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?

[bluethread]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Like what?

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.

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.

[Divine Insight]

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.

All theists do not act "by command".

You're clearly limiting theism to the Abrahamic box if you believe that.

There are far better pictures of God to be had.

[bluethread]

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.

All theists do not act "by command".

You're clearly limiting theism to the Abrahamic box if you believe that.

There are far better pictures of God to be had.

You are wrong, some theists do.

Proper english aside, that is the flavor you have been railing against. So, how does the existance of suffering effect those pictures? More importantly, do atheists suffer less?

[Divine Insight]

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

You need to ask?

Most suffering I've seen through my personal life has indeed been due to disease. In fact, almost all of my own personal suffering is purely due to disease.

Take away my physical suffering from disease, and the emotional pain of having to watch others suffer from disease, and I can't think of any reason to even claim that I'm suffering at all. Except perhaps the fact that humans are often fighting with each other and blowing themlseves and other up in the name of their "Gods".



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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

[/quote]

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

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.

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.

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.

[Divine Insight]

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.

All theists do not act "by command".

You're clearly limiting theism to the Abrahamic box if you believe that.

There are far better pictures of God to be had.

You are wrong, some theists do.

I already acknowledged that the Abrahamic theists do.

Proper english aside, that is the flavor you have been railing against. So, how does the existance of suffering effect those pictures? More importantly, do atheists suffer less?

There are many different theological philosophies concerning the concept of suffering. I'm not about to give a thesis on all of them, but I'll mention one here.

One philosophy suggests that life is but a dream in the mind of God, and that we are the dreamer. Whatever suffering you imagine to have yourself you bring upon yourself. The question concerning the suffering you see around you is a moot point, because you can't really know anything about the reality of that apparent suffering.

For you to see someone suffering you may imagine that it's extremely horrible and unbearable, but for them (in their dream of life) it's not nearly as bad as it appears to you. Or maybe it is, and they are just far more tolerant of "pain" then you are.

In short, the philosophy basically says that all you can know is your own suffering. All other apparent suffering is beyond your ability to even begin to judge or comprehend. Therefore all you can truly address is your own suffering.

Atheists wouldn't suffer any more or less than anyone else. There is no "punishment" being placed upon people for not believing in a "God".

That very notion belongs solely to the jealous-God religions.

[LiamOS]

Moderator Warning

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

The Abrahamic religions [...] represent a call to become a religious bigot who supports the religious bigotry of a specific religious dogma.

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 Muslims created Islam that's based on the same basic scam.

These religions themselves represent the epitome of evil.

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 [...] are riddled with far too much arrogance and brotherly hatred to have anything at all to do with any loving God.

You are more than welcome to challenge any and all religious views on this forum, but you are not allowed to make personal attacks. This post is almost entirely insulting.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[razovor]

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.

[Bust Nak]

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?

[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.

Hmmm, "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'." By this I was trying to say that I believe that even if an emotion or emotinal bond can be duplicated by some manner (Stockholm syndrome comes to mind though I can't think of a spiritual equivalent) that it is not the same in quality as a love that is freely given by a person under no coercions to love but does so anyway. That's all.

Another part of that is that though the love that sinners have between them is real and meaningfull, it does not (reportedly) come up to the standards of the love of GOD (as woud be expected) which in the superlative maybe called true or perfect love. Only those who also choose holiness (or at least the ability to become holy) by true free will can ever hope to love like GOD does with purity and complete lack of selfishness.

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 possiblity of true love.

Creating a universe where people can only do good things might be fun in a childish sort of way but it remains merely a mechanical exercise with no ability of the creation to form true and loving bonds / communion with the creator.

Peace, Ted

[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?

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 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.

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?

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

The Elements of a True Free Will Choice:

1. Free will can't be coerced:
Nothing in their created nature could force them to choose love or hate, good or evil.

Nothing in their experience could force them to choose love or hate, good or evil.

Nothing in their understanding or knowledge of reality could force them to choose good or evil, love or hate.

In other words, they had to be created completely and truly ingenuously innocent.

[Ref: definition of ingenuous: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ingenuousness as: 1. Lacking in cunning, guile, worldliness; artless. 2. Openly straightforward or frank; candid.

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.

Peace, Ted