/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

2 Corinthians 3:17

>Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

I don’t know how to answer the question fully, but Plantinga’s answer is certainly lacking. Why is it that Jesus did not sin, while everyone else does sin? Do we not have free will too? Or is Jesus “more” free? How is that possible? Also, the presence of freedom isn’t enough to explain the existence of evil, nor is evil required in order for someone to be free. Jesus is the perfect proof of that. There are difficult verses to contend with if you think a simple free will defense is enough. Romans 9, Ephesians 1, Proverbs 16, etc.

Job 2:10

>But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.

>>834031

you can’t explain how evil necessarily comes from freedom. I would argue that the most free creatures would only do that which is good. Why would they do otherwise? Sin and evil represent a lack of freedom

I usually just say how God will destroy Satan/evil on Judgement Day

10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

>>834033

> I would argue that the most free creatures would only do that which is good. Why would they do otherwise? Sin and evil represent a lack of freedom

The existence of evil necessarily follows from libertarian free will, because libertarian free will means ability to choose good or evil (practically, to sin or not). The result of the fall is that all sin (Rom 3).

Sin and evil represent a lack of freedom in the sense that we are slaves to the flesh or to the Lord, but that's a different discussion that just overlaps in terms.

In the new heaven and new earth we will retain our free will while having the fall corrected.

>>834031

>Most philosophers disagree.

*most GOOD philosophers

you gotta remember most philosophers are nihilistic simps.

>>834033

"One cannot serve two masters"

Serving God is just as much a relinquishing of will as serving the flesh. The difference is that God returns our will purified, while Satan hoards and consumes.

>>834033

This.

Also Paul says the law is written on the heart so without external influences to lead people astray we would all be perfect.

It’s not a problem when you’re a Christian

Nasr is a muslim but don't shoot the messenger.

>>834031

If the fourth panel were true, Christ wouldn't be free. Further, choosing evil is not freedom but slavery.

Again, there is no such thing as a problem of evil. Do not descend to the level of atheists.

>>834119

Christ isn't a creature

>>834117

>What is the fall

>>834119

agree with every word

>>834121

Sorry, I misread people and not creatures.

My broader point still stands that "God cannot cause significantly free creatures to do only what is right" is to bound him to necessity, which is absurd. Who can attribute necessity unto God?

The only way to appease the unfaithful is to put God in chains, for this reason I believe it is wrong to do so.

>>834123

It's not putting chains on God to observe he can't perform a contradiction

God cannot create a square circle

God cannot create a married bachelor

The Bible explicitly states something God cannot do:

>Titus 1:2 NASB — in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised long ages ago,

And who wrote that? God did

>>834124

but it’s not even a contradiction. Certainly if people are free, then at least ONE of them should be able to be sinless. But there isn’t a single one.

>>834125

The fact that in a fallen state everyone over the age of accountability commits at least one sin is a testament to our unholiness, not an absence of free will.

>>834125

To clarify the contradiction God cannot perform is "causing significantly free creatures to do only what is right".

If free will exists, this is an airtight defense. I think it doesn't depend on libertarian free will but some disagree.

>>834127

but there’s no reason why people with free will would do evil unless they had some sort of influence that makes them want to do evil. Freedom in itself (whatever that means) does not imply evil at all. And evil does not imply that freedom. Everyone is only doing what they feel is best for them. Adam and Eve were deceived, so they sinned because they believed eating the fruit would be good for them. A truly free Adam would be free from such deception and would make the right choice.

>>834124

>It's not putting chains on God to observe he can't perform a contradiction

>God cannot create a square circle

>God cannot create a married bachelor

I disagree profoundly. I believe that God can come into the world, the dead shall not die, and we shall be cleansed from our sins. Given this is my worldview, what sense would there be in me saying that God can't or cannot do something?

I say God willed to create the world in this manner, and that he did indeed. Yet, the movement of saying he had to have done in a certain way, I find preposterous. Who is to lay out the map by which the Lord should thread? I recommend you read the book of Job.

I too can pick Bible verses out of context like Ephesians 3:20

>Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us,

Just because you can't think of a squared circle, it does not mean "God can't do it" because "I can't imagine it". God's "canning" is transcendental to your intellect.

>>834117

Saying it does not exist does not make the reality of people suffering go away. Autistic hogwash.

>>834031

I would reword that first purple box to not put "God" and "cannot" next to each other.

every single premise is flawed

>1

why?

>2

but free creatures can be a contradiction

>3

freedom doesn’t motivate you to do good or evil. It’s simply the lack of influence. As I said, it’s kind of a contradiction and incomprehensible

>4

it depends on what’s causing them. There’s no contradiction in a free creature never choosing evil. If God cannot cause free creatures to do good, then he cannot cause them to do evil either. So why do they do good or evil? Why is no one totally good or totally evil?

>>834130

Then your conception of God is irrational and the whole objective of philosophical apologetics is pointless.

Paradox and divine mystery are two discrete categories.

>>834134

For what benefit?

no one ever bothers to define omnibenevolence

>>834136

>Then your conception of God is irrational and the whole objective of philosophical apologetics is pointless.

The point of philosophical apologetics is for the unfaithful to find solace outside of faith, that's all there is to it.

The latter is what I'm trying to expound as the correct Christian view. That is not only mine but of all right-believing Christians like our Father Paul.

Rationality does not pertain to the Christian God, read the book of Job and epistles of Paul.

For example, the friends of Job were chastised precisely for what you do, for trying to bound God in the sense of "God must have a reason to do what he does". It was God's will that Job was punished, though the same could be said if he were not. It was God's will that evil could creep into his Creation but the same could be said if it never did. An argument that can be used for both sides is not a "reason" but a side-stepping outside the questioning, a rejection of the very question.

God does not have to justify himself to us or to our idea of him, specially not to you. This is laughable and puts God under Reason, and only the latter do you worship.

>>834139

>the friends of Job were chastised precisely for what you do, for trying to bound God in the sense of "God must have a reason to do what he does"

No they weren't, and no I'm not

Discerning God's purpose in some act and observing that paradoxes are impossible are two different things. I am not asking God to justify Himself.

>This is laughable and puts God under Reason, and only the latter do you worship.

I don't care to continue this conversation since you're going to be condescending. I won't be replying to any further posts.

>>834141

What arguments did they have for Job's pains if not yours? "Job certainly must have exercise his free will wrongly for him to be chastised!"

No one decides what is possible for God. The answer to the problem of evil is to pray and not ask for justifications, as the Lord taught Job.

>I don't care to continue this conversation since you're going to be condescending. I won't be replying to any further posts.

Sorry, I'm actually working on it.

>>834131

What you fail to understand is here in the states evil is defined as whatever people don't like not suffering.

>>834142

From page 30:

>A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world contain­ing no free creatures at all. Now God can create free creatures,

unjustified claim

>… but He can't cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if He does so, then they aren't significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures capable of moral evil; and He can't give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so.

in other words, God instills evil desires into humans. That’s the only way they could have the power to do an evil act.

>…As it turned out, sadly enough, some of the free creatures God created went wrong in the exercise of their freedom; this is the source of moral evil.The fact that free creatures sometimes go wrong, however, counts neither against God's omnipotence nor against His goodness; for He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.

At no point do I see a justification of his claim that a world with free creatures is better than a world without free creatures. I see no philosophical defense for this claim, nor have I ever seen a scriptural defense. Also, he never explains exactly how someone can choose freely.

On page 29:

>If a person is free with respect to a given action, then he is free to perform that action and free to refrain from performing it; no antecedent conditions and/or causal laws determine that he will per­form the action, or that he won't. It is within his power, at the time in question, to take or perform the action and within his power to refrain from it….

>Freedom so conceived is not to be confused with unpredictability. You might be able to predict what you will do in a given situation even if you are free, in that situation, to do something else.If I know you well, I may be able to predict what action you will take in response to a certain set of conditions; it does not follow that you are not free with respect to that action

why? He doesn’t explain his reasoning here. This type of freedom is simply incoherent. If I am not caused, and my actions are not random, then why do I do anything? Why choose good or evil?

>>834139

Get out of here then. What in heaven or earth do you think that you will find here but philosophical apologetics? We do not worship a God who wishes to cloud the eyes or make dull the mind. Who gave us reason? If not God, then who? If not to understand some small and meager portion of God's wisdom, then for what? What is Logos if not the Word? Think ye know better in your ignorance than Logic himself?

But of course no question of that sort may reach thee, for "God does not keep to the reason he made". Just of course as God does not keep to Goodness, or Truth. Yes, of course nothing constrains God but Himself, you blind fool! That's the Point!

I'd recommend ridding yourself of your reasoning as you say. Then you can finally join the Taoists, since you admire their theology so much.

[/angry]

>>834139

If Logic proves God and even restrains God from committing paradoxes then how can Logic be anything but God since nothing is more powerful than God? Clearly Logos is a member of the Holy Trinity.

>>834192

Breadpill me on Congruism.

>>834178

this. If God is above Logic, then how can God’s existence be logical, even to himself? If God is below Logic, then God is not uncaused, as it was Logic that caused his existence. So Logic must be tied in with God’s existence somehow, from the very beginning. God is that Truth that recognizes itself as such, and says, I AM THAT I AM.

>>834199

If God knows everything then He knows what every individual would freely do under every possible set of conditions. Therefore He is able to bring about a world where people freely choose to do the things He has planned for them without imposing on their ability to freely choose those things. People indeed were given opportunities, the decision was laid in front of them and the potential (not to say possibility) is always real they could have chosen freely from different options within the confines of freedom they are given, but God's foreknowledge on this is already ahead of it. The concept to be explained is that creatures no matter how much freedom they could have are still limited beings and therefore fully encompassed by the unlimited. However, that Creator is both all-wise and supremely benevolent. His ends must be trusted based on Who He is and His ways cannot be sought out.

>>834210

So, predestination with extra steps?

>>834214

Biblically speaking I'd say.

>>834177

It is not a lack of something that blinds the eyes, but a blindfold.

>>834178

>If Logic proves God

It does not. Also, Logos is not logic.

>and even restrains God

It does not.

>>834200

>even to himself

What foolishness. No man can know how God perceives.

In your intellectual fancy you believe to fly high unto not only the third heaven but to look through God's eye sockets. If you see anything, it would be through eye sockets, it is because it is a skull of a dead idea of a deity.

>>834226

I agree that logic does not restrain God, but how does it not prove His existence?

Doesn't evil have to exist before God can destroy it?

The argument seems to be that God hasn't cast the atheists into the pit of fire … yet. Ergo, the atheist think, they can do evil.

>>836055

None regard a personal Triune God, the Son becoming incarnate and the ressurection of the dead. Certainly, you can make a deity complete many logical systems but this deity has nothing to do with Christianity.

We can prove God in the sense of Psalm 34:8. In simple obedience of the Lord we shall rest our minds on tougher ground than speculation could ever do.

>God creates all good

<Satan creates all evil

Is this what you believe?

>>836081

No

>>836082

So what's the deal, faggot?

>>836084

The deal is that moral evil and natural evil are both a result of the fall. Satan has a hand but doesn't create all evil, faggot

>>834131

I’m a new convert to Eastern Orthodoxy, so any more mature Orthodox anon should feel free to correct me, but I kinda agree with what that anon you were replying to is saying except I would say that evil does not ontologically exist. Evil refers to the movement of man’s will against good. Evil is simply the negation of goodness. As for suffering, perhaps this is heretical or something, but I’ve been currently thinking that suffering in and of itself is not good or evil. It is amoral. However, suffering is always the result of evil. So, basically, evil is the privation of goodness, so it doesn’t ontologically exist (which the Problem of Evil falsely assumes and therefore falls apart), and evil does not equate to suffering, but rather, suffering is a result of evil.

>>836134

>I would say that evil does not ontologically exist.

One could invent a paired system in which evil alone existed and good were ontologically unexistant. It is completely arbitrary and pertains to the realm of vain philosophizing - not that the Epicurean Paradox is not the same.

My point is that to say 'Evilis not ontologically real' empty sentence that accomplishes nothing. It is a linguistic abuse that happens when one considers the manifold uses of the word evil to correspond to a gaussian object.

It is an error to believe atheism comes through a speculative-logical basis and not a practical-vital basis. The same error is repeated if we consoder Christianity.

>Evil refers to the movement of man’s will against good.

To not obey the will of the Father is evil. Though this does not exhaust all uses of the word evil. Neither is the Theodicy of Augustine and Leibiniz Christian. It goes against Christ's sayings in John 9:1-3, John 11:4 and the entire book of Job. Orthodoxy did not develop a justification for God because it does not fit into it. It believes that against the Father, we are always in the wrong.

>As for suffering, perhaps this is heretical or something, but I’ve been currently thinking that suffering in and of itself is not good or evil. It is amoral.

There is no suffering in itself. It is always enhypostatized, existent. Though I think your line of thought is correct, albeit terminology is always very muddy here. We can be sure, however, that our attitude towards trials and persecutions can transfigure them into blessings. To overcome our spiritual and wordly problems is good.

>>836140

>Neither is the Theodicy of Augustine and Leibiniz Christian. It goes against Christ's sayings in John 9:1-3, John 11:4 and the entire book of Job.

Justify this

>>836143

Orthodoxy does not admit original sin. The world we live in is so that the glory of God might be made manifest in it. By this I do not mean a hippy and cheap "God allows suffering for personal development" but that the reason why God allowed evil to enter the world, for nothing is outside his vision, is an incomprehensible mystery. Further, in Genesis we see the Lord calling Adam peacefully, only when Adam trying to blame God for his fall was he rebuked. "It was the woman that YOU created", he said. Were he to repent, history would be another.

The book of Job is an anti-theodicy. God punishes Job for mysterious reasons. His friends are quick to shout the Theodicy of Augustine and Leibniz that "Job must've sinned against the Lord for him to rebuke Job". The same theodicy is repeated by the pharisees in the healing of the blind man, "who must've sinned for him to be punished?". Christ rejects justification completely like Job did. When Job, a mere man, was blessed with the vision of the Lord's glory, he was no longer blind and could see himself as he truly was: dust and ashes. He then repented without looking for justifications, as should every man on Earth.

>>836193

If He is omnipotent, didn't He know that they would eat from the tree? He wanted them to be deceived by the serpent

>>836193

If you're making a claim that a position is certainly wrong you don't get to punt to mystery as a justification, and leibniz isn't making the same case as Job's peers

>>836203

You're treating God's foreknowledge as if it worked as your own, there is your problem.

>>836208

>If you're making a claim that a position is certainly wrong you don't get to punt to mystery as a justification

My position and yours rest in different grounds. Mine does not intend to rest on human intellectual strengths but on the gift of faith, so they are wholly distinct. Mine can neither be proven or disproven.

Mystery is not a justification but a rejection of all justifications. It is a different sphere of thought. For example, when I invoke God's will I am not justifying anything. Claiming God's will is wholly different from justifying, for the will of God may be used in contrasting cases. Were I to die of a heart attack now, it would be God's will. Were I to continue, it also would be God's will. Were evil be allowed to enter into creation, it was God's will. Were it to never have happened, it would be God's will, as well.

This is not a justification. God's will is mysterious. Read Job again and you will see there is no justification that Job's suffering is a repaying for sin but precisely the position of rejecting them all, which I here expounded.

>>836218

When I said justify I was referring to your supporting argument. You claimed leibniz's answer is not Christian but you aren't offering an alternative, which is a double standard.

Leibniz was a genius and a hero for apologetics. Appealing to mystery in this case does not help people who legitimately struggle with the moral problem and it even makes God arbitrary.

>Mystery is not a justification but a rejection of all justifications.

I am 12 and this is deep

Mystery is anything which we have biblical reason to affirm yet don't have enough information for a full understanding, like the Trinity.

>>836218

>You're treating God's foreknowledge as if it worked as your own, there is your problem.

Isaiah 46:10 I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say, 'My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.'

Foreknowledge of all things that are going to happen under his will and control, that are predestined by him.

>>836219

God does as he pleases, as our lad reminds us >>836220

Indeed, I am not offering an alternative answer. I am rejecting a senseless question. If someone were to ask if yellow sounds, what would be your answer? Would you complain about those who refuse to answer it?

It does not help with those who struggle with Christian morals because they wish to know without struggle. Follow the commands of Christ and you will see it is senseless. Obedience always preceeds vision.

>>836221

The moral problem doesn't mean struggling with Christian morals dum dum

>>836222

Sorry, for wasting your time. I don't do non-Christianity.

>>836227

ok brainlet

Feel free to post in another thread then if you cant stand western phil

>>836221

Then that means He wanted and expected us to be deceived by the serpent and eat from the tree to know between good and evil. He already knew we would fail and sin.

>>836193

Except in John 9:1-3 and John 11:4, he doesn't say it 'is not for you to understand,' but rather he actually does give an explanation.

I'd say Joseph does a pretty good job of this thing you say is impossible in Genesis 50:20. Where he said, "But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive."

In the first two chapters of Job we actually do see some of the events that cause the incident to occur. Obviously a lot of profound causes go into that whole book which we currently don't have space to get into, however that doesn't mean there's just no explanation.

Otherwise you'd have to remove much of the first two chapters where it explains some events that led up to this. Those would have to go in order to make the point that justification is rejected completely; So would all the true and prophetic parts of the book afterward.

Most of the rest of your posts aren't really backed or supported by scripture, unless you'd like to clarify what those scriptures are that you are actually relying on, to us. As the ones you have referenced thus far, do not support what appears to be your point…

>>836275

I will again condemn you by saying that God's uncreated knowledge is incomparable to man's temporal knowledge. You are comparing apples to oranges.

>>836285

I fail to see how my view is not backed by Scripture when Christ openly said blindness, and even the death of Lazarus, is not a punishment for bad actions, as you and pharisees say, but so the glory of God may be made manifest.

Further, I did not say "it is not for you to understand". I say all explanations have to hit a bedrock. Asking why is it important that the glory of God may be made manifest is senseless within Christianity, for no man knows why God acts thus and not otherwise. We may go no further than "so the glory of God shall be made manifest", that is my point and the point of the book of Job. Who sees the glory of God can't help but see himself as dust and ashes, repentance soon follows. If the Lord did not punish Job for his actions, as the Lord's admonition of Job's friends says in Job 42:7, then his restoration also was not a reward. The broader teaching of the book is that this world is not a punishment, neither is salvation a reward.

>>836309

>I will again condemn you

>God's uncreated knowledge is incomparable to man's temporal knowledge

Define God's uncreated knowledge

God saw all that he had made and it was very good. Genesis 1:31

>>836314

Your demand does not make sense. Do not suppose all your demands and questions make sense. There is no sense in defining anything beyond time and space.

>>836275

I have an interesting take on what you just said. I’m not saying you believe this reply of your, it sounds as if it was only in reaction. Here’s my take, and again, with vague scriptural backing:

God created the tree not as only a test to man, but, a test to any angel contemplating rebellion. I know God sees all the angles’ motives. Considering His ability to see every possibility, I believe that tree was a test to all His creation existing at the time, not just Adam and Eve. I believe He knew that with so many creatIons gifted with free will it was inevitable to not have a rebellion at some point. I think He knew satan would rebel, and had a plan to force satan or any other angel to either act on it or abandon their plans. God only banished Adam and Eve after they revealed how that fruit was digested by them. I believe God had always planned to give humans the ability to know both good and evil in order to discern between the two both with their own free will. When God called out Adam and Eve from their hiding their answers were a product of evil. Adam said, “The woman YOU created gave me the fruit”. Eve in reply said, “the serpent YOU created gave me the fruit”. Both Adam and Eve used a cunning form of a lie to God as well as blamed Him for it all. A type of lie/truth that, although true, is still a lie. Those replies by them had no backing because ultimately God told Adam himself not to eat the fruit, and either Adam told Eve or God told Eve.

As for the serpent/satan, he gave no reply neither was he asked a question from God.

This, to me, shows that the tree was really a test for satan to see if his evil thoughts would actually be acted on. He immediately punished satan and the serpent without a trial, because God knew what’s in his heart. Adam and Eve could’ve answered differently. The moment they ate the fruit and understood good and evil they chose to use that wisdom to lie and blame God. I believe there’s enough evidence to suggest God could’ve forgiven them and that’s what he had planned to do from the start. Remember, lies did not exist at the time nor trickery. There was plenty of reason for God to forgive Adam and Eve for falling for a trick, since they were very innocent at the time, but, they knew enough to apologize. They learned trickery when they digested that fruit, and when backed to a corner they decided to use the evil they just learned against God. They also knew good, and it was clear to them they should blame themselves, but they decided to weaponized the knowledge they just gained of evil toward God. I believe that’s why God threw them out, and that sin of blaming God for errors And using half-truth lies solidified into the human DNA and effected the whole branch of creation that are humans. If Adam and Eve apologized and accepted that they absolutely should not have eaten that fruit then the human race would have solidified in its DNA the natural ability to humble itself to God without a second thought.

Even if Adam and Eve weren’t forgiven and still cast out, we would’ve still have a better shot at humility before God. Overall God must have been planning something different in how he reacted to Adam and Eve, because free will at some point has to allow evil to present itself. I don’t think God had it in His plans to keep mankind away from that fruit forever, I think God planned to let mankind eat from it once rebellion entered into existence from a free willed creation of God, and for humans to get that education of good and evil in order to distinguish between a being of evil and one of good. Whether that evil being is a celestial creature or human. There were no evil creatures at the time so no need to know what’s evil. Allowing Adam and Eve to eat from that tree would’ve shown all creation that God is suspicious of some of them, and is expecting some in heaven to fail as well. But with free will, failure to comply to God is inevitable for some. So I believe God told the first couple not to eat from it, not as something they must always abstain from forever, but as something they must not do because god told them to not do it. I believe God could’ve forgiven Adam and Eve and was planning on it, because he knew that it was satan that stepped over the line first. That stepping over the line made the consumption of that fruit now something that humans need because satan gave birth to evil the second he decided to use the serpent to communicate with man. It came down to Adam and Eves reactions, and they used that new brainpower to blame God. I believe that was their real sin, and why they were cast out and the human race turned to evil. let’s not forget that after satan stepped over the line first many angels stepped over it soon after. Like they were always wanting to but didn’t want to be the first to do it.

It doesn’t seem righteous to punish Adam and Eve all because of eating a fruit which was a reaction to a lie, lies and evil did not exist at the time and neither did Adam and Eve have the ability to discern between good and evil. They only knew good, and up until that point had no reason to suspect a creation would lie to them. Also if Adam and Eve answered with goodness and humility and apologized and God accepted it, then that would’ve sent a message with several layers of warnings to all of creation next time they decide to do such a thing.

>>834031

Typo in 2nd box from bottom right (evail)