The Lord’s Abilities

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

But the rest of us have (sinned).

You seem to be missing the point. I said that evil is not a necessary consequence of free will because God has free will and is without evil. So it’s not obvious why God couldn’t have given us a type of free will that doesn’t result in evil choices.

Pointing out that we have free will and make evil choices is beside the point. I already know that. I’m saying that this isn’t a necessary state of affairs. So when you try to explain “Why does the Lord allow evil?” by “because he has to in order for us to have free will” your explanation seems obviously false.
There are lots of ways I could make this argument. For example, as I mentioned in another thread, most Christians think we will not be capable of sin in heaven, but we will still have free will. Or I could point out that God stopped Abimelech from sinning (read Genesis 20:1-7). When God stopped Abimelech from sinning he either did this by violating Abimelech’s free will or he did this in a way that did not violate Abimelech’s free will. If the former, then is it really such a bad thing that Abimelech got his free will violated so that he couldn’t sin? He seems thankful for it to me. So why not do that for the rest of us. He can give us free will, but then short-circuit it whenever we are about to sin. If the latter, then God could always prevent us from sinning without violating our free will.

Are you saying the Lord is incapable of making us happy?

Specifically, what did I say that implied that? How did you arrive at that interpretation of what I said?

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

God can't control people. Because people are like God, know good and bad. If he would control them they would be robots not people.

I guess that means God made Abimelech a robot (Gen. 20:1-7). Maybe he makes us all robots at times and we just don't know it.

But how you're using "control" is vague. In the free will debate philosophers distinguish between guidance control and and regulative control in respect to agents. What exactly do you mean by the term?

I already quoted several passages that say God does in fact accomplish all his purposes in the world (and this includes his purposes for wicked persons). This seems to require some sort "control," otherwise he can't guarantee that things will go according to plan.

 

[kostik]

I guess that means God made Abimelech a robot (Gen. 20:1-7).

....That’s why I kept you from sinning against me, and why I did not let you touch her. Now return the woman to her husband, and he will pray for you, for he is a prophet. Then you will live. But if you don’t return her to him, you can be sure that you and all your people will die.”(Gen. 20:6).
God said if you don't return her then you and all your people will die. He didn't force him to return her. He could have choose not to. God didn't take his free will.
God can destroy people but not control them(Control means choose something good or bad against your will). For example, you don't want to follow God but he forces you to do it against your free will. God can't do it(at least it's not his plan, he wants people to choose by themselves) You can always choose between good and bad no matter what. If you choose something bad it's your choice you can't blame Satan for that. Satan can't force you to do anything against your free will(control you) nor God.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

....That’s why I kept you from sinning against me, and why I did not let you touch her. Now return the woman to her husband, and he will pray for you, for he is a prophet. Then you will live. But if you don’t return her to him, you can be sure that you and all your people will die.”(Gen. 20:6).

Pointing to more of the verse won't get around the dilemma I raised using it. Regardless of what happened afterwards, God is the one who kept Abimelech from sinning with Sarah on the earlier occasion.

Did God violate his free will on that earlier occasion? Pointing to some later occasion won't help you out of it.

God can destroy people but not control them(Control means choose something good or bad against your will).

God knew that if he created Peter and placed him in a circumstance where he was questioned about whether or not he knew Jesus when Jesus was being tried that Peter would deny him 3 times. God chose to create Peter, knowing that it would lead to that event. God didn't consult Peter prior to creating him and say "Hey, Peter, would it be cool with you if I create you in such and such a way and then put you in such and such a circumstance so that you end up denying me three times?"

For example, you don't want to follow God but he forces you to do it against your free will.

Well no one is claiming that God, for example, forces you to do one thing the whole while you are wanting to do another thing. A humorous analogy I've heard before is if you were to walk into a pizza shop. God wouldn't force the words to come from your lips "I want a pepperoni pizza" while you are thinking in your head "No, no, I want cheese!".

But I am claiming that God controls things such that he has a plan, a plan that involves even the wicked, and he accomplishes exactly what he desires. His will is not thwarted. That requires some sort of control. Not necessarily the kind that forces us to act against our will, but perhaps the kind that creates us in such a way that our wills fall in line with his divine plan. In other words, if God wants you to order a pepperoni pizza, he will create you in such a way that you want a pepperoni pizza. You'll say "I want a pepperoni pizza" because you do and you'll eat it and love it.

Satan can't force you to do anything against your free will(control you) nor God.

I'm curious, whats your basis of these claims?

 

[kostik]

Do you mean it's God who decide where we go to heaven or Hell? It's not our choice?
God can keep us from going to heaven or hell?
When we sin whose fault is that?
When we do good whose fault is that?

 

[Consumed]

i have children praise God, i learn so much from God as the Father by being just a father, i DO NOT go out of my way to make my childrens lives miserable, diseased, lame, blind, sick etc so how much more is my Father in heaven better at it than me,
He gave us Jesus who destroyed the works of the devil, he is the father of WHO DOES go out of his way to make peoples lives miserable,diseased,lamness,blindness, sickness etc

thief comes but to kill steal and destroy

Jesus come to give us life and life more abundantly

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

Do you mean it's God who decide where we go to heaven or Hell? It's not our choice?
God can keep us from going to heaven or hell?
When we sin whose fault is that?
When we do good whose fault is that?

What I said was God's will and our choices are not mutually exclusive things. They are compatible. God's decretive will and our choices align.

Of course God can keep us from going to heaven or hell. God could give everyone their own private island, paradise. And he could populate it only with the people he knows we'll love and get along with. But he doesn't.

When we sin it's our fault.

 

[resurrection33]

Specifically, what did I say that implied that? How did you arrive at that interpretation of what I said?

This is what you said:

Your point about the Lord being capable of doing anything that needs to be done to make us happy didn't work out too well for Judas, did it? Nor does it work out too well for millions of people throughout history.

It seemed to me you were saying the Lord isn’t able to make us happy.

 

[kostik]

What I said was God's will and our choices are not mutually exclusive things. They are compatible. God's decretive will and our choices align.

Of course God can keep us from going to heaven or hell. God could give everyone their own private island, paradise. And he could populate it only with the people he knows we'll love and get along with. But he doesn't.

When we sin it's our fault.

If it's true, then we are robots. And we don't have a free will.
What is God's will? Isn't it the same thing as God's help?
For me God's will means God's help. I can ask God for something and he can help me or not. Even, if he doesn't help me i can still get it(unbelievers don't ask God to help them and they still get what they want). Most of the time everything we get it's by our own efforts. It happens very rare when God helps us(If he does, it means a miracle).

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

It seemed to me you were saying the Lord isn’t able to make us happy.

Of course God *can* make us happy. My point was that answering the question “What can God do?” with “make us happy” seems rather shallow in and of itself. Lots of people aren’t happy and lots of people don’t even know what happiness is. They would want to find it in money or sex. Simply saying “make us happy” is a man centered response. It’s about what God can do for me. Look at the Christians in 1st century Rome that were tortured to death and fed to lions. I think they would have had a lot more to say to the question “What can God do?” than “make us happy.”

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

If it's true, then we are robots. And we don't have a free will.

How are we robots? Could you give a demonstration? I don't see how what I said rules out free will, so you'll have to spell out what you think free will is and how what I said doesn't meet those qualifications.

What is God's will? Isn't it the same thing as God's help?
For me God's will means God's help. I can ask God for something and he can help me or not. Even, if he doesn't help me i can still get it(unbelievers don't ask God to help them and they still get what they want). Most of the time everything we get it's by our own efforts. It happens very rare when God helps us(If he does, it means a miracle).

I don't see how God's will is synonymous with "God's help". I think God's will, like our will, has to do with God's intentions and desires. "Help" may be a particular kind of desire that God has, but this doesn't mean help is any more synonymous with God's will than "punish" is synonymous with God's will (something God also desires).

 

[resurrection33]

Of course God *can* make us happy. My point was that answering the question “What can God do?” with “make us happy” seems rather shallow in and of itself. Lots of people aren’t happy and lots of people don’t even know what happiness is. They would want to find it in money or sex. Simply saying “make us happy” is a man centered response. It’s about what God can do for me. Look at the Christians in 1st century Rome that were tortured to death and fed to lions. I think they would have had a lot more to say to the question “What can God do?” than “make us happy.”

I think I read the early Christians felt honored to be martyred. Life is eternal, you know.

The Lord’s creation is such that if you obey his commandments, you will be happy, I believe.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

I think I read the early Christians felt honored to be martyred. Life is eternal, you know.

The Lord’s creation is such that if you obey his commandments, you will be happy, I believe.

I guess the problem I'm still having with it is that "happy" is such a misunderstood term today.

As I said earlier, I don't have a problem with it if we qualify it in the way that the Shorter Westminster Catechism does: joy in the lord or enjoying the Lord (or having happiness in the person and glory of God).

But if I were to walk around my neighborhood and start telling people that God makes you happy if you obey his commandments, I doubt the first thing that would come to their minds is "Yay, I might get to be a martyr and suffer for Christ!!! Yippie!!!"

 

[resurrection33]

I guess the problem I'm still having with it is that "happy" is such a misunderstood term today.

As I said earlier, I don't have a problem with it if we qualify it in the way that the Shorter Westminster Catechism does: joy in the lord or enjoying the Lord (or having happiness in the person and glory of God).

But if I were to walk around my neighborhood and start telling people that God makes you happy if you obey his commandments, I doubt the first thing that would come to their minds is "Yay, I might get to be a martyr and suffer for Christ!!! Yippie!!!"

I believe the Lord makes us happy when we obey his commandments. You don’t want to run around the neighborhood saying to everyone, “Obey the Lord’s commandments so you can be miserable,” do you?

Death is not to be feared, and I think when Christians are persecuted, they feel honored to be martyred.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

I believe the Lord makes us happy when we obey his commandments. You don’t want to run around the neighborhood saying to everyone, “Obey the Lord’s commandments so you can be miserable,” do you?

No. And I also wouldn't want to run around the neighborhood saying to everyone, "Obey the Lord's commandments so you can be happy," because I think 99.9% of them would get the wrong idea.

Death is not to be feared, and I think when Christians are persecuted, they feel honored to be martyred.

Right, assuming they have their priorities straight. But if they bought into Christianity because I sold it to them on the premise that it would make them happy, without some explanation as to what exactly that means in the Christian worldview, I think they'd just feel suckered.

“For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake, ” (Philippians 1:29)

 

[resurrection33]

No. And I also wouldn't want to run around the neighborhood saying to everyone, "Obey the Lord's commandments so you can be happy," because I think 99.9% of them would get the wrong idea.

The purpose of the commandments is to make us happy, I believe. If people don’t want to believe that, it’s their problem, not ours, isn’t it?

Right, assuming they have their priorities straight. But if they bought into Christianity because I sold it to them on the premise that it would make them happy, without some explanation as to what exactly that means in the Christian worldview, I think they'd just feel suckered.

Being martyred does make some people happy, apparently. It wouldn’t be a problem here, though, I wouldn’t think, since I’m not aware Christians are being martyred in the US.

“For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake, ” (Philippians 1:29)

I think I suffered a lot more when I was in my twenties than I do now.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

The purpose of the commandments is to make us happy, I believe. If people don’t want to believe that, it’s their problem, not ours, isn’t it?
Being martyred does make some people happy, apparently. It wouldn’t be a problem here, though, I wouldn’t think, since I’m not aware Christians are being martyred in the US.
I think I suffered a lot more when I was in my twenties than I do now.

It appears you aren't keeping in mind the distinction I made between what we mean and how people will understand what we mean.

I've made it clear that what I have a problem with is the overly simplistic "God wants us to be happy" or "Obeying God makes you happy" because of the way it will be misunderstood (and even many Christians misunderstand it: ergo, the health, wealth, and prosperity "gospel").

But everything you say here ignores this distinction that I've drawn out... that's seems odd.

 

[resurrection33]

It appears you aren't keeping in mind the distinction I made between what we mean and how people will understand what we mean.

I've made it clear that what I have a problem with is the overly simplistic "God wants us to be happy" or "Obeying God makes you happy" because of the way it will be misunderstood (and even many Christians misunderstand it: ergo, the health, wealth, and prosperity "gospel").

But everything you say here ignores this distinction that I've drawn out... that's seems odd.

Why make a simple concept complicated? Why do you think people will misunderstand a simple statement but understand a complicated one?

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

Why make a simple concept complicated? Why do you think people will misunderstand a simple statement but understand a complicated one?

"Simple" is a relative term. What's simple for someone depends on their background knowledge, their cognitive abilities, their mood, the context, their broader cultural context, etc. etc.

Try going Hollywood California and giving a survey as to what the local residents think happiness means. Then tally up how many answered "Suffering for Christ."

What exactly do you find complex in the Westminster Shorter Catechism (that was written for children, by the way)?

 

[resurrection33]

"Simple" is a relative term. What's simple for someone depends on their background knowledge, their cognitive abilities, their mood, the context, their broader cultural context, etc. etc.

Try going Hollywood California and giving a survey as to what the local residents think happiness means. Then tally up how many answered "Suffering for Christ."

What exactly do you find complex in the Westminster Shorter Catechism (that was written for children, by the way)?

Suffering is a necessary part of life, I believe, because we all sin. However, when I say the Lord will make us happy, I am saying the Lord will eliminate suffering, even in this lifetime, if we obey his commandments.

Sorry, haven’t read the “Westminster Shorter Catechism.”