Confession of a former christian

Non sequitur. Wanting to provide choice doesn't mean you want all that can be chosen.- I pointed one possibility out to you already. The one in which temporal beings get to decide which kind of beings they want to eternally be.God providing that choice doesn't mean he wants all the possible outcomes, one of which is evil.I'm sure it will come up so I'll mention it here. Omnipotence doesn't mean God can do anything at all. For example: he cannot create a being who can chose against his will but who does not do evil in so chosing (given the definition of evil)- 1) Because he can - being omnipotent?2) Non sequitur. God is a title irrespective of his caring or no.3) Because evil arises out of our choice. He cares that we can chose.4) As above.5) Already answered in a previous post- Evil is defined as an act/thought/intention etc that is against Gods will. God cannot act against his will. Not unless he wanted to, that is Thus God cannot create evil in that sense.- If the goal was to have people decide what kind of beings they were going to finally be, then I cannot see how omnipotence helps achieve "the same result". Make their choice and it isn't theirs. Let them chose to be beings operating against your will (so that their choice is established) and you have (per definition) evil and of necessity, hurt.Perhaps you are defining omnipotence as the ability to do simply anything at all - such as create an object too heavy to lift yet be powerful enough to life any object?Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Be my guest- We're not talking about the existance of beings that act contrary to Gods will. We're talking about beings who were created so as to be able to chose. There is no evil before the choice - just beings capable of choosing. When they chose against Gods will evil is created by them. It's their desire - not Gods - that brings about evil.God tolerating the existance and acts of people who chose against his will is another matter. One which has to do with his forbearance and patience and love.- I don't agree that omnipotence means you can do anything at all. How can you prevent a free-willed person from choosing to act against your will without constraining the will or limiting the choice?If your solution is to claim omnipotence as being able to do simply anything at all, then you belong to the object-too-heavy-to-lift school of omnipotence and we would be talking past ourselves.- As pointed out, God cannot create evil. Evil is defined as acting against Gods will. God cannot act against God's will. "Why evil" is addressed above. It arises out of creating choice. Evil is a product of choice.- How do you know it worked then? How do you know it was a free choice programme?Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

"Could choose it"? You mean skew the choice to the point where it becomes a choice no more? To me a choice means balance - not forgone conclusion.- God extended the choice to what he extended it to be. He willed it so it's good - per definition.I can see the logic of why he did what he did though: his way means that created beings get to (effectively) choose whether to have a relationship with God or no for all eternity. You couldn't have beings freely choosing to have a relationship with you without giving them the option to freely choose not to have a relationship with you.Evil becomes a necessity in such a system. You might yourself agree it is good (in the relative sense) that God provide us this choice - that he doesn't force people to be with him forever. Your presuming Adam and Eve weren't faced with a balanced choice. One could argue back and forward about that. But if balanced then the above example doesn't apply. Certainly Eve was aware of the prohibition in her consciousness "But God did say..." in a way you couldn't expect of a toddler and the Mhing vase.They're culpable, the toddler isn't My apologies.- I don't see that you've established your point (which you presume established for the rest of your post).Skewed choice is not free choice. You might say I could freely scream down the motorway at 160mph on my Yamaha. But if my choice to do so is so heavily skewed by the various things which restrain me from doing so then we're not talking free choice anymore.Free choice is more like resting on the middle of a balanced see-saw. Equally weighed options rest at either end and only your own will left to decide which one. Skewed choices are not free in that sense.

In a once-removed fashion. God doesn't will evil by his actions anymore than Ford by their actions will drunk drivers smashing into pedestrians.Creating the potential isn't willing the outcome

God didn't invent bipedal apes as described. He made man, man made man fall - not God. And along with his fall came all manner of sin - excessive drinking being one of them. Man responsible for that. Not God. God is responsible for creating humanity with potential. As Ford is responsible for creating cars that can be used other than intended. God walks free from your court.The question now is, would you walk free from his?

Yes. But consider how might he create it?One way is to cease exerting influence upon evil men so as to restrain their evil. Evil can be said to be created by God in this way. But it is created by Gods inaction. God doing nothing at all results in evil.Is God somehow obligated to suppress mens evil at every point in time? I can't think of any reason why he is - so his not suppressing evil cannot be said to be evil. Gods willing to act (so as to suppress men's evil) and willing not to act ("create" evil) is good.As per definition of evil (evil = any act not in accordance with Gods will)

Straight from the philosophical empiricists cathecism - not that there is empirical evidence that this is the case. Only the argument from absence-of-empirical-evidence = absence-altogether.You don't have to believe in God to see the potential holes in that defence.

What fun that was.. In itself, false.God knowing what will happen - by virtue of being present to observe it happening - doesn't prevent a free choice being that which determines what happens. If free choice chooses something else then that is what God would observe happening and by virtue of that, will know it "beforehand". God simply observing doesn't affect a free willed being ability to choose.Not that I believe we have free will, I might add.- It seems obvious to me that if we are in possession of all the relevant information then there is no/little choice left. Car A is burning oil, has no spare tyre and an oily thumbprint appears on the odemeter as the dial racks up the miles during the test drive. Car B (same make, model, year, price, etc.) is a gem. You are free to chose with or without the information. The information removes your freedom to choose.- I can't see how you could say that. God could be so attractive/repulsive/terrifying/magnetic that you would be compelled/propelled towards him or away from him. "Every knee will bow.." whether trembling in delight or horror.It is unreasonable to suppose that coming up against a being capable of what God is argued to be capable of would see you take such measured approach. Certainly the Bible dispels such notions. Moses, after limited exposure, came down from the mountain as if his head had been stuck in a bucket of uranium (I mean that cartoonly, not scientifically)- God presented Adam and Eve with a choice. It appears to have been a consequential choice as opposed to a moral one - but it was a choice for all that. They, unlike us, were in a position to exercise free will. They weren't predisposed in a direction like we are. Or at least they weren't at the point of choosing.As soon as they did choose they became like us, predisposed towards choosing in a particular direction: towards sin. Ironic that, in exercising free choice they, at one and the same time, lost the ability to choose freely. What they gained stole.

God knows in your 1st year that you will turn left in your 20th year because he is right there beside you now as a 20 year old watching you decide to turn left. Knowing what a person is doing, through observation, and feeding that knowledge "back in time" doesn't alter you being the one to decide what to do.One way to see it, a way that doesn't involve mixing time and eternity units, is to view whole of history, from beginning-of-time to end-of-time, as a film which is already "in the can". The event in the film are made up of our free choices and God can view any point in this film to see what is happening. In fact he has two screens one showing you in your 1st year and another showing you in your 20th year. He can look at you in diapers and 'predict' that you will make that turn left in your 20th year - simply by looking at the other screen. You are the one making the decision. Hmm. Ask the fat, balding man driving the red sports ferrari whether he freewillingly chose that car. Or was it the overwhelming sense of fading youth that did it for him

Firstly, realise that this thing is seen from two perspectives: you-in-time and God-in-eternity.Secondly, it might help if you suppose the film a reality tv show in-the-can instead. The characters are the ones who determined the course of the show. It has been recorded and no, it cannot be changed. But only because all the choices that will ever be made during that show have been already made. From God's perspective that is.From our perspective, part way through the tape, we see decisions made in the past, decisions being made now and decisions to be made in the future. I put "back in time" in "" to indicate 'in a manner of speaking'. There is no back in time in eternity. God is at all points in time now (it is argued). Past, present and future. If he knows the future by virtue of being there then he also knows the past by being there. More corectly; someone knows what you "will" do by virtue of knowing what you "are" doing. Perhaps it's clearer now? It is true the story is set in stone. But the choices made by the people involved in a characters death (during original shooting of the story) were the choices that set that story in stone. Viewing it again and again is a different matter to the original laying down of the story in stone.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

You don't simply choose not to.There are many reasons for you not throwing it out the window and few (if any) for throwing it out the window. Hence there can be no talk of balance in the choice presented as to what to do with your computer. Your choice is skewed by the many reasons you have for not throwing your computer out the windowI'll leave out responding to aspects of your post (the most of it) that rely on the notion of a freewill skewed against particular choices. Or which simply assert a free will can be created that can choose evil but never will.- Huh?- As before. Providing choice doesn't mean you want all options that can be chosen. If you can't have what you want without the potential of having what you don't want then you have to put up with that. Even if you're God.(now that we're agree omnipotence isn't a magic wand.)- Not in terms of choosing evil he hasn't. The definition of evil being used is any action/thought that is against Gods will. God cannot do evil because God cannot act against his own will. Obviously. A balanced choice is one that lies at the other end of the spectrum to your example of the computer going out the window. That was an example of a skewed choice Theirs wasn't a moral choice. It was a consequential one. Death (whatever they understood by that) on the one hand vs. being like God (whatever they understood by that) on the other. No morality need be involved in making consequential decisions. They only got the consequences of their choice > death being separation from God.- She didn't need to eat of the tree to understand a prohibition.
"Don't do that or else" is a consequential prohibition - not a moral one. I've never been impressed with the argument given that Eve didn't understand what 'die' meant. We might suppose she understood something of the word - given she understood something of other words.Your use of the word 'but' is illustrative. Your reason for using that word is to counter, to query, to object, to question. She uses that word too.

quote:

---

2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "

---

Oops, is that the time..Later..{AbE} Consequential choice requires that you have some idea of the consequences on both (or more) sides. She understood 'English' so we can presume she had some concept as to consequences of death - if not full understanding.- Culpable in consequential sense. They were promised consequences and they got them. In that sense I mean. I can't say I agree. If a choice can be skewed towards option A by means of attractive reasons for option A and a choice can be skewed towards option B by way of attractive reasons for option B then it is clearly possible to find a balance in the middle where the skewing is neutralised. And the will is left to decide for itself. Weighing the consequences isn't in itself choosing. And when weighed, the consequences leaning this way or that tend to determine the decision. This is different than a balanced (thus truly free) choice. The reason you stayed up late arose out of the consequences of finishing your reply outweighing the consequences of not going to bed. Perhaps getting it off your chest then outweighed the desire to sleep.- I hope your not cursed with occasions where you get a blank reply screen when, after failed attempt to post, you press the back button..I hate that.- I would agree such instances are rare - I wouldn't even hazard a guess at a situation where one arises.But I wouldn't agree it's necessarily a guess. I think there is a mechanism whereby you can shift yourself to one option in the face of an actual balanced set of options. One way to do that would be to alter your take on one of the options.Assuming Eve was faced with balance: prohibition on one side, desire for gaining wisdom on the other. Through an act of her will she could presume that God didn't mean what he said. Just a little presumption and the prohibition diminishes and the balance shifts.Something like that in any case. Something within the persons will acting to shift the balance. Making the decision anything but a guess. Rather, it's a conscious act of will for an option Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

If we were talking about a computer programme "choosing" then that would be the case. Establish the goals / input the consequences / out pops the result. The closer the options balance out, the longer the programme takes to 'consider' perhaps - but it's forgone conclusion all the way down the line.But we're not talking about a computer programme here. We're talking about people. People choose, computers don't. Not unless your personal philosophy happens to see people only as elaborate computers.- Balance arises from the options. There could be infinite misery offered on the one hand and infinite joy on the other. That's balance in the options offered.Then there is us.You say that the only thing we can do in the face of balance is to guess. But you also say that choice involves consideration of consequences w.r.t. our goals. Yet our goals are a moveable feast. In which case we alter "a thing" so as to introduce the sort of imbalance that permits choice (according to the mechanism you propose). The options balanced. Us doing the goal-altering.- "Shown me how to give a person a freewill to choose evil - yet never choose it"? If I recall correctly, it involved this:

quote:

---

One way would be to show them the error of their ways. Grant them perfect understanding (there's that tree of knowledge thing) and even though they could choose it, they never will.

---

The "perfect understanding" you speak of would presumably involve showing a person the full extent of the negative outcome which is sure to follow a choice for route A. An understanding so perfect that it would wipe out each and every positive-sounding falsehood hithertoe supposed of a choice for route A.For that would be the only way to ensure no choice for route A that I can see. And you call this freewill?You'll understand if I remain ignoring those parts of your post that presume of such a freewill as this until such time as we have reached agreement.- 1) See definition of evil.2) See note on our different view on freewill. Your proposal for a freewill that won't choose against Gods will (although remaining able to) relies (as far as I can tell) on infinitely skewing "choices" so as to ensure they will "chose" for Gods will.3) See defintion of good.4)/5) It can be Gods will to create beings who can freely act against his will. But we're stuck on the issue of free will.- In us (post-Adamic creatures) it is. We know good and evil in our choices. They didn't before they made it. Which is why, perhaps, theirs is called Original Sin - whereas ours isn't. There is little point in mixing up the general with the specific.- Their action was against God's will. Thus evil according to definition. They didn't need to be able to make moral choices in order to choose against his will it thus appears. Given that they acted consequentially only.- Evil is doing what God wills not. They did as God willed not - meaning they did evil. But they weren't moral beings. Which tells us that you don't need to be a moral being to do what God doesn't want you to do. Repeating the above point, I am.- Remember (1): How sinning?Remember (2) A knowledge of good and evil is something that seeps in gradually? God introduces the beginnings of law?- I don't agree. They had temporal life - which, going on one second at a time forever is not eternal life. The tree of life could be seen as offering eternal life.- If God stamped hard on her toe and said:"feel that pain? Well, if that pain equates to this single grain of dust in my hand, then this "death" I am describing equates to all the grains of dust for as far as your eye can see. And for as far as you care to walk in any direction - for as long as you care to walk it. And for as deep as you care to dig. And then some.

​

Get the picture?"Care to point out the morality in her understanding of this prohibition? Seeing as it was God's will to provide it to her.The rest of your post covers same ground more or less. I'll leave out repeating the same points

I'm game if you are..- If free will involves being able to choose against Gods will then clearly God has not got a free will so assembled. You might want to ask an "if not.." question in that case.- I don't agree you've refuted anything. See various rebuttals- Not correct.

quote:

---

Sin 2. Theology a. Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.

---

You don't need to know it is wrong to disobey God in order to sin. You only need to know a) what Gods will is b) deliberately choose to disobey it.- I didn't say anything of the sort. The above definition of sin should make things clearer. Not all choices are moral choices - they can be consequential choices too. Without a knowledge of good and evil, moral choices were out for Adam and Eve. But not consequential choices.Consequential choices can lead to sin if they involve the aspects demanded by the definition of sin.- The last sentence of Gen 2 is:

quote:

---

25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

---

Did you see the definition of sin above? The word deliberate is involved. Could you point out deliberateness in their nakedness in Genesis 2? If not deliberately disobeying Gods expressed will then they are not sinning.After eating the forbidden fruit they find themselves standing on a hot tin roof of nakedness. Apparently, Gods will is that they not be naked and they immmediately seek to conform to his will. Which is not to say they were sinning in being uncovered - given that there was no deliberateness in their disobedience in the matter of nakednessThis is a good illustration of why the law was given, however. By having the law at your disposal (God's will, made known in writing or better still delivered direct to your door through conscience) you can act deliberately in your disobedience, rendering your choices sinful. And justly condemnable.- What comes suddenly is a realisation that they were naked. What we don't know is how a total knowledge of good and evil was revealed to them. All at once and at that moment (as in knowledge of murder, stealing, envy etc., etc., etc. - all being evil) or gradually over time.Which is why I merely suggest "gradually" as an answer to your question. Neither of us know.- Which kind of dying are you talking about, temporal or eternal? And which kind of life was the tree offering, temporal or eternal? And how do you conclude what you conclude.- The "her" I was referring to was Eve. Her understanding. You can have a fresh bite of this cherry if you like.Hopefully you have already seen what the definition of sin does to this fig leaf of an argument of yours. -Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Without reading ahead. To be holy. For holiness is what God desires above all and I want what God desires above all. Interesting. I would see ultimate knowledge as resulting in holiness.Rrhain was talking about skewed choice earlier in which perfect knowledge would result in a person always choosing "good" - even though there was a theoretical ability for choosing for evil. Clearly perfect knowledge means access to perfect truth. And seeing as truth frees from lies, perfect truth would free perfectly from lie. Its not so much knowledge of good and evil as knowledge of good causing evil to shrink to something like the singularity.It effectively vanishes from existance. I can't see how the word overwhelm can be used - the fruit was described as desirable only. Nor can I see how a comparison can be made between them and us. We have a knowledge of good and evil and might appreciate what perfect knowledge would bring (from above: holiness desired by me - someone who isn't holy but knows enough of it to want it totally).They didn't have that knowledge and couldn't have the same appreciation of what it means.

No, it's that the typical fallen human being would be utilising a different definition of evil to the one used hithertofore by me.- Right. Given the definition being utilised.- I gave you a definition of sin extracted from a dictionary. It doesn't require that you to know "it is wrong" in order for you to sin.Besides, you don't need to know anything about right and wrong in order to reap the consequences of a consequential choice. God promised consequences and they got consequences - after sinning according to the dictionary definition of sin given. They are responsible for receiving consequences because they chose to receive them. We know they weren't moral creatures so a consequential choice is the only one they could have been making (as far as I can see)- You've forgotten the definition of sin: it involved deliberately acting against the known will of God. No will of God known = no sin. No deliberateness = no sin. This sinning up a storm business is looking a little shipwrecked.Its interesting to note that this definition of sin doesn't demand that one necessarily has to know Gods will is the one being expressed. You only have to know what his will expresses. For example, if you know it's wrong to murder but you don't believe in God then you still know Gods expressed will. Meaning you sin when you murder - whether you believe in God or not.- They've only been told one thing before choosing. On choosing they now have a new 'voice' in their ear. The newly gained knowledge of good and evil (commonly called conscience). Apparently it's shouting the loudest. So no, I don't find that odd.- As mentioned above, you've omitted a surprising amount from what is a pretty short dictionary definition of sin. I've highlighted the relevant bits dealing with your point.

quote:

---

Sin 2. Theology a. Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.

---

- They do panic over eating from the tree it seems. Pretty soon after the nakedness issue arises.- And if it was the Christian God doing the "imposing" on the Jewish text? By reading more text.- Perhaps you would be prepared to nest the the dictionary definition of sin we are referring to alongside relevant quoted text of mine. And alongside relevant rebuttals of yours. That way we could see more easily whether it's me contradicting or you missing huge swathes of the definition along the way. Like this:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Sin 2. Theology a. Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.

---

​

Rrhain writes:

​

You're contradicting your own definition of sin: It doesn't matter if god told them or not. God's will defines it and since they were defying it, that necessarily means they were sinning even though they weren't told they were.

---