Understanding God

[Hitetlen]

This is what you said before:

adamlsp:

God would only be found guilty if there existed morally unjustified evil.

Observe, that it is an all-inclusive statement: if there is just ONE evil that could be lessened or eliminated, then God is “guilty”. This makes my job quite easy. All I have to do is find one example where the existing evil is not necessary to achieve some greater good", or the same “greater good” can be achieved by lessening the extent of “evil”.

And that I did by pointing out the existence of exceptionally good people, whom I called “saints” (with quotation marks, not the literal saints). You did not refute this argument.

adamlsp:

Evil is not necessary of freewill but its possibility is.

Sure, that is no problem, those exceptionally good people commit fewer evils (to use your wording). If everyone would be created like they are, there would be less evil in the world, therefore this is not the “best possible world”, contrary to what you said before:

adamlsp:

This world had to be the best possible. God could not create one that was not.

adamlsp:

Natural disasters need not always be seen as evil. They are just a rearranging of things in nature and only become a disaster when humans get in their way.

Try to tell that to all those animals who get burned up in a wildfire. Evil is not limited to causing harm to humans: cruelty against animals is just as bad.

adamlsp:

I would be careful trying to tell people what the Bible says because it doesn’t seem you’ve actually read it or remeber it all too well.

Really? So let’s quote it:

Genesis 3:16-18:

To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it,’ "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field.

Sound pretty starightforward to me: increased pain for the woman, which is nothing but punishment. There is no implied “greater good” here, just old-fashioned, simple punishment. “Cursed is the ground” - cursed by whom? God comes to mind. “Thorns and thistles” start to grow causing pain - as punishment. No “greater good” here either. So the imperfections of the world (the natural disasters I mentioned) have absolutely no “greater good” associated with them, they are the result of God’s punishment. You may see them as “justified”, but that is irrelevant in this context.

Pain and suffering are inflicted not because they serve some “greater good”, just as a punishment. By the way, the drugs which lessen the pain of child delivery directly countermand God’s wish to make the women suffer for Eve’s sin. If I remember correctly, when these drugs were first introduced, there was a big uproar from from some members of the clergy and they protested against these drugs - citing the Bible.

So don’t tell me that I am not qualified to quote the Bible. If you don’t agree with what I say, bring up arguments against it, but don’t resort to such tactics.

adamlsp:

You are not the most apt philosopher either so I would suggest a little more humility in your “theories.”

As I said, if you see something wrong with my reasoning, point it out (in detail, please), but to use “ad-hominems” like this should be avoided.

adamlsp:

Also, no theodicy stands alone and any idiot would know this. Freewill combined with the others reaches a more complete conclusion. Of course encompassing all theodies would be difficult but when put they work.

If you wish, you can put them together, and I will be glad to analyze the result.

adamlsp:

It is clear that freewill is responsible for some of the evil today maybe even most of it. If you find this theodicy sufficient to include some freewilled decision cause evil well then the theodict has done its job.

Absolutely not. The argument from free will says that ALL the evils of the world are the corollary of free will, not that some of them are.

 

[adamlsp]

Hitetlen,

You did well in your first paragraph. That is exactly how you would prove that evil is unjustified, if it could be further minimalized and still acheive the same effect. You clearly do not see the purpose of this world nor do I see its entire purpose. The pupose of this world then cannot be for everyone to be created saints. If this was the case then God would be manufacturing a type of robot. Because he would be limiting the free expression of all of the souls he does not create. Thus God just creates souls and sets no “type” to them, though you insist he does. He leaves the souls to decide by their own freewill what they will become and does not influence ther choices. Refusing to create beings who make certain choices would be a censorship don’t you agree? God does not then censor us.

Yes, sorry I forgot about the little animals they are important too. But animals are a part of nature and are essentially not people. Though we feel for their suffereing when they are yet alive we do not see it as equal to our own.

You quote the Bible like a Protestant. Catholics are not Protestants though you insist on treating us the same way. That passage can easily be interpretted in another context and is not proof against anything. Punishment is another theodicy. I know there are people who say “freewill accounts for all evil” or “punishment does” but that is clearly not true. Every case of evil is not the case of the misuse of freewill. And unless you are a biblioscholar I would shy from quoting scipture as if you have authoritative interpretive powers. It is when scripture is viewed through the lense of church teaching that it is interpreted correctly. You know enough to support your point but not enough to see what it really says. Like a creationist citing science to support their views, you misuse the facts to construe your own opinions.

You said the freewill theodicy says all evil is of free will. The argument from free will says nothing of the sort. It is the arguer that says these things. The combination theodicy is the right one. Certain evils in this world are justified punishments. Adversity makes for better people. I am not trying to offend you when I say you are no philosopher. I am merely stating what you yourself have said. I wish to remind you of your place in this arena and that you are out of your normal realm of inquirey. I would not attempt to teach mathematics or computer science to you. I would ask that you teach me. If I did not understand something I would not assume the entire foundations of math and CS were unfounded. I would assume it was my reason that was lacking in that particular instance. This says nothing of my future capability in those areas only that they are not my specialty. My pride is not so great as to assume the world rises and sets around my understanding of it.

I believe morality is the greater purpose of evil in this world. Morality is not a set of ideals but of actions. To be moral you must act morally in accordance with you capability. If there were no problems to overcome there would be no growth only stagnance. The purpose of this world was not a heaven on earth but an earth. Think of the vitues. They are responses to evil in this world and mean nothing apart from that evil. We were created for challenges not to be babied. The stability of the set physical laws in this world provides the perfect ground for our choices. We are allowed power, enough to influence other but not to control them. You could argue better hypothetical universal laws all you want but the truth is we do not fully understand the physical universe so we cannot fully understand how it could better serve its purpose. Any arguments would be sheer heresay.

Every evil to which we do not succumb is a benefactor. - Emerson

A wounded deer leaps highest. - Emily Dickenson

Adversity is the first path to truth. - Byron

You should still say “this is not enough!” You are right; even with all of these theodicies and even if they did justify a great many evils, it is still not enough. Catholics would agree. Just as an infant does not understand Einstein nor do we understand God. For we are as infants in this world before him, yes and even greater is he. The ultimate answer of the theist is that it is a mystery.

I would be happy to discuss the theodicies with you. Why do you not just pick up a philosophy book with these in things in them? The atheist apology books will shy away from things they cannot prove just as you assume theist apology books do the same. But we are unafraid of mystery. These simple arguments must have occured to you.

Adam

 

[Hitetlen]

adamlsp:

You did well in your first paragraph. That is exactly how you would prove that evil is unjustified, if it could be further minimalized and still acheive the same effect.

Yes, that is my main argument.

adamlsp:

You clearly do not see the purpose of this world nor do I see its entire purpose.

Indeed, I do not. (Speaking for myself, I do not see a “purpose”, but since you do, I will not try to argue for my view, rather I will accept yours.)

adamlsp:

The pupose of this world then cannot be for everyone to be created saints. If this was the case then God would be manufacturing a type of robot.

I would not think so. Since those exceptionally good people DO have a free will, they are not robots in any sense of the word.

adamlsp:

Thus God just creates souls and sets no “type” to them, though you insist he does.

To be created of a certain “type” is not coercion. It does give a “predisposition” but no “predestination”, so does not limit the person’s ability to go against their “type” if they so choose. Admittedly it makes it “harder”: because a predominantly “good” person will have to be pushed rather strongly to act against his “predisposition”, and for a predominantly “bad” person it would be difficult to change and become “good”, but it is not impossible.

adamlsp:

Refusing to create beings who make certain choices would be a censorship don’t you agree? God does not then censor us.

Yes, I agree, but “censorship” is not coersion. And this is the crux of the matter.

adamlsp:

Yes, sorry I forgot about the little animals they are important too.

No, they are not our equals, but they still feel pain and suffering, so their fate is important.

adamlsp:

You quote the Bible like a Protestant. That passage can easily be interpretted in another context and is not proof against anything.

In what manner? I don’t think I am “interpreting” anything here. Those quoted verses are totally straightforward. If you know about a different interpretation, please share it with me. I am not a biblical scholar (that is for sure), but such a direct text does not need interpretation.

adamlsp:

I know there are people who say “freewill accounts for all evil” or “punishment does” but that is clearly not true. Every case of evil is not the case of the misuse of freewill.

We can agree that some evil is the result of misused free will, and other evils are not, but what comes out of such argument? What good is it? It reminds me of an old Hungarian weather forcast: “When the ducks swim without any aim, the weather will change or will stay the same”. (I am pretty proud of this translation )

adamlsp:

I am not trying to offend you when I say you are no philosopher. I am merely stating what you yourself have said.

Indeed, I am not a professional philosopher (you are correct), but I did not pretend to be one. Still, I read many books of different philosophers, and learned from them. That does not make me an expert, so when you see an error in my reasoning, just point it out.

adamlsp:

I would be happy to discuss the theodicies with you. Why do you not just pick up a philosophy book with these in things in them?

Actually, picking up books, and argue their points would be a form of “cheating”. I always present my own thoughts in these posts (and they may very well be inadequate), but at least they are my thoughts.

To switch gears, I will present another line of thought. The basic concept is that any and all “evils” must have some greater good coming out of them otherwise God would not allow them to happen. This is the argument you proposed.

Let’s contemplate penicillin. For many centuries people suffered for lack of adequate cure. Before penicillin was discovered, these people suffered and died. According to the principle you proposed, their pain, suffering and death MUST have had a “good” side effect in order to be a “justifyable evil”. Then came a random discovery of penicillin. All of a sudden the pain, suffering and death of these people could be avoided, simply by applying this new cure. Based upon your argument, the possible pain and death of these people ceased to have a positive side effect, so God does not allow it any more. But penicillin is sometimes a scarce resource, and people sometimes still die because it is not available is sufficient quanitites. Now do you wish to argue, that the death of those who are randomly deprived of the needed penicillin somehow serves a higher purpose, but the possible death of those who gain access to it does not?

 

[adamlsp]

Hitetlen,

I beg you consider CS Lewis’ analogy. If there was no light, no creatures with eyes would have came about. If there was no meaning no creatures with the ability to determine meaning would be about. If there was no light how would you know it was dark?

God does not create types of souls but souls. The souls have no predispositions toward anything. They are not minds. Psychology is not the study of souls. If God only created beings he knew would chose him he would be violating freewill. When God does not create beings who would do wrong he is interfering in freewill by taking from them their freedom; freedom to choose, freedom to improve, freedom to exist. If you are saying God saw them coming into existence and said “nope” then he would be intereferring in freewill I hope this isn’t too hard to see. God could not create only good beings without puppeteering the whole process of freewill.

There are many ways to interpret the Bible. Creationists vs Evolutionists. Heard of the controversy? I didn’t mean picking up books with your own point of view but ones with others so you are familiar with the arguments. And not reading others about this and arguing using them is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard. Imagine if no one had argued using the philosophers throughout time. This is the basic precept of learning. And did you not write in the preceeding paragraph that you do read and learn? Don’t even answer this paragraph. Stick to the topic.

Yes, it all has purpose. There are three views on punishment: social utility, rehabilitation, and retributive. These forms all find justified punishment somewhere in this world. Surely you can belive that from wrongs people do they diserve one of these punishment perspecives.

Soul building is the big one. Now listen because I know it’s hard for you and you choose not to respond to things you have no answer for. To become a better person requires freewill, an environment in which to act (this physical world), there must be challenges (evil), and finally the oportunities to do well or poorly in response to challenge. First order goods are things like spending time with freinds or having fun in a park. These are nice but there are also first orde evils: stubbing your toe being sick. Why are these here? For the existence of second order goods. Virtuoes responses to these evils. God must allow us to respond how we please. This means God cannot choose not to create people he doesn’t like. Otherwise he’d only be allowing people who respond virtuously. Remember my past post? The purpose of this world is not heaven on earth but an earth. You may then ask why there are second order evils. Second order goods. If God didn’t allow poor choices to exist then he would be inhibiting freewill. If he created all good beings there would be no poor choices thus they coud freely choose good but not evil because if they did choose evil God would not create them. This is against freewill. Why is this so hard for you? Explain your problem in greater detail if you still have one. We were created for the purpose of overcoming adversity. In combo with punishment, freewil, and mystery the theodicies explain evil.

Adam

 

[Hitetlen]

adamlsp:

I beg you consider CS Lewis’ analogy. If there was no light, no creatures with eyes would have came about. If there was no meaning no creatures with the ability to determine meaning would be about. If there was no light how would you know it was dark?

OK, let’s consider it: obviously our eyes are organs, which respond to a certain range of electromagnetic waves (we call that visible light). They do not respond to ultraviolet or infrared, radio waves or X-rays, but nevertheless we know that these exist. We can measure them and use them. As for the word: “meaning” - it is the result of the speaker and listener having a communication. There is no “light” and “dark” as primary entities just like there is no “meaning” independent of a communication.

adamlsp:

God does not create types of souls but souls. The souls have no predispositions toward anything.

That is not something I read on these boards, yet. It was argued many times that our mind is just a conduit for the immortal soul (whatever that is) and it is the soul which is responsible for our behavior, it is the soul which governs our actions. Our physical body cannot influence the non-corporeal soul, however the soul influences our acts.

If you say that all souls are created equal, without any predisposition toward good or evil, then you argue that some random process is responsible for creating a diversity among them. Is this what you want to advocate? Side note: I don’t think that bringing in the problem of souls is a good idea at this point. As I said before: the purpose of the theodicies is to impress atheists, not fellow believers, to show that the existing evil does not contradict God’s benevolent nature. Therefore they are supposed to be rational arguments.

adamlsp:

If God only created beings he knew would chose him he would be violating freewill.

I think you are trivializing free will. There are many levels of choices, some more important than others. I don’t want to say that God should only create beings who are predestined to choose him. Not at all. Personally, I did not choose to serve God, but otherwise I try to live my life as if I did choose him. There are many good principles in the Bible and in the Christian faith, and one can follow them even without accepting the “mystical” foundations.

adamlsp:

Yes, it all has purpose. There are three views on punishment: social utility, rehabilitation, and retributive. These forms all find justified punishment somewhere in this world. Surely you can believe that from wrongs people do they deserve one of these punishment perspectives.

Now that is an interesting topic. One form of punishment is incarceration: to prevent the social predators from harming others. Another form could be rehabilitation, to help the “bad” people to become better. No problem. However, I have serious problem with the third one: pure retribution. That is an absurdity: “two wrong actions do not equal a good one”. (A double negative does not equal positive in this case.)

adamlsp:

Soul building is the big one. Now listen because I know it’s hard for you and you choose not to respond to things you have no answer for.

You mean the same way as you did not choose to respond to my penicillin dilemma?

adamlsp:

To become a better person requires freewill, an environment in which to act (this physical world), there must be challenges (evil), and finally the opportunities to do well or poorly in response to challenge.

Ok, that is sensible.

adamlsp:

First order goods are things like spending time with friends or having fun in a park. These are nice but there are also first order evils: stubbing your toe being sick. Why are these here?

You tell me. My answer: because the world we live in is not perfect.

adamlsp:

For the existence of second order goods. Virtuous responses to these evils. God must allow us to respond how we please. This means God cannot choose not to create people he doesn’t like. Otherwise he’d only be allowing people who respond virtuously.

Nothing wrong with that. As long as they answer properly out of their own free will. Exceptionally good people may and DO fail sometimes, but they strive to become better. If you wish to elaborate of these first and second order “goods” and “evils”, I will be happy to read them in more detail. I am not sure what your point is.

And I would like to hear your analysis of the penicillin problem.

 

[adamlsp]

Hitetlen,

Go over Lewis’ thing again in more detail it seems like you’re trying to get out of it too easily and remember it’s only an anology. You can replace “meaning” with “purpose” if you so choose.

Wrong. Our bodies can effect our souls. Kind of like reverse transcription with DNA. When our bodies die our soul moves on. That sounds like an effect. Our minds, separate from our bodies also effect our souls. Our minds (psychology now) our the conduits through which our souls express. The mind has predispositions just as the body does. So when some one has a lower IQ, , it is the fault of their mind not their soul. They are two separate entities. The souls response to these preconditions of the mind and body is its freewill in action.

Random. That’s what some people say a free action must be. An action without any cause. This is rediculous. If your typing a post and suddenly your arm shoots up in the air without any cause that is not free will. Free will is any action committed by an agent. We are agents. Beyond this it gets a little complex. Our souls are the agent part of us; the body and mind are conduits through which it acts. Agents’ choices have no cause outside of themselves. This may appear random to us but the cause is essentially the agent itself. Do you believe in free will?

I again would becareful saying what you believe as the universal purpose of things. Souls are very rational. Most philosophers believe in souls. I’m giving you rough statistical data not a absolute proof for souls by saying this. I again would be careful saying that your “beliefs” are rational.

I doubt I’m the one trivializing freewill. You are choosing wrong by no choosing God. Basic belief of most religions. Therefore you are aiding the evil in this world. Now you may say you are not doing evil, but by who’s authority do you speak but your own? You may believe what you want. And it seems very hard for you to understand the lack of creation of beings who would choose to exercise their will in an inappropriate way is going against the principal of freewill. The beings created are still free. But the very nature of freewill is violated if God would refuse to allow beings to exist who think differently than himself, like you. This doesn’t seem very tolerant of God now does it? Luckily he is tolerant, so we here at CAF get to listen to you everyday .

OK. Retribution may or may not be necessary. Two wrongs don’t make a right. We don’t need to discuss this.

The penicillin problem? I thought it was clear my answer from my last post. I did not directly reference it but thought you had the power of inference. My bad. You can widely apply this to everything. Is it fair we have cures today for diseases when they didn’t have them in the past? People are still challenged today but in different ways. And God never stops using some method of testing people. We have AIDS today but it didn’t exist before the last century. God is just using these challenges to help people. Remember soul building? I hope so, it was only a few posts ago. People use these challenges to overcome adversity. That is why first order evils exist. Read the last post. Evil exists, in some instances, for the purpose of being overcome. It is a test. Our response is the answer. Do we choose right or wrong? It is easy enough to see this in action. You could say bad responses to these evils are allowed so that other people may respond to someone else’s bad choice. This is called a third order good. And a bad response to a first order evil is called a second order evil.

 

[adamlsp]

In your world of perfect people, they have an ability to choose without being hindered by God. In order for a person’s particular choice to be free it needs not to be caused by someone else. These people in your world have that. In order for an individual to have the freewill to make this choice, there must be the possibility that this person can choose evil as well as good. This is not possible in your world because God does not merely know that no evil will befall the choices of this world, he has predestined your world to be without evil doers. Thus it is impossible it could ever contain these people. The possibility of choosing evil is then discarded. Freewill does not then exist in this world.

God’s “foreknowledge” does not hinder our freewill but his predestination of a world does. God cannot control the actuality of evil by our would-be choices without taking our freedom. In your world, God controls its actuality by prohibiting evil choicemakers. God, by his own choice, cannot control whether a being will choose evil or not. This means the beings in your world, were they not robots, could choose evil and God would not be able to stop them. Thus God could not create your world because he controls the fact that it is good. And that is not up to God, by his own choice he has left it to us. In it, God controls who enters and who doesn’t. He controls whether or not certain choices are allowed. Only the people who will not make these choices gain entrance. He is controling the moral evil in the world. This is impossible with freewill. God does not have to control individual choices in order to control freewill. In your world, evil is not a genuine alternative. So freewill is but a hollow shimmering of what is could be. God has knowledge of our choices not knowledge of what we will choose.

God only knows what we will do because from his perspective we are doing it. God does not have foreknowledge he just has knowledge. To have foreknowledge one must be inside of time. God lives in an “eternal present” in which all action is simultaneously occuring all at once. This “eternal present” is just a way of describing God’s position using time-bound discriptive terms, which of course are inadequate to truely describe him well.

God has no cause outside of himself. Therefore if he refused to create a being because it would do evil then God would have a cause outside of himself. The ultimate purpose of everything is God. There can be many intermediary purposes in between however but it ultimatle comes back to God. What you must then be asking is why God would not want of his own accord to create a world devoid of evil. Clearly he wanted a world of suffering that would be overcome. Morality’s purpose is to respond to evil. God wanted moral beings because they better reflect God. Thus evil had to exist.

Adam

 

[Hitetlen]

adamlsp:

In your world of perfect people, they have an ability to choose without being hindered by God. In order for a person’s particular choice to be free it needs not to be caused by someone else. These people in your world have that. In order for an individual to have the freewill to make this choice, there must be the possibility that this person can choose evil as well as good. This is not possible in your world because God does not merely know that no evil will befall the choices of this world, he has predestined your world to be without evil doers. Thus it is impossible it could ever contain these people. The possibility of choosing evil is then discarded. Freewill does not then exist in this world.

No, my world does not contain “perfect” people, just very good people. People similar to those who exist in our world, who strive to be good, who will not consciously choose evil, though they might do so accidently. They are still fallible, but they try their best. They are able and allowed to make “bad” choices, and sometimes they do, because they lack omniscience. For them the “soul” building is not necessary, they are already as good as a fallible human being can be. Such a world is possible, and it is better than our current world is. Free will is not eliminated, not even limited.

If one of these people would want to grab a knife and stab someone else, they could do it. No law of nature, no built-in prohibition would stop them. Maybe it even would happen. Someone in this world would hold a knife, stumble and accidently kill someone. This is perfectly possible. So evil would exist in this world, but not deliberate evil, only accidental evil.

There could be natural disasters in this world, wildfires wiping out innocent animals, tsunamis killing hunderds of thousands. But there would be no deliberate murder, no robbery, no cheating. This would be a huge improvement compared to our present stage, wouldn’t it be?

adamlsp:

Luckily he is tolerant, so we here at CAF get to listen to you everyday .

I am glad you see my presence here as a positive thing, helping you to build your soul, allowing you to practice tolerance.

adamlsp:

Wrong. Our bodies can effect our souls. Kind of like reverse transcription with DNA. When our bodies die our soul moves on. That sounds like an effect. Our minds, separate from our bodies also effect our souls.

Well, the “soul” is not a corporeal “thing”, therefore it cannot be affected by our physical presence. If it could be influenced, it could be detected (as any physical phenomenon could). The “moving on” does not change the “soul’s” essence, whatever it may be. And our mind is most certainly not separate or independent from our body, it is the product of our brain. (Side note: I really dislike to discuss “souls”. They are purely mythical, and bring nothing helpful to these discussions. But I guess, it is inevitable that they will pop up sometimes.)

I will open a new thread about the free will and necessary evil (don’t they rhyme just nicely?). I see some very interesting problems, which should be discussed. Its title is “The dilemma of free will and necessary evil”. You are most cordially invited to participate.

 

[adamlsp]

Hitetlen:

No, my world does not contain “perfect” people, just very good people. People similar to those who exist in our world, who strive to be good, who will not consciously choose evil, though they might do so accidently. They are still fallible, but they try their best. They are able and allowed to make “bad” choices, and sometimes they do, because they lack omniscience. For them the “soul” building is not necessary, they are already as good as a fallible human being can be. Such a world is possible, and it is better than our current world is. Free will is not eliminated, not even limited.

If one of these people would want to grab a knife and stab someone else, they could do it. No law of nature, no built-in prohibition would stop them. Maybe it even would happen. Someone in this world would hold a knife, stumble and accidently kill someone. This is perfectly possible. So evil would exist in this world, but not deliberate evil, only accidental evil.

There could be natural disasters in this world, wildfires wiping out innocent animals, tsunamis killing hunderds of thousands. But there would be no deliberate murder, no robbery, no cheating. This would be a huge improvement compared to our present stage, wouldn’t it be?

I am glad you see my presence here as a positive thing, helping you to build your soul, allowing you to practice tolerance.

Well, the “soul” is not a corporeal “thing”, therefore it cannot be affected by our physical presence. If it could be influenced, it could be detected (as any physical phenomenon could). The “moving on” does not change the “soul’s” essence, whatever it may be. And our mind is most certainly not separate or independent from our body, it is the product of our brain. (Side note: I really dislike to discuss “souls”. They are purely mythical, and bring nothing helpful to these discussions. But I guess, it is inevitable that they will pop up sometimes.)

I will open a new thread about the free will and necessary evil (don’t they rhyme just nicely?). I see some very interesting problems, which should be discussed. Its title is “The dilemma of free will and necessary evil”. You are most cordially invited to participate.

Hitetlen,

You are but so simple. If you would have read into my last post you would see that I left room for these people to do evil “accidentally.” These people cannot purposefully choose evil. Their intentions are always good. Enough said. God cannot control this. He cannot limit which beings come into existence to inhibit the choices that would come into existence. God relinquished this power. You are doing the thing again where you refuse to reply to the parts of the posts for which you have no answer. I have already explained God’s knowledge in an easier-for-you-to-understand way. Soul building is necessary. For everyone. These people in your world cannot respond to second order evils because they do not exist. They cannot choose poorly. Therefore they are limited and are not as good as the good people in our own world. You may like to live in this world. But it is not better than ours it is worse.

You appear to have a primitive concept of a soul. You are so funny. The mind maybe could be like the information (nonphysical) stored in the brain (physical). It is dependant on this brain for storage. The soul is not the mind though. The soul can be affected by the body just as the body can be affected by the soul. Precisely why it can’t be observed and recorded is because it is nonphysical. Only the body’s reaction can be seen. The soul is beyond our instruments though its effects may not be.

If you cannot understand the simple explanations of my last post you definitely should not be arguing philosophy with anyone. You repeat these arguments you’ve heard and add your own little twist. When a problem comes up the only thing you can do is repaeat your argument. Your argument is no problem for mine. But mine is a problem for yours. Think about it for a little while. Maybe it will take you more time than some other people. You were only a professor after all. Let it sink in. Try to be rational.

Adam

 

[Hitetlen]

Well, I guess it is time to stop this dialogue.

You say that a world filled with wars, atrocities, gang rapes, violence, terrorism, tortures, murders, mayhem, mutilations, genocides, catastrophies of all kinds is better than a world with love, caring and compassion, where people do not commit violent acts, because they realize that there are better ways to deal with problems and conflicts, and then you have the audacity to tell me that I should be rational, well, that goes beyond I have ever heard.

Bye.

 

[adamlsp]

Hitetlen:

Well, I guess it is time to stop this dialogue.

You say that a world filled with wars, atrocities, gang rapes, violence, terrorism, tortures, murders, mayhem, mutilations, genocides, catastrophies of all kinds is better than a world with love, caring and compassion, where people do not commit violent acts, because they realize that there are better ways to deal with problems and conflicts, and then you have the audacity to tell me that I should be rational, well, that goes beyond I have ever heard.

Bye.

Hitetlen,

Soul building is easy enough for most philosophers to understand. I am sorry you do not share our insight. I wish you luck in you next post and will pray that you argue rationally and for the common goal of wisdom for all. I looked for your freewill thread but did not see it. I will look again.

Talk to you soon,

Adam

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hiteteln
On the interpretation of the Genesis passage:

Did you notice that God sewed clothes while banishing Adam and Eve from the garden? As a pure punishment kind of thing, he didn’t have the heart to go all out against them…

According to many early Jewish interpreters, the pain is attributed to the sin (yes), but that isn’t the only approach.

Sin has entered the world, and the raising of children is now burdened with the knowledge that offspring are likely to be rebellious. The children, and the bearing of them for 18 years or so, will now be painful for the responsibility is now greater and much more difficult.

Is the increase in pain at the time of birth (since it is an increase, it suggests that some kind of pain may have already existed…) physical or mental?

Is the pain to punish, or to prevent something?

hmmm…

-Huiou

 

[look3467]

Type “A’s” and or type “b”s.

1Pe 1:17 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:

Now consider this: if God is not a respecter of persons then it would mean that He looks at all mankind with the same eye.

The only difference being, is that each persons would be evaluated on their own merits.

This evaluation taking place only in the physical world, thus “works” is dead when one exits this world.

After exiting this world, all souls are as one in Jesus. (Every knee shall bow)

Isa 45:23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear

.

Now as for your understanding of the two: A & B’s, my explanation should hopefully clear things up.

God does choose instruments (vessels) to play His music of various sorts.

Music: meaning messages to His creatures.

These vessels are recruited with all it’s faults and made to speak the words of God’s bidding.

Take Paul for instance, He persecuted the Christians, yet was converted to be a preacher to the Gentiles.

For some, living right is easy, and for others it’s not.

Ecc 9:11 I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

The safety net is this: regardless of time and chance, Jesus paid the price for all.

If, we are privileged to know Jesus in our hearts, then we are required to live for Him as witnesses of His loving kindness, and if we don’t live right, guess what? It will be harder on us then if we had never heard of Him.

Now, this is not a bad thing, so don’t get me wrong, for an earthly father who loves his children corrects them lovingly.

There is no banishment to some eternal state.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[peary]

Now, there was another thing I learned, namely that God does not predestine anyone to hell, but he does predestine some people to heaven.

We are ALL predestined to heaven. St. Paul says that our names are written in heaven (the names of believers). I don’t believe that everyone ‘makes’ it there, however.

So there are some people who are given a generous amount of grace, who gain the necessary faith to love and serve God sufficiently well, so they will be admitted to heaven. These people of course retain their free will.

It’s like when they asked Jesus about the blind man: “Who sinned? He or his parents that he was born blind?” to which Jesus answered: “Neither, but that the works of God be manifest through him.” Then, Jesus cured him.

In order to become a “type-A” person one does have to do anything, the grace and their resulting faith is a free gift from God.

Faith is ALWAYS a free gift from God… for everyone. It doesn’t mean, though, that everyone responds to it in the same way. some even reject it.

I was also told that God’s grace gives the “type-B” persons a lesser amount of faith, so they can work and expand it, and hopefully they will also merit admission to heaven, though that is not assured.

I personally believe that God bestows His grace freely to everyone, but because of human limitations, some will have difficulty in their Faith and in their response to grace. Grace does not negate human failings.

God nevertheless wants everyone to be good, faithful and obedient enough to deserve and go to heaven, and does not want anyone to be thrown into hell, but will never force anyone against his free will.

True.

Now here comes the question: “Why did God create ‘type-B’ people?”

If everyone would have been created “type-A”, that is predestined to heaven, then all of God’s valued goals would be fulfilled. There would be glory for him from freely exercised obedience, love toward everyone else, eternal life for everyone. There would be no pain, misery or suffering. People’s free will would not be trampled upon. Obviously God’s grace is inexhaustible, he could have given everyone enough grace to gain the necessary faith to be predestined to heaven.

You are asking the wrong question!

In a sense he would be like a doctor, who has an infinite supply of medication which can cure all the diseases, if dispensed in sufficient dosage. The doctor, however, does not do that. To some of his patients he gives enough medication so they will be cured for good. The rest get only a small amount, and some of them will get cured, others will not. The ones who get enough medication did not have to do anything for it. They were just given. The others just have to take their chances.

Does anyone of you have any reasonable explanation?

**I think you have the wrong perception on the types of people God makes. We all come into this world broken, but we are still considered ‘good’ by God. We come into this world with the stain of original sin on our soul which, through baptism, is washed away, an indelible mark then exists upon us as Christ’s own, and we have access to supernatural grace to get through life through belonging to the community of believers we call the Church. We take advantage of the sacraments because these sustain us. We even have Christ Himself in the Eucharist which is probably the greatest gift He has bestowed upon us.

I don’t think your analogy of God and the physician is a good one. I know of no physician who gives some of his patients more effective medicine than another because he wants certain patients to get cured faster or more complete than other patients. That seems to be what you are alluding to.** **Not only is that morally unjustifiable for the physician, it is also unjustifiable for God to do the same.

However, I DO believe that we ALL come into this world with a mission, to contribute to the world positively through our given talents and abilities, and to be witnesses to the Lord. Does God choose particular souls to further His Will on earth? Of course He does. It is the same as with Christ’s mother. She said “Fiat” to God. It is like God telling St. Francis - “Build my Church.” Some have the ability to do this better than others. That is just my opinion on this whole matter. I hope this further clarifies things for you. **