I wonder which book BD is referring to. On the other hand, Lewis' style is apparently clear and logical, and easy to fall in love with. I like it too. Well, first of all, these statements are different. Lewis says that "a man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said" (translation - A man that claims to be God but in fact is not) "would not be a good moral teacher." But Lewis only gives us three out of the possible choices -- Jesus is either god, nuts or lying. Note that phrase "merely a man." It hinges on that word "merely." If Lewis really was a flexibly-minded as the way you read it, why didn't he use a more nuetral word like "not?" Lewis premise here assumes the position that Jesus is either both human and divine[/i] or he is not. What a coincidence that the "both human and divine" position is that of the Christian Church! It doesn't follow that a man that is divine will be a great moral teacher. Thanks. It's good to know you think the Trilemma is false on its face. I made this exact argument above. Lewis never recognizes this possibility at all . The conclusion just doesn't follow from the premises, as you recognize. Show me how it is that Lewis actually draws these conclusions from these premises. Lewis clearly draws this conclusion: "But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." Jon, what about He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. isn't clear to you? I ask this because this is on thousands of Xtian websites around the web as a devastating proof of Jesus being god using the Trilemma. Everyone else, Jon, reads it the way I do, and the way Lewis intended. I find it somewhat ironic that after you accused me of being unable to read, I have to perform an exegesis of this simple passage for you. Michael

03-20-2002, 02:56 PM	#49
MadMordigan Beloved Deceased Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 2,704	Don't act like this is directed to the skeptic. I said before that it was directed to wishy washy Christians, but really it is directed to a sub group of non-Christians. An example of the No True Apologist fallacy.

03-21-2002, 05:07 PM	#50
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	"To coercively interfere with someone's freedom to do evil either is or is not morally right. Either way, it is the same whether I do it, a police officer does it, or a god does it. This presents a dilemma. If coercively interfering with someone's ability to do evil is morally good, then god fails to do a moral good, and is thus not omnibenevolent. If it is morally wrong, then our governments and law-enforcement are guilty of a vast moral wrong." Governments and law-enforcement interfere to stop people from doing things that are ILLEGAL, not evil. You are asking God to stop us from doing EVIL. Would you be supportive of a government or a law-enforcement body which incarcerated people for cursing, lying, masterbating, looking at dirty magazines, being envious, materialistic, greedy, etc... Of course the ability to do these things does not constitute freedom, but to have someone coercively prevent you from doing all of these things would be so restrictive as to constitute slavery. If you don't think the folks in countries like Iraq under Wahabism are less free then we are, then I suggest you spend some time over there. They arrest people for not saying their prayers and for public dancing. That is what happens when you try to stop people from doing all evil, as opposed to trying to stop people from doing what is illegal. I would not support any society which tried to stop their citizens from doing every thing that God considers evil, because it would be unenforcable and it would end in tyranny. Governments only stop enough evil activity to allow society to function. The answer to your "either=or" argument is that it is not at all so cut and dry. The government is certainly justified in stopping evil up to a point, beyond that point it is unable and unqualified to stop it. That is when government becomes a theocracy. And I still say that REAL love is impossible unless it is freely given by it's participants. You are asking God Almighty to be satisfied with a relationship that you yourself would not be satisfied with. If you could replace your wife with a creature who was pre-programed to love you, who had no choice in the matter, would you do it? If you could give your children a drug which would take away their ability to do evil, would you do it? What I don't think you're getting is that moral freedom is the grounds for REAL LOVE as well as REAL EVIL. NEITHER is possible without moral freedom. You CANNOT really love someone, unless you have a choice in the matter. You might consider good in the Confucist manner ("Do NOT do unto others as you would NOT have them do unto you), but to fulfill the Christian ethic (DO unto others, as you would have them DO unto you) it would require LOVE. The Bible tells us that it is sin not to help a person in need. How can you compel someone to help everyone who is in need and not have them be a slave? The greatest experessions of love, that of self-sacrifice, giving, commitment... these are impossible without real freedom. Not only would God never experience real love, but we also would be deprived of it. By removing the potential for evil, you would also have removed the possibility for good. All of the real freedoms we have are moral freedoms. I don't understand. Can you paint me a picture of a free man who has no moral freedom. If you could be such a person, would you? As to the parent analogy, it of course does not totally track because the job of God is different from the job of a parent. Whatever God is up to must require that he take a laissez-faire approach to the everyday choices of His children. I can also tell you that in your assumption that free will is unnecessary to do good, you are neglecting the Bible's central virtue... that of faith. Faith, perhaps more properly translated as Trust, is not possible without free will. And it is this trust in God which is held to be the supreme virtue in Christianity. I as a Christian can tell you of the extreme benefits of the virtue of trust... the peace it brings. It is not an arbitrary or imagined virtue, it is the essence of what real relationships are built on. And Trust is meaningless without a choice. I think God's intention is to populate the universe with free beings to whom he can give love and from whom He can recieve love, and who can give and recieve love from each other. IT IS NOT HIS PRIMARY PURPOSE TO RID THE UNIVERSE OF EVIL. I think that is the category mistake that a lot of you folks are making. I think His primary purpose is to give to those who will take it the opportunity to share in His love and to share the love of others. THE PRESENCE OF LOVE IS BETTER THAN THE ABSENCE OF EVIL. I think that is the point of the Gospel of Christ, and the point of existence. As to all of this stuff about the Trilema... Folks it's a waste of time. This is ABSOLUTELY NOT what the book is about.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.