The Problem of Good

[athrock]

But my point is that he doesn't deserve to be that influential because none of his ideas were particularly original. Or even profound (The golden rule as I said, has a major flaw).

So, maybe he's influential for another reason? 


Hmmm...what could THAT be?

[Edwardo Piet]

He's the main character in the piece of fiction that is the New Testament.

Other than that, nothing special. If he existed at all he was just a man, man.

[The Grand Nudger]

Whether Jesus was God or not is open to debate, but it is undeniable that he was one of the most important and influential figures in all of human history.

You've confused "jesus" with "paul"  

[orangebox21]

That is an excellent question, but a different one than "is God responsible for my actions?"

Yes, it is different, but again, I was asking in regards to what you said:

 In this case the exemption: God is responsible when we do good, but not responsible when we do bad, is made because in one instance it is me acting, and in the other instance it is God acting.

(Emphasis mine)

Perhaps you didn't word that they way you wanted, or you worded it too strongly. When I read that, I see you saying that we do good when God acts, and we don't due to our choice. Is that what you meant?

Either way, can we only do good if God acts? Can we do bad when God acts?

We would have to explore some of the finer points of theology and philosophy to fully explore the possible explanations and implications to that question.  I will simply say that most theologians do agree that a person is dead in his/her sins.  How this relates to free-will is to say that a person is only able to make choices consistent with his/her nature.  Therefore while a person is dead in sin, only choices resulting in sin are possible.  From there, at the point of regeneration, God raises a dead sinner to new life through faith in Jesus Christ.  By means of the new life a believer is able to make choices consistent with a new nature that involves both the nature of Christ (God) and his/her former sinful nature.  How does this work functionally?  If I do good is it only God's will, not mine, acting through me?  Is it my free-will cooperating with His will (thereby giving me some of the credit for doing good)?  Even if it is my free-will cooperating with His will, can I take credit for doing good when I am only able to do good because He first raised me to a new life?  I don't know, but hopefully I've answered your initial question.

No problem.  I would agree in assuming that most people use the word in the libertarian sense.  A lot of your argumentation is based upon a deterministic perspective.  In order to avoid confusion in our conversation hereafter, are we talking about free will from a libertarian, compatibilist, or deterministic perspective?

Well, going forward, I guess it depends on how you want to use the term. My OP was pointed toward the inconsistency I see broadly in apologetics. If we're talking about your beliefs, I'll need to know how you are using the term. I don't believe in God, so I don't try to reconcile the problem of evil.

I think that compatibilist free will is the most reasonable position.  

In light of what has been explained do you still have your contention?  And if so, where?

[RobbyPants]

By means of the new life a believer is able to make choices consistent with a new nature that involves both the nature of Christ (God) and his/her former sinful nature.  How does this work functionally?  If I do good is it only God's will, not mine, acting through me?  Is it my free-will cooperating with His will (thereby giving me some of the credit for doing good)?  Even if it is my free-will cooperating with His will, can I take credit for doing good when I am only able to do good because He first raised me to a new life?  I don't know, but hopefully I've answered your initial question.

So, when a person does good, is it just God acting, or both the person and God acting? In the part I bold-quoted you on twice, you said it was God acting. I'm trying to see if you mean both are acting or not.

[orangebox21]

By means of the new life a believer is able to make choices consistent with a new nature that involves both the nature of Christ (God) and his/her former sinful nature.  How does this work functionally?  If I do good is it only God's will, not mine, acting through me?  Is it my free-will cooperating with His will (thereby giving me some of the credit for doing good)?  Even if it is my free-will cooperating with His will, can I take credit for doing good when I am only able to do good because He first raised me to a new life?  I don't know, but hopefully I've answered your initial question.

So, when a person does good, is it just God acting, or both the person and God acting? In the part I bold-quoted you on twice, you said it was God acting. I'm trying to see if you mean both are acting or not.

I am certain that it is God acting, I am certain that it is not [only] me acting, I am not certain but open to the possibility that it is God and me acting.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

So, when a person does good, is it just God acting, or both the person and God acting? In the part I bold-quoted you on twice, you said it was God acting. I'm trying to see if you mean both are acting or not.

I am certain that it is God acting, I am certain that it is not [only] me acting, I am not certain but open to the possibility that it is God and me acting.

God bragged about the evil angels who do his dirty work.

[Whateverist]

Why would God help us do something which he has told us not to do?  We rely on God's help to do his will, not to go against it.  When we do evil, we are refusing God's help.

But if you don't need god to do bad things why should we need his help for the good things.  Presumably the good things have more intrinsic appeal to begin with whereas there are often extenuating circumstances which tempt you to do bad things.

[orangebox21]

Why would God help us do something which he has told us not to do?  We rely on God's help to do his will, not to go against it.  When we do evil, we are refusing God's help.

But if you don't need god to do bad things why should we need his help for the good things.  Presumably the good things have more intrinsic appeal to begin with whereas there are often extenuating circumstances which tempt you to do bad things.

Total depravity.

[RobbyPants]

So, when a person does good, is it just God acting, or both the person and God acting? In the part I bold-quoted you on twice, you said it was God acting. I'm trying to see if you mean both are acting or not.

I am certain that it is God acting, I am certain that it is not [only] me acting, I am not certain but open to the possibility that it is God and me acting.

Fair enough.

The reason I'm trying to figure out, is that it seems that good actions are only caused by God acting and are impossible without him, then by very definition, God is responsible for all good actions. Similarly, he is responsible for all good actions not taken.

The whole idea of the free will defense to the problem of evil is to shift responsibility form a God that could act but chooses not to, and shifts it to us, because we were given a choice; however, if we are unable to do good without God, then God would be the sole determining factor as to whether or not a good action was taken. Of course, there are other defenses of free will, but this approach would totally obviate the free will defense.