He did create people with a healthy aversion to evil - Adam and Eve. But free will demands that the lover can be rejected by the one who is loved. Without the capability of saying “no” to God, there is no such thing as free will. Any other definition is inadequate.
Who on earth “freely” avoids temptation? We’re all capable of the worst sins. What differs one from the next is not some pre-determined immorality but the free choice to consent or not to consent to temptation when it comes knocking.I suggested that God could make everyone just like those people who see the temptations and freely avoid them. Admittedly, the world would be less “colorful” if only decent, loving, caring people would exist, but I sure would not miss the scoundrels, cheaters, robbers, liars, murderers, rapists, (also lawyers and politicians) etc… Would you?
You said the same thing with different words. God has no free will and cannot act against his nature - hence a robot.The Lord cannot lie, as light cannot cause darkness.
Evil is the absence of good, and whereas we have God to sustain US, even when we sin against Him; since He is goodness itself, He cannot be absent of Himself
According to the original poster along these lines “not loving God is immoral or a sin” and God commanded us to avoid sin. Maybe you could argue with her?
A robot has no concept of self. God is entirely Himself. He is His own subsistence. Whereas man cannot know all there is to know about himself, God knows Himself entirely, and thus acts without deliberation, without regret, without hesitancy. He is totally free, whereas the robot is totally enslaved to his programmer. A robot can certainly go against its own nature because it is corruptible. Ever see a computer go against its own nature and fail to compute? I have.
No-one can act against their nature, since nature is a term used to reflect existenceYou said the same thing with different words. God has no free will and cannot act against his nature - hence a robot.
.Do you underestimate God? I can speak for myself: I try to avoid even small evils when I can. This is the result of my upbringing. I was taught certain ways by my parents and that teaching became the basis of my personality. I could go against it, but I don’t want to. If human parents can do it, surely God can do it, too.
The choice is there, the inclination is absent. Sounds like a great solution to me.
That is your definition only. As long as there are at least two options and there is no coercion - we have freedom to choose. Whether they are significant or not is irrelevant.
There are two choices across all spectrum - truth and untruth. Truth is that which conforms to God. Untruth is that which turns away from God. Adam and Eve had the choice of listening to the serpent or ignoring it – BEFORE they were coerced. By listening to the serpent, they already exercised an uncoerced choice of turning away from God, and no one has the power to coerce unless the recipient gives it to him. God did not introduce the coercion nor compel them to listen to the serpent. As beings made in His image, they had to have a sense of self, and so a sense of “other”. Therefore, the first choice faced was “God” or “me”. In turning toward the serpent - merely to listen to him - Adam and Eve chose “me” over “God”, which quickly deteriorated to “Satan” over “God”.
This is too simplistic. The world is not black and white, it is loaded with shades of grey. There are many more choices than God and not-God. I understand that for you it is the most important choice, but that does not make all the other choices “disappear”, they are simply not as relevant - in your eyes.
God is perfectly simple. There are no choices in this world that don’t comprise either turning toward or turning away from God.
So when God knows a rape is going to happen…what should He do?
In my opinion? Smite the would-be-rapist… that would teach them a lesson
God has no free will?You said the same thing with different words. God has no free will and cannot act against his nature - hence a robot.
Let’s not go into side discussions.
Assuming that the immoral choice was truely availble to them, they are not robots.
He did. Each of us is capable if we freely and completely submit our will to his we will always choose the moral choice. Problem being that most of us want do it “our way”.
Agreed.
No, he did not. The ability is one thing; the desire is quite another. By the way, there are some intrinsically “evil” people (sociopaths) who only want to do harm to others. (They may even be physically ill, having some brain damage - though that is not really known).
And that is the lack of desire that I am speaking of. To instill desire is not force or coercion.
Actually, in this case I believe that ability and desire are very similar. I believe a rational person who is not impaired chooses immoral choices because they seem to satisfy their desire for good. What happens is their desire is distorted. Like if some pleasure is good, more is better. See what I mean?
Nor sure what you mean. I may desire to be able to float like a magic carpet, but have no ability to carry it out.
That is quite possible. But in these cases one may rely on “instinct” and if a correct “instinct” is installed, the choice will be the correct one.
Read Genesis. He did. Don’t forget that in Hebrew, “Adam” is both a proper name and a word for “mankind.”