Rhea

Christian, it _is_ curious how we don't seem to be talking about the same thing. I'll try to discuss where I don't understand your answers..

(What do you mean by speculating?)


Yes. You call this nonessential. Why? Maybe our discourse is painfully simple.
"Why do bad things happen"
"because of bad moral agents"
"Why doesn't god get rid of them?"

Not relevant. I only discussing how it is compatible with heaven.

I don't mean always. You are assuming a mid-argument and then saying that by not spelling it out that it proves your point. Verily, it leaves me baffled. Let me put in the mid-argument. See if you argree to its existence.
-We have free will on earth
-Without Free will, nobody would make a bad choice.
-Therefore it is the presence of free will that permits SOME people to make bad choices SOMETIMES resulting in pain and suffering.

Why are you saying that my argument that "all people are all bad all the time" is false? No kidding. I never said that. Of course it is easy to knock down that statement. It's patently false. But it does show that you need to SLOW DOWN and read what I'm writing, don't start formulating your answer until you finish reading. Didn't it strike you as mind-numbingly stupid for me to suggest that every act of free will always resulted in an act of evil? Do I seem mind-numbingly stupid?

(so the bob & joe example is pointless. It is answering an argument that was not presented to you. I'll just skip over it.)
Yes you are being simplistic. Back up, if necessary.

- Do bad things happen in heaven ? Yes or no? Do people suffer in heaven? From rape or disease or gossip or meanness? The way they do on earth?
- Our discussion is only relevant if your answer is "no". If you say that everything bad that can happen on earth can also happen in heaven then we don't have opposing views to debate. This discussion is predicated on the fact that something different happens in heaven than on earth. Some posters here have said that earth IS heaven, in which case we'd have nothing to debate .

. No, it's not the opposite. It is _exactly_ what I said. Free will will sometimes result in good, sometimes in bad. The presence of good decisions does not negate the bad decisions, just as you went to great length to say that bad did not negate good. Final analysis, "bad happens". Sometimes. The fact that it happens AT ALL is what we're discussing.

Bingo. Hence my question. Why is God incapable of designing such a being?

So God _is_ capable of designing such a being. He just didn't feel like equipping all of us with that option.

(Although I will dispute that God and Jesus never did evil. I think drowning babies is pretty evil. You don't? Unless you don't think the Noah incident ever happened at all, ever drowning even a single plant, animal or baby.)

make that "sometimes" and make that "creature we were made to be.

What the hell is the hold-up? You mean god DOES know how to make people perfect, eliminating suffering and he, what, he's waiting for Hillary Clinton to make President before he rolls out the new version?


What kind of designer knows how to build this model and doesn't? Would we humans accept this in a manufacturer? A road builder? An architect? A tobacco company? (well, that one...)

Is that what kind of God you worship?

And, off-topic, what a dodo if he thinks that people ought to believe in him and then he pulls stuff like this that he knows will lead to unbelief.


If he were on my engineering staff, I'd fire him.

Rhea

Radorth, I use the toddler analogy because according to what I know of religious doctrine, that relationship is closer to approximating the difference between a God and a Human.

You disagree? You think you're as close to a god as a teen is to an adult?

Rhea

No it doesn't halp your case.

1. I do not control what he eats. I control what are the choices from which he can choose. Anything good.
2. You're right, he is not a free agent. I am saying that free agency is not required for happines. Thank you.
3. You have plans to leave God's house?
4. Are teens happier than toddlers? Why is the ability to desire free agency good? Only because god designed us to want it. Why did he do that?

Rhea

A thought occurs to me, Radorth.

You seem to be saying that no person can be happy unless they know they have the ability to do something bad. Are you saying that all children should be shown how fun drugs are? Just so they can be free agents deciding against it? That all teens should be shown how much money they could make by theft so that they can shun it?

If I had the capability to make him NOT DESIRE s ex until he was emotionally prepared to make a "good" decision, then I would apply that filter.

I apply that filter to my kids now. I don't put out tiny toys and tell my 10mo to stay away from them. I don't just take them from her hand when she grabs them. I keep them out of her sight. She doesn't have some instinctual knowledge that 1/4-20 screws exist and her life is meaningless without them. She's a free agent who does not desire mouthing 1/4-20 screws because they are not one of her choices. Just like the 3yo who has no burning desire for bubble gum because he has no idea what it is.

If I were GOD and I were actually all-powerful, would it really be a trick to keep the hormones from raging until the social development is complete? God apparently tied carnal desire to puberty pretty well. You don't see a lot of toddlers trying to fornicate. They just don't have the desire to make that choice. How come he picked puberty? Why not something more likely to avoid suffering like, say marriage?

This is what I mean by having choices between good things yet still being a free agent.

Christian

Rhea,

My last post was only addressing our discussion of point #1 (which apparantly you intended as a more narrow question than I understood it be). I think when I answer the rest some of the confusion will clear up.

I mean that I have definite opinions on this topic, but that I see it as a very debatable issue and I hold my position on it lightly. I might well be wrong.

In Christian theology there are "essential" issues and "nonessential" issues. For example, whether or not Christ died on the cross for our sins is an essential issue. That's a core and required doctrine. If you don't accept that one, what you have is something fundamentially different than Christianity. Whether you baptize people by dunking them in water or sprinkling it over their heads is a nonessential issue. Both views on that issue are historically orthodox positions for Christianity.

I think that the whole free will issue is a nonessential one. I personally don't think free will is an adequate answer to the problem of pain and suffering in the world. Other Christians think it is. It's not an issue to divide over .... there are several answers which are utterly Chrsitian in nature.

I don't know, but I trust Him to know what He is doing, and I believe that all of this pain and suffering in the world is in fact necessary. One day I will know why, but perhaps not on this earth.

My trust in Him on this matter is greatly enhanced by the central event in redemptive history ... the incarnation, death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. If God had simply left it at creating a universe filled with pain and suffering, I would find it more difficult to trust Him. But He went far beyond that ... He didn't just create a world where human frailty takes place, He thought it necessary to actually become a human and experience those frailties first hand. He didn't just create a world with lots of pain takes place, He thought it necessary to go through torture and execution in one of the most cruel ways ever devised by man. He didn't just create a world where humans feel the pain of rejection, He thought it necessary to be rejected and even betrayed by His closest friends. And so forth and so on ... God the Son experienced first hand the very worst of the problems in this world. However bad you think you have it, Jesus had it worse.

In my opinion, the answer to pain and suffering is not free will (for reasons you seem to agree with). The answer to pain and suffering isn't any philosophical argument, it's not any logically airtight case. No piece of philosophy or science or logic would ever be an adequate answer for pain and suffering. That's barking up the wrong tree. Pain and suffering are very personal problems, when they hit you in the face most people at the time really don't give a hoot about any air tight argument. A personal problem requires a personal solution ... the answer to pain and suffering isn't a bunch of words, it a Person. Jesus is the answer in the most literal sense. He is the best possible friend to help you get through such situations. He's been there, He cares (more deeply than you do even.) He doesn't just have the solution ... He IS the solution.

OK. That was not clear from your initial 6 statements.

Fair enough.

I realize you were not saying that 'all people are all bad all the time.' I thought you were saying that free will always results in some evil, but apparantly you were not.

To the best of my understanding, no. Nothing "shameful or deceitful" will ever happen there and "nothing impure will ever enter it." "No longer will there be any curse," meaning that all the bad things which resulted from the Fall will be reversed. That sounds a lot like "no bad things happen" to me.

No.

God is capable of designing such a being, IMHO. God can't do self contradictions (such as lying, since He is by nature truth), but I personally don't see any self contradictions in such a being.

It was better for Him not to, although I don't entirely understand why. But for some reason redemption is a better plan than perfection from the get go.

RO 8:18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

RO 8:22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? 25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

I believe that the Noah incident really happened as recorded in Genesis, and that all people except those on the boat drown. It was a just punishment for the evil of all those people. As far as the babies, many theologians believe that babies who die go to heaven. I don't think scripture tells us enough to be certain on the issue, but if that is the case then this event was an act of mercy on their behalf. In any case, God knows all the facts and what He did was just. (Of course it would be abhorrent for any fallable human to kill a baby in the hopes that it would go to heaven. God is equipped to make calls that are impossible for us to make accurately, even if we had a right to.)

Hmmmm ... how about "creature we were made to currently be. We are a somewhat different sort of creature than Adam and Eve were initially, and we will be a different sort of creature in the future.

I don't know what the hold up is. But God has gone to great pains to indicate to us that it is a necessary hold up. And I believe Him.

God is infinitely more intelligent and wiser than we are. It is not suprising that He does things which we simply can't or don't understand, especially as we are now. If there were strait answers to all of our questions about God I would suspect that He is merely a human invention, or that if He did exist He isn't all that impressive. But if God really is greater than us in all positive attributes we would expect Him to be up to some things that we can't comprehend at the moment.

And He has given us some dramatic examples of how good can result from pain and suffering. The Cross for example ... the most horrible event in history is also the most glorious and beneficial.

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

Rhea,

On question #2

God has that power. He has chosen not to design such a universe. I admit to trusting that God knows what He is doing in this area.

Also, you suggest that eliminating bad options is the answer. I disagree. A creature who could choose the wrong and yet always chooses the right would be a much more nobel thing than a creature who is constrained to right choices. I hold that heaven will be populated with the former.

On question #3

I agree that is a true statement. Your original question implied that the whole point of Christianity is making it to heaven. Personally, I would dispute that claim. In fact heaven wasn't even revealed in clear terms as being part of the deal until the New Testament, and even then the information given is extremely limited. Heaven is certainly one reason to become a Christian, but it's not the main one in my opinion. For example, the fact that I believe I've actually stumbled into something that is objectively true is more important to me personally than the fact that I'll be made perfect and be really happy and fullfilled at some point in the future. Perhaps I was reading too much into your statement.

On question #4

In my opinion, human souls in heaven have the ability to make bad choices. But bad choices do not actually happen in heaven, because the human souls there have the ability and the desire to make a morally good choice every single time.

There is certainly more than one argument which the Christian conversionist can take.

Personally I would point to eternal purpose and meaning and fullfillment more than to eternal happiness (it's not as if we'll be constantly giddy in heaven), but I agree that eternal life with God is eternal happiness.

That's a philosophical argument (one never made in the Bible) that I personally have never quite bought in to. You can definitely be a Christian without buying into this argument.

By definition, yes.

I think that being a moral agent is preferable to being a robot, yes.

I suggest that it is possible to have free moral agents (not mechanistic, like robots who do not think or act or choose on their own. That IS what you mean by 'robots', right?) that could choose evil and yet always choose good. A, C, and D are compatable if we will become creatures who have the option of choosing evil and yet the desire and the ability to always choose good.

You should talk to more Christians. There is a diversity of thought on many nonessential issues in the Christian community. Being a Christian is about knowing (in a relational sense) the living Christ, not about thinking and saying precisely the same things.

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

Disregard this post ...

Christian

Philosoft,

On question #1:

Hmmm. Point granted.

On question #2:

OK, not necessarily true. But choosing right over wrong is more noble than being contrained to right choices.

I was disputing the most appropriate object of the future benefit analysis (restored relationship with God rather than getting to go to heaven.) I won't complain about any reason that inspires a person to sincerely give their lives to Christ, I just personally think that there are better reasons than the promise of heaven.

On question #4:

I assert that people in the eternal state will have the ability to choose bad things but will in practice always choose good things. That is the sort of creatures that Christians are being changed into.

On question #5:

I afraid I still don't understand. If someone makes all good meaningful free will decisions (because they choose to, not because they must or because they are only presented with good options) then they are going to pretty happy.

What's the problem?

On question #6:

Perhaps I'm reading things into the word "robot" (from my free will type debates with other Christians) that you are not. My understanding of the word robot (as in it is better to have free will than to be a robot) is that the word implies a mechanistic sovereignty imposed on people by God. As in God more or less "possessing" us and making all of our choices and actions for us, in mechanistic fashion. God has made all of our choices for us and therefore our choices are meaningless, in fact our own identity would be meaningless. That is what Christians often mean, in my experience, when they use the word "robot" in a free will sort of debate. "Puppet" is often another Christian code word for "mechanistic." I'm not very experienced at debating atheists, so maybe it's different here.

What I was saying is that we will still have free will (as I have defined it) in heaven. Choices, accountability, volition, personality ... all those things or core to the very attitude of scripture. What we do know about heaven (the parable of Lazarus, various statements by Paul, Rev 21) suggest meaningful work is taking place. Much of the language about heaven is symbolic, but heaven is described as a place that is very meaningful (full of purpose and action). God never hints in scripture, that I can find, that He is going to switch to a mechanistic system in the future.

It goes against the entire "taste" of what scripture does say on the topic, IMHO.

Respectfully,

Christian

Philosoft

It's rather disturbing to think God would elevate nobility over reduced suffering, isn't it? In any case, I still think this smacks of circumstantial argumentation - if we were robots, we wouldn't decry the lack of nobility inherent in our situation unless we were "programmed" to.

I would hope there are morally better reasons but, call me a cynic, I strongly suspect those that believe in an eternal soul are inordinately fixated on the final destination of that soul, for better or worse.

I do not understand how you reconcile "ability" and "practice." If the a priori probability of a state-of-affairs obtaining is zero, it doesn't seem meaningful to speak of an ability to bring said SOA about. People sometimes attempt to make a distinction between an external reason (God supernaturally prevents an SOA from obtaining) and an internal reason (an individual's nature prevents an SOA from obtaining); the former presumably is a violation of free-will whereas the latter allegedly is not. However, when applied to the nature of evil, if both options result in a zero probability of an evil decision being made, the notion that heavenly free will entails an ability to choose evil seems absurd.

Either free will entails the ability to make bad decisions or it does not. Your argument presupposes the former. If it is true now that, in heaven, people will choose only good options, this entails a lack of ability to choose bad options - a a priori probability of zero. This seems indistinguishable from determinism.
Fair enough. I can at least accept your basic idea of heaven as consistent with your idea of God. I do, however, dispute that meaningful free will exists in heaven.

Christian

Philosoft

I don't understand why you think that.

Consider the case of a single choice. Most people agree that murder is morally bad, so let's say that I am tempted to murder someone but I choose not to. Does my choice not to murder entail a lack of ability to choose a bad option (to commit the murder)? No, it doesn't. It means that I had a choice between good and evil and I chose good.

Why would it be any different with a series of good choices? If I make 2 good choices in a row, does that entail a lack of ability to choose bad options? How about 5 good choices in a row, or 20? At what point do you believe that the making of good choices would start to entail a lack of ability to choose bad options?

It seems to me that if a bad option is available, and if there is no constraint preventing me from making that bad choice that I "have an ability to choose bad options." Does that meet your definition of "ability?"

What I am suggesting is that in heaven bad options are available (satan fell because he made a bad choice while in heaven), that there are no constraints imposed which prevent people from chosing those bad options, but that people there will aways make good choices because at that time we will have been transformed into creatures who have both the desire and the ability to always choose the good. What element of the situation I'm describing do you see as impossible?

Why do you claim that making only good choices must entail a lack of ability to choose bad options? Why so?

Respectfully,

Christian