God can't Heal the Criminally Ill

[Divine Insight]

The old worn-out apology that God can't heal the criminally ill because he doesn't want to turn us into robots doesn't hold water.

Surely everyone will agree that it is sick to want to do evil things. It's not a healthy state of mind. It would be ludicrous to claim that it is healthy.

Therefore people who have a desire to do bad things are mentally unhealthy.

Healing people who are mentally unhealthy does not turn them into robots.

In fact, think about. If you had a brain tumor that was causing you to do horrible things and a doctor discovered you brain tumor was the cause of your evil thoughts and behavior and removed the brain tumor you would be forever grateful to the doctor for having healed your problem.

The same thing necessarily holds true evil humans. They thoughts are not healthy thoughts. No one can argue with that. Therefore their mind is not a healthy mind.

Thus a God who could heal the criminally insane would be doing them a great favor and not turning them into simple-minded robots.

So the excuse that God cannot create mentally healthy humans is a failed apology. There is no excuse for a God who cannot create perfectly healthy human beings.

And even if we allowed that this God might be inept as a creator, it would be absurd to try to claim that the God can't even heal those who have unhealthy thoughts. We would end up having a God who is basically incapable of doing much of anything correctly.

So there is no excuse for any humans that have been created by an intelligent God to have unhealthy thoughts.

These apologies that you are being fed by this religion simply don't hold water. In order to believe these apologies you would need to embrace the idea that the God is an inept creator who can't even create healthy humans. Nor could he heal the unhealthy ones.

So this religion has been pulling the wool over your eyes for centuries. There is no excuse for a God who creates mentally unhealthy humans, and can't even heal them.

The only way you could try to salvage this apology is to try to claim that having evil thoughts and desires is not unhealthy. But think of how silly such an excuse would be.

There simply is no excuse for a God who either creates unhealthy humans, or one that cannot heal unhealthy humans to the point where he needs to cast them into eternal damnation. If they are defective no one can be blamed for that but the God who created them.

So Christianity has nothing but lies to off us. There is no God who is going to cast unhealthy people into hell for not being healthy. It simply makes no sense. If a God actually existed that God could have created all healthy humans in the first place. Or at the very least, he could heal them rather than sending them off to be eternally punished like as if it was their fault for being sick.

If there is a creator God who created humans. that this God would be responsible for the mental health of every single human. Without exception.

Christianity tries to place the blame on humans for being unhealthy, but that simply cannot be made to work.

Question for Debate:

How can anyone continue to defend these obviously failed apologies for this religion? The claim that God doesn't want robots is a failed apology. Being healed does not make a person a robot.

[Purple Knight]

I wouldn't argue against that idea. But let's not forget that we're talking about a situation where their supposedly exists an omniscient God who knows what's actually going on.

But once we bring the idea of a supposedly omnipotent omniscient God into the picture, then "accidents" can no longer be used as an excuse.

Absolutely correct. I'm keeping this in mind for the following.

If a God sees that a brain tumor is what's causing you to behave the way you do, would he then be justified in blaming you for being that way?

Especially when he could so easily cure you?

Did you freely choose to be inflicted by a brain tumor? I think this is the question.

It depends on which is me. And let's look at this from the aforementioned context of an omnipotent God.

Evil me still can't exist without the tumour. Perhaps evil me is irredeemable, perhaps he isn't. Regardless, that identity is its own person. That identity has its own attachments, its own interests, its own feelings... its own soul.

Put yourself in the place of God and ask yourself what you do about this. You're omniscient, so you know well that if you don't allow the timeline with evil Purple Knight, then this is basically an aborted soul from the cosmic standpoint. If you allow the tumour to grow, then this person exists. Soul unaborted; soul allowed to exist.

It becomes problematic once you realise that you must either allow him to live, or abort this soul, even though, from your mere omniscience, you already know him as well as you or I know any of our friends or lovers.

[Divine Insight]

It depends on which is me. And let's look at this from the aforementioned context of an omnipotent God.

Evil me still can't exist without the tumour. Perhaps evil me is irredeemable, perhaps he isn't. Regardless, that identity is its own person. That identity has its own attachments, its own interests, its own feelings... its own soul.

Put yourself in the place of God and ask yourself what you do about this. You're omniscient, so you know well that if you don't allow the timeline with evil Purple Knight, then this is basically an aborted soul from the cosmic standpoint. If you allow the tumour to grow, then this person exists. Soul unaborted; soul allowed to exist.

It becomes problematic once you realise that you must either allow him to live, or abort this soul, even though, from your mere omniscience, you already know him as well as you or I know any of our friends or lovers.

I simply disagree with your philosophical views on this.

I don't agree that a person who is cured of a mental illness is no longer the "same person". So I don't accept your premise that to not help someone is the same as aborting their soul.

There have been practical cases where people have had evil thoughts and those thoughts were making them miserable. Fortunately the cause of these thoughts was discovered and medically treated. The person who was cured was then very grateful for having been cured. They can still remember the misery they had previously experienced. In essence they are the "same person" but now they are cured.

Besides, how could your philosophical position be used to support a religion like Christianity? According to Christianity if an evil person repents and asks God for mercy and forgiveness God will heal them of their misery and accept them into heaven. Based on your position as outlined in your post, what actually happened was that the evil "soul" was aborted (allowed to die) while a brand new "soul" was then created and taken up into heaven.

In fact, doesn't Christian theology have Jesus himself casting evil demons out of people? According to you he just aborted an evil soul and created a new soul.

I just don't accept your philosophy that if an evil person is cured this aborts their soul.

We can even take this further.

What about a woman who is being abused by an abusive husband. We step in and free here from this situation. She is now happy and no longer abused.

Based on your philosophy we would need to conclude that we had "aborted the soul of the abused woman" and created a brand new happy women who has no connection to the soul of the woman who had been abused.

In short, Purple Knight, I don't accept your philosophy on this. Nor do I see how it could help a theology like Christianity anyway.

Moreover, wouldn't you be ignoring the fact that the creator God allowed the person to become evil in the first place? We can't look at this God as just having stumbled into situations that are "beyond his control". Such a God would be neither omniscient nor omnipotent.

In fact, this is an argument that I use quite often regarding the Biblical Flood. What kind of a God would have allowed things to get that far out of control before stepping in to do something about it?

By the way, you seem to be forgetting that this very same God is going to cast the evil person into eternal hell anyway. Why worry that he might simply "abort a soul"?

Aborting a soul would be far better than casting it into eternal damnation.


You say:

Put yourself in the place of God and ask yourself what you do about this. You're omniscient, so you know well that if you don't allow the timeline with evil Purple Knight, then this is basically an aborted soul from the cosmic standpoint. If you allow the tumour to grow, then this person exists. Soul unaborted; soul allowed to exist.

Allowed to exist to what end?

What God are we talking about here? The God who is planning on casting this soul into eternal damnation in hell?

Aborting the evil soul would be the much preferred choice if that's the case. It would not only be more merciful to the evil soul, but it would also protect any innocent people who might be harmed by the actions of the evil soul.

So I don't see where your argument makes any philosophical sense, much less any theological sense.

[1213]

A healthy person wouldn't be looking for "excuses" to do evil things. ...

Sorry, I dont believe people have some health issue that makes them act against their own will.

[Divine Insight]

A healthy person wouldn't be looking for "excuses" to do evil things. ...

Sorry, I dont believe people have some health issue that makes them act against their own will.

It doesn't matter what you believe.

It makes no sense to try to claim that people who desire to do sick things have healthy minds.

This is a major flaw with Christian theology. You need to believe that perfectly healthy people choose to do horrible things because they have perfectly healthy minds and have chosen to do horrible things.

It's absurd. Yet this is what Christian theology demands.

Just ask yourself these questions:

Do you want to molest children but are only refraining from doing so because you are willfully choosing to ignore this desire?

If this is not true, then why should you think that someone who does want to molest children is just as mentally healthy as you but for some unknown reason they have a desire to do things that you have no desire to do?

And you can just go down the list of horrible crimes. Do you want to rape the young daughters of your friends, but only chose not to because you have chosen not to act on this desire?

Think about it. In order for your position to be true, you would need to want to do everything that any criminal wants to do but you simply refrain from doing it because you have chosen to resist the desire.

Unless you truly have a desire to do all these horrible things, then you know that your argument fails.

Any argument you come up with in defense of Christian mythology must also apply to you. If you are a counter-example for any argument you give in defense of the theology, then your very existence as a counter-example negates your argument.

This one of the many reasons that I have come to realize the fallacy of Christian mythology. It simply can't be true if it doesn't apply to me. And it clearly doesn't.

So I'm a living counter-example for what the theology demands. Therefore it cannot be true. How could I be an exception to the theology? That makes no sense.

So your only argument has to be that even you want to do terrible things AND we can't even stop there. You must also believe that is it HEALTHY to have those desires and thoughts.

I think you're going to end up going down big time with an argument like that. Yet this is the argument you have no choice but to make.

You need to believe that all criminals who do horrific things are "just like you". The only difference is that they chose to act on their desires, while for some explainable reason, you have chosen not to act on the same desires. Desires that you absolutely must have, lest you become a counter-example to your own argument.

If you don't have these evil desires, then you are a counter-example to your own theological thesis.

I can't speak for you, but I know that I have no desire to molest little children or rape my neighbor's young daughters.

So I already know that I'm a living counter-example to your argument. If you don't feel that you are also a counter-example, then I don't think I would want you living in my neighborhood. Even if you chose to not act on your evil desires I wouldn't be comfortable living next to someone who even wants to do those nasty things.

And if you don't want to do those nasty things, then you're already a counter-example to your own theological argument.

So what you might believe about other people is basically irrelevant.

Just ask yourself if you are a counter-example to your own argument. If you are, then the argument doesn't hold any water. If you aren't, then I don't know what to tell you other than the fact that I am a counter-example to your argument because I most certainly have no desire to do those evil things.

[pleinmont]

There is no evidence any god actually exists, let alone can heal anyone.

[Purple Knight]

Besides, how could your philosophical position be used to support a religion like Christianity?

Well, I'm not saying it supports Christianity really. I just gave logical charity and this is where it led. I'm an atheist you know.

According to Christianity if an evil person repents and asks God for mercy and forgiveness God will heal them of their misery and accept them into heaven. Based on your position as outlined in your post, what actually happened was that the evil "soul" was aborted (allowed to die) while a brand new "soul" was then created and taken up into heaven.

So... I wouldn't know what would happen but let me still give as much charity as I can. I do this mainly because it seems that when teams were being picked, the atheist side got more of the superintelligent players. So I play ringer on occasion because I genuinely worry my team might only win on the debate floor because God stacked the deck. Well, I'll unstack it then.

The evil person repenting is not an aborted soul by my definition. He did at least get to exist. The cosmic problem is what to do with him now.

This is where I'm going to say your interpretation of my argument, and the OP, is entirely correct: This man is evil. He can't get into Heaven by nature. He's a square peg trying to get into a round hole. And why did God make the universe this way? Perhaps because every possible peg is made; every potential person gets a chance to exist, though perhaps not even in this universe. That would be a worthy Reason for Evil, wouldn't it? Everyone gets a chance to live?

Now I'm going to come back to your very important assertion that it matters whether or not I choose to be cured. What if you're right?

In one instance, evil me is crying on the operation table, screaming, "Please, oh please, don't take my tumour! Don't make me different! I am me! Don't kill me and let that simpering bastard live! I don't want to be him again!"

In the other instance, I accept that how I am now is wrong and want to be changed into right.

Does the existence of a voluntary transition make the difference between a person being killed off and a person being merely changed? Perhaps. If so, have we just quantified repentance?

I just don't accept your philosophy that if an evil person is cured this aborts their soul.

I'm calling it an aborted soul if that evil person was simply never allowed to exist in the first place. If a person who wants to be evil is somehow cured of evil this is simply murder.

What about a woman who is being abused by an abusive husband. We step in and free here from this situation. She is now happy and no longer abused.

Based on your philosophy we would need to conclude that we had "aborted the soul of the abused woman" and created a brand new happy women who has no connection to the soul of the woman who had been abused.

Perhaps the connection is important. Sad Jenny wants to be rescued and turned into Happy Jenny.

Moreover, wouldn't you be ignoring the fact that the creator God allowed the person to become evil in the first place? We can't look at this God as just having stumbled into situations that are "beyond his control". Such a God would be neither omniscient nor omnipotent.

Well, unless he wants the universe to be as it is. The goal might well be to allow every possible person to exist. No aborted souls. It makes a horrid world, however, putting myself in God's place, I can see how everyone getting a chance to exist is a worthy goal.

In fact, this is an argument that I use quite often regarding the Biblical Flood. What kind of a God would have allowed things to get that far out of control before stepping in to do something about it?

This, as I see it, is a very good case. If God has no restriction on stepping in anyway, he ought to do so when it will cause less harm, not more.

(I mean, unless he specifically flooded the world with evil people he knew he'd have to drown, simply to allow them to exist for a time and see if they'd repent. It certainly seems cruel, but ask yourself if you're one of them, a potential person whose personality is evil... you still want to exist, right?)

By the way, you seem to be forgetting that this very same God is going to cast the evil person into eternal hell anyway. Why worry that he might simply "abort a soul"?

Aborting a soul would be far better than casting it into eternal damnation.

Again, if the goal is to allow every potential person to exist, the cosmic problem of what to do with the evil ones doesn't have an easy answer.

1. Not allow them to exist at all; abort their soul
2. Allow them to exist and annihilate them if they don't repent
3. Allow them to exist and damn them if they don't repent

Allowed to exist to what end?

Perhaps that is the end. Everyone gets a chance to live, and maybe even repent.

What God are we talking about here? The God who is planning on casting this soul into eternal damnation in hell?

Aborting the evil soul would be the much preferred choice if that's the case. It would not only be more merciful to the evil soul, but it would also protect any innocent people who might be harmed by the actions of the evil soul.

So I don't see where your argument makes any philosophical sense, much less any theological sense.

Maybe it doesn't but it's the best I can come up with.

By my thinking the harm of innocent souls (this may go back to the flood issue) would outweigh the potential for evil souls to be redeemed, but you could also say, if they're so easily swayed from the good path, perhaps they don't pass muster after all.

Still, I have no idea why you'd have to pass any muster if you're going to a place of pure good. You'd just have to stay that way absent evil stimuli, of which there would be none.

[Divine Insight]

That would be a worthy Reason for Evil, wouldn't it? Everyone gets a chance to live?

Speaking purely philosophically I would so, no. This wouldn't be a worthy reason to allow evil people to live in among innocent people.

We need to allow for an omnipotent God. We also can see the vastness of the universe in which we live. Therefore the question would come up as to why this omnipotent God couldn't allow evil people to live among themselves, and innocent people to live among themselves on different planets far removed from each other.

With this in mind putting evil people in with good people would be a worthy reason just to allow evil people a chance to live.

Now I'm going to come back to your very important assertion that it matters whether or not I choose to be cured. What if you're right?

In one instance, evil me is crying on the operation table, screaming, "Please, oh please, don't take my tumour! Don't make me different! I am me! Don't kill me and let that simpering bastard live! I don't want to be him again!"

In the other instance, I accept that how I am now is wrong and want to be changed into right.

Does the existence of a voluntary transition make the difference between a person being killed off and a person being merely changed? Perhaps. If so, have we just quantified repentance?

My argument here is the same as I've been making. We would then need to claim that it's "mentally healthy" to want to be evil and remain evil.

The problem here is that we need to concede that being evil is "healthy".

Seems to me that this takes us down a rabbit hole of contradictory definitions and concepts.

I'm calling it an aborted soul if that evil person was simply never allowed to exist in the first place. If a person who wants to be evil is somehow cured of evil this is simply murder.

Philosophically speaking we can create all sorts of scenarios.

For example, when I was in my teens I met a girl who wanted to marry me and have 20 children! No kidding! She had her heart set on having a large family and she was prepared to give birth to 20 kids.

She was a nice girl too. And even sexually 'hot' if I'm permitted to say so.

None the less I didn't want to have 20 kids. That would be a nightmare life for me. So I turned down her proposal.

So now what? Did I just murder 20 kids by not wanting to create them via procreation?

It doesn't even matter if she went on to have 20 kids with some other guy. The kids she would have had with me never got a chance to live.

I just don't think the argument that every possible human must be given a chance to live lest it's considered murder.

Like I say, refusing to partake in the activity of creating 20 humans could then be the same thing as having murdered 20 humans.

Did I murder my kids by refusing to create them?

I went on to never marry at all and have no children. So am I guilty of murdering children who could have been born but weren't because I chose to not create them?

Well, unless he wants the universe to be as it is. The goal might well be to allow every possible person to exist. No aborted souls. It makes a horrid world, however, putting myself in God's place, I can see how everyone getting a chance to exist is a worthy goal.

If we allow for this then I deserve to be cast into hell for refusing to have 20 children.

This, as I see it, is a very good case. If God has no restriction on stepping in anyway, he ought to do so when it will cause less harm, not more.

(I mean, unless he specifically flooded the world with evil people he knew he'd have to drown, simply to allow them to exist for a time and see if they'd repent. It certainly seems cruel, but ask yourself if you're one of them, a potential person whose personality is evil... you still want to exist, right?)

I don't know if I would want to continue to exist if I was naturally evil.

There are people who do have nasty thoughts and do evil things proclaiming that they don't understand why they do them and they indeed do wish they were dead. Some even actually do commit suicide.

When I was in high-school I knew a fellow who had a problem similar to this. He used to confide in me. He would tell me that he has evil thoughts and wants to do evil things, and he doesn't like it but can't stop. At the time I didn't know what to tell him and told him precisely that. In hindsight I should have encouraged him to go to a professional counselor for help.

He ended up doing many terrible things and eventually ended up in jail. I don't know what every happened to him after that. All I know is that he didn't like having evil thoughts and doing evil things, but he kept doing them anyway.

That doesn't sound to me like a free-will choice to be evil.

For those of us who have no desire to do terrible things we should be grateful that we are the way we are. I certainly didn't "choose" to be a decent person. It's just who I am. I never had to fight with thoughts, or desires, to do evil things because I never had those thoughts and desires in the first place.

Why is that? Why was I handed a free, "Get out of Temptation" card?

I don't need to struggle with temptations to do evil things. I just naturally don't want to do them.

So how is if fair for those who do desire to do evil things? Why are they the way they are? My guess is that they didn't choose to be evil anymore than I chose to be good. I just am that I am, and the same is true for them.

Again, if the goal is to allow every potential person to exist, the cosmic problem of what to do with the evil ones doesn't have an easy answer.

1. Not allow them to exist at all; abort their soul
2. Allow them to exist and annihilate them if they don't repent
3. Allow them to exist and damn them if they don't repent

Well, to begin with, I'm not on board with your philosophical ideal that every potential person must be given a chance to exist. This idea also could not be used to support Christian theology. I realize that you aren't out to support Christian theology, but I just want to make it clear to any readers that this idea wouldn't support Christian theology anyway.

Secondly, as I stated earlier. It's not like planet earth is the entirety of the universe. Even if there was a creator God who wanted to give every possible human experience a chance to exist, then why mix the evil people with the good people.

What about a person who would like to exist in a perfectly safe and healthy world? But forcing them to live among evil people you have "killed" the person they wanted to be. They wanted to live in a happy care-free life where everyone is productive, constructive, and contribute to the happiness and welfare of all.

Allowed to exist to what end?

Perhaps that is the end. Everyone gets a chance to live, and maybe even repent.

But what about me? I want to live in a loving productive world where everyone is friendly. I want to live in Mr. Roger's Neighborhood.

But I'm being denied the life I want to live by having evil people tossed into my neighborhood. So the idea that everyone gets a chance to life fails. I'm not being given the chance to live the live I truly want to live. The evil people around me are ruining everything.

So I don't see where your argument makes any philosophical sense, much less any theological sense.

Maybe it doesn't but it's the best I can come up with.

By my thinking the harm of innocent souls (this may go back to the flood issue) would outweigh the potential for evil souls to be redeemed, but you could also say, if they're so easily swayed from the good path, perhaps they don't pass muster after all.

But why are they like that to begin with?

If I am not like that, but they are, then how can it be said that it was their free will choice to be that way?

That's the problem.

What caused those people to want to do evil things? It couldn't have been healthy free will choice. So that's out. And this ruins Christian theology. Which is the point of my argument.

Still, I have no idea why you'd have to pass any muster if you're going to a place of pure good. You'd just have to stay that way absent evil stimuli, of which there would be none.

Exactly.

And this all comes back to our philosophical disagreement that to heal someone of having evil thoughts and desires would "kill their soul".

I disagree with that premise. For me a "soul" would simply be the individual experience of consciousness and self-awareness. A person who is cured of all evil thoughts would still be conscious and self-aware. In other words, they would still exist.

By they way, what would be the difference between someone who was "cured" of evil thoughts, versus someone who simply chose on their own to "repent"?

In both cases the person changed. According to your argument even those who "repent" will have killed their previous "soul".

I'm not sure that makes much sense. In this case you would need to define a "soul" as something that really has nothing to do with a living conscious self-aware individual, but instead it would need to be something totally different. Nothing more than a superficial description of how a person is currently behaving or wanting to behave.

If curing them "kills their soul" then surely having them willfully repent would then also necessarily "kill their soul". Because, as you point out, they would no longer be the person they were before they repented. That person "died".

[Purple Knight]

This wouldn't be a worthy reason to allow evil people to live in among innocent people.

We need to allow for an omnipotent God. We also can see the vastness of the universe in which we live. Therefore the question would come up as to why this omnipotent God couldn't allow evil people to live among themselves, and innocent people to live among themselves on different planets far removed from each other.

With this in mind putting evil people in with good people would be a worthy reason just to allow evil people a chance to live.

I'm just turning on Maximum Charity again, so bear with me.

What if you (as God) discovered, or already knew, that no matter how good a potential person was, putting them in with the all-evil group turned them evil, and no matter how evil a potential person was, putting them in with the all-good group turned them good?

(This doesn't invalidate free will; all it shows is that people aren't idiots.)

If your goal is maximum redemption you would try to put the maximum amount of evil people in with the good group. You would end up with a horrid world that is the worst possible without quite disallowing the choice for good. This goes a bit beyond charity but I'd say that's what we have.

Also, this world could be Hell. No part of the Bible says, "To those reading this, you are on the Prime Material Plane at this moment. You are not in Hell, Heaven, Limbo, or on any other plane. I, the Lord your God, will not allow this message to be duplicated on other planes."

As God, I would probably put that in. But, hey, there's always the chance that I'm... well... a little ahead of the curve here.

My argument here is the same as I've been making. We would then need to claim that it's "mentally healthy" to want to be evil and remain evil.

The problem here is that we need to concede that being evil is "healthy".

Seems to me that this takes us down a rabbit hole of contradictory definitions and concepts.

I don't know why a mentally unhealthy person can't have a soul that's his alone. Maybe Sad Jenny wants to be Evil Jenny so she can murder her abusive partner. Maybe she wants to stay Evil Jenny so she won't get abused again. You can say this isn't healthy but it's at least understandable, and thus, human.

I'm calling it an aborted soul if that evil person was simply never allowed to exist in the first place. If a person who wants to be evil is somehow cured of evil this is simply murder.

So now what? Did I just murder 20 kids by not wanting to create them via procreation?

In the omnipotent God scenario, and the assumed goal of everyone gets to exist, no. Those exact kids went on to be born somewhere else, or perhaps they never needed to be born at all as those identities had already been spun out by the great wheel somewhere else.

I just don't think the argument that every possible human must be given a chance to live lest it's considered murder.

I don't think it's murder either, but those children (in reality, not some fantasy god scenario) simply weren't created. If you knew there was a timeline in which they were created, would it be murder to go back and prevent their existence?

I don't know if I would want to continue to exist if I was naturally evil.

There are people who do have nasty thoughts and do evil things proclaiming that they don't understand why they do them and they indeed do wish they were dead. Some even actually do commit suicide.

When I was in high-school I knew a fellow who had a problem similar to this. He used to confide in me. He would tell me that he has evil thoughts and wants to do evil things, and he doesn't like it but can't stop. At the time I didn't know what to tell him and told him precisely that. In hindsight I should have encouraged him to go to a professional counselor for help.

He ended up doing many terrible things and eventually ended up in jail. I don't know what every happened to him after that. All I know is that he didn't like having evil thoughts and doing evil things, but he kept doing them anyway.

That doesn't sound to me like a free-will choice to be evil.

I happen not to believe in free will; I believe in determinism.

But in our fantasy scenario, this is a case of potential redemption. This is someone who (if we take him at his word) didn't want to be evil despite being created so. Valid transition = valid redemption. Potentially.

Would he have ever been sorrowful if cast into a world where doing bad things was the norm? I wouldn't think so. So he had to be cast into a world where at least a pretence to decency is the norm.

For those of us who have no desire to do terrible things we should be grateful that we are the way we are. I certainly didn't "choose" to be a decent person. It's just who I am. I never had to fight with thoughts, or desires, to do evil things because I never had those thoughts and desires in the first place.

Why is that? Why was I handed a free, "Get out of Temptation" card?

I don't need to struggle with temptations to do evil things. I just naturally don't want to do them.

So how is if fair for those who do desire to do evil things? Why are they the way they are? My guess is that they didn't choose to be evil anymore than I chose to be good. I just am that I am, and the same is true for them.

I would say that is correct. And in my fantasy scenario, you, as a decent person, were born because your potential being (as well as every other) was given the chance to exist.

Well, to begin with, I'm not on board with your philosophical ideal that every potential person must be given a chance to exist. This idea also could not be used to support Christian theology. I realize that you aren't out to support Christian theology, but I just want to make it clear to any readers that this idea wouldn't support Christian theology anyway.

You don't have to be on board with it for it to be a plausible reason for the God entity to do what it does. Why evil? Because it refuses to abort souls. Every potential person gets a chance. Everybody lives, at least for a while. You asked why evil and it's a decent reason.

You do, however, present a good case that evil and good don't have to mix, and I admit my rebuttal (though given in the spirit of greatest possible charity toward the theological perspective) doesn't fully convince me.

What about a person who would like to exist in a perfectly safe and healthy world? But forcing them to live among evil people you have "killed" the person they wanted to be. They wanted to live in a happy care-free life where everyone is productive, constructive, and contribute to the happiness and welfare of all.

Well, you killed the perpetually good them, if they wanted that so they wouldn't fall. But perhaps when someone is good, and later turns evil, the good soul is preserved and departs then.

Yes, you're being denied the life you want, and you may change as a result, killing the good you. But he did still exist.

But why are they like that to begin with?

If I am not like that, but they are, then how can it be said that it was their free will choice to be that way?

It's not, but being defined by that identity, they - that person - couldn't be any other way.

Just as you wouldn't be you if you wanted to rape and murder.

Let's say I'm God, and I spin the exact you that is you out on another planet. You might have ridges on your forehead or something, but if you're the same fundamentally decent you, you're still you, right?

And you might ask me, "Hey God, will you reincarnate me as a Klingon? That would be cool." And if I said yes (in the Christian cosmology, I wouldn't even though I'd have every ability to) that's exactly what you'd expect it would be, correct? To maintain the same basic identity that makes you, you, sans the memories? Well that's just my point; you have a particular identity (true regardless of fantasy/reality). If I go and change that, it's no longer you. It's somebody else.

What caused those people to want to do evil things? It couldn't have been healthy free will choice. So that's out. And this ruins Christian theology. Which is the point of my argument.

God. God caused them to want to do evil things, because every potential person is spun out at least once. Remember, you asked for the explanation. You may not like it, but it's at least coherent and reasonably plausible.

He didn't cause that potential to be that potential, however. Logic did that. The identity property. A thing is itself. God would have simply allowed the person with those traits to live.

And this all comes back to our philosophical disagreement that to heal someone of having evil thoughts and desires would "kill their soul".

I disagree with that premise. For me a "soul" would simply be the individual experience of consciousness and self-awareness. A person who is cured of all evil thoughts would still be conscious and self-aware. In other words, they would still exist.

I'm not sure that makes much sense. In this case you would need to define a "soul" as something that really has nothing to do with a living conscious self-aware individual, but instead it would need to be something totally different. Nothing more than a superficial description of how a person is currently behaving or wanting to behave.

So let's go back to the reincarnation issue. For the purposes of this scenario, I'm God. You (let's say) are old and dying and you want me to put your soul in another body. Let's say (for the sake of argument) that I'm game. I agree to off you immediately so that you can be reborn on another planet, in the body of a Klingon who is being conceived at that moment.

Now assuming I don't allow you to keep your memories, what is this new fellow to you? If he could time-travel back and meet you now, what qualities would you be looking for to confirm that this new fellow is indeed you? In contrast, what could he be, or do, or say, that would cause you to be cross at me, say I hadn't granted your wish, and tell me, "Hey, you lied. That's not me. You cheated me."?

Or would you say this is impossible to begin with; nonsensical not because it's riddled with fantasy and nonsense, but out of definition: Because it simply wouldn't be you unless you retained your continuous stream of consciousness? If so, I can only wonder what people are even claiming when they say they used to be Henry VIII. Maybe they only remember bits and pieces... but if so, to you, has their soul been swiss-cheesed? Partially destroyed? Are you a bit destroyed when unconscious, or whenever you forget something?

By they way, what would be the difference between someone who was "cured" of evil thoughts, versus someone who simply chose on their own to "repent"?

In both cases the person changed. According to your argument even those who "repent" will have killed their previous "soul".

Whether it's voluntary or not. Perhaps (though I admit I'm reaching) the voluntary nature of "I no longer want to be Y; I want to be X," allows the change without a murder. You were the one who broached this issue, remember. You brought up whether that was the way someone really wanted to be or not being significant.

If curing them "kills their soul" then surely having them willfully repent would then also necessarily "kill their soul". Because, as you point out, they would no longer be the person they were before they repented. That person "died".

That's definitely an issue. But again, you broached the subject of it mattering whether someone wants to be that way or not.

If I say I want my IQ reduced by 60 points and invite you to pick away bits of my frontal lobe until this is achieved, is this a different outcome than if you did it to me unbidden out of jealousy?

It raises the subject of endemic change versus outward change.

We all develop in the womb with what looks like, and many argue is a vestige of, a gill slit. But it goes away on its own.

People even argue now that if they identify as a woman, they in fact already are a woman, regardless of what bits they have down there. If this is true, and I snap my fingers and change them into a biological female, I have not altered their identity because that's what it already was.

So someone who hates his extra set of arms and chops them off already had a quadruped-shaped soul, so to speak, so he has only become more in line with it. But someone with six limbs who is involuntarily mutilated down to four has had his identity violated - changed against his will.

I'm not sure I agree with this in totality but it's already a common view about identity.

[1213]

It makes no sense to try to claim that people who desire to do sick things have healthy minds.

"It doesn't matter what you believe".

This is a major flaw with Christian theology. You need to believe that perfectly healthy people choose to do horrible things because they have perfectly healthy minds and have chosen to do horrible things.

if you claim it is not the person who wants the evil things, I think you should provide the reason, or source, what causes person to want and do evil things, if it is not the will of person.

If this is not true, then why should you think that someone who does want to molest children is just as mentally healthy as you but for some unknown reason they have a desire to do things that you have no desire to do?

People desire different things. If you think it is a health issue, please show how it is health issue and not just persons different free will. if in that case it is result of a disease, does that mean that all different tastes are result of an unhealthy mind? If people would have healthy mind, would it mean they have same will as you have in every thing?

[Yahwehismywitness]

He ended up doing many terrible things and eventually ended up in jail. I don't know what every happened to him after that. All I know is that he didn't like having evil thoughts and doing evil things, but he kept doing them anyway.

Have you ever heard the saying history repeats itself or chip off the old block Some beliefs come from parents and family members. Maybe the evil came from another generation. Did the child see parents kill animals or some other evil or make child do evil and corrupting the young mind. Something happened for a child to say such things it is a learned response.