The Christianity Thread

[DeadChannel]

Okay, this is from another thread but I'll repost it. Cheers:

Originally Posted by mordwyr

Free will exists in Heaven, and the blessed choose, even in Heaven, to do and be good. It goes back to what I wrote earlier in this thread: getting to the point where what you need and what you want dovetail.

That's silly. If there is no hardship in heaven, then that necessarily means that people there are unable to choose the alternative, and thus have no choice at all.

But okay, I see a workaround. God could easily just change people's psyches or whatever so that they are incapable of sin. But then, if he is able to prevent people from sinning simply by making them better people, or any other device that would retain their free will, then your appeal to free will again is moot because this inherently implies that God is capable of preventing evil without infringing upon people's free will. See what I'm saying. To simplify:

1) God is capable of preventing evil in heaven without infringing on free will.
2) By virtue of his omnipotence, he ought to also be capable of preventing evil on earth without infringing upon free will.

Thus;

3) God does not need to infringe upon free will to prevent evil
4) The problem of evil persists, and God still necessarily consents to it

So, if your argument here is correct, then your argument earlier (appeal to free will) is invalid and God is still literally Hitler.

The Serpent didn't make Eve eat the fruit. Eve chose to do so. God is not responsible for us choosing to do evil. Just because He could stop us doesn't mean He is responsible. He respects us enough as free moral agents to not take away our free will.

Decisions don't happen in a vacuum. Perhaps the serpent didn't coerce eve into eating the apple, but there were certainly a set of conditions that caused her to make that choice. God would have been aware of those conditions, and still allowed them to take place. Therefore, God consented in Eve eating the apple.

But you're missing my overall point: the eve apple bit was just a rhetorical. The point is:

Why didn't God create eve in such a way that she wouldn't have eaten the apple the first place, or further:

Why did God create man in such a way that the tiniest shred of free will would result in atrocities? Why didn't he just do whatever he did to the people in heaven? And inb4 you cite The Fall of Man, I'm getting to it.

Read Job.

I'll make a point of it, but for now would you mind giving me the clift notes version, and how it relates to my argument?

The Fall of Man affected not only us but all creation. Hence, "all creation groans".

Firstly, the Fall of Man is a silly concept even outside of the context of this debate. To wit, doesn't it really only serve to prove The Problem of Evil right? After all, why would God continue to punish us thousands (millions, depending on how literally you take the bible, and I don't get the sense that you're a six-thousand year type) of years after eve? The Fall of Man certainly isn't my fault.

But okay, the bottom line is, whatever God's rationalisation for not preventing natural disasters is, be it The Fall of Man or anything else, God would still have to not prevent natural disasters. Which, if you think about it, is pretty messed up:

Now, The Fall of Man is God's punishment for Eve eating from the tree of knowledge. As a result of the Fall of Man, "all creation groans", which, in this context, means at least partially that natural disasters happen. By virtue of his omnipotence, that's actually a whole lot like saying this:

"Because Eve ate from the tree of knowledge, God punished man with natural disasters".

Now you've got a God on your hands that not only turns a blind eye to suffering and strife, he actively participates in it. I don't think this is the logical corridor that you want to go down.

You know, you could Google these questions and find immediate answers. There are plenty of apologetics that have dealt with these quite elementary questions.

I've read a little bit from a few of the major apologists, and I've never been terribly impressed. Also, most of the objections to this issue, the problem of evil specifically, tend to be particularly bad. We're talking about Free Will right now, but you don't even want to get into stuff like "God's just testing our faith". Let's not call these issues elementary -- philosophers on both sides far smarter than us have been debating this for hundreds of years.

Oh, by the way, I totally don't want to give the impression that I'm persecuting you or anything. I just genuinely enjoy arguing with people. So yeah.

*drops mic* (love you chula)

[Zhanteimi]

.

[DeadChannel]

Originally Posted by mordwyr

There is always choice. And the blessed choose to be good. The old is done away with; the blessed, living in sight of the Divinity itself, participate in a new reality where our conceptions and rules don't apply.

So, then, what is different about heaven that causes these people to not sin? It appears, from your response, that this factor is "living in sight of the Divinity itself". This is a factor like any other. Although, to be fair, it is a little vague.

Now we're at this point: on earth, man is inherently evil (or whatever turn of phrase you'd prefer), and therefore when given free will atrocities are bound to happen. Now, when in heaven, man "lives in sight of the divinity itself". Man's free will remains in tact, but he is suddenly good.

So, in order for your argument to hold up, you must demonstrate what factors prevent the people of earth from "living in sight of the Divinity itself". I mean, god is everywhere. Why not just show his face once in a while and stop world famine or whatever? He could totally do that, right?

Incorrect. Evil cannot be prevented without infringing upon free will since evil has come from choices we make, have made, and are making.

You're responding to the claim behind my argument, not the logic around it. You're also presenting a claim without building and logic to support it, so I'm not really sure how to respond other than restating my points:

If evil does not exist in heaven, but free will does, then what about the earth makes this combination impossible? Unless you can demonstrate the difference between heaven and earth in this case, your argument is a clear example of special pleading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

Because to do so would be to rob her of her free moral agency.

This implies that there is one inherent standard of goodness for humans. It implies that, if god were to make people better, he would be robbing them of their moral agency, and if god were to make people worse, he would be creating immoral monsters.

If making people good takes away their moral agency, and this moral agency is more important than goodness, the why wouldn't he make the human race a bunch of serial killer rapist nazis?

I don't think that you can honestly say that if God were to make Eve just good enough that she didn't listen to the snake, that then she would be robbed of "moral agency" in any meaningful way.

Further, you ignored part of my contention. Particularly, here you go:

Decisions don't happen in a vacuum. Perhaps the serpent didn't coerce eve into eating the apple, but there were certainly a set of conditions that caused her to make that choice. God would have been aware of those conditions, and still allowed them to take place. Therefore, God consented in Eve eating the apple.

To be good, we must have the choice to be evil.

So, basically, A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess? But no, seriously, obviously Hitler or whoever was responsible for his actions. But, even if God won't interfere with people internally, he still necessarily allows the material conditions that cause atrocities to happen.

To use an easier metaphor: Yes, Eve consciously made the decision to eat from the tree of knowledge. But God let the snake into the garden, and he knew what the results would be. Does that not make him as responsible along with Eve and the snake?

The Fall of Man is continuous. You have fallen; I have fallen. We are directly responsible. All of us.

Okay, but some event would have had to precipitate the start of this fall, right? Namely, Eve eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Could God not just pardon that event?

Even if that's not the case, and both Adam and Eve were flawed when the entered the Garden of Eden (which, fair enough, seem to be suggested by the fact that Eve eats that apple), and every human since has been equally flawed, why then did God go through the whole rigmarole of the garden in the first place? He knew what was going to happen, why fool around?

And, also, again, you've basically ignored the vast, vast majority of my contention to refute the easiest point. Here you go:

But okay, the bottom line is, whatever God's rationalisation for not preventing natural disasters is, be it The Fall of Man or anything else, God would still have to not prevent natural disasters. Which, if you think about it, is pretty messed up:

Now, The Fall of Man is God's punishment for Eve eating from the tree of knowledge. As a result of the Fall of Man, "all creation groans", which, in this context, means at least partially that natural disasters happen. By virtue of his omnipotence, that's actually a whole lot like saying this:

"Because Eve ate from the tree of knowledge, God punished man with natural disasters".

Now you've got a God on your hands that not only turns a blind eye to suffering and strife, he actively participates in it. I don't think this is the logical corridor that you want to go down.

Yeah, that "testing our faith" thing is lame. It shows a lack of understanding.

Okay, good, we agree on that.

I don't think and have never thought you were. The only problem is your continued denigrating and sarcastic comments of "that's silly"

I'm trying to be charitable, but I'm also calling a spade a spade. Some of these points are silly. I've made silly points in the past. It happens. But if you'd prefer if I were to avoid this word and those like it, I'll make an effort.

or "so if you think X, then clearly you think [insert ridiculous Y]."

I don't think I've done that. I've taken claims that you've stated, and taken them to their logical conclusions, but that's certainly not the same thing as putting words in your mouth. Often, things we say logically imply other things without even knowing it. Often, these things are vital the the structure of the argument being made. This is just a part of discourse. It's important.

All those comments do is show me that you're not actually interested in hearing what I have to say.

Firstly, I've been pretty damn nice. Secondly, please don't act like you haven't made these sorts of slights. The thing about my points being "elementary" and suggesting that I should just look up refutations from theologians, despite the fact that this a serious topic that has had people going at it for hundreds of years is easily as bad or worse than anything I've ever said or implied. I don't care either way, it's okay, but I don't think the high-horse is helping anyone.

You just want a debate, a way to pass the time, a way to exercise your mental muscles, a way to make yourself feel superior to me. And you are.

Yes, yes, yes, y... no. Not at all. I may think you're wrong on this specific topic (and you think I'm wrong as well), but I don't really know anything about you. But I do know that some of the smartest people I know are religious. I have an aunt with a legit PHD who is a pretty hardcore churchgoer. Does that mean that I agree with her on this topic? No, but I have hella respect for her.

And, anyway, you made the thread, so you must at least be getting some enjoyment out of it.

Toodles.

[Paul Smeenus]