[Johan]

So, basically you are saying that you think free will is needed here on earth so that we can choose heaven, but once we’ve chosen, then we no longer need the free will in heaven. So, it is a problem if we can’t choose here, but not a problem if we have no choice later?

I am not convinced that we even have libertarian free will right now though, so being without a choice isn’t a horrible thought to me, however what it is that is restraining that choice is what is problematic to me. My current choices are constrained by my past experiences, knowledge and the physics around me. I am already limited in my abilities, and I don’t think it would make any sense to say that I was not bound by anything when making decisions, so being limited in heaven isn’t a problem for me.

Where I have a problem is where we are, or are not limited while here on earth. If you argue that we need to be able to choose heaven freely, why do you think that choice needs to also be packaged with the choice to be able to rape or assault someone? Why do you feel that those choices are needed to be able to make the choice or heaven or not?

[Sophia]

Hello Johan,

Firstly I don’t think that because you are constrained by your past experiences, knowledge, and physics that you don’t have complete free will. You are not limited to a number of past experiences because of free will you can always have more experiences and it’s the same for knowledge you can always gain new knowledge or even create new knowledge. When it comes to being limited by physics, as humans we are bound by natural laws. The only being that is not bound by the natural laws is God, and having God-like abilities is not essential to free will. Your second point seems to be a reference to the logical problem of evil. I am thinking you are proposing something like, why didn’t God make a type of free will without gratuitous evils? There is a multiverse theory that counters this argument of gratuitous evils, the theory states that maybe God created every possible universe he could create above a certain threshold of goodness. Maybe God created every universe that has as much good as evil or more good than evil. Another theory suggests that after the world fell because of humans, God enacted a rescue plan to allow humans to freely choose God. But for this plan to work humans have to see what it means to be separated from God. Concluding that God has good reason to not remove all the horrific evils from the world. Finally, there is the Soul-Making Theodicy, which states that “The world is designed by God as an environment in which people, through their free choices can undergo spiritual growth that will ultimately fit them for communion with God.” The problem of evil is very difficult but by looking at all these arguments we can see that there are many possibilities for why evil exists and how its existence might be necessary.

[Walter]

Sophia

You say that having God-like abilities is not essential to free will. That may be true, but having the ability to make a wrong choice is not essential to free will either, so God making a type of free will without gratuitous evils is not impossible.

The multiverse theory isn’t very helpful, because God did not have to create any possible universe that has as much good as evil or more good than evil. In fact, there is no reason why a good God would create a universe that has any evil at all.

In such universe, the world cannot possible fall because of humans and there is no need for any rescue plan.

The soul-making theodicy fails for many reasons, but the most important one is that, according to most theists, there are plenrty of people incommunion wityh God who have never had the chance of ondergoing spiritual growth through their free choices. Children dying in the womb or at very young age would be examples of this.

So, the problem of evil is very difficult and there have been many attempts to argue for possibilities for why evil exists and how its existence might be necessary, but so far, they have all failed.

[jayceeii]

Your first argument caught my eye, for it can be said the ability to make a wrong or evil choice is not part of free will, but is evidence of a will that is bound. Making an evil choice is tantamount to giving in to the ways of destruction, which can only occur where there is lack of creative power. The truly free will can operate in a morality derived from above the material plane. It is not attached to selfish ends, and seeks universal joy for all.

The argument for why evil exists is difficult to present in a world where absolutely everyone believes themselves to be fundamentally good. Evil seems to appear in the fringes, as it were, as majorities of humans cast against minorities, declaring evil has been done when the minority was sure that it was good. The Nazis believed in their cause, for instance. They were positive they were doing the world its greatest favor yet.

The argument must be presented without pointing an immediate finger at the evil ones, or they will retaliate and thereby prove their evil. And many of the most egregious evils are going unrecognized, such as sins against the future generations in the way the planet is treated today. To get a really clear view of evil one must be outside the class of evil ones, and capable of original goodness, which is to say able to work against sorrow and for joy.

With that said, though, it might be possible to add that the quintessence of evil is rejoicing at the sorrow of another. This overturns the very purpose of God’s creation.

[Pater]

“In fact, there is no reason why a good God would create a universe that has any evil at all.”

An interesting observation, since neither you, nor anyone else, would be able to describe God as “good”, in the case of a universe devoid of any possibility of evil.

Maybe there is a “good” reason?

[jayceeii]

I think you mean no one could describe God as not-evil, in a universe devoid of evil’s possibility. Goodness has a positive presence. It is not simply the negation of evil. In fact evil can be called a corruption or weakness, not the opposite from good. You don’t even need a whole universe like this, one society would be enough. You know all the people are incapable of evil, so after awhile you stop looking for it, forgetting that it “exists.” The concept of goodness remains relevant as degrees are found in its infinite fields of possibility. Everything is good, everyone is good, yet some goodness is more remarkable. Many the synonyms for good. In that society there is competence, excellence and virtue.

[Pater]

No that’s not what I mean. Why would anyone “look” for evil if none ever existed?

In a world of pure unending light, “darkness” is undefined, and so with “goodness” the same. In a world with no possibility of evil, the extremity of God’s goodness and love would also remain undefined. Jesus said “No greater love has any man than that he would lay down his life for his friends.”

That’s what God did, in order that we could apprehend the extremity of His love. He planned that from before the beginning. Quite a magnificent plan, in fact.

[jayceeii]

You’re right, it might become a “problem” of children in that society, for growing up without encountering evil would leave them unprepared for it, should it be encountered.

Your worldview is black and white, good and evil as opposite poles. You don’t accept my argument goodness can stand on its own, and that degrees of goodness remain relevant.

You also presume it was humanity Jesus was diving after and calling His “friends.” Yet this ignores what Isaiah said repeatedly, that the Lord is despised and rejected of humans.

Jesus said He came for sinners, and I am happy to see it leaves you feeling smug and contented, that the greatest story was told and God doesn’t intend further great stories.

[Walter]

An interesting observation, since neither you, nor anyone else, would be able to describe God as “good”, in the case of a universe devoid of any possibility of evil.

But I don’t describe God as “good” at all. If God exists, He is definitely not good because otherwise He would have created a univrese devoid of any possibility of evil.

[jayceeii]

As I interpret this, you are not accepting Pater’s argument that God allowed evil to demonstrate His own magnificence in overcoming it through sending a singularity. That is to say, you disagree that creating evil in order to demonstrate goodness, would be good.

So God was not sitting around and thinking, “There is only light around here, I’d better make or allow some darkness, otherwise I won’t be seen and known by my creatures.” My point is the light does not require darkness to be known and does very well without it.

Although there is evil in all human hearts today, the Hindu and Buddhist scriptures say there is a state man can attain where his heart is devoid of any possibility of evil. Christian scriptures say there is no use man trying this, that God will just hand it to him.

The battle between East and West is largely over this question of effort, for the East allows a man to strive for greater purity but the West says give up all hope and wait for Jesus. In fact most churches insist it’s a form of evil to seek inner purity, a type of sin.

[wonderer]

“In fact most churches insist it’s a form of evil to seek inner purity, a type of sin.”

I’m curious as to what you mean by “purity”? As far as I can tell, it means something like, “free from nargles”.

[jayceeii]

If you are suggesting all humans are pure, then you have no explanation for any crime, let alone war. Pure beings continually long and work for universal joy, and against any sorrow. Again, if you say nothing can be done against these negative tendencies except ignoring or repressing them, you are denying the message of the East. As Buddha put it:

“Hard it is to train the mind, which goes where it likes and does what it wants. But a trained mind brings health and happiness. The wise can direct their thoughts, subtle and elusive, wherever they choose: a trained mind brings health and happiness.”

As Krishna put it:

“They live in wisdom who see themselves in all and all in them, who have renounced every selfish desire and sense craving tormenting the heart.”

The denial of such an inner project is the popular route, the Christians even insisting that meditation is evil. This is curious to me, because one might think the Lord would be impressed by a human who said, “I can tell there are impurities in my heart, and the East offers a chance for self-purification that the West denies. Surely Jesus would not reject me for wanting to make myself into a better creature if possible, if there are effective tools.” The prominence of certain enlightened sages would suggest there are indeed such tools, and that higher states may be attained. But the Christian view is that Jesus would say He doesn’t value self-awareness or efforts at profound inner self-improvement and might even punish it, shoving His way onto the scene saying, “I’ll be doing that for you.”

One could reason that even were the tools ineffective, Jesus would still prefer to call friend the one who made an effort to change instead of waiting for Him to do everything.

[wonderer]

I don’t see how you have made any attempt to actually respond to what I was curious about.

How can we tell whether you or I have more nargles?

[jayceeii]

All I can find on nargles is from the Harry Potter books, in which I have no faith:

“The Nargle is a magical creature that Luna Lovegood and Xenophilius Lovegood believe exists, though many others believe them to not exist or to be extinct; it is unknown as to whether Luna ever did discover their existence or not in her years of globetrotting.”

You thus seem to be making a point that since nargles are fictional, so is the very possibility of virtue in any of the creatures. In other words were some to have introspection and spot unfavorable tendencies then try to follow the Buddha and Krishna’s advice to purify themselves of such tendencies, you’d say it is all a joke.

My guess would be you would not be able to stop the Buddhist monks with such remarks. The remark appears to be facetious, or is there some important point I am not perceiving?

Him I call a brahmin who is free from I, me, and mine, who knows the rise and fall of life. He is awake: he will not fall asleep again.

Him I call a brahmin whose way no one can know. He lives free from past and future; he lives free from decay and death.

Possessing nothing, desiring nothing for his own pleasure or his own profit, he has become a force for good, working for the freedom of all.

[wonderer]

I’m trying to discussion your notion of “purity” with you. However your latest response dosn’t even mention purity. Perhaps you are equating virtues with purity somehow, but this latest response just seems like muddying the waters.

[jayceeii]

It was the manner in which you phrased the question that made me respond that way, for two angels could discuss which has the greater virtue, but would not discuss which has the greater purity. For, all angels are pure, which is to say free from negative or selfish tendencies. This ought to have been simple for the Christians to have reasoned out. Yet they propose that angels would be powerful and impure, retaining jealousy and malice.

I realize that I am alone in the world in these assertions, nor have I a holy army of angels by my side to help prove the point. This is one of the dark areas of human thought, as the gurus have not yet admitted that spiritual progress equates to greater purity and goodness. Osho is an example, putting his selfishness and greed on display with fleets of Rolls Royces while his sadhus ate gruel. It seems “enlightenment” is not that high of a state, which is one of the cryptic remarks of Ramakrishna that he once made to Vivekananda.

The Buddha and Krishna knew these things, however, and Jesus said the pure of heart shall see God, which implies there are also the impure of heart, who cannot see God.

Our life is shaped by our mind; we become what we think. Suffering follows an evil thought as the wheels of a cart follow the oxen that draw it.

Our life is shaped by our mind; we become what we think. Joy follows a pure thought like a shadow that never leaves.

Neither agitated by grief nor hankering after pleasure, they live free from lust and fear and anger. Established in meditation, they are truly wise. Fettered no more by selfish attachments, they are neither elated by good fortune nor depressed by bad. Such are the seers.

[wonderer]

I haven’t seen any good reasons to think angels exist, and I’m confident that you aren’t going to produce any angels for us examine. So trying to explain your notion of purity by referring to angels is no better than trying to explain by referring to nargels.<div>

Would it be the case that your notion of purity has no meaning in a non-supernatural sense?

</div>

[jayceeii]

Angels are a part of my reality, though evidently not of yours.

Angels may be very difficult to see. If you saw one, you might not agree it was an angel. There’s a lighthearted jingle from 1965 that goes, “If you have doubts about angels being real, I can arrange to change any doubt you feel.” But it may be only certain persons whose minds could be changed.

I’ve already produced one of the fallen, though as usual at the forum no one accepts it. So what you really mean is that I haven’t produced an angel that you would be willing to examine. He isn’t a nargle, and wrote copiously about the angels with authority, my point being that only an actual angel would know the types of things he continually revealed.

The inner workings of charity are such that charity itself is what provides the visible form and is the thing expressed in that form too. This is clear from actual experience in the other life. The whole angel, especially the face, is charity, which is both clearly presented to view and clearly perceived. To see the form is to see inexpressible beauty that touches the deepest, living reaches of the mind, filling them with charity. The beauty of the form provides an image in which religious truth is displayed—truth that is also perceived from that form. -Emanuel Swedenborg.

[jayceeii]

The quotation illustrates that Swedenborg was able to think about a pure being, devoid of self-will and greed like Krishna and Buddha were describing. And it isn’t isolated, instead part of a huge body of work he did after retirement from a notable career supporting science. Like with the prophets, no one has a mechanism in mind for an individual sitting down without prompting or reward and composing thick tomes about the angels of Heaven which bear the marks of awareness regarding purity of soul and what it means practically. I propose a mechanism, that the fallen walk among us, as the Bible does say.

This is real evidence in the world that angels exist, that has been basically ignored by everyone including Christians. He is here to be examined, as you put it, and if you do you’ll find not only consistency in the revelation, but a compelling vision of what purity of soul might mean. Swedenborg said that he brought the Second Coming, and while I don’t interpret it literally still you find him standing before you, having described something that is beyond the human imagination or motivation. Or do you say all could do as he has done, or would be motivated to try? Angels haven’t seemed exciting to man.

“Since angels’ language corresponds to the affections of their love, and since heaven’s love is love for the Lord and love for our neighbor, we can see how elegant and delightful their conversation is. It affects not only the ears but also the deeper levels of the minds of those who hear it. There was one particular hard-hearted spirit with whom an angel talked, and eventually he was so moved by what the angel was saying that he burst into tears, saying that he couldn’t help it, love was talking, and he had never cried before.” Swedenborg, The Lives of Angels

[Pater]

Col 2:18 “Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind.”

Also this is way off the thread OP.

• This reply was modified 1 year ago by  Pater.
• This reply was modified 1 year ago by  Pater.

[jayceeii]

I’m not sure it’s off-point in a topic about freewill and heaven. Before you write myself and the angelic throng off as a footnote to history, I’d point out that in 2000 years this is the first time this verse by Paul has been invoked in such a context, i.e. in discounting what might be a prophet as the verse seems to grant release from concerns about purity. The verse seems virtually tailor-made to take Swedenborg off the human radar, though I seem to be the first to put him on. Can you tell me how you thought about this verse? Did you go search the Bible, or was it in the back of your mind somewhere? The latter case is more formidable. You are the first to invoke this verse. I wonder if you will be the last.

You and Wonderer have me in a double bind. He demanded to see an angel, you insist no example of an angel can matter (for the evidence is strong Swedenborg is a knower of truth). If there were actually angels, it seems any entry into the human domain is closed. You may say to me I should have guessed that, and I did, but it’s interesting to put my eye up to the keyhole, and to examine the construction of the lock. If you are a Christian this doesn’t seem right. Wouldn’t your God expect you to honor any angels He might send? You’re closing the book without opening it, failing to examine Swedenborg with any interest because of a comment by Paul that may or may not apply, once it is scrutinized.

Jesus is the one who said God would send messengers and they’d be denied. So it appears He stands against Paul, who is also the one who said men may entertain angels unawares.

[kravarnik]

That doesn’t follow at all. What we wouldn’t be able to describe is the “contrast” between good and evil, because there’s only good. That is: if there’s only brightness, but no darkness, then what one cannot do is describe the contrast, but the brightness is still there to be experienced and described.

In other words, in a world full of light, you’d still be able to know brightness, but not darkness and the contrast it produces in its interaction, or in its juxtaposition with the light.

To argue that goodness’ identity is necessarily and essentially tied to evil, in order to have its meaning and identity established, is to argue for gnostic theology/philosophy, where you have two eternal principles that either coinhere in a single being and the manifestation of each varies(as in Ying and Yang), or these two eternal principles inhere in distinct natures, thus you have good spirit and evil matter(as in the case of Manicheans, or generic gnostics).

Christianity postulates an entirely different metaphysical picture. Love is self-sufficient and good inherently, as love is the driving force of persons. We have three eternal persons in one eternal nature, who are in eternal loving communion with each other, thus they give us that same love they have between each other. Namely, the love of the Father and Son in the Holy Spirit. One can sufficiently know said love without sin. Adam knew that love and experienced it. And so did Eve. And so do the Holy angels, neither of whom has known any evil and sin ever – yet, they know what is good and what is loving.

You and Pater are arguing for gnostic metaphysics by saying goodness can only be made sense of in light of evil(or, rather, “in dark of evil”, lol). In actual Christian metaphysics, evil can only be known, because there’s good, precisely due to evil “needing” good to diminish it, but good does not need evil to subsist and sustain itself. It is self-sufficient.

[kravarnik]

So, once we have the Christian definition of goodness, or the
metaphysics of goodness, then it doesn’t logically follow that goodness
needs evil in order to have identity. Evil needs good to have identity,
because a murderer can only be a murderer if there’s someone “alive” to
be murdered(and to be alive is good). Or a liar needs the truth in order
to twist it and manipulate it, thus lie(and truth is good). On the other hand, God needs no lies in order to be the Truth. God needs no death, in order to have life. God needs no failure, in order to have power. He is and has all these things without the need of their opposite, or without having the contrast between the opposites in interaction.

In reality,
the sinful one and the evil one needs gooodness in order to be able to
maintain his evil – so that he can proceed in perverting and diminishing
the already-existent goodness, – while goodness does not evil to
subsist. He is His own Being and there’s no God besides Him, so He needs
no evil to be Himself and to do His own will.

Gnostic philosophy is empty talk that does not match reality. No, I can know what a “day” is, without there being night. No, we can know what “light” is, withtout there being darkness. To argue otherwise is to argue for gnostic ontological understanding of reality.

[Pater]

Alrighty,

Krav said: “So, once we have the Christian definition of goodness, or the
metaphysics of goodness, then it doesn’t logically follow that goodness
needs evil in order to have identity.”

>>>>>I disagree. You are saying that the disciples, and every other person, could know the extremity of God’s love, without Jesus going to the cross. That’s false.

Krav said: “Evil needs good to have identity, because a murderer can only be a murderer if there’s someone “alive” to be murdered(and to be alive is good). Or a liar needs the truth in order to twist it and manipulate it, thus lie(and truth is good). On the other hand, God needs no lies in order to be the Truth. God needs no death, in order to have life. God needs no failure, in order to have power. He is and has all these things without the need of their opposite, or without having the contrast between the opposites in interaction.”

>>>>>God didn’t formulate His plan (before the foundations of the world) in order to teach Himself something, or because He had some unmet need. He is all the things that you point out. His purpose is one of demonstration. He doesn’t just say that He loves us – He demonstrates how much He loves us. He didn’t just say that everything He created was very good, the Bible says that He “saw” that everything He created was very good. He didn’t just pass judgement on Satan and destroy him. He is giving Satan a context within which he proves what he is, and the depths of his evil. This has eternal importance and ramifications.

Krav said: “In reality, the sinful one and the evil one needs gooodness in order to be able to maintain his evil – so that he can proceed in perverting and diminishing the already-existent goodness, – while goodness does not evil to subsist. He is His own Being and there’s no God besides Him, so He needs no evil to be Himself and to do His own will.”

>>>>>>No one is saying that.

Krav said: “Gnostic philosophy is empty talk that does not match reality. No, I can know what a “day” is, without there being night.”

>>>>>No you can’t.

Krav said: “No, we can know what “light” is, without there being darkness. To argue otherwise is to argue for gnostic ontological understanding of reality.”

>>>>>This is false as well. You touch on an important point – what is the correct understanding of reality? My opinion is that the correct understanding of reality is that God, by His nature, is the paragon of both goodness, and logical truth.

God desires to create other beings, in His image, to share loving fellowship with. To know Him fully, and be known by Him in fullness. This requires “high-value” persons. A faithful dog won’t do.

God’s Problem of Evil is that in every case that He creates a high-value, free will, rational person, the possibility of evil comes into being coincidentally. It’s a logical entailment. Of He knows this, and created with a plan already conceived to deal with the problem.

None of this is in any way gnostic philosophy.

• This reply was modified 1 year ago by  Pater.
• This reply was modified 1 year ago by  Pater.

[kravarnik]

“I disagree. You are saying that the disciples, and every other person,
could know the extremity of God’s love, without Jesus going to the
cross. That’s false.”

But that’s because God condescended, not because the only way to know good is to have something evil happen. If your son disbelieve you that to be punched in strong force leaves a blackish/blueish mark and you condescend and have him punch you in the face so that he will see the mark, doesn’t mean that’s the only way to know that punching someone in the face leaves a mark. It only means that your son is kind of dumb, or very confused, no offense(I am only hypothetically speaking).

“God didn’t formulate His plan (before the foundations of the world) in
order to teach Himself something, or because He had some unmet need. He
is all the things that you point out. His purpose is one of
demonstration. He doesn’t just say that He loves us – He demonstrates
how much He loves us. He didn’t just say that everything He created was
very good, the Bible says that He “saw” that everything He created was
very good. He didn’t just pass judgement on Satan and destroy him. He is
giving Satan a context within which he proves what he is, and the
depths of his evil. This has eternal importance and ramifications.”

Honestly, no idea what’s that supposed to answer from the quote of mine you provided. That created evil/good are relative to their context? Yes, I agree, but my point is exactly this: that absolutely speaking, God needs no demonstration. Relatively speaking – relative to the wickedness of man, – He reveals greatly, with specific Providential plan, through which His Being and Person are best exemplified. But that manifestation of His great Divinity is not necessary absolutely speaking – it is only necessary related to our sinfulness. If the wicked person is that blind, that he cannot see God, it’s not because God, absolutely speaking, is hidden, but rather the wicked is in delusional blindness that he self-inflicted. This ties well with my response the previous point – God “condescends” in His manifestations beyond the ordinary. It’s a “condescension” precisely because He “doesn’t have to do it”, but rather seeing how “blind” and “weak” and “lost/deluded” we are, He shines forth His Light.

So, God condescends and make His Being and Person visible not because He is hidden, but because we are blind. And He teaches us that said blindness is voluntary and direct. That is: we deliberately closed our eyes to Him, rather than He Himself hiding from us. If you remember the Garden – who hid from God?

“None of this is in any way gnostic philosophy.”

It is once you say that “absolutely speaking God(being goodness) needs evil to be made sense of”. If you’re saying that relative to our deliberate sin He condescends out of His own good will, so that He can show us Himself, the Good, the Virtue, the Perfect Person, then that’s entirely different matter. But, as far as I remember, you said exactly this in one of your responses to jayceei:

“In a world of pure unending light, “darkness” is undefined, and so with “goodness” the same.”

You’re saying that in a world without a Fall of any kind(both angelic and human), the neverending light will be “undefined”. You espouse an absolute principle, rather than relative principle. As such, that’s an exact one to one logical principle and understanding of gnostics about goodness. That it “needs evil” to know it and to be.

[kravarnik]

To be frank, I don’t know how one is missing such a central trope in God’s Revelation, whereby He Himself expresses:

– you don’t know me, because you listen, but don’t hear(voluntary lack of understanding)
– you don’t know me, because you look, but don’t see(voluntary lack of attention)
– you don’t know me, because you love, but not persons(voluntary lack of love for God and one’s neighbor)

He never says “I’m sending you prophets, because how else would you know Me, if there’s no prophet to juxtapose your evil to My Goodness and understand that My Goodness is better, than your evil”. He says – I’m laboring for you, even though I’ve given you what’s sufficient to do the labor yourselves, but now I have to condescend to save you from your own mess.

Being faithful to the Scriptures, we must confess, that the blindness of sin is self-inflicted and the Light of God, His Goodness, always shines and is always visible. Those, who do not see it, is because they hid themselves from God, not because God hid His Light from them. No, we closed our eyes and preferred the shadow it casts, forgetting ourselves in the darkness.

God condescending to show us His Light is not because that’s the only way to know the Light, but because that’s how sinful we are, thus He condescends out of His own good will to snatch us back from the abyss we are digging for ourselves.

[Pater]

Again I disagree.

My very first post on Reasonable Faith many years ago, outlined my previously unscrutinized explanation of why God created this universe. It went something like –

“God created this universe, to serve as the best possible context, within which He could demonstrate His maximal greatness to all of His created intelligent beings”. This best possible context would need to be suffused with evil, since the demonstration of His maximal greatness would need a context that includes created beings willing to spill His blood, hang Him on a cross, and kill Him for no GOOD reason (at least to them).

As I’ve said (and you haven’t addressed), His plan takes into account the LOGICAL ENTAILMENT of the possibility of evil (someone who disagrees with Him) every time He creates someone who has the ability to disagree with Him.

One question – why would God call it “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” rather than the tree of the knowledge of evil? Since (according to you), Adam and Eve should be fully versed on moral goodness?

• This reply was modified 1 year ago by  Pater.
• This reply was modified 1 year ago by  Pater.

[Pater]

Sorry I missed this:

Krav said: “In a world of pure unending light, “darkness” is undefined, and so with “goodness” the same.”

“You’re saying that in a world without a Fall of any kind(both angelic and human), the neverending light will be “undefined”. You espouse an absolute principle, rather than relative principle. As such, that’s an exact one to one logical principle and understanding of gnostics about goodness. That it “needs evil” to know it and to be.”

>>>>> Okay this may be a source of misunderstanding. God is self defined, by His nature. He needs nothing outside Himself to form, augment, or define Himself to Himself. But He doesn’t create other persons with perfect knowledge of who, or what He is.

I have to believe that the reason that He doesn’t create persons like that, or maybe I should say He doesn’t create every person like that, is because it’s better if He doesn’t. It’s better if other persons choose to follow, revere, and worship Him as their own decision.

You know, sir, that Jesus’ primary methodology for teaching was by parables. Stories (which I personally believe were all true stories) that the listeners could engage with personally on every human level, and that drove home the principles or concepts that Jesus wanted them to learn.

So, I’m saying that our apprehension of “good” would be meaningless TO US in absence of the conceptual opposite.

Let’s say, in an all-good paradise, I meet an attractive woman, find that we have all kinds of common interests, we fall in love with each other, and decide to get married. All good. Only problem is, I am already married, and so is she. For what reason should we not get married? We are in Eve’s dilemma. The fruit is good to eat and good for gaining wisdom, and good for exhilarating relationship exploration.

What could be wrong with that? More importantly, how would we know that anything is wrong with that?

• This reply was modified 1 year ago by  Pater.

[Pater]

This isn’t an argument. I guess you wouldn’t call your parents “good” because they insist in taking you to the dentist. You hate that, so…..

[jayceeii]

Firstly I don’t think that because you are constrained by your past
experiences, knowledge, and physics that you don’t have complete free
will. You are not limited to a number of past experiences because of
free will you can always have more experiences and it’s the same for
knowledge you can always gain new knowledge or even create new
knowledge. When it comes to being limited by physics, as humans we are
bound by natural laws. The only being that is not bound by the natural
laws is God, and having God-like abilities is not essential to free
will.

I’d agree physical limitations on the entity are not germane to the topic of free will, which is the choice of how to use one’s existent powers. Freedom of choice is a different subject than the expansion of the soul. The question of past experiences remains relevant if it is accepted these have molded the individual. You presume he can break out of the mold, but possibly this breaking out movement was also dictated by what happened in the past. As for knowledge, there can be knowledge of the material plane or knowledge about the spiritual plane, which is known as metaphysics. One who has knowledge of the spiritual plane (the reality of the soul, for instance), has options for action and free will that one limited to knowledge of the material plane does not have. And another who has knowledge of spirit will be able to tell the first has knowledge, as they are able to interact in a higher way over what brings joy to pure spirit. But one who has knowledge of the material plane only will also be limited in the form of this knowledge, which tends to be arrayed for purposes of maximum gain. Someone knowing spirit learns things differently.

[Pater]

Your poor record of predicting what I think or mean continues to be unbroken. Why not try something different? Like, address the actual question. To reiterate, the question is, does God have any good reason to create a world that includes the possibility, and the actual reality, of evil?

And why reference the Bible when you don’t believe the Bible? What’s your intent? Satan does that.

Anyway, my answer is that God owns His problem of evil that is entailed by His nature. And that He formulated and enacted a marvelous way to deal with His problem of evil that enables fully knowledgeable, fully loving, and perfectly endless love relationship with other free will beings.

Can’t beat that.

[jayceeii]

I understood your argument well enough, which is why I congratulated you on finding such a nifty solution to your perceived dilemma. I am sure this is what Jesus wanted for you, for the time being.

I don’t understand why you felt a need to repeat your argument almost verbatim, with no added information, especially after I agreed with you. It also puzzles me why your mind thought it was good to insult both my intelligence and my presence, as if you want to turn the forum into a street brawl. It is plain to both of us, I’m sure, that you have no intent of making yourself my friend.

In all my recent posts I have been emphasizing that I think Jesus is the authentic Voice of God. I especially like Matthew 7:22-23:

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

[Pater]

I like to keep the discussion on point, like Jesus did when He said to Judas “Friend, why have you come?” I wonder the same thing about you

You mentioned the benefit of having children exposed to evil so that they will know what to do when they encounter it. That’s not what I meant, since the question concerns why there is evil at all. If God instead created a world where no evil is possible, then there would be no worries about children encountering evil. If you’re talking about in heaven, amongst the angels, that would be an interesting discussion.

My understanding from Eph 3:10 “His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in heavenly realms, 11. according to His eternal purpose that He accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Keeping in mind that there had been war in heaven and Satan had been cast out.

So part of God’s purpose for creating this universe is His full revelation of Himself to the entire world of spiritual beings.

And I added the information that evil is entailed by Gods perfectly good nature in a world that contains free beings who are capable of love relationship with Him. This is the fundamental that swerves the usual “Problem of Evil” argument to a satisfying explanation.

Walter made this statement – ““In fact, there is no reason why a good God would create a universe that has any evil at all.” That’s the argument I was addressing.

[jayceeii]

I appreciate that you here avoid unsupported ad hominem attacks. It makes it possible to respond reasonably, to reasonable assertions that aren’t like getting bullied on a playground. I find it curious you liken me to Judas, who wouldn’t be a friend of mine either.

If you want to know the point, my responses were to these assertions made from the middle of your argument:

An interesting observation, since neither you, nor anyone else, would be able to describe God as “good”, in the case of a universe devoid of any possibility of evil.

Also,

In a world of pure unending light, “darkness” is undefined, and so with “goodness” the same. In a world with no possibility of evil, the extremity of God’s goodness and love would also remain undefined.

I won’t repeat my arguments that there is such a thing as standalone goodness here, since you are firm in your denial.

This point of mine: “You’re right, it might become a ‘problem’ of children in that society, for growing up without encountering evil would leave them unprepared for it, should it be encountered.”

was made in response to this point of yours:

Why would anyone ‘look’ for evil if none ever existed?

For, I had also pointed out you wouldn’t need a whole universe devoid of evil for evil to lose its meaning, but only a society where it is nonexistent in people, perhaps tantamount to heaven or Heaven on Earth, as Christians pray when they utter the Lord’s Prayer (Thy Kingdom come, on Earth as it is in Heaven). Following what you wrote, I was agreeing that the children in such a society would in fact stop looking for evil. Then if they needed to leave that society for any reason, they might need to learn about it to avoid being harmed.

It is well if you and I can now maintain a civil discourse, befitting the dignity of the forum.

[Pater]

I think that most everyone here offers arguments believed to be technically correct, at least by them. And that’s the way they interpret arguments from others. So if someone says “God could create a universe devoid of evil”, that means that there aren’t “other” pockets of the universe where evil might be possible. It means that there isn’t any evil possible in the entirety of the universe.

Then, relative “goodness”, compared to other relative goods, isn’t the same as moral good and evil. I agree that there must be some sort of comparative degrees of goodness, as in Heaven, for example. Or in paradise. Four times God saw that what He had created was good, and one time He saw that all He had created was “very good.”

Moral right and wrong is another matter. A matter that no one other than God would have any inkling about in the complete absence of any possibility of evil.

One of the things I’m trying to keep clear is that we don’t believe the same things. You say that “Jesus is the true voice of God.” That’s not really the same as believing in your soul that Jesus is God in the flesh, the singularity that offers salvation to whosoever will believe. He shed the blood that atones for all personal evil and makes reconciliation between God and mankind possible.

In the past, you have talked about how Jesus failed His mission on earth, while other “prophets” and “wise men” did better. Are you saying you’ve changed your mind?

[jayceeii]

Among the pure souls there are no evil influences. Therefore wherever they are becomes a corner of Heaven.

If you want to think about a universe devoid of evil, it is more practical to think of a planet devoid of evil. For, from one planet it is not possible to assess the condition of other planets, nor does evil spread across interstellar space.

For instance had God said, “I will use these human bodies I have developed on Earth only for angelic souls,” then the civilization to spring up would’ve been devoid of evil. And to people dwelling there it might seem the whole universe must be free from evil and God has succeeded in creating a wholly good universe.

There could be planets like that. How would you know there aren’t?

Such a planet would have standalone moral goodness, which is goodness that exists not as the upper end of a pole between good and evil, but all on its own. It exists not as light opposed to darkness, but different forms of light. So God and the angels do not require evil, at all, to prove themselves good. I recognize this may be a difficult concept for some.

It’s difficult from the other direction too. One ensconced in eternal goodness can hardly conceive of evil even when confronted by it. In essence he has to try to reduce his powers and reverse his priorities, for which he can see no motive since he only wants joy for all.

You’re right that I believe in Jesus but do not go along with the Christian formula, no matter how cleverly it is stated. And you really only have that from Paul, not Jesus Himself. “Whosoever believes in Him shall have eternal life” does not equate to “whoever goes to church and follows the devotional practices defined therein goes to Heaven.” And “belief in Jesus” must be defined in terms that Jesus would really accept. For instance if He disguised Himself as a beggar He might find the Christians detest Him. He did hint about such doings after all, saying that He would appear like a thief in the night.

Jesus failed to communicate God’s Will fully, but not in His mission, which was for sinners. None of the other religions communicates God’s Will fully, either. That is yet to be seen/determined.

[Pater]

I’m afraid your unique ramblings are having the opposite effect to your intent.

[jayceeii]

As I mentioned earlier, Judas wouldn’t befriend me. Nobody would. Possibly I make people uncomfortable mentioning planets with only good citizens, if they notice this is something God might really do some places. Heaven is like that, in any case.

I haven’t really been looking for an effect, instead exploring some truths as I see them. Though no one here agrees with me, I notice there isn’t persuasion among others either.

I have tremendous respect for Craig, regarding him to be doing well in the role he has chosen. Possibly he would be a friend of mine, though meanwhile I dwell in the shelter he’s provided for logic and truth.

[Johan]

Sorry I haven’t been getting notified of replies, so I just saw this.

The multiverse theory makes things worse for god because that means that he intentionally created sub optimal worlds and put people into them knowing they were sub optimal. It would be like you setting up a terrarium for your reptiles to love in but building 10 of them with all different temperatures. Knowing that the reptile will suffer and die in the terrarium that has the temperature of -10 degrees, but putting it there anyway in the name of diversity.

As for the soul building theodicy, it only makes sense if you don’t actually look at it too hard it for too long. If you actually take the time to look at it, you will also find it doesn’t account for what we experience in our world. When a new born is born with a birth defect that causes them to be in agony for the few short months they are alive and then they die an agonizing death, there was no growth to be made for them. Sure there might be growth for those around them, but it is disgusting to say that their life and suffering was for the benefit of someone else and had nothing to do with themselves.

To escape this many people will simply argue that the infant in question got a fast pass to heaven, so it is ok, but that completely breaks the soul building concept. If there is a fast pass to heaven like that, then soul building is irrelevant to the process and is completely unnecessary so any suffering related to soul building is equally unnecessary.

[wonderer]

“To get a really clear view of evil one must be outside the class of evil ones, and capable of original goodness…”

In addition to being highly self-aggrandizing?

[jayceeii]

If you are arguing that no one can be outside the class of evil ones, you are admitting the Christian doctrine of original sin applies to all humans. It is as Paul related, all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Then my point becomes one of logic, that if one still has evil tendencies inherent to the race, then one could not obtain a clear view of human evil, as such. It is impossible to assess the stain of others if one is also stained, or as Jesus said, remove first the log in your eye before accusing the mote in a neighbor’s eye. If you are admitting one who still has a tendency to evil cannot get a clear view of human evil, then it is not self-aggrandizing, but logic, to think those who are not stained by evil can get a clear view of it. I think they are around, and Jesus hinted about this too in saying the pure in heart shall see God. Did you say Jesus is self-aggrandizing for this remark? Mine is more or less just an updated version, as I too reference the pure in heart.

[kravarnik]

You’re mistaking will and telos. Will in its most basic sense means the natural drive, impulse and/or motion of a being toward its telos. Telos in its most basic sense means the purpose, or end, for which a nature exists. So, all beings of said nature, given their natural end and will, are drawn toward their end through their will.

So, we do still have free will in Heaven, however, our essential telos of the human nature being fulfilled, then, we are left to choose between the many goods that God has created. While on Earth, since we have not fulfilled the essential telos of the human nature, but rather work on fulfilling it, or not; then we can choose our own purpose, given our free will.

<div>As Saint Maximus the Confessor argues: the Fall, condemnation and wickedness consist exactly in man’s way of living going astray from man’s essential logos(man’s essential meaning). And Salvation, righteousness and perfection, respectively, consist of aligning one’s way of living with the human nature’s essential telos, logos, form, meaning, end, purpose, whatever one would use to describe what man was created for. Thus, since we have free will, then on Earth we can choose a purpose for one’s actions and way of living, which is not the essential one, thus enter sin; and in Heaven we are established in the subjective identity, in that which each one of us has become, thus we no longer choose an essential end(since we’ve chosen such on Earth), but rather enjoy, or suffer, the consequences.The point is that each particular person achieves complete freedom when his actions are freely done in accordance with one’s objective purpose. So, subjective way of living and perception is aligned with objective state of being and existence.</div><div>

</div>

• This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by  kravarnik.