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?

[Choir Loft]

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?

This post reads like something submitted for a comic book series. Despite being completely devoid of reality there is a considerable lack of logical application as well.

What is Free Will? The post doesn't reveal the first sense of what the doctrine is all about. Free Will is either something one has or something one hasn't as part of one's personality. Persons with severe handicaps, for example, don't have a choice about manipulating their environment. Voters in America do not have a free choice. The electoral system is politically challenged, as well as many of the candidates for office. The party system is two heads of the same snake and both heads always say identical things - which is why the candidates sound so much alike.

Is it possible to give free will to the American political system? Certainly not. Is it possible to give or take away one's free will at birth? Yes. It's called abortion. Should Adolph Hitler have been aborted before birth? Only if one had powers of absolute precognition - and such is impossible because it doesn't exist.

Apart from the initial invitation of debate on the subject of Free Will, the rest of the lead post seems to request a debate on abortion instead. Why? Because once born, the opportunity to exercise free will is part of the individuals personality. Only prison or death can stop it.

As to linking free will with the causation of suffering, the question itself is moot. Free choices cause suffering all the time. Hospital Emergency Rooms are full of fishermen who've run a hook through their hand, broken bones suffered from various falls off ladders and skateboards, STDs that are contracted because of the exercise of sexual activity, and so on. The list is endless. As long as human beings live and breath and move about freely they will cause suffering either to themselves or to others. Sometimes its deliberate but most often it purely accidental.

THE REAL definition of free will has its historic base on the tension between Calvinism and Arminism. Does a man have the free will to choose to accept Jesus Christ as his lord and savior or does he not? Calvinists say no and Arminists say yes. On the one hand you've got a religious group that is closeted and introverted per their religion (Calvinists) and on the other you've got folks that proselytze every chance they get (Arminists/Evangelists). That's the religious definition of free will.

As I stated earlier, in America there is no such thing as political free will. The two party system is corrupt and debauched. Allowing other parties to participate is forbidden. Why are debates limited to two candidates? In religion the system is likewise divided into two warring factions; those that believe man has the FREE WILL to choose Jesus Christ and those that believe the issue has already been decided. To deny the argument altogether is to automatically fall into the latter group, for to refuse to choose is to choose.

but that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

[Choir Loft]

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 phrasing of this initial post is so moronic as to be nearly indecipherable.

What is "preservation of Free Will"? Can anyone be specific about this?
The cultural definition of Free Will is the psychological and physical ability (or the lack of it) to make choices.
Those who are mentally or physically challenged cannot choose. End of discussion.

Human suffering is not necessarily linked to the ability to choose. Most of the time suffering is caused by accident or disease. In neither case has a person chosen that outcome.

The hypothetical question of the abortion of the Hitler fetus is absurd in the extreme. No one has absolute power of precognition. The question thus devolves to abortion. Abortion was not an issue until it became popular in America in the twentieth century.

Finally, the lead post attempts to link free will to morality. Morality is a quality of culture, not the individual. The individual must yield to the values of the culture in which he lives. If those values endorse the murder of innocent persons, invasions of foreign lands, war crimes, torture and imprisonment without trial, political debauchery, lies and fantasy rather than truth then those are the values that the individual must live with.(*)

FOR THE RECORD, the true definition of free will is spiritual/religious. It was defined centuries ago in the debates between John Calvin and Jacobus Arminius. Calvin stated that a man did not have the FREE WILL to accept or reject Jesus Christ as his lord and savior. Arminius stated that one did. Today the disciples of Calvin are mostly introverted and closeted while those who believe in Arminian theology actively proselytize their communities - believing as they do that one can be spiritually elevated to the point where free will can indeed be exercised to choose Christ as savior.

For those who find the historic background on the subject of free will rather dry, they should be reminded that the foundation of an argument is often deeper than the mental fog of uneducated and illiterate opinion.

but that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

(*) Present values of the USA as well as those shared by the government of Germany in the 1930's and 40's.

[razovor]

What is "preservation of Free Will"? Can anyone be specific about this?
The cultural definition of Free Will is the psychological and physical ability (or the lack of it) to make choices.
Those who are mentally or physically challenged cannot choose. End of discussion.

Okay then. The question is; 'would it be moral for god to take away the psychological capability of some people to make choices?'

Human suffering is not necessarily linked to the ability to choose. Most of the time suffering is caused by accident or disease. In neither case has a person chosen that outcome.

I agree, but that's not the point of this debate. I'm not proposing that limiting free will would end all suffering, merely that it would prevent some suffering.

The hypothetical question of the abortion of the Hitler fetus is absurd in the extreme. No one has absolute power of precognition. The question thus devolves to abortion. Abortion was not an issue until it became popular in America in the twentieth century.

I did not say abortion, I said limiting his free will. I agree that no-one has the absolute power of precognition. I don't see how that's relevant to the discussion. It's a hypothetical, it doesn't need to be realistic. I'm just asking you to consider the morals from that perspective.

Finally, the lead post attempts to link free will to morality. Morality is a quality of culture, not the individual. The individual must yield to the values of the culture in which he lives. If those values endorse the murder of innocent persons, invasions of foreign lands, war crimes, torture and imprisonment without trial, political debauchery, lies and fantasy rather than truth then those are the values that the individual must live with.(*).

I disagree. Societies definitely have values, but so do individuals. Society warps the values of the individuals within it, just as powerful individuals warp the values of Society.

[ttruscott]

...

I agree, but that's not the point of this debate. I'm not proposing that limiting free will would end all suffering, merely that it would prevent some suffering.

...

The freeness of free will can only be abrogated by coercion (you must act this way) or constraint (you will not act this way).

Once you choose against the revealed will of GOD you become evil and constrained / enslaved / addicted to evil, John 8:34 Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. and once you are set free by the grace of GOD, you are constrained to righteousness by your rebirth:

Romans 6:16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves nto anyone as obedient slaves, 3 you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.

Therefore it is obvious that sin breaks your 'free' will forever.

Proof of the truth of the choice you made breaks your free will also, because a true free will choice can only be made with full knowledge but no proof, ie by faith based upon hope.

How can you freely choose to go out the door to the tiger when you know the other door is the door of freedom? You won't. The proof about the doors forces you to choose in your self interest and live. Being told that one door will have a tiger and one the path to freedom, and which door is which (!), but without proof, by some people you know that are asking you to put your faith in THEM and accept their word and commit to their plan for your future, is a true free will choice.

I bet you would do a lot of digging and asking questions and talking it over with the others in the room and then making your choice based on your hope they are telling you the truth, a faith based decision: Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen 991. 2 Corinthians 5:7 We live by faith, not by sight 1491.

or rejecting them as the same as yourself and therfore they cannot have special knowledge, therefore they are liars and deceivers so you refuse by true free will to follow the suggested door and die.

Since I believe that everyone has seen the divinity and power of GOD, Romans 1:20, when HE created the physical universe and we all sang HIS praise! Job 38:7,

no one is free anymore to reject HIM as they have seen HIS divinity so they are constrained by proof.

So, to get to the point, our lives here are sinful so they are without free will. What you really have is a will constrained to be evil / or to be good. (The good we do as sinners has no value to GOD.)

As well, I contend that GOD's restraint is upon both the non-elect and sinful elect who live here so no one gets to act the total evil of their nature.

Therefore my friend, you are already living the dream of resiricted free will manged by good for the perfect level of suffering necessary to be just to the non-elect and to bring the sinful elect to repentance, redemption and sanctification!

Peace, Ted

[Bust Nak]

Right before this you mention that most likely the love God feels towards us is like the love of a parent to a child. If that is so, then why would the parent come around to the thinking of the child? I have two children and believe me… I don’t submit to their ideas.

I bet you do take their view into account, and sometimes even given in to their unreasonable childlish wishes. You are willing to do that because parent loves the child.

If I did, well can you imagine what my 3 year old daughter would have Daddy wearing to work?
Tights and hair ties don’t go well with work boots and callused hands. Neither would a perfect and righteous character have a place within a carnal and sinful nature.

Well I did say some of our principles.

The fallen elect became sinful when they rejected GOD's call for them to leave the non-elect in their hearts and to agree with HIM that the time had come for their damnation...

So basically, the elect had fallen because they only partly listened God's word. They accepted God as their lord, but still didn't follow his order to abandon the non-elect.

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. This measures HIS love, yet we know that HE hates those who chose to take the chance on damnation, believing HIM to be a false GOD, on the judgment day. Love to hate, for your children...

We must conform to HIM, not HE to us. <shrug>

I can see the Bible says that's how it's supposed to be, but not why it is this way.

[ttruscott]

...

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

...

I don't think I am...but I do contend that there would be no true love, no true worship or praise nor true holiness and no true guilt for evil.

If that adds up to blandness, I guess I am, shrug.

Peace, Ted

[ttruscott]

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.

Okay, so it all comes down to that initial choice in sheol.

I ask though, you say that god had to allow us to chose him of our own free will, or our love for him would not be 'true'. Why should we care whether our love for him is 'true'? How does truth make anyone's lives better? Why is allowing us to make a true decision more important than preventing anyone from turning to evil?

If god is truly ultimately good, and following him leads to a world without suffering, than I don't see the problem with being forced to follow him; being forced to accept him in sheol.

Well you are right; if it was that way we'd be no wiser but HE would and since we have HIS word telling us that HE created us for true love, true worship and praise and holiness,

HE had to do it this way since true free will is the only way to create these things perfectly and not just simultudes.

I guess I think that if it were better to do it your way, that is the way HE would have chosen, so this way, even with evil, must be the better way.

Peace, Ted

[ttruscott]

The fallen elect became sinful when they rejected GOD's call for them to leave the non-elect in their hearts and to agree with HIM that the time had come for their damnation...

We must conform to HIM, not HE to us. <shrug>

So basically, the elect had fallen because they only partly listened God's word. They accepted God as their lord, but still didn't follow his order to abandon the non-elect.

...

I can see the Bible says that's how it's supposed to be, but not why it is this way.

Yes, I believe that was the sin of the first of the elect to fall.

As to who conforms to whom...He is the creator after all.

Peace, Ted