Fiction & Theodicies

[lilpixieofterror]

Why does there need to be one in the scenario that JimL has stated? Choosing between options is still choosing, even without a moral category.

Is it free will if you could only obey and do nothing else?

[Kane]

Again, you are allowed to make any assertion you want and don't have to present any kind of evidence, what-so-ever that your assertions are fact, but of course. Whenever a Christian says something and backs it up with evidence, you want MORE evidence and MORE evidence and MORE evidence before you'll believe it because you're isn't interested in seeing if Christianity is right. Nah, you are interested in buttressing your faith then you are in seeing if it is true.

You're not a victim, here.

Again, all one has to do is see just what happens to children in which their parents give them everything they want; they end up with serious emotional and behavioral problems as a result and this can be easily backed up just by talking to psychologist or even taking a child psychology course, good parents balance making their children do things they do not want to do with letting them do what they want to do and they need to teach their children right from wrong and then hope, when they are not around, they children will choose right and not wrong.

Okay, but that only establishes what happens between parents and children. Within the Christian context, humanity is sinful and "evil" (Matt. 7:11). It shouldn't surprise us, given the Christian context, that sinful people do sinful things when their whole disposition is bent against consistently doing what is right.

Outside the Christian context, people do bad things sometimes because people do bad things sometimes. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a philosophical distinction between free-will or determined actions.

So from my point-of-view, you have yet to establish that there's any reason to believe that a perfect and all-powerful God would spoil his creation by making it better.

Again the only solution for your plan to work is to rid the world of the ability to choose, but you don't like that option so you seek more excuses (unbacked by evidence and in fact, the evidence would be contradictory to your claims since you keep wanting to use the Bible to back it up, but totally ignoring the fact that God’s presence didn’t prevent Adam and Eve from choosing sin nor did it prevent Israel or in fact, anybody from choosing sin) to back up your faith with. Gosh, I knew your faith was weak, but you didn't have to show it this much.

Yes, God's presence didn't stop Adam and Eve from being naughty. God's presence apparently didn't come with a shammy to wipe-out evil, either. There was still a creepy serpent in the garden (that God put there), and there was still a tree that would make things worse (that God also put there).

God set the parameters for evil in place right from the start. People just chose from the available options, apparently, and then got blamed for putting their hands in the cookie jar -- silly God! Didn't he know he could've just removed the cookie jar, altogether, like any decent parent who doesn't want their kids to eat the cookies?

[Kane]

Is it free will if you could only obey and do nothing else?

There's no need for obedience unless there's a moral imperative. Consider choosing between red or green. No moral implication there; just a choice. Volition could still exist in JimL's scenario, a scenario I also pointed out in one of my earlier posts to you. The moral context is an imposition on free-will, not a causal agent.

[lilpixieofterror]

There's no need for obedience unless there's a moral imperative. Consider choosing between red or green. No moral implication there; just a choice. Volition could still exist in JimL's scenario, a scenario I also pointed out in one of my earlier posts to you. The moral context is an imposition on free-will, not a causal agent.

So Kane, whenever you choose to do something that is 'bad', what is God suppose to do? Is he supposed to magically teleport you away to somewhere else everytime you attempt to do something bad? Again, you really are not thinking this thing though very well, are you?

[seanD]

Why does there need to be one in the scenario that JimL has stated? Choosing between options is still choosing, even without a moral category.

Post #129, my response to JimL (the post right above yours) answers your question.

[lilpixieofterror]

You're not a victim, here.

Never claimed to be, I am just pointing out your double standards.

Okay, but that only establishes what happens between parents and children. Within the Christian context, humanity is sinful and "evil" (Matt. 7:11). It shouldn't surprise us, given the Christian context, that sinful people do sinful things when their whole disposition is bent against consistently doing what is right.

And why are people sinful Christopher? What is the Christian answer to this question?

Outside the Christian context, people do bad things sometimes because people do bad things sometimes. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a philosophical distinction between free-will or determined actions.

And why do they choose to do bad things sometimes? Do they choose them willingly or because they don't know any better? Of course, it is somebody one and sometimes both, but the point is that if let us say, lying is wrong. Did you do it or did God do it? I know it's crazy to actually believe people should have personal responsibility, but that is life.

So from my point-of-view, you have yet to establish that there's any reason to believe that a perfect and all-powerful God would spoil his creation by making it better.

And you have yet to establish that your system is any better, you have just asserted it and didn't think your logic though very well. If morality is a set of rules or principles to follow, what is God supposed to do whenever you try to break these rules or principles? Is God suppose to do like what happened on Liar, Liar and make you tell the truth? Is God suppose to magically teleport people who are getting ready to commit adultery or murder somewhere else so they can't do it? Do you not see where your logic is leading yet? You basically want a nanny God that watches your ever movie and prevents you from doing the wrong thing. Ok, if you really want that, would you mind if God started with you first?

Yes, God's presence didn't stop Adam and Eve from being naughty. God's presence apparently didn't come with a shammy to wipe-out evil, either. There was still a creepy serpent in the garden (that God put there), and there was still a tree that would make things worse (that God also put there).

You remind me of the child that when caught with his hand in the cookie jar trying to steal those yummy cookies his mommy made for after dinner, tries to blame mom for making them so yummy instead of taking a little responsibility for himself. I know children do that, but as an adult, I have learned this thing called 'being responsible for myself' and not expect my parents to make sure I am responsible. Adam and Eve were given one simple rule, do not eat from the tree and yet they failed to follow that simple rule, you seem to want the God that would magically transport them away instead of letting them deal with the responsibility of their actions. Nice, the nanny God comes into effect again, so do you want to be the first one God starts with?

God set the parameters for evil in place right from the start. People just chose from the available options, apparently, and then got blamed for putting their hands in the cookie jar -- silly God! Didn't he know he could've just removed the cookie jar, altogether, like any decent parent who doesn't want their kids to eat the cookies?

So again, you act like the pouting child that doesn't want to take responsibility for himself and wants to blame everybody else, but himself, for his own problems. Funny, I learned that I was the one that put my hand in the cookie jar and it was my choice to do something I was told not to do, my mom didn't make me do it, I did it. So you seem to want to blame parents everywhere when their children disobey simple instructions and do what they want anyway. Nice...

[Kane]

LPoT,

First, my name is not Christopher. It is Kane. Get at least that much straight, please.

Second, this conversation between us is over now. I prefer conversations with others on this board. You just drag me down.

KANE

[Kane]

If a parent sets a curfew and trusts the child to follow the curfew, but the child disobeys; is that the parent's fault? I suppose in an arbitrary way, but the parent has the right to set the rules for any reason they want. The child needs restraints in order to mature in character and the parent has the right to enjoy the satisfaction of developing a trusting relationship between them and the child. Without trust, there's no meaningful relationship.

So your perfect God is not capable of stepping things up a little from imperfect humans? Is that really the path of reasoning you want to take?

[JimL]

So Jimmy's solution is for God to have forced Adam and Eve to only obey and not given them the choice to obey or disobey.

One only needs a solution lilpix if at first there is a problem. If God in his power created the end product (free willed beings in heaven) in the first place, you know, like an omniscient God could, then there is no problem for which a solution is needed.

I suppose Jimmy was once the kid that blamed mommy for tempting him with good cookies when mommy caught him trying to take them from the cookie jar. It was all moms’ fault and you have no responsibility in anything eh? Is it just me or do so many fundy atheist sound so much like a spoiled 5 year old that still blame others for the choices they make in their lives?

I'll just try to ignore your usual nonsense and stick to the argument at hand.

[seanD]

So your perfect God is not capable of stepping things up a little from imperfect humans? Is that really the path of reasoning you want to take?

He did, through the death and resurrection of his son Jesus Christ. I'm not sure how much "stepping things up" for imperfect humans you can get.

[JimL]

If a parent sets a curfew and trusts the child to follow the curfew, but the child disobeys; is that the parent's fault? I suppose in an arbitrary way, but the parent has the right to set the rules for any reason they want. The child needs restraints in order to mature in character and the parent has the right to enjoy the satisfaction of developing a trusting relationship between them and the child. Without trust, there's no meaningful relationship.

Sean, your claim was that basically the way to salvation is through belief in God, that human beings are essentially sinful, and so the only way to enter through the pearly gates is through belief. Are you now saying that once you pass through those pearly gates, god changes your nature, that you will no longer be of a sinful nature. What happens to those free willed beings who upon entering heaven, will no longer sin? Remember, they were still sinners standing before the gate, they get in not because they are good, but because they believe in, or as you put it, acknowledge God. So what changes once they are in? Do they all of a sudden become good?

[JimL]

So Jimmy, how is that free will if you only have the ability to obey and do nothing else? Do you know what 'free will' means? Again, why is it that so many fundy atheist sound like spoild 5 year olds that blame others, for the choices they make in their lives?

What makes you think that free will necessarily has to do with obedience or disobedience?

[seanD]

Sean, your claim was that basically the way to salvation is through belief in God, that human beings are essentially sinful, and so the only way to enter through the pearly gates is through belief. Are you now saying that once you pass through those pearly gates, god changes your nature, that you will no longer be of a sinful nature. What happens to those free willed beings who upon entering heaven, will no longer sin? Remember, they were still sinners standing before the gate, they get in not because they are good, but because they believe in, or as you put it, acknowledge God. So what changes once they are in? Do they all of a sudden become good?

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing (or, in this case, having the same discussion) over and over again and expecting a different result. We've had this exact same discussion. It starts here.

[JimL]

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing (or, in this case, having the same discussion) over and over again and expecting a different result. We've had this exact same discussion. It starts here.

Well, I guess then that I will just have to take that as a concession, since the discussion you referred to does not answer this simple question of christian doctrine that you yourself espouse. The reason I asked is because it occurred to me in during this discussion that if you suddenly become good in heaven, if your sinful nature is somehow suddenly transformed upon entering the Kingdom, then it only proves the point that I have been making, i.e. that God could have made you that way to begin with. You can't deny that sean, its your own argument, before heaven, sinner, after entering heaven, transformed.

[seanD]

Well, I guess then that I will just have to take that as a concession, since the discussion you referred to does not answer this simple question of christian doctrine that you yourself espouse. The reason I asked is because it occurred to me in during this discussion that if you suddenly become good in heaven, if your sinful nature is somehow suddenly transformed upon entering the Kingdom, then it only proves the point that I have been making, i.e. that God could have made you that way to begin with. You can't deny that sean, its your own argument, before heaven, sinner, after entering heaven, transformed.

If I were to speculate, then I'd refer to the link I posted within that earlier discussion that I just linked in this thread. There's something about coming from the bottom of a fall that assures the individual's loyalty and faithfulness. A person who experiences evil and suffering, yet still retains faith in God in spite of it is less likely to turn against him than an individual that has been catered to and never experiences evil and suffering, as in the case of Adam's first encounter with evil.