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?

[razovor]

Since the purpose of GOD seems to be to share love with HIS creation rather than create a universe of forced (ie morally empty) good behaviour without evil actions, and true love is only available by true free will choice, the solution become obvious...the possibility of evil was a necessary corollary to ensure the possibility of true love.

Okay. So God values true love as more important than preventing suffering.

That doesn't fit with the ...'traditional' characteristic of god being omni-benevolent (All good), but I'm more than willing to just accept that he could be All-loving instead.

However, that does mean that the people who truly love god, and follow his word precisely, will occasionally be called on to cause suffering in his name. Occasionally, there will be trade-off of interest to god, an opportunity to increase the love in the world, at the expense of suffering. God would be betraying his own principles if he didn't utilize this opportunity.

As a moral person, I don't think I could support someone who would ask people to do that.

[Bust Nak]

I used the term "created love" to allude to the idea the GOD may have created us with the propensity (not just the ability) or even the actual necessity to love HIM and each other and to always chose a loving action over an unloving one.

I can understand that, like how one could potentially rewire someone's brain with some advance technology. Or make AI that are programmed to love human.

I contend that such love is unworthy of the term, making the emotion a mechanical action not a true emotion because there can be no aleternative.

The kind of love I am familiar with are not conscious choices.

If I meet you and I must love you without choice because I was created that way, is that love as acceptable as the love of someone who meets you uncoerced, likes you, gets to know you, and grows from fondness to love? Even if we can't tell the difference by their actions - if we knew the difference, which would you choose?

I wouldn't have to choose, they are the same to me. My family and friends do not choose to love me, they just do. If we go back in time and changes things slightly then they may well not love me, but the same could also be said for created love.

Well GOD knows the difference and chose love by choice, not force.

Well there is no need to force someone to do something it they are built to do it.

The Elements of a True Free Will Choice:...

It was in part that this ultimate definition of the freedom of our will at creation could not be applicable to our lives here one earth that led me to re-consider more closely the PCE doctrine that we had a pre-earth life where all these choices were made under these conditions of full freedom of choice.

This is interesting. You accept that there is an some limit to free will as we experience it on Earth? Is the "understanding or knowledge of reality" this limit?

[ttruscott]

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 never understood that. I accept that someone acting as if they love you when they don't is not true love, but that is not the sme thing as "created love." Why is created love, not love?

"Created love" to me implies the person cannot choose anything else so in essence they are indeed "someone acting as if they love you when they don't." It is not true love because it does not stem from the person's wishes, desires etc.

If I created two partners for you to choose from, identical in any serious way except that one will love you becuase they get to know you, grow fond of you and then realise they love you from their heart

while the other I program to love you sight-unseen and it will fulfill the program no matter what you feel about it...

which would you choose for your mate? It may not matter too much if they are indistinguishable to us (and we don't know who is which) but they are easily distinguished to GOD so HE chose to have us learn to love and to worhip from our own choice.

I have raised hundreds of rebellious foster boys and a big lesson is that they feel that only rebellion proves their independence. It takes a mature mind to know that they can independently choose to obey.

True love can only be learned if the possibility to reject the partner is open but not used until love is purified and the "will not reject" becomes "cannot reject."

Peace, Ted

[ttruscott]

Since the purpose of GOD seems to be to share love with HIS creation rather than create a universe of forced (ie morally empty) good behaviour without evil actions, and true love is only available by true free will choice, the solution become obvious...the possibility of evil was a necessary corollary to ensure the possibility of true love.

Okay. So God values true love as more important than preventing suffering.

That doesn't fit with the ...'traditional' characteristic of god being omni-benevolent (All good), but I'm more than willing to just accept that he could be All-loving instead.

However, that does mean that the people who truly love god, and follow his word precisely, will occasionally be called on to cause suffering in his name. Occasionally, there will be trade-off of interest to god, an opportunity to increase the love in the world, at the expense of suffering. God would be betraying his own principles if he didn't utilize this opportunity.

As a moral person, I don't think I could support someone who would ask people to do that.

I take it that you agree to the idea of 'corrective suffering' for children on a low level...all suffering that GOD will involve you (as a member of HIS true Church) to give to another person will be on the level of and need for correction and within your family. Such discipline outside the family or needed to be stronger than ordinary will usually come from someone outside of the church or from nature but not always.

Even when the Church finally shuts the gates of hell against the demons and evils, they will not be doing it to increase suffering for the greater good of the Church (which will indeed be a product of doing this) but they will in fact be part of the entourage at the judgment of the most evil criminals ever to be loose among us, these demons and devils, who will never relent in their search for a way to destroy the Church and make us all evil in GOD's sight.

Peace, Ted

[bluethread]

So, a world without preditors or parasites. Would there be less suffering then?

You need to ask? . . .

So yes take away disease, predators, and religions and the only things left to cause suffering would be natural disasters and old-age deterioration.

And yes, I'd complain about those too. Why not?

Good we have moved on to the actual causes of suffering. All disease is due to some form of systematic deterioration. It is either due to the inability to caste off toxins or keep microbes in check. Toxins are the result of life sustaining processes or are necessary for the sustaining of other life forms. The microbes that cause disease are also those that make life possible. They serve a symbiotic relationship with other life forms that would not be able to survive without them. Thus disease is just the inability of the body to keep the microbes necessary for life in check. Therefore, the actual requirement that is being put before Adonai here is that we be granted fully developed immune systems at birth that include immunity to all toxins and that never deteriorate. This would require the creation of an ecosystem totally alien from any that has ever been observed. In fact this would require Adonai to grant eternal life to us, without exception.

Now regarding predators. Without disease, the only way to limit population is through accident, execution, or sterilization. Execution and predidation are similar in effect. Accident would also be considered suffering, so that is also out. That leaves creatures that do not reproduce. That leaves us with what kind of world, no eating or drinking, no interdependency, and no reproduction? Is that really a life worth living? It is definitely one in which everything we call enjoyable would be missing.

This is the only known life sustaining ecosystem in the universe. Adonai created us with legs and brains so we can move away from those things.

What?

Your legs and brains can move you away from cancer and other debilitating diseases?

I was referring to natural disaster, not disease.

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.

Like what?

Like the fact that making constant apologetic arguments for religious superstitions of jealous Gods, doesn't get mankind anywhere useful at all.

One learns that from compassionate animal rights activists? Many compassionate animal rights activists justify their positions with the same religious superstitions of jealous Gods.

I presume you mean heartless and lacking in compassion. That is interesting. How is man less heartless and more compassionate. Just a few examples, so we can extrapolate the difference, when applied to an entire ecosystem.

Ecosystem? You're going to use the world's current ecosystem as an excuse to try to justify a jealous God religion?[/quote]

No, since you choose to find fault with Adonai because of the suffering in the current system, I am asking you to come up with a viable alternative.

The current ecosystem on Earth obviously evolved to be the way it is which is precisely why it is dog-eat-dog, and ridden with parasites and disease.

That's the whole point.

That might be your point. However, there is no more reason why matter and motion would have to come up with this system, if there are better alternatives, than there is that this system was created to meet a particular purpose.

If you are claiming that a supposedly all-wise, all-knowing God purposefully designed this ecosystem then he would need to take full responsibility for this design.

Who says He doesn't?

If you're going to argue that "It has to be this way in order to be a balanced ecosystem" then one of two things are true:

1. You should become a secular atheist and support natural evolution.

OR

2. You'll have to argue that your supposedly omniscient all-powerful God couldn't do any better by design.

OR

3. The omniscient all-powerful God values interdependence and fertility more than isolation and infertility, and decided to create a world where the former are encouraged and the latter are discouraged.

[ttruscott]

...

The kind of love I am familiar with are not conscious choices.

...
My family and friends do not choose to love me, they just do. If we go back in time and changes things slightly then they may well not love me, but the same could also be said for created love.

I do understand that love is 'organic' and just grows without a seeming choice involved. But what about our love for our neighbours? This love is a love by choice, no? The "I don't have an emotional attachment to you but I will act in your best interest even at a cost to myself." kind of love?

Created love as I use it would refer to the kind of love that cannot choose like this unemotionally - you can only follow the program.

Well there is no need to force someone to do something it they are built to do it.

The way I'm using forced is saying they were forced IF they are built to do it.

The Elements of a True Free Will Choice:...

It was in part that this ultimate definition of the freedom of our will at creation could not be applicable to our lives here one earth that led me to re-consider more closely the PCE doctrine that we had a pre-earth life where all these choices were made under these conditions of full freedom of choice.

This is interesting. You accept that there is an some limit to free will as we experience it on Earth? Is the "understanding or knowledge of reality" this limit?

Partly.

If you had to choose whether to bow to a person as your GOD or not without proof so you weren't forced by the knowledge that HE really was or wasn't GOD, then it is obvious that IF you learned the proof one way or the other, you would no more have the freedom of will to chose from your own desires but your choice would be forced into line of what you now see to be in your own best interest. Proof destroys free will.

Also, once an elect chose to become evil in HIS sight by true free will decision, they became enlsaved by sin, their freeness of will overpowered by their addiction to sin: John 8:34 Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin.

The only thing that can break this addiction to evil is the grace of GOD and we live under HIS grace on earth until we are perfect in sanctification, loving and being holy by choice at which time we will never sin agin because we are properly consrained by knowing the true nature of GOD and by our own love and holy character.

On earth we have no free will as we are either under the power of sin or the grace of GOD.

Peace, Ted

[razovor]

That leaves us with what kind of world, no eating or drinking, no interdependency, and no reproduction? Is that really a life worth living? It is definitely one in which everything we call enjoyable would be missing.

No eating, no drinking and no reproduction, but every other pleasure known to man, without anyone ever suffering in any way? Yes, I would describe that as the best of worlds.

[bluethread]

That leaves us with what kind of world, no eating or drinking, no interdependency, and no reproduction? Is that really a life worth living? It is definitely one in which everything we call enjoyable would be missing.

No eating, no drinking and no reproduction, but every other pleasure known to man, without anyone ever suffering in any way? Yes, I would describe that as the best of worlds.

Please, state a few of those pleasures, so we can see if they would apply.

[McCulloch]

On earth we have no free will as we are either under the power of sin or the grace of GOD.

Then why did God allow evil? The usual Christian defense is that for God to have eliminated evil, He would have had to ride roughshod over free-will. Without free will, what excuse does the Christian apologist have for a god who has allowed sin and evil to have so much influence and control in his creation?

[Bust Nak]

I do understand that love is 'organic' and just grows without a seeming choice involved. But what about our love for our neighbours? This love is a love by choice, no? The "I don't have an emotional attachment to you but I will act in your best interest even at a cost to myself." kind of love?

There in no choice in loving my neighbout either. I am biologically wired that way as it were. Now there are lots of choices after the fact, I can choose to act in certain ways or not, but my emotion, including concern for others, is not under my conscious control.

Created love as I use it would refer to the kind of love that cannot choose like this unemotionally - you can only follow the program.

I kinda see what you are getting at, you are saying a robot, no matter how sophisticated, can never be capable of love. Such a concept is hard to understand for people like me, who see the human mind as software running on sophisticated biological machines.

The way I'm using forced is saying they were forced IF they are built to do it.

So if I duplicated myself molecule by molecule, would you consider the clone to be force to behave in the way that I behave? The clone is built to duplicate me and my actions.

If you had to choose whether to bow to a person as your GOD or not without proof so you weren't forced by the knowledge that HE really was or wasn't GOD, then it is obvious that IF you learned the proof one way or the other, you would no more have the freedom of will to chose from your own desires but your choice would be forced into line of what you now see to be in your own best interest. Proof destroys free will.

I don't know, it's really counter intuitive to treat an uninformed decision as superior in any way than an informed decision.

...The only thing that can break this addiction to evil is the grace of GOD and we live under HIS grace on earth until we are perfect in sanctification, loving and being holy by choice at which time we will never sin agin because we are properly consrained by knowing the true nature of GOD and by our own love and holy character.

On earth we have no free will as we are either under the power of sin or the grace of GOD.

I may have gotten the wrong end of the stick. When do we have free will, if we are either under the power of sin or the grace of God on earth, and constrained by knowledge in heaven?