How can a person have free will and yet God is in control?

[davidv]

The understatement of the year.

There is also a teaching that one cannot do evil so that good may come out of it. Does it not bother you that these are totally contradictory teachings?

How are they contradictory? God does not do evil.

 

[Trurl]

How are they contradictory? God does not do evil.

Ohhh… I seem to have forgotten. If humans perform genocide it is evil, but when God slaughters everyone indiscriminately, it is all “love”? When a human sees an atrocity to be performed, and does not prevent it, it is evil; but when God just stands on the sideline, it is “love”. Such an easy proceudre: all one needs to do is selectively define what is “evil” and what is not. Interestingly enough that “procedure” only convinces the believers. The unbelievers “stubbornly” use the same measuring rod, just like the goddess of Justice, whose blindfolded eyes indicate that only the act matters, regardless of the perpetrator.

 

[davidv]

Ohhh… I seem to have forgotten. If humans perform genocide it is evil, but when God slaughters everyone indiscriminately, it is all “love”? When a human sees an atrocity to be performed, and does not prevent it, it is evil; but when God just stands on the sideline, it is “love”. Such an easy proceudre: all one needs to do is selectively define what is “evil” and what is not. Interestingly enough that “procedure” only convinces the believers. The unbelievers “stubbornly” use the same measuring rod, just like the goddess of Justice, whose blindfolded eyes indicate that only the act matters, regardless of the perpetrator.

Maybe you should get to know God better before you throw around such unfounded accusations.

 

[fhansen]

The understatement of the year.

There is also a teaching that one cannot do evil so that good may come out of it. Does it not bother you that these are totally contradictory teachings?

As davidv mentioned, God doesn’t do evil. God lets every human play their own version of god, doing what’s right in their own eyes, for better or worse. Then He judges, presumably according to perfect justice, just how we comported ourselves with that freedom, with varying degrees of culpability factored in depending on our particular lot in this life.

All moral evil is done in the name of right, for some perceived good; in some manner or another every act is justified in the mind of the perpetrator at the time they commit it-they’re in the right and they have the right, IOW, as far as they’re concerned, to a degree sufficient to allow themselves to follow through with the act. And this is why psychopaths are not required to commit the most heinous of crimes. Genocide, torture, and rape have been and continue to be committed on a wholesale basis by one society/tribe/nationality against another. And either this behavior is natural for man or it’s inconsistent with his nature but the very self-righteousness I referred to allows him to behave this way nonetheless because his conscience and will are fragile and weakened due to being divorced in some capacity from his own nature, from the morality that stems from the universe itself, i.e. from God. IOW, we’re all psychopaths in the sense that something is missing in man-and this explains why moral evil (sin) is even possible at all, for anyone.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Ohhh… I seem to have forgotten. If humans perform genocide it is evil, but when God slaughters everyone indiscriminately, it is all “love”? When a human sees an atrocity to be performed, and does not prevent it, it is evil; but when God just stands on the sideline, it is “love”. Such an easy proceudre: all one needs to do is selectively define what is “evil” and what is not. Interestingly enough that “procedure” only convinces the believers. The unbelievers “stubbornly” use the same measuring rod, just like the goddess of Justice, whose blindfolded eyes indicate that only the act matters, regardless of the perpetrator.

The problem with the goddess of justice is that she is not only blind but also ineffectual. She does not do anything to overcome evil, she only judges it. God is in the position of active Creator who must continually accommodate for the effects of evil in his creation as evil acts are inflicted upon it by those who do evil. Judgement is a simple matter, but redemption is something else, completely.

Now, the fact that God has chosen to postpone judgement and therefore not halt evil in its tracks is a sore spot for you because you don’t understand the creative power of God to bring about ultimate good even from a degenerated state. That is a limitation of yours because you keep insisting that God can only see things as you do rather than allow for the possibility that God can paint with much broader strokes on a much larger canvas than you can envision.

Unlike the goddess of justice, God is not blind, he sees every possibility; also unlike the goddess, God is not ineffectual, he is omnipotent. What troubles you is that you cannot even begin to conceive, and, therefore, have no control over the possibilities that are accessible to God. Nothing can possibly be greater than your thought processes, therefore, you dismiss him as impossible.

 

[fred_conty]

God is both unable and unwilling to do evil because doing evil is both logically (it is a sub-par act that contradicts absolute goodness) and morally (as a choice it is a choice only a morally inferior will would make) inconsistent with God’s omnibenevolence. As such, God is absolutely free to act according to his nature as Absolute Goodness because directly willing evil is logically and morally inconsistent with his nature.

The argument is tantamount to claiming that God is not free because he is not free to choose not to be God, as if at once being and not being God can be reconciled with the law of non-contradiction.

Trurl,

I haven’t seen your answer this reply by Peter, basically saying that God is not free to do that which in itself is contradictory.

Thank you.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Since ULTIMATELY God is responsible for EVERYTHING, that “blame” is well placed.

I see no reason to get insulted. But if you like to be insulted, that is your personal problem. Don’t blame others for it.

No one. The so called “problem of evil” does not exist if one does not believe in some - allegedly “good” and “loving” deity.

We know all about your biased, prejudiced views, your false assumptions, and rash judgments. But I would like you to answer the questions I asked in my last post. I assume you do know what your personal views are or perhaps you act and think without any rational bases? We have humored you long enough now. It is time for you to stick your neck out a little. Defend yourself if you can.

 

[Trurl]

Maybe you should get to know God better before you throw around such unfounded accusations.

Unfounded? I am merely reflecting your assertions back at you. It is YOU, the believers who keep asserting that whatever God does is good, because God is “goodness” itself, if God performs a wholescale slaughter of the human race (save for 8 people) that it is “moral, good and just”. If God orders the people of Israel to perform a genocide, then that is “good, moral and just”. When God ordered the aforementioned jews to keep the virgins for themselves (for some unspecified, but VERY obvious usage) then that is the pinnacle or morality. So, get off your high horse.

Whatever I “know” about God comes from what YOU say. So, don’t blame the “mirror”. You keep redefining the meanings of the words to suit your needs. It will NOT fly!

But, if God wishes to enlighten me, I am all ears. I am most OPEN and receptive to hear his words - right from the “horse’s mouth”. But I do not accept you or your fellow believers to be the self-proclaimed mouth-pieces of God. That is rather presumptuous.

 

[Trurl]

As davidv mentioned, God doesn’t do evil.

Sorry, davidv is not an authority. And to clarify something that needs to be clarified: “there is ABSOLUTELY NO difference between performing something with your (imaginary) hands, and ALLOWING someone else to perform those acts”. But, of course, if someone happens to accept the story of the flood as a true description of what transpired, then God slaughtered every human (exceot for those 8 ones) with his own hands. If that is the manifestation of God’s “goodness”… then there is nothing else to say.

 

[Trurl]

Trurl,

I haven’t seen your answer this reply by Peter, basically saying that God is not free to do that which in itself is contradictory.

Thank you.

Since he is on my ignore list, I could not have reflected on it. But since you quoted it, now I see the text, and it shows that I was right to ignore his so called “contribution”. God’s “omnibenevolence” is just another unsubstantiated opinion, along with God’s “absolute goodness”. He (or anyone else) can claim all sorts of wonderful things about God’s “nature”, but as long as the observed reality flatly contradicts those “claims”, there is no reason to take those claims seriously. I can imagine someone who is a devout admirer of Stalin, and who would assert that Stalin was a wonderful supporter of christianity, but when I look at the facts of history, that claim is just as unfounded as yours about God’s “goodness”.

 

[Trurl]

We know all about your biased, prejudiced views, your false assumptions, and rash judgments. But I would like you to answer the questions I asked in my last post. I assume you do know what your personal views are or perhaps you act and think without any rational bases? We have humored you long enough now. It is time for you to stick your neck out a little. Defend yourself if you can.

I answered your question. And I could not care less, if you “humor” me or not.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Since he is on my ignore list, I could not have reflected on it. But since you quoted it, now I see the text, and it shows that I was right to ignore his so called “contribution”. God’s “omnibenevolence” is just another unsubstantiated opinion, along with God’s “absolute goodness”. He (or anyone else) can claim all sorts of wonderful things about God’s “nature”, but as long as the observed reality flatly contradicts those “claims”, there is no reason to take those claims seriously. I can imagine someone who is a devout admirer of Stalin, and who would assert that Stalin was a wonderful supporter of christianity, but when I look at the facts of history, that claim is just as unfounded as yours about God’s “goodness”.

As long as someone (as above) assumes “observed reality” is by definition all of reality, then there is no reason to “take those claims seriously,” especially when unobservable realities like love, beauty, truth, goodness, quality, theorems, logic, ethical claims, intelligence, loyalty, meaning, etc. exist all around us. It is not clear how the term “observable” has any meaning without reference to a subjective “observer,” which, as far as I can tell, is not the kind of thing that is observable. By his own logic he has ruled himself out as a player in his own game.

This is the reason I am on his ignore list. He operates on the intellectual level of “out of sight out of mind,” unobservable equals nonexistent. What he can’t see doesn’t exist. Yes, he has woven his thinking into a fine seamless garment, but the edges are susceptible to fraying. He chooses to ignore anyone who points that out to him.

 

[NeoScotist]

Irrelevant opinion.

Irrelevant? why? If there’s no God and I don’t love my neighbor then I have no obligation towards him. Do you agree or disagree? But if you think I still have obligations towards him ,irrespective of what I feel, then I have to love God or at least respect his commandments. The existence and respect for God’s commandments is necessary to make sense of obligation. Got it?

Conversely, how do you make sense of obligation in an atheist world?

Ah, redefining the word “absolute” (as opposed to “relative”) now. How predictable it was.

You’re doing it again. I said that you take the ambiguous expression “absolute morals,” to mean something a theist will never concede.
Now, you’re pretending (redefining what I said? ) that I chided you for your use of the word word absolute.
Again, what is absolute morals?

I Yes, every creator has obligation toward its creation - as long as the creation is a sentient being.

You’re begging the question in multiple ways and you’re not even trying to respond to the arguments.

1- Since there’s no such thing as obligation in an atheist universe, the very argument that God has obligations presupposes the existence of God. Are you aware of this?

2- Nothing can be prior to God (otherwise God would not be God) so moral obligation is not external to him.

3-And if God is under some obligations towards his creatures, he’s not completely free.
.

The laws of logic are also “prior” to God.

who says? you?

You can come up with a better argument than just asserting things, I hope.

 

[fhansen]

Unfounded? I am merely reflecting your assertions back at you. It is YOU, the believers who keep asserting that whatever God does is good, because God is “goodness” itself, if God performs a wholescale slaughter of the human race (save for 8 people) that it is “moral, good and just”. If God orders the people of Israel to perform a genocide, then that is “good, moral and just”. When God ordered the aforementioned jews to keep the virgins for themselves (for some unspecified, but VERY obvious usage) then that is the pinnacle or morality. So, get off your high horse.

Whatever I “know” about God comes from what YOU say. So, don’t blame the “mirror”. You keep redefining the meanings of the words to suit your needs. It will NOT fly!

But, if God wishes to enlighten me, I am all ears. I am most OPEN and receptive to hear his words - right from the “horse’s mouth”. But I do not accept you or your fellow believers to be the self-proclaimed mouth-pieces of God. That is rather presumptuous.

The Catholic Church doesn’t teach that God sanctioned the slaughter of anyone, while certain writers of the OT certainly did believe so. The role of the Church is to receive and convey understanding regarding the nature and will of God, while many self-ordained scripture interpreters have come up with all kinds of viewpoints regarding those aspects, whether or not they approve of the god they believe they’ve found. Either way, God does nothing inconsistent with love.

 

[NeoScotist]

Sorry, davidv is not an authority. And to clarify something that needs to be clarified: “there is ABSOLUTELY NO difference between performing something with your (imaginary) hands, and ALLOWING someone else to perform those acts”. But, of course, if someone happens to accept the story of the flood as a true description of what transpired, then God slaughtered every human (exceot for those 8 ones) with his own hands. If that is the manifestation of God’s “goodness”… then there is nothing else to say.

Of course there’s a difference between performing something with your hands and allowing someone else to do it. For one, the former involves your actions and the latter involves the actions of other people. :doh2:

What you mean, I take it, is that God still responsible for actions done and actions “allowed.”
But I don’t know how you make sense of term “responsible” or “failing to do one’s duty,” if there’s no such thing in an atheist world. And saying that God is responsible or under duty pressuposses that there’s a God to impart obligations…but that is your problem, not mine.

 

[davidv]

Unfounded? I am merely reflecting your assertions back at you. It is YOU, the believers who keep asserting that whatever God does is good, because God is “goodness” itself, if God performs a wholescale slaughter of the human race (save for 8 people) that it is “moral, good and just”. If God orders the people of Israel to perform a genocide, then that is “good, moral and just”. When God ordered the aforementioned jews to keep the virgins for themselves (for some unspecified, but VERY obvious usage) then that is the pinnacle or morality. So, get off your high horse.

Whatever I “know” about God comes from what YOU say. So, don’t blame the “mirror”. You keep redefining the meanings of the words to suit your needs. It will NOT fly!

But, if God wishes to enlighten me, I am all ears. I am most OPEN and receptive to hear his words - right from the “horse’s mouth”. But I do not accept you or your fellow believers to be the self-proclaimed mouth-pieces of God. That is rather presumptuous.

You have thrown down stawman after strawman without addressing the points made. How do you know God did the things you say. Read the Bible? Then prove you have the credetials to properly interpret it.

My feet are planted firmly on the ground with truth of Catholic teaching backing me up.

It also quite presumptuous on your part to dismiss the Word God as it is entrusted by Him to His Church.

 

[fred_conty]

Trurl,

Here is an answer to your question about genicide.

christianthinktank.com/qamorite.html

I think you will find it interesting.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I answered your question. And I could not care less, if you “humor” me or not.

Certainly have no intention of " humoring " you. That would be pointless.

 

[Trurl]

The Catholic Church doesn’t teach that God sanctioned the slaughter of anyone, while certain writers of the OT certainly did believe so. The role of the Church is to receive and convey understanding regarding the nature and will of God, while many self-ordained scripture interpreters have come up with all kinds of viewpoints regarding those aspects, whether or not they approve of the god they believe they’ve found.

I am sure you are aware that the teachings of the CC are not necessarily accepted by non-catholics (and even by some catholics, either). As such we call them as we see them.

Either way, God does nothing inconsistent with love.

Again, if one calls what (allegedly) transipred as descripted in the bible (especially the old testament) as a manifestation of “love”, then it is impossible to conduct a conversation, since even the base categories are defined in a mutually incomprehensible manner.

 

[Trurl]

Of course there’s a difference between performing something with your hands and allowing someone else to do it. For one, the former involves your actions and the latter involves the actions of other people.

The “difference” is superficial and insignificant. Of course following Ponte Pilate is “convenient”, by washing one’s hands and proclaiming: “but I did not do it, I merely allowed it!”, but such hypocrisy is shrugged of by any rational person. Funny to see a “catholic” to follow the footsteps of Pilate.