The sign on God's desk says:

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

Could be one of a few things:

"Remember what I said - cause I do’

or

’What part of NO didn’t you understand?'

or

’Mental masturbation is STILL Masturbation’

or maybe

’I believe the word I used was LOVE’

how about

’Because I said so’

Then again it could be just

’ I Love You’

 

[Hitetlen]

Servus Pio XII:

God is not concerned with the evil of this world insofar as he would intervene to stop it at every turn. Rather, this world is, as I see it, a test of our fidelity to God.

That, unfortunately makes no sense. An omniscient being needs to “tests”, he already KNOWS the results. Your position either denies God’s omniscience, or paints a picture of a “stupid” God, who keeps performing tests, even when he knows the results.
Servus Pio XII:

For it is what we do in this world that determines whether God will be omnibeneficial to us in the next (and, since He provides Eternal Happiness to all who seek it and do His will, it is not as if He is stingy with it), or if we are perverse enough to slam the door in the face of infinite mercy, He justly reprimands us with an Eternal lack thereof.

A few points: the “eternal happiness” does not come free, it carries a heavy payment: one must give up reason for faith, one must give up freedom for serving God. Second point: the penalty for “slamming the door” is not simply lack of happiness, it is eternal damnation, pain and suffering. Third point: mercy means forgiveness without any strings attached.
Servus Pio XII:

Suffering is part of being human. It develops a soul. One who has never suffered cannot have empathy for one who is suffering, and without empathy, true kindness and charity are absolutely impossible. So, God uses seemingly bad things in our lives to create an abundance of good.

Suffering only exists because God WANTED it to happen. Nothing can happen without the explicit wish or implicit permission of God.
Servus Pio XII:

Also recall that, whilst God can indeed have full control over us, He CHOSE NOT TO. Instead, he gave us free will. Rather than mindless automatons in a perfect world, he allowed us to live with full control over ourselves in an imperfect world, and having an opportunity to live fully in the perfect world of the next life.

I already answered this one in a post above. Besides, why wait until a “next” life? A really loving creator would give that happiness immediately, and without any preconditions.
Servus Pio XII:

Plus the fact that you look at all of God’s “crimes” on a purely human level. The soul cannot be killed, and God’s “murder victim” could be, for all you know, in Paradise. After all, their temporal punishment was death, and so, just as souls leaving Purgatory, after the Redemption, they were most likely taken into Heaven with the rest of the souls in Limbo.

That is a very scary proposition. Based upon this reasoning, I could go around torturing everyone until they becomes martyrs of God, thus ensuring their eternal salvation, while sacrificing my own. Of course such an enormous sacrifice would also ensure my place in heaven. Should we form a team ans start to put your idea into practice? I don’t think so.
Servus Pio XII:

With regards to Satan…he had free will, and chose to break the rule entirely.

Highly questionable. If there is no free will in heaven (as many posters asserted) then Satan could not have had it either. If that is the case, then God himself has created Satan to “play out his part”.
Servus Pio XII:

Until him, there had been only “good” and “better” choices; to disobey God was not in the human psyche. He instilled that evil lust in us, the constant temptation to sin. He, therefore, is the source of evil. And, BTW, if you read just a slight bit of Biblical prophesy, you may find that all you need to do is wait a bit, and God will cast the devil into the Eternal Fire (NOT Satan’s domain, but created by God for Satan). It is not that He is not going to act upon the problem, but hasn’t yet.

Help delayed is help denied.
Servus Pio XII:

Finally, the evil in the world is caused by sin. Remember Our Lady at Fatima…to avoid all of this, all the world needs to do is penance.

Seen it yet amongst the hedonism? Didn’t think so

Thanks for the Debate,
SPXII

I enjoy your (name removed by moderator)ut, too, thank you for it.

 

[Hitetlen]

Della:

God acts as he sees fit. There really is no other, better explanation. He acts for a greater good than we cannot fully understand, or he is a ruthless tyrant, or he doesn’t exist. My vote is for the first premise.

Well put. My vote happens to be different from yours, but that is not a problem Respectful disagreement is good.

 

[rocklobster]

If you’re an atheist, then what in God’s name are you even doing here, you troll? Yes, that is precisely what you are doing!
Even the angels have free will!

 

[BlindSheep]

Hitetlen:

I will try to answer to your posts individually, but let me just say one very important argument:

If, as you say,

1. the existence of free will INVARIABLY leads to the existence of evil, and

Of course not. If it did, it wouldn’t be free will. For us to have free will, both options must be possible. (For God/Against God, which was the choice involved with original sin, and the choice which determines our ultimate destiny as individuals)

1. the definition of free will MUST include the ability to choose evil, and

Yes, it must be possible for a creature to choose to disobey God (do evil) if the choice to obey God (do good) is to be free. It must also be possible to choose good.

1. the lack of DESIRE to commit evil is insufficient to create real free will, and

No. What you refer to as a desire is, I suspect, a compulsion. If a person is subject to a compulsion to do evil, he/she cannot exercise free will. There must be neither a compulsion to do good, nor evil, for free will.

1. there will be no evil in heaven,
   then
   (corollary) there will be no free will in heaven.

It would be impossible to change one’s mind if time did not exist. Heaven is not “infinate time”, it is “outside” of time as we know it. Thus, changing your mind will be impossible, in heaven, hell, and purgatory: not because free will does not exist, but because it is exercised once and for all. In our doctrine this is the case with the angels, also. They have free will, but do not change their minds. Their one choice is eternal, since they are spiritual beings.
I may not have explained this very clearly, but you can find it explained elsewhere if you wish.

 

[Hitetlen]

LSK:

I disagree that this cannot be used as an argument for the existence of a loving and merciful God. If I have no choices in my life, my love for God is not true love.

It looks like that our definitions of “loving” and “merciful” are different. If a human would order a fullscale genocide, we would call that human evil. When God orders it, we call him “loving” and “merciful”. (Mind you, I am not criticizing God. I criticize the inconsistent usage of words.)

LSK:

Because you are being subjective in your application of the terms ‘good’ and ‘better’. What is better than doing the will of God? Nothing. So that is the only good. The only evil, therefore, is NOT to do the will of God. There may be degrees of good and evil but there is only one true good and one true evil and no coercion to choose between the two. The absense of coercion is the free will griven as a loving gift of the Creator, for without that freeness of will our love for the Creator is but a robotic response and has no meaning.

Again, you are redifining words to suit your purpose. “Good” has many manifestations, just like “bad” or “evil” does.

And I really deny that the threat of eternal damnation does not constitute a coercion. It most certainly does.

 

[Hitetlen]

LSK:

And not all the problems are ‘unfixed’. Many people work every day to bring an ease and comfort to those who are suffering. Many diseases have been wiped out. Many pains and sufferings have been eased.

I agree, but those “fixes” have been done by humans, while God could have just fixed them by waving his little finger…

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Hitetlen:

Many believers also believe in the existence of pure evil (Satan), and also contend that God is powerful enough to either change him, or smite him. Since he chooses not to do either, he is responsible for Satan’s continued existence.

They are, however, sadly mistaken about pure evil. That smacks of some sort of dualist heresy. Pure evil does not exist because everything that exists was created by God (or else God Himself) and thus created good. All evil is an absence or perversion of good.

Satan was originally the greatest of the angels. In other words, he was the best of a good section of creation. He, however, made a free and irrevocable choice against God. He couldn’t stand the existence of an authority other than himself.

Whoever put free will in terms of choosing or rejecting God, though, was spot on. You can’t frame a choice between only good and better. In that case, the better is for God and the good is against Him. Take the example of meeting a man and having a choice as to what to give him. If I give him a million dollars when God really wants me to give him two million dollars, I may have done a normally “good” action, but my action is sinful because of the rejection of God’s will in the matter. Although the act appears charitable, and charity in all its true meanings is good, the act of my giving the man ONLY one million dollars is an act of selfishness and refusal to place God’s will over my love of money. Sin means to “miss the mark.” You don’t necessarily have to be aiming in the opposite direction to miss the bull’s eye. Doing good but less than you should is still evil because it represents a deprivation of the full good. Fallenness.

Free will, then, in order to be truly free, must include an ability to love God or to reject God. The ability to choose “best” or “not best” includes this, although the terminology is very deceptive when presented as “good” and “better.” “Best” is good. Anything less is rejecting God. God made man capable of always choosing best; man just normally fails to live up to his potential.

 

[Hitetlen]

Brendan:

If the Will has been restricted, it is not Free in those matters, is it not?

You are correct, but that does not invalidate free will, merely restricts it. And as everyone agrees, the fact that we are physically restricted from making certain choices, does not invalidate free will.

Brendan:

That is the same thing as the removing the choice, is it not?

No it is not, not by a long shot. One still can act against one’s desire.

 

[Hitetlen]

rocklobster:

If you’re an atheist, then what in God’s name are you even doing here, you troll? Yes, that is precisely what you are doing!
Even the angels have free will!

I am learning. I even learned from you: namely that you lack basic respect for those who dare to disagree. But you are unique (so far); everyone else was willing to answer properly and respectfully.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Hitetlen:

A few points: the “eternal happiness” does not come free, it carries a heavy payment: one must give up reason for faith, one must give up freedom for serving God. Second point: the penalty for “slamming the door” is not simply lack of happiness, it is eternal damnation, pain and suffering. Third point: mercy means forgiveness without any strings attached.

Suffering only exists because God WANTED it to happen. Nothing can happen without the explicit wish or implicit permission of God.

Highly questionable. If there is no free will in heaven (as many posters asserted) then Satan could not have had it either. If that is the case, then God himself has created Satan to “play out his part”.

1. Since many of the greatest scientific minds in history have been believers in God, I find it most unreasonable to assert that one must sacrifice reason for faith. That claim may make one feel better about oneself, but it does no justice to the many eminent minds (including modern ones) who exhibit great reasoning capacity along with faith in God.

2)I’m not sure you could call Catholic salvation “forgiveness without any strings attached.” Man must be punished for every one of his sins. That can come in the form of suffering here on earth or in the life to come before entrance into the fullness of the beatific vision (heaven). But the fact that some “will be saved, but as through fire” makes it seem odd to talk of no strings attached.

1. Some have referred to hell as a sign of God’s mercy. The existence of hell honors a choice made by a creature. That creature has, in making the choice against God, so warped himself that he cannot stand the presence of God. The creature is thus allowed to live outside the presence of God to the greatest degree possible. I’ve never read a full articulation of this reasoning, so I couldn’t push it further. Just thought that should be on the table.

God does not want suffering to exist. He simply has competing wants that he prioritizes. For example, let’s say a mother wants a) her son to freely choose whether or not to do his chores and b) his room to be very neat and orderly. It’s more important to her, though, that her son make his decision and live with it than that the room be clean. He, like many boys, chooses never to clean his room. Now you assert that the mother actually WANTS his room to be dirty. I assert that she simply wants something else MORE.

Other posters asserted that there is (now) no free will in heaven. They never asserted that there never has been free will there. Their point was that at some point the choice has already been made.

 

[frogman80]

Hitetlen:

I see, what you mean and you really narrowed down the concept of free will.]

Yes, but only to help concentrate on the primary purpose of free will. There is more to it than just this!

Hitetlen:

Of course you carefully avoided part of what I said: namely that God has no free will either. Furthermore, believers always stress that having free will is important, God prefers to be chosen freely, rather than “coerce” us into accepting him. According to you, that is not always the case; in heaven it is acceptable to have “automatons” with pre-programmed devotion.

Didn’t really avoid it, I just mistakenly thought it would follow that since our free will is to choose/not choose God… that God could never fall outside of that.

How would it be possible for God to do something outside of his own will? How would it be possible for a person to go outside of their own will? You as a person are always you. You can never stop being you. Your actions do not change that fact that you are yourself. Every action you make is allowed by you to happen.

Hitetlen:

And another point: you say that God does not wish to coerce us, but those who choose to reject him, will be punished - forever! - for their choice. And the Bible is very explicit in describing the result: eternal damnation, pain and suffering. That is not a real choice at all. It is akin to a criminal who puts a gun to your head and instructs you to perform a certain act, otherwise he will shoot you (or your children). Now, in MY vocabulary it is definitely NOT a free action.

I have children… I co-created them to love them and partly in hope that they would love me back. I recognize that they may choose not to love me, and that it would serve no purpose to force them to love me. A children who does not loving me would choose to separate themselves from me… this would be one of many effects my child would experience from not loving me.

Consequences are not the same a threat. I do threaten my children with grounding / time outs… usually to protect them… sometimes to help form them. This threat of punishment is not an attempt at coercing love from them. It is to help them lead happy and healthy lives. Also encourage my children when they do something good is not an act of coercing love from them. “Threats", “punishment”, and “encouragement” are actually my love for my child.

We believe God created us… therefore it would make sense that we also believe that he knows what is best for his creation. God wants us to be happy. So to widen the definition of free will a bit… Choosing “good” is to choose that which is best for us. Choosing “evil” is to act in a way that causes harm or unhappiness.

Hitetlen:

That particular choice does not exist any more.

Yes that is correct. Do you think it is unreasonable that some choices do no exist forever?

Hitetlen:

That is for sure And this also underscores the problem: even when we try to engage in a meaningful, honest and respectful conversation, there is this barrier of being unable to define basic categories so we can have a common starting ground.

Now, apart from topics concerning religion, we do have a common ground. Be it science, films, emotions, whatever, we use the same vocabulary. I keep the same definitions when it comes to questions of religion. You (believers in general) do not. Therefore, as the bare minimum, you are not consistent.

It is my primary goal to “defend” my beliefs first. Your argument was founded on what appears to be some misunderstanding of what we actually believe. If it was founded on just the common ground or an accurate understanding of the others beliefs, then there would be no reason to “defend” first.

 

[Hitetlen]

Very good answer!

BlindSheep:

Of course not. If it did, it wouldn’t be free will. For us to have free will, both options must be possible. (For God/Against God, which was the choice involved with original sin, and the choice which determines our ultimate destiny as individuals)

Yes, it must be possible for a creature to choose to disobey God (do evil) if the choice to obey God (do good) is to be free. It must also be possible to choose good.

I agree you, but this brings us back to the original proposition: I said that the mere existence of free will does not allow God “off the hook” as far as the problem of evil goes. If the existence of free will is not the cause of evil, and evil exists, then what is the cause? You cannot argue “men’s sinful nature”, because God either did not create our “sinful nature”, or he did. If he did not create it, where did it come from? Did it come from against God’s desire? How is that possible? If he did create it, he is responsible.

BlindSheep:

No. What you refer to as a desire is, I suspect, a compulsion. If a person is subject to a compulsion to do evil, he/she cannot exercise free will. There must be neither a compulsion to do good, nor evil, for free will.

No, I did not mean compulsion, just a desire not to do evil. One can acts against one’s desire, but does not have to.

BlindSheep:

It would be impossible to change one’s mind if time did not exist. Heaven is not “infinate time”, it is “outside” of time as we know it. Thus, changing your mind will be impossible, in heaven, hell, and purgatory: not because free will does not exist, but because it is exercised once and for all. In our doctrine this is the case with the angels, also. They have free will, but do not change their minds. Their one choice is eternal, since they are spiritual beings.

Huh, that is new to me. Do you mean that heaven is “frozen”? There is no change, no “time”, just a frozen existence? I don’t think that is a doctrine anyone has ever suggested. If there is some “meta-time”, then change is possible, and the angels (for example) do not wish to exercise their free will, because its would be against their “nature”. But that is not free will as you defined it.

BlindSheep:

I may not have explained this very clearly, but you can find it explained elsewhere if you wish.

You did just fine.

 

[Brendan]

: I said that the mere existence of free will does not allow God “off the hook” as far as the problem of evil goes. If the existence of free will is not the cause of evil, and evil exists, then what is the cause?

Assuming that evil has a principle cause, that is.

Evil is the deprivation of Good, a lack of Good if you will. It has no existance of it’s own, a part from the existance of Good.

A great analogy is that if light vs. darkness.

Light has existance, photons, Electromagnetic spectrum, Maxwell’s Equations, the whole lot.

Darkness, on the other had, has no existance. It can only be described as absense of something else, namely light.

Now could the source of light, such as a lightbulb, said to actually cause the darkness of a shadow, or does that which blocks the light be the ‘cause’ of the shadow.

If there is a source of Good, could it likewise be said to be the cause of it’s own deprivation (evil) ?

 

[frogman80]

Hitetlen:

I agree you, but this brings us back to the original proposition: I said that the mere existence of free will does not allow God “off the hook” as far as the problem of evil goes. If the existence of free will is not the cause of evil, and evil exists, then what is the cause? You cannot argue “men’s sinful nature”, because God either did not create our “sinful nature”, or he did. If he did not create it, where did it come from? Did it come from against God’s desire? How is that possible? If he did create it, he is responsible.

Evil only exists in the absence of good. Let’s compare it to something in this physical word: Darkness is nothing without the absence of light. Light is photons “flying” around bouncing off of things… darkness is nothing.

Hitetlen:

Huh, that is new to me. Do you mean that heaven is “frozen”? There is no change, no “time”, just a frozen existence? I don’t think that is a doctrine anyone has ever suggested. If there is some “meta-time”, then change is possible, and the angles (for example) do not wish to exercise their free will, because its would be against their “nature”. But that is not free will as you defined it.

Even the word frozen implies a sense of time, and probably is not proper to describe heaven. Heaven is unchangeable. We believe time is part of God’s creation.

 

[frogman80]

frogman80:

Heaven is unchangeable.

See:
newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htm#VII

This entire page is good, but this section talks a bit on the attributes of heaven.

 

[Della]

And I really deny that the threat of eternal damnation does not constitute a coercion. It most certainly does.

Certainly IF God “threatened” people with eternal damnation it would be coercion, but that’s not what he does. He doesn’t threaten he promises.

If we choose to be with him we will be, but if we choose to not be with him there is only one place for such persons–their own egos. Those who reject God are saying, “My will be done” instead of “Thy will be done.”

God will give them what they want–an eternity of being with themselves, and only themselves because that is what they have chosen.

 

[Hitetlen]

Della:

Certainly IF God “threatened” people with eternal damnation it would be coercion, but that’s not what he does. He doesn’t threaten he promises.

I fail to see the difference. Eternal pain, suffering and damnation is a threat, even if one chooses to call it a “promise”. (Use the “duck test” )

Della:

If we choose to be with him we will be, but if we choose to not be with him there is only one place for such persons–their own egos. Those who reject God are saying, “My will be done” instead of “Thy will be done.”

God will give them what they want–an eternity of being with themselves, and only themselves because that is what they have chosen.

The promise not just an eternity being alone (though that would be pretty bad), but gnashing of teeth (by the way, do souls have teeth?) everlasting fire that is not quenched, and other bad things. I am sorry, but in my eyes that is mafia-tactics. A good mafioso never utters an explicit threat, but everyone understands what the smooth words actually mean.

It would not be bad, if he said that the price is the cessation of existence. You don’t worship God, you cease to exist, and that is it. That would not be a threat. But everlasting pain is a totally different ballgame, and that is precisely what the Bible says, many times and explicitly.

 

[Della]

Hitetlen:

I fail to see the difference. Eternal pain, suffering and damnation is a threat, even if one chooses to call it a “promise”. (Use the “duck test” )

The duck test only works if you actually know what a duck is.

The promise not just an eternity being alone (though that would be pretty bad), but gnashing of teeth (by the way, do souls have teeth?) everlasting fire that is not quenched, and other bad things. I am sorry, but in my eyes that is mafia-tactics. A good mafioso never utters an explicit threat, but everyone understands what the smooth words actually mean.

The gnashing of teeth is regret for lost opportunities to do good. Did you ever read A Christmas Carol–the passage about the lost souls who wish they could do good but cannot? Or the story of the rich man and Lazarus in which the rich man, suffering in Gehenna wished someone could/would warn his brothers about his fate so they wouldn’t end up where he was?

And the fire that cannot be quenched is the torment of the soul unable to go back and undo the bad he has done. The first is regret over sins of omission and the second is regret over the sins of commission. The fire of such regret is quite real and involves real suffering.

Jesus often used parables to teach about the consequences of our sin, which people in his day understood quite well. If you don’t know enough about the culture in which various parts of the Bible were written and the intent of the author, it is next to impossible to truly understand what is being talked about and why.

It would not be bad, if he said that the price is the cessation of existence. You don’t worship God, you cease to exist, and that is it. That would not be a threat. But everlasting pain is a totally different ballgame, and that is precisely what the Bible says, many times and explicitly.

Life is God’s gift to us. He will not rescind that gift merely because we no longer want it. Once a person is alive he is alive forever–that is a fact of our existence that God will not violate. It is not his fault if people decide to live in misery for all eternity (in the eternal now) when they were perfectly free to do his will while they were alive on earth. And his will is not onerous or hard, but is the way of peace, joy, love, and beauty.

 

[frogman80]

Hitetlen:

I fail to see the difference. Eternal pain, suffering and damnation is a threat, even if one chooses to call it a “promise”. (Use the “duck test” )

The promise not just an eternity being alone (though that would be pretty bad), but gnashing of teeth (by the way, do souls have teeth?) everlasting fire that is not quenched, and other bad things. I am sorry, but in my eyes that is mafia-tactics. A good mafioso never utters an explicit threat, but everyone understands what the smooth words actually mean.

It would not be bad, if he said that the price is the cessation of existence. You don’t worship God, you cease to exist, and that is it. That would not be a threat. But everlasting pain is a totally different ballgame, and that is precisely what the Bible says, many times and explicitly.

I think I addressed some of this in my post #32… (and souls “have teeth” when they are reunited with their body after final judgment! )