God, moral good and free will

[Catholic_JW]

You are all missing the point. The reason that God does not give us perfect characters is because then he wouldn’t give us true free will which is the ability to reject him. Mary was not given a perfect character she developed it (and she was not perfect she was saved also by the mercy and grace of God). God cannot give is perfect characters because then he would not give us the free will he wanted to give us the TOTAL and complete free will to reject him. If he gave us perfect characters then he would not be omni-benevolent. Since God is essentially omni-benevolent then he would have to give us true and total free will. This argument is a distraction from God’s omni-benevolence by focusing on bad things instead of the real issue. Have a nice day.

 

[David_Castlen]

Does anyone know of any counter-argument to this?

God could have given people free will and a morally perfect nature (such as Mary’s), so that they can choose to do good or bad but always choose the good. Seeing as God has not, He has set it up that some people will sin and presumably also go to hell. Having created this tendency to induce eternal suffering, God is not good.

Is it possible, Bobber, that by giving people the ability to make a wrong choice that this “wrong choice” could lead to a much better life, more joy, more love, more communion with God? What do you think, Bobber?

 

[Bobber90]

Is it possible, Bobber, that by giving people the ability to make a wrong choice that this “wrong choice” could lead to a much better life, more joy, more love, more communion with God? What do you think, Bobber?

I think you mean one of several things, but I’m not sure which:

1. The potential to make a wrong choice is good.
2. Making wrong choices is good.

I agree with the first, but that is not incompatible with never sinning, and I think the second is very difficult, because it wipes out morality/justice on earth.

For example, we can think of an object suspended high in the air, fixed onto a quick-release device, as having substantial gravitational potential energy. This would be the human in front of God, with his or her free will. But it never has to actually drop (or sin) in order to ‘really have the potential’, if you see what I mean. We could have been created with the imagination of what it would be like to rebel - all the sin and horror - and the direct company of God to reassure us that we’re making the right decision to stay with Him.

 

[Bobber90]

You are all missing the point. The reason that God does not give us perfect characters is because then he wouldn’t give us true free will which is the ability to reject him. Mary was not given a perfect character she developed it (and she was not perfect she was saved also by the mercy and grace of God). God cannot give is perfect characters because then he would not give us the free will he wanted to give us the TOTAL and complete free will to reject him. If he gave us perfect characters then he would not be omni-benevolent. Since God is essentially omni-benevolent then he would have to give us true and total free will. This argument is a distraction from God’s omni-benevolence by focusing on bad things instead of the real issue. Have a nice day.

I think that free will is the ability to choose coupled with the ability to understand choice. I don’t think free will is merely the lack of constraints upon action, I think it is the ability to make choices for which there is reason. For example, it is less freedom of the will to suddenly decide to leap into the garden and eat a slug than it is uncontrolled will, in the sense that there is no reason to perform the action. Any action performed without some purpose, however apparently spurious, is not a free will action. You may disagree with this, obviously.

When we look at luficer’s rejection of God, we can say that there was no constraint which prevented him from doing so (qualifies it as free will?), but there was also no reason whatsoever for his doing it (qualifies is as uncontrolled will?).

When we think about the unrestricted decision of a person to love God, taking it to be true that God exists, do we give that free will decision value because it contrasts with an irrational, uncontrolled act of will? I think not, we give it value because it is the ability to choose coupled with reason to choose - the glory of God. So for one thing, I do not see the value of providing rejection. In human relationships it works because when we submit to one person (as in marriage), we deny real, worthy alternatives. But there is no real, worthy alternative to God, so no choice for God is strengthened by a rejection of non-God. I also believe that this conception of free will, one not tied to the necessary performance of evil, is the best way to understand free will in heaven. If you think free will is a demonstration of God’s benevolence, presumably free will exists in heaven? To deny that someone in heaven has free will is like saying that God is not omnipotent because he cannot arbitrarily murder people. It is against His nature to do so, just as it is against the nature of inherently good creatures (made in the image of God) to deny God once fully aware of Him. Yet they still have free will.

For another thing, I believe it would be much better to create beings in bliss than have some end up in hell. At least make it so that hell is not binding, and instead followed by purgatory. That is the challenge to God’s total benevolence.

 

[David_Castlen]

I think you mean one of several things, but I’m not sure which:

1. The potential to make a wrong choice is good.
2. Making wrong choices is good.

I agree with the first, but that is not incompatible with never sinning, and I think the second is very difficult, because it wipes out morality/justice on earth.

OK I think I understand you. You are saying making wrong choics is bad; bad “wipes out morality/ justice on earth”. I asked is there a possiblity that doing bad things (paraphrase) could lead us even closer to God? So, we have satisfied an issue that bad (sin) leads to immorality. But still yet, that does not answer the question, "Is it possible that sin (our act of sin) could lead us closer to God? The act. I am sorry if I have misunderstood your answer, can you elaborate as you did with the “potential Machine” example?
Thanks Bobber:thumbsup:

 

[William_of_Ware]

Does anyone know of any counter-argument to this?

God could have given people free will and a morally perfect nature (such as Mary’s), so that they can choose to do good or bad but always choose the good. Seeing as God has not, He has set it up that some people will sin and presumably also go to hell. Having created this tendency to induce eternal suffering, God is not good.

It is probably true that god could have made everyone sinless like Mary, but he chose not to. Does it follow that God is evil? Not all; God is not under any obligation to serve his creatures.

 

[Nimeniton]

It is probably true that god could have made everyone sinless like Mary, but he chose not to. Does it follow that God is evil? Not all; God is not under any obligation to serve his creatures.

This is identical to the argument that St Paul puts.

19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”[h] 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use? Romans 9:19-21

This , of course, reduces morality to a matter of ownership rather than compassion. St Paul, however, does have a precedent for using this argument.

• 20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.* Exodus 21: 20-21.

Here we see the same argument , if you have property rights then you can do what you like with any human you own. Exodus does draw the line at taking a life but the principle is obvious.

Still according to cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a003.html the church has moved away from the idea that people can be the property of others and that one can beat them like animals. This indicates that the church is moving to a higher morality that goes beyond, “We are stronger , therefore, we can do what we like.” In effect this is what St Paul is saying. He reduces God to an omnipotent thug to the effect that God’s morality is simply one of “Might makes right”.

William of Ware states that God is not under any obligation to serve his creatures (note the master / slave dichotomy here) and in effect reduces morality to a contract. No contract then no rights. But morality is not just an agreement between people as to how to behave towards each other but a recognition as to what is good and what is evil. If God is omnibenevolent then this puts God’s morality above that of ownership or the legalism of a contract.

 

[Catholic_JW]

Hey Bobber,

 Can you give me a little more detail and explanation about what you mean when you say the free will is the ability to choose coupled with the ability to understand choice?  Does that mean that we have to understand our choice or that we have to understand what choice is in general?  Does that also mean that we have to have a full understanding of all of the consequences of our decisions or just have an understanding that makes sense to us?
 Also what is the freedom of the will verses uncontrolled will?  You mentioned that no purpose equals no free will, is that just that there is no overall see-able purpose or just that there is no purpose to our immediate actions?  
 Finally you mentioned that in order for us to value something that it has to contrast with another worthy alternative, and since there is no worthy alternative to God then there is no value in choosing him.  Did I about sum that up right? Thanks for clarifying I want to make sure I understand all of your points in detail :thumbsup:

 

[William_of_Ware]

This is identical to the argument that St Paul puts.

19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”[h] 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use? Romans 9:19-21

This , of course, reduces morality to a matter of ownership rather than compassion. St Paul, however, does have a precedent for using this argument.

(you’re confused; the passage does not deal with ownership. The passage simply states that God bestows gifts unequally, sometime he gives more gifts to some (“pottery for special purposes”) than to others (pottery for common use).

Next time, pay attention to what you read.)

• 20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property*. Exodus 21: 20-21.
  (You’re confused or deliberately misunderstanding what you read.Where do you get off on the idea that the Pauline passage is based or somehow preceded by exodus 21?)

Here we see the same argument , (no, they are not even remotely related to each other. Nice bluff on your part, though )if you have property rights then you can do what you like with any human you own. (if you cannot kill a slave you cannot do anything you want.:doh2: ) Exodus does draw the line at taking a life but the principle is obvious.

Still according to cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a003.html the church has moved away from the idea that people can be the property of others and that one can beat them like animals. (This shows your complete ignorance of the catholic church. The catholic church has never said that you can have slaves like in the OT) This indicates that the church is moving to a higher morality that goes beyond (because an atheist will be the first to know what higher morality is ) , “We are stronger , therefore, we can do what we like.” In effect this is what St Paul is saying. He reduces God to an omnipotent thug to the effect that God’s morality is simply one of “Might makes right”.

(putting aside your incompetent reading of the bible, don’t you see that you’re anthropomorphizing God? come on, aren’t you an atheist? you should be better than that.
It is simple: show that God has an obligation towards his creatures and then you can say he’s evil, pretty straightforward, right?)

William of Ware states that God is not under any obligation to serve his creatures -](note the master / slave dichotomy here)/-](there’s no slave or master dichotomy here. after all god call us to be with him forever and to be his friend, but at the same time everything he gives he does it freely even though we’re not entitled to it. is that too hard for you to understand? and in effect reduces morality to a contract.(what contract? somehow I get the feeling I’ll get a kick out of it.) No contract then no rights. But morality is not just an agreement between people as to how to behave towards each other but a recognition as to what is good and what is evil. If God is omnibenevolent (you equivocate, God is good, but God is not morally good or bad. you’re missing the point of what I said previously.) then this puts God’s morality above that of ownership or the legalism of a contract.

let’s see how you will try to misunderstand what i wrote in this post.

 

[Nimeniton]

let’s see how you will try to misunderstand what i wrote in this post.

(you’re confused; the passage does not deal with ownership. The passage simply states that God bestows gifts unequally, sometime he gives more gifts to some (“pottery for special purposes”) than to others (pottery for common use).

Next time, pay attention to what you read.)

Thank you for your advice. Would you say that the potter owns the pottery he makes? Ownership is implied.

 

[Nimeniton]

let’s see how you will try to misunderstand what i wrote in this post.

Here we see the same argument , (no, they are not even remotely related to each other. Nice bluff on your part, though )if you have property rights then you can do what you like with any human you own. (if you cannot kill a slave you cannot do anything you want. ) Exodus does draw the line at taking a life but the principle is obvious.

The last line of mine that follows your forehead slapping sentence clearly makes an allowance for an exception.

 

[Nimeniton]

let’s see how you will try to misunderstand what i wrote in this post.

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. Exodus 21: 20-21.
(You’re confused or deliberately misunderstanding what you read.Where do you get off on the idea that the Pauline passage is based or somehow preceded by exodus 21?)

The principle of ownership. The potter owns his pots. It is implied from the metaphor.

 

[Nimeniton]

let’s see how you will try to misunderstand what i wrote in this post.

It is simple: show that God has an obligation towards his creatures and then you can say he’s evil, pretty straightforward, right?)

I don’t have any trouble in saying that some of the actions attributed by some of the Bible authors to God show him acting evilly in my opinion. But I don’t do this on the basis of obligation but on the recognition that some actions are obviously evil. For example in the quote from Exodus 21:20-21 the owner is under no obligation not to whip the slave or own a slave - divine law. However, the whipping and owning of slaves is obviously immoral despite divine law. .

 

[Nimeniton]

let’s see how you will try to misunderstand what i wrote in this post.

(because an atheist will be the first to know what higher morality is )

I am happy for you to be first, So after you. Allow me to bring up a point on morality that we are unlikely to disagree. Which do you consider the higher morality.

The right to beat your slave but not kill him Exodus 21:20-21

or

There is no right to own a slave never mind beat him. Various Popes

If you believe the latter is the higher morality then you as a Catholic are in agreement with me an atheist

 

[Nimeniton]

(This shows your complete ignorance of the catholic church. The catholic church has never said that you can have slaves like in the OT)

Maybe not but that was not my claim however some Old Testament writers claim that God did approve of slavery in the OT way. In which case the Catholic church has improved on the morals of the Old Testament God. Which amounts to the same thing an evolution from a lower to a higher morality.

If you consider the apostles as members of the Catholic church then it has to be recognized that slavery was condoned (whether it was of the OT type or not). The Catholic church no longer condones slavery (in the simple sense of one person owning another). In this sense they have improved on the apostles. This is just my opinion and I expect you to disagree.