Is free-will more important than preventing suffering?

[razovor]

I want to see what people think. Is the preservation of Free Will a good reason to leave humans with the capability to commit any degree of suffering they wish, or should there be some sort of upper limit?

For example, given the choice, would you, with full knowledge of everything he was going to do in later life, have stripped Adolf Hitler of his free will at birth, so that he was incapable of every doing anything immoral?

[Divine Insight]

I want to see what people think. Is the preservation of Free Will a good reason to leave humans with the capability to commit any degree of suffering they wish, or should there be some sort of upper limit?

For example, given the choice, would you, with full knowledge of everything he was going to do in later life, have stripped Adolf Hitler of his free will at birth, so that he was incapable of every doing anything immoral?

The Biblical fables of God are clearly oxymoronic.

The OT has God commanding men to "stone sinners to death". It also states that the reason for this is that we should rid ourselves of the bad influences of these evil sinners.

Well duh?

If an omniscient God who would genuinely like for sinners to be removed from life so that they don't contaminate the remaining people then why doesn't he just do this himself?

He's supposedly the only one who is truly omniscient and can know what's in the hearts and minds of men. Mere mortal men aren't even in a position to be making that kind of judgment in the first place.

If people believe they can pray to this God to cure their cancer or whatever, then surely this God should be able to give sinners a heart attack, stroke, or whatever he deems fit.

So there's no reason why God can't be killing off the "sinners" even before they actually commit the sin. Because according to Jesus to even think it is the same as doing it. And besides, surely a God who knows what's in the hearts and minds of men could not when someone who is about to commit a sin is not about to turn back from that plan. So he could actually kill rapists and murders before they even complete their planned actions.

He could give child abusers and spouse abusers heart attacks the moment they begin to engage in the act.

Moreover, wouldn't stoning a sinner to death be the same as taking away his free will?

We take people's free will away from them all the time when we incarcerate them in prisons.

~~~~

The whole Christian "apologetic argument" that God must allow evil to exist in order to preserve free will, is a totally bogus argument that has no merit at all.

It's become popular in Christian circles because it's the "BEST" apologetic argument they can come up with. They just can't do any better than this, so they cling to it in the hopes that it somehow makes sense.

But it doesn't make any sense at all really.

It's just extreme apologetic desperation to try to keep nonsensical myths alive.

That's all it is.

You had asked:

I want to see what people think.

Well that's what I think. I think it's nonsense.

[Bust Nak]

Is free-will more important than preventing suffering?

I don't see any why reason why preserving free-will would conflict with preventing suffering.

But to answer your question, I would go for preventing suffering.

[ttruscott]

Pure love; Pure Evil:
It is apparent that IF a love so pure it could never turn against the object of its love was to be possible by a personal true free will choice, then, for a truly FREE choice to be present, it must also be possible that the outcome of the personal true free will choice could be pure evil, or an evil so committed to evil it will never / can never choose to reject their evil to try to seek good.

Such a choice to reject the call to becoming a loving person (in God's image) therefore was to choose to become totally estranged from the Will of God and the reason for their creation, which is the very definition of evil.

God also knew that such evil children would never quit hating Him and His loving followers once they learned the proof of their evil, that they would never quit trying to corrupt or destroy HIS church so He knew such a choice to become evil meant the evil child would have to be separated from the rest of creation for eternity; separated from the joys of God's love and His other children. This place of separation from the will and love of God is called hell.

Thus HIS purpose for HIS creation for true love, praise and worship could only be fulfilled by true free will decisions also meant the possibility of someone (or all) choosing to become evil (rejecting God's will for them) and so bringing evil and the suffering it causes into God's creation.

Thus your question: "Is free-will more important than preventing suffering?" has no meaning...

Peace, Ted

[Divine Insight]

Such a choice to reject the call to becoming a loving person (in God's image) therefore was to choose to become totally estranged from the Will of God and the reason for their creation, which is the very definition of evil.

But that, my friend, is the evil lie of the Abrahamic religions.

The Abrahamic religions do not represent a call to become a loving person (in God's image), on the contrary, they represent a call to become a religious bigot who supports the religious bigotry of a specific religious dogma.

This is why the Abrahamic religions have fallen into such disarray and violently opposing factions.

The original Jews rejected that Jesus was "The Christ". Well if they original religion rejected that Jesus was "The Christ" that should have been the end of it right there.

But now the arrogant Christians had to instead renounce the Jews as having "rejected" the call to become a loving person (in the NEW image of God as Jesus).

The Christians themselves split into many different factions. The Protestantisms protesting against "The Body of Christ" in the Catholic church. And then ultimately protesting against each other to become Amish, Jehovah's Witnesses, South Baptists, Mormons, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc., the list goes on endlessly. Each proclaiming that their faction is a "call to become a loving person in God's image"

The Muslims created Islam that's based on the same basic scam. Worship Allah and accept Muhammad as God's main prophet and accept the "call to become a loving person in God's image" or you will be branded as the "enemy of Allah".

These religions themselves represent the epitome of evil. If evil has any meaning at all.

It's crystal clear that no genuinely all-wise omnipresent God would have allowed his "call to become a loving person in his image" deteriorate into such a fragment scam that we see in the Abrahamic religions.

These religions can't possibly have anything to do with any God who is trying to call people to him. They are riddled with far too much arrogance and brotherly hatred to have anything at all to do with any loving God.

[bluethread]

Where to start? These kind of threads so quickly devolve into an admixture of presumption and vitriol that one hardly has time to explain anything. Well, let's look at what is being asked of Adonai. We have creatures other than ourselves on this planet that are very violent to one another. So, we, being the benevolent creatures that we are, relieve them of some of their free will, by caging them or domesticating them. Animal rights people then say that this is inhuman. So, presuming that it is appropriate to apply the same standards to a deity as to humans, which I doubt, what is the difference. It is a no win argument.

Now, regarding the requirement that one convert at the point of the sword, there is no such requirement in HaTorah or the Apostolic Writing. There are appeals, but no requirements. Adonai causes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust. If one chooses to sit out naked in the freezing rain, one gets sick and eventually dies. Should Adonai have not created an environment in which it rains or freezes? Certain blessings and curses apply to Adonai's people. However, the Scriptures do not speak to the current suffering of the nations, apart from where those actions touch Adonai's people. It is like the wild animals and the domesticated ones. Some are permitted to engage in all manner of activities and some are required to restrain themselves. Each serves as a lesson to the other, if one is able to decern the difference.

[razovor]

Thus your question: "Is free-will more important than preventing suffering?" has no meaning...

You're saying it would not be possible to accept god, and be a good person, unless it were also possible to refuse god, and thereby cause suffering?

That without complete free-will, there would be no good or evil, only bland neutrality?

I disagree. Good and evil is a range, not two absolutes. One can chose to what degree they act selflessly, or selfishly. If one were to cut off the very extreme end of selfishness, so that we could not perform such acts, I fail to see how it would have any effect on the rest of the range.

I believe the world would be better like this. We would still be capable of pure good, moderate good, or even moderate evil, but a great dealing of suffering would be prevented in the world.

Animal rights people then say that this is inhuman. So, presuming that it is appropriate to apply the same standards to a deity as to humans, which I doubt, what is the difference. It is a no win argument.

So, it's not immoral for Adonai to limit freewill, because the human idea that that it is immoral, doesn't apply to Adonai. Why doesn't Adonai limit our freewill more than?

[Divine Insight]

So, presuming that it is appropriate to apply the same standards to a deity as to humans, which I doubt, what is the difference. It is a no win argument.

No it wouldn't be appropriate at all because humans didn't created a dog-eat-dog world in the first place. So the "animal rights" activists are just doing the best they can. In truth, they are stuck basically in an impossible situation because they can't cure the dog-eat-dog nature of the world, although I'm sure they would if they could.

So clearly animal rights activists are far above your Adonai in terms of moral values.

Now, regarding the requirement that one convert at the point of the sword, there is no such requirement in HaTorah or the Apostolic Writing. There are appeals, but no requirements. Adonai causes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust. If one chooses to sit out naked in the freezing rain, one gets sick and eventually dies. Should Adonai have not created an environment in which it rains or freezes?

Sure, why not?

Why create harsh winters that have indeed caused innocent people to suffer?

Why create droughts that have killed entire civilizations?

This Adonai of yours sure as heck can't be called "compassionate". There are many mere mortal humans who would put your Adonai to shame in terms of compassion.

Certain blessings and curses apply to Adonai's people. However, the Scriptures do not speak to the current suffering of the nations, apart from where those actions touch Adonai's people. It is like the wild animals and the domesticated ones. Some are permitted to engage in all manner of activities and some are required to restrain themselves. Each serves as a lesson to the other, if one is able to decern the difference.

Well religious fanatics who continually make justifications for a God who would create a dog-eat-dog world and cause famines and plagues of disease to befall innocent people certainly aren't learning any lessons from the more compassionate animal rights activists etc.

I personally find it absolutely amazing how people can continually make apologetic arguments for ancient superstitions of a jealous-God religions that clearly require that their God's be far more heartless and compassionate then many mere mortal men, even many who are atheists.

[ttruscott]

Thus your question: "Is free-will more important than preventing suffering?" has no meaning...

You're saying it would not be possible to accept god, and be a good person, unless it were also possible to refuse god, and thereby cause suffering?

That without complete free-will, there would be no good or evil, only bland neutrality?

Yep - that's close. The problem isn't in how people act, ie good or evil, but in whether they can fulfill HIS purpose in their creation ie to love perfectly GOD and all the rest of creation and to worship GOD in holiness and wander.

Love stemming from being created to love is no love at all and the same for holiness, and worship.

So, if you want true pure love, you must open creation to the possibility of evil and evil actions.

I disagree. Good and evil is a range, not two absolutes. One can chose to what degree they act selflessly, or selfishly. If one were to cut off the very extreme end of selfishness, so that we could not perform such acts, I fail to see how it would have any effect on the rest of the range.

I believe the world would be better like this. We would still be capable of pure good, moderate good, or even moderate evil, but a great dealing of suffering would be prevented in the world.

Opinion noted but the world "One" (the bold) must mean GOD and if HE chooses, there is no free will so no one can surely love or worship anyone because those are only real if they are based upon a true choice.

Sorry to disappoint but GOD in charge of this earth and all the lives with no free will is exactly how the world is run right now. Since our true free will choices are over, GOD has given us a life just as you describe wherein HE manages the evil of the non-believers so it will teach the lessons HIS sinful church needs to learn and HE chastises HIS sinful church for their evil to get them to pay attention and to repent. (Discussed in 2 Thessalonians 2)

Our life on earth directly represent the life we chose by faith to live (either for HIM or against HIM) while in sheol, pre-earth.

...

So, it's not immoral for Adonai to limit freewill, because the human idea that that it is immoral, doesn't apply to Adonai. Why doesn't Adonai limit our freewill more than?

Adonai did not limit our free will, we did:
1.
When we chose to become evil in HIS sight we became enslaved by evil and unable to serve any other master ie goodness:John 8:34 Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. This enslavement destroys our free will, constraining it and coercing it to be evil only.

2.
When we learned the truth of whether GOD was a true GOD or a false god after we had chosen against him, the proof of HIS divinity destroyed our ability to choose for HIM ever again freely because knowing the truth, we knew where life and death lay and we were forever constrained (ie forced) to act in our best self interest to now bow to HIM against our true free will choice to reject HIM. This kind of false acceptence can never lead to true love nor true worship.

They are broken by choice beyond repair.

3.
IF GOD gave us the ability to make true free will decisons and then asked us to do so, implicity in that is the agreement to abide by our decisions for eternity or it is a meaningless exercise. Since the consequences are huge, it is obvious that GOD told us with dire warnings the consequences of rejecting HIM and HIS purpose for our creation, but did not show any coercive proof.

Peace, Ted

[bluethread]

So, it's not immoral for Adonai to limit freewill, because the human idea that that it is immoral, doesn't apply to Adonai. Why doesn't Adonai limit our freewill more than?

If Adonai did limit your free will, would you be ok with that? There are people who do have limited free will. We call them disabled and seek to mitigate that, because we consider that to be suffering. Why is that? There are two options. Freewill is not limited and suffering results. Freewill is limited and that in and of itself is suffering. So, regardless of freewill, Adonai is faulted for permitting suffering. Isn't that the crux of the matter? People do not like to suffer, so rather than focus on solutions they complain. Whether one believes in a deity or not, one is required to act, the atheisit by circumstance and the theist by command. The fact that there is suffering does not prove or disprove the existance of a deity. It is a motivator.