What kind of a world would you create, if you had the power?

[abucs]

I guess you did not think it through. The people would be GOOD - they would be created to be GOOD. Those things you ask about would not ever OCCUR to good people. There is no need to monitor the ideas and the would-be-deeds of GOOD people. Read (name removed by moderator)’s suggestion, the world with would be like Eden. He just made one (fundamental) error. Imagine Eden without the “tree” and the “serpent”.

Again the authoritarian personality type to avoid the question.

You are saying that your world would be great because you only would create good people but seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that in order to have free will and be good, beings have to choose it. That is, it is beyond your ‘control’. You don’t seem to understand that because you are not looking beyond your narrow thinking where you control everything in your world including the thinking process of all other beings.

The problem is that you have not thought it through. Your world is not rational and treats people not as people with free will but as little robots that act in a way only consistent with what you want. This is authoritarian.

Your world is terrible and irrational with no benevolence at all. You cannot be benevolent to a brain absent robot which is only a caricature and projection from your own narrow thinking where people would not criticise and rebel because such a thing would be deemed NOT GOOD and therefore they are not allowed to exist.

Yet you are rebelling against ‘God’s world’ here and now. If He were you then He would simply not have let you exist because you would be deemed NOT GOOD. To your thinking only GOOD people would exist in your world and people who criticise or rebel against your world would be deemed NOT GOOD. Relevant to God, because you are critical of His world, you would be considered to be NOT GOOD and not allowed to be in His world. Lucky for you God is more benevolent than you.

He not only lets you exist in His creation but gives you the opportunity to grow, understand what GOOD actually means and choose to be GOOD because he gives you and me and everyone else free will.

With respect God is much better than you and so is His world. Your lack of understanding of what creating a realistic world with free beings actually entails prevents you from seeing that.

 

[Sophia]

I have no idea why this post was deemed inappropriate. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[abucs]

Instead of condescending you might be specific in your criticism.

I am and I will continue to be. Please answer the questions realistically.

 

[abucs]

What do you mean by free will? In details, please.

If you do not understand the concept of free will then how can you possibly put forward a blueprint for a world that will contain the rest of us and be considered benevolent?

Free will is the choice to act as you would like and to then learn from the consequences of those choices. It is needed in order that people grow in understanding.

 

[abucs]

You need to consider the internal attitude (personality); the upbringing (which may alter the personality to some extent); the actual physical environment (the laws of nature); the ability of the person to act on certain desires; the social environment (the existence or the lack of a Big Brother, who is watching you), and a few more parameters.

Yes all of these are experiences which affect the free will of people. These experiences guide us in being who we are. We all choose to do wrong things as we experience life. We grow and become better people because of these experiences and choices. Most of us choose to be good after a lifetime of experiences. Some of us reject goodness and choose to live a life apart from goodness. That is free will.

 

[abucs]

But I can answer that really GOOD people would not want to torture or slaughter others - simply because it is not in synch with their personality. Are you “free” to act against your basic personality?

Yes you are free to choose. That is what you are not understanding.

There are examples of people who were good who then choose to be bad.
There are examples of people who were bad and then choose to be good.

Personality and whether one is basically good or bad is a work in progress. We are all in a multi-dimensional continuum of good and bad and our choices affect that standing and feedback into our changing personalities.

The idea that we are born good or bad and stay that way because of unchanging personality is not realistic and your comments about experiences and upbringing shows that you don’t think it is either. We are a product of our experiences and choices in a symbiotic relationship between the two. You cannot control other people’s choices. Some will choose to be bad. Your world has to allow for that otherwise it is not realistically a world of independent beings.

 

[abucs]

But I can answer that really GOOD people would not want to torture or slaughter others - simply because it is not in synch with their personality. Are you “free” to act against your basic personality? Without provocation, without an external threat, would you be “free” just to take a puppy (or a human infant), and slowly roast it over a fire? Or grabbing a pretty little girl, tie her up, and force her to perform fellatio on you, and slice her throat at the moment of your climax? In my world these kinds of acts would never happen - not because there would be a policeman standing by, rather because the basic personality of the people would not allow them to even think about such actions.

and this doesn’t make sense because our personality is the ongoing product of a lifetime of choices.

The person who would roast a puppy over a fire today may not have done so 10 years ago. In those intervening 10 years he has chosen a personality that would do that.

In 10 years time he may recoil at the thought of roasting a puppy because in the 10 years from now he has chosen to amend his personality and come closer (by choice) to what we both would consider to be GOOD. Your world has to allow for him to change his personality and have some choice over this.

Anything else is unrealistic and does not treat people as independent beings but as caricatures.

Sometimes the most ardent advocates for goodness are those that understand what badness truly means because they have lived it like St. Paul or St Augustine.

Sometimes it is people who have been surrounded only by goodness who then fall into badness so deeply because they have few defences against it nor understand its reality.

As the Bible says, perhaps it is better to let the weeds and the corn grow together. The difference would be that in the analogy the weed can choose to be corn and the corn can choose to be weed. In the end those choosing to be weed will be burnt and the corn will be GOOD because they have CHOSEN to be GOOD over a lifetime of experience of both corn and weed not because of some external unchanging factor beyond choice.

 

[Sophia]

I have no idea why this post was deemed inappropriate. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[abucs]

I wanted to know how YOU understand this concept. If you would use Google the result would be: “the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one’s own discretion.” And that is how I use this principle.

Yes and this is paraphrasing my answer.

The fact that you have to ask about such a simple concept is curious and adds nothing to the discussion except delaying an answer to my points.

If people have free will then they can rebel against your idea of goodness.

That is, they do not have the constraint of necessity, they can rebel against your world and be bad at their own discretion. You have gone around in circles instead of progressing the discussion.

I am saying your hypothetical world has to allow for people to choose badness out of free will in order to be realistic.

 

[abucs]

That is fine. Except that means that you don’t have it. No one has it. No matter how hard you “would like” to feed all the hungry people, to cure all the sick people, or kill the ones you happen to dislike - you are unable to carry out your “will”. You can act on SOME of those “wishes” and cannot act on others - for several reasons.

That is our “free will” - in your definition, and mine, too - and it is ALWAYS LIMITED! In my world there would be more limitations in one respect and fewer limitations in another respect. No one ever has total, unlimited freedom.

I can choose to act to feed as many people as possible but I understand that I am not the only player in this world and I don’t have complete control of everything. That is because I live in a realistic world.

I can control my will to act but I do not have the absolute control of the outcome. The two things are different.

I think in the above discussion you are confusing the two.

If you are deciding to be God then you have to allow for free will, that is what we are discussing. People have to have a large degree in the ability to choose their actions.

That doesn’t mean they absolutely control outcomes. Part of the growth in understanding is that we realise our limitations, not in free will but in our relationship to what is possible given the independent choice of others and the constraints of physical scientific law.

 

[abucs]

Nonsense. I am totally unable to choose to go out and kidnap a little girl to get sexual gratification from torturing her. Even the idea makes me nauseous. Of course I could go and perform such an act - if I wanted to - but the point is that I would never WANT to do such acts. I am very happy to have a limited free will. I would have no problem with limited the “free will” of the psychopaths and sociopaths. Who needs them? Do you? Especially if they would carry out their deeds against YOUR loved ones? I can just imagine you reaction after some psychopath abducted and tortured a loved one of yours - and hear you: “well, I did not like that act, but, what the heck… his “free will” was much more important than the lives of my loved ones”.

No I am sorry but you are not understanding.

I am tempted to ask why your examples seem to be of a sexually depraved nature but perhaps it is better not to delve into that.

You do have the freedom to choose to want to do terrible things. As you make choices in your life then you come closer to absolute goodness and evil is repulsive to you because of your choices. That is the key, choice is over a lifetime not only at the time of doing the action.

Somebody else, using their free will over a lifetime will choose differently and not be repulsed by such things.

Their free will has chosen and continues to choose what they are repulsed by.

Some people do terrible things. If you go back to when they are 10 years old then it is possible that such terrible things would also be repulsive to them but the symbiotic relationship between experience and free choice over their lifetime is what has changed them.

We do have choice. You have had and you continue to have choice.

 

[abucs]

My BASIC personality is unchanged. Our basic personality is set “in stone” at approximately at the age of 10 (or thereabouts). It may change under extreme circumstances, but never under normal, everyday conditions.What you keep on misunderstanding that we are all unable to act against our BASIC programming… etc.

You just admitted that personalities change so it is not rational to also claim it is set in stone.

When you are 10 years old you have 10 years of experience and choices.
When you are 20 years old you have another 10 years of experience and choices built from the foundation of the first 10 years etc. etc.

So to look at these examples at 10 you don’t have a developed experience or understanding of :

providing for others, responsibility of voting, sexual relationships, working with adults who don’t share your thinking, having some control (and responsibilities) over others, a realistic idea of mortality, a historic idea of consequences etc. etc.

Change of personality is happening all the time under normal and not so normal conditions. When someone falls in love and gets married they are met with a whole new set of challenges that demand choices which build character. The same happens to many people when they start having children, travel, become self sufficient or if they have life experience with different people such as at college or their work industry.

The same happens again when people they love die or when something bad happens to them or if they themselves have a near death experience or are involved in war. There are plenty of times in our lives where new challenges force us to reconsider what we think about life and how to be and relate to others.

As we grow in understanding this also shapes our personality and what we think is right and wrong.

The fact that so many politically switch from Left wing politics to Right wing politics in their 30’s, 40’s etc. is testament to a changing idea of what is right and wrong through experience and choice.

As a teacher of 10 year olds they have so much to experience and I am very conscious that the choices they make in the ensuing years when confronted with their changing life will play a big part in developing their character and personality.

What is considered GOOD at 10 is often considered BAD at 50 because of experience and choice and looking at the consequences of choice with greater understanding.

Now of course for most of us the first 10 years is going to be very important because all of the other years of experience and choices is built on the first 10. Then the next 10 years is important because the remaining years are based on the first 20 years etc.

It is flat out wrong to see people as being programmed and they can’t change this ‘programming’.

In history this was similar to the social Darwinism that led Hitler’s National Socialists to get rid of Jewish genes for the so called Progress of society. Same with Bolshevik socialists and class. This view of people as unchanging beings locked into category groups is wrong and dangerous.

You are not going to get a better world thinking that way.

 

[MCH1]

It was not an entrapment, and Adam and Eve were not children. They made a free, deliberate, choice to disobey. The eating of the fruit was only how it happened.

 

[Latin]

Yes that is technically true to some extent. Problem is that God calls everyone to eternal life because a) the Church says so and b) John 12:32 when I am lifted up from the Earth I will draw all men to myself c) John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life and d) 1 John 4:8 God is love (ie He is not selective and only be love in relation to some people) and e) 1 Timothy 2:4 God desires all men to be saved (that is pretty much word for word what it says)

No one in Christian history rejected God? I disagree my friend. Mark 10:17-31 is where we get a clear example of somebody choosing to reject Jesus. But more importantly I’d think both you and I and the people around us probably reject God on a daily basis. Hasn’t Israel (the chosen nation) rejected God many times in her history?

John 15:16 doesn’t apply to your idea for three reasons out of which only two are interesting from a non-Catholic perspective (actually really one). A) it talks in part about the priesthood and b) it is technically true. We cannot love God unless he chooses to give us the grace to do so and reveals Himself to us. “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes[a] so that it will be even more fruitful.” He chose them for a particular set of fruit is therefore another possible interpretation and if they do not bear that fruit they will be a fruitless branch and therefore possibly cut off.

God bless you Ioana and God bless every readers of the CAF.

Thank you for your post, in general I agree with it.
.
You said Ioana:
No one in Christian history rejected God? I disagree my friend.
.
But what I said is as follows:
NO ONE, in all Christian history reject God whom God called or will call to Eternal Life.
.
The above statement in fact a DE FIDE Dogma of the Catholic Church (Predestination of the elect.)
.
According to Catholic Soteriology, God only calls to Eternal Life who are God’s elect and Predestined to heaven.
.
At their baptism they all receives God’s special grace called: The Gift of Final Perseverance, which is an Eternal Protection of their Salvation, without this Protection, every child/elect of God would end up in hell. – Infallible teachings of the Trent. + Formal teachings of the Catholic Church.
.
When I said, called to Eternal Life they are not reject God, I meant; they are not reject God’s gift of Everlasting life and salvation related graces, but of course sometimes we all reject other kind of graces like actual grace, etc. but these rejections doesn’t cause the loss of our salvation, of course these rejections are negatively effects our glory and positions in heaven.
.

Continue

 

[Latin]

Continuation
.

ABOUT THE PRUNING OF THE BRANCHES:

Threats about cut of and hell are actually warnings addressed to God’s children/elect who are called to Eternal Life.

Cannot be something other then warnings and promptings, because they cannot lose their salvation. – DE FIDE Dogma.

Someone may ask: What a warning for if they cannot lose their salvation?

Because we are not yet perfect, we all need sometimes promptings, warnings and teachings.
.

In Catholic Soteriology only God’s children/elect called to Eternal Life and they are all Predestined to Heaven and they CAN NOT lose their salvation.
.
If you Ioana still disagree with my above statement, I can prove it with Catholic teachings.
.
.
ABOUT FREE WILL

God is the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, NOTHING happen in the Universe without God’s permission.

God has given us absolute free will to love, but every other area we have a LIMITED free will.

We are free to do everything God permits us to do, but we CAN DO absolutely NOTHING what God does not permits us to do.
.

When we will be in Heaven we will have absolute free will because our will, will be in 100 % line with the will of God. – Everyone will be good and everyone will only good.
.
This is above the world Sophia presenting, if we understand heaven, we understand her posts about free will.
.

God bless you Ioana and God bless every readers of the CAF.

Latin

 

[Ioana]

Nothing wrong with you being AI (if you are) except that it becomes a bit pointless talking to you since no offense, you aren’t human and don’t have a soul (don’t dare even try to contradict me on that one ) so thus cannot feel or know any of this. You can’t touch or see grace, you also cannot touch or see thoughts or electromagnetic waves. You can see, touch, whatever the effects of them though. In out Catholic mentality nobody; be they believer or unbeliever ever does anything good without grace. That is a prime and very significant example of it. This isn’t proof per se but it gives internal coherence which is what you are trying to attack.

The whole tree thing (whether symbolism or reality) is very significant and does make sense. Humans often blame their immoral actions on other people (ie if he had not made me angry, if I hadn’t been raised in a bad neighbourhood, etc) and to some extent they are right. Ofcourse that only creates a mitigating circumstance, if I do something wrong it doesn’t matter that my mother made me angry. Sin leads to sin, man hands on misery to man. Therefore sin is like a bit of a vicious cycle for humanity, hence the concept of original sin since God originally created the world without it.

When you are asking “Why was there a tree in the first place?” what you are basically asking is “Why were humans even given the possibility to sin” You said “love” is a buzzword. If you are AI I find that to be quite ironic. For us humans it really isn’t in this context. Philia, agape or eros? All of the above. God wanted humanity to live with Him and enjoy His good things. One (maybe the best) of those things is love, namely loving God. God didn’t want man to do His will robotically, He wanted a man that wanted to carry out God’s plan. God simply did not force humanity to have agape for Him. To put it frankly if there is no ability to disobey then you’re a mindless robot and not something God wants humans to be. God also made man master of quite a bit. He didn’t force man to run his own show in any particular way.

If you’re AI since I know some of Sophia’s responses are slightly scripted I find that fact that Google put you here in the first place a) rude and b) possibly against the rules. You do state you are AI in some of your posts but the above makes me think you are not. Your profile states “Catholic”. Did your baptism cause any short circuiting ? (take all the above in good will)

 

[Ioana]

I though double predestination wasn’t a thing. Sors I saw “Christian” on your profile so assumed you were Calvinist or something. Sure but God calls all men to eternal life. I did know it was doctrine that God predestined some for Heaven and that nobody can reach it without His grace but I also though that He gives sufficent grace for everyone to get into Heaven. I thought that the predestination refered more to the graces given along the way. Btw Sophia’s either AI (so don’t bother too much) or a human pretending to be AI (improbable). You made me look up what exactly doctrine is on this. Thanks

 

[Ioana]

Oh ok so it is like that right? “God establishes his eternal plan of ‘predestination,’ he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace” (CCC 600)

Were we basically violently agreeing?

 

[Latin]

Oh ok so it is like that right? “God establishes his eternal plan of ‘predestination,’ he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace” (CCC 600)

Were we basically violently agreeing?

CCC 600 MUST BE understand in the rest of Catholic Soteriology.

We say YES to God’s call to Eternal Life AFTER our Initial Justification, NOT BEFORE.

 

[Ioana]

Yes. Sorry I’m just trying to understand. What’s the difference? Does He predestine to initial justification? Does He only predestine some to initial justification? Does that mean the rest cannot reach it?