If you were God....

Originally posted by whodey
So you would prefer to restrain free will.

I would...depending on what exactly "free will" means of course. It's not a well defined concept as far as I know.

Originally posted by twhitehead
[b]Actually, I suspect you are assuming a lot more than that. You are assuming the current world order which is a whole lot more than just 'free will' is the optimal state of creation. You cannot think of anything better because you know that doing so would be to criticize God. You cannot criticize God because that would be questioning your faith. You cannot question your faith because that might ..... well you know where I'm going.

There is nothing wrong with questioning ones faith. I simply conceed that I am in over my head in this area. Like you, I would like to see less suffering and more love in the world. So that is the key, isn't it? It is love verses suffering. However, can there be love without suffering? Have you ever loved someone and not suffered for it on some level whether it be for their rejection of you or you losing them against their will? For me sin is simply the rejection of the law of love and it would behoove God to erradicate it. So tell me, what is the best way of erradicating sin in a world full of sinners? OF course, there is an easy way to solve this dilemma by erradicating the sinners, but then you and I would be in a world of hurt wouldn't we? I believe that is why Christ came. It was an approach to erradicate the sin but save the sinner. Unfortunatly this approach is a bit more complex.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I would...depending on what exactly "free will" means of course. It's not a well defined concept as far as I know.

For me it is our ability to love. A mutual loving relatinoship demands that both parties have the ability to love or reject the other. Otherwise love does not exist in a mutual context. If one had control over the others will in the matter then it would simply be one loving themself back.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Since I didn't see a smiley I assume you were serious.
I dont believe in hell. Jws do a lot of good. But thats are far as my praise goes based on my experience.

😛

Originally posted by karoly aczel
In short I wouldn't change anything about my life or the planet I live on and I think my answers are a portrayal of that view. Its not that sinple, of course, but then again I didn't have a go at you for your simple questions either🙂[/b]

I don't agree nor does the God of the Bible. Otherwise Christ would not have come into the world. In short, the world is NOT OK the way it is and God will make it right some day.

Originally posted by whodey
For me it is our ability to love. A mutual loving relatinoship demands that both parties have the ability to love or reject the other. Otherwise love does not exist in a mutual context. If one had control over the others will in the matter then it would simply be one loving themself back.

Free will means the ability to love to you? That's not anything like a typical meaning of the phrase.

Or is it the ability to have "a mutual loving relationship" or is it "the ability to reject the other"? Your definition is not clearly defined.

Neither loving nor the existence of a person who can experience love separate from you is dependent on the lover being able to reject you. You should clarify - is it about love or is it about being able to reject another? Is love a noun or a verb in this context anyway?

Originally posted by whodey
There is nothing wrong with questioning ones faith. I simply conceed that I am in over my head in this area. Like you, I would like to see less suffering and more love in the world. So that is the key, isn't it? It is love verses suffering. However, can there be love without suffering? Have you ever loved someone and not suffered for it on some level wh to erradicate the sin but save the sinner. Unfortunatly this approach is a bit more complex.

can there be love without suffering

Yes. Unless, again, you define love as requiring suffering.

Originally posted by whodey
For me it is our ability to love. A mutual loving relatinoship demands that both parties have the ability to love or reject the other. Otherwise love does not exist in a mutual context. If one had control over the others will in the matter then it would simply be one loving themself back.

I would argue the opposite. I would say that loving someone precludes the possibility of rejecting them [outright, anyway].

To think otherwise is to say that the only way to prove you actually love someone is to reject them. That seems absurd. Ask your wife to prove her love for you by leaving you forever and see what reaction you get!

Originally posted by whodey
There is nothing wrong with questioning ones faith. I simply conceed that I am in over my head in this area.

So concerned it would appear that you won't even speculate?

Like you, I would like to see less suffering and more love in the world. So that is the key, isn't it? It is love verses suffering.
Exactly. Yet it seems that no theist can come up with a scenario in which there is more love and less suffering than the status quo, but a number us atheists are willing to at least try. Is this because you believe the status quo to be the best of all possible worlds? Or is it a lack of imagination?

However, can there be love without suffering?
I am not sure. However, I disagree that there is a direct and guaranteed relationship.

Have you ever loved someone and not suffered for it on some level whether it be for their rejection of you or you losing them against their will?
I don't think I have suffered all that much for loving my son. He certainly hasn't rejected me nor have I lost him yet.

But I must point out here that a very large proportion of suffering has no connection to unrequited love that I can make out. Ouch! I just pinched my finger on the keyboard! I wonder who I loved to cause that!

For me sin is simply the rejection of the law of love and it would behoove God to erradicate it. So tell me, what is the best way of erradicating sin in a world full of sinners? OF course, there is an easy way to solve this dilemma by erradicating the sinners, but then you and I would be in a world of hurt wouldn't we?
Why? I don't follow your argument.

I believe that is why Christ came. It was an approach to erradicate the sin but save the sinner.
How? Are you saying that somehow Christ stopped people from rejecting the law of love? In what way?
How can you even have sinners if you have eradicated sin?

Unfortunatly this approach is a bit more complex.
So complex it seems that nobody has yet been able to explain it in a way that I can understand. In fact, I have come to think that the people trying to explain it don't understand it either, but I try to keep an open mind about it.

So, given your thoughts above, can I take it that if you were God, there would be no hell?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I would argue the opposite. I would say that loving someone precludes the possibility of rejecting them [outright, anyway].

To think otherwise is to say that the only way to prove you actually love someone is to reject them. That seems absurd. Ask your wife to prove her love for you by leaving you forever and see what reaction you get!

What I am discussing is the notion that God is love. What does that mean? For me, free will is a necessary component of love. For example, if I tried to force my wife to love me through intimidation it is not love. In fact, if I gave her the impression that she must love me she would naturally drift away from such a mandate. We instinctively fight off those who try to impose their will upon us.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]can there be love without suffering

Yes. Unless, again, you define love as requiring suffering.[/b]

I should not have said a requirement, rather, I should have said a required possibility.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So concerned it would appear that you won't even speculate?

[b]Like you, I would like to see less suffering and more love in the world. So that is the key, isn't it? It is love verses suffering.
Exactly. Yet it seems that no theist can come up with a scenario in which there is more love and less suffering than the status quo, but a number us ath ...[text shortened]... believe the status quo to be the best of all possible worlds? Or is it a lack of imagination?

[

But the Bible lays out such a scenerio where sin and suffering if finally averted. Just read Revelation.

Originally posted by twhitehead

Have you ever loved someone and not suffered for it on some level whether it be for their rejection of you or you losing them against their will?
I don't think I have suffered all that much for loving my son. He certainly hasn't rejected me nor have I lost him yet.

Your son may never reject you. However, he will undoubtidly do things that disappoint you and in the end one of you must die. So at some point because you have chosen to love each other you have opened yourself up to suffering on some level.

Originally posted by twhitehead
[For me sin is simply the rejection of the law of love and it would behoove God to erradicate it. So tell me, what is the best way of erradicating sin in a world full of sinners? OF course, there is an easy way to solve this dilemma by erradicating the sinners, but then you and I would be in a world of hurt wouldn't we?
Why? I don't follow your argument.

Biblically sin equates suffering. For example, when Adam and Eve sinned in the garden death was introduced to mankind. The Bible is also full of examples of God killing of sinners such as in Noah's flood and Sodom etc. due to their extreme wickedness. In fact, as we see Abraham plead with God to spare Sodom, God only asks for a few "righteous" in the city to spare them, but none could be found. We then have the example of Christ showing compassion to the woman caught in adultry. According to Mosaic law she should have been stoned but Christ intervened. At the end of the story he then tells her to sin no more and delivers her from the chains of her sin. So as we see, sin and suffering go hand in hand Biblically. In fact, Christ said that if you love God and your neighbor as yourself, you will never sin. You will instinctively not steal or kill etc.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I believe that is why Christ came. It was an approach to erradicate the sin but save the sinner.
How? Are you saying that somehow Christ stopped people from rejecting the law of love? In what way?
How can you even have sinners if you have eradicated sin?

[

Christ said that through him we can break the chains of sin in our lives even though we have a sin nature. In short, through Christ we can overcome our chronic sinning as if we were slaves to any one particular sin. This is done through a spiritual transformation in which our spirit is made alive even though we still struggle with fleshly desires. Paul calls it a struggle between the spirit and the flesh. The flesh minds the things of this word, sex, food, sleep etc and the spirit man minds the things of God, love, joy, peace etc. The flesh, however, will perish so minding the things of the flesh are ultimately in vain as where minding the things of the spirit have eternal benefits.