Free will and the necessary evil

[Belacqua]

It doesn’t matter. Not being able to define god is only a problem for Christians.

I agree!  My point is that in terms of the last 2,000 years of "Christian" theology the views being expressed in the OP and the subsequent replies have been too narrow.  An excellent book is, "Jesus Through the Centuries: His Place in the History of Culture", which shows the diversity of Christian thought & belief.  In the area of free will there have been huge differences from Augustine to Aquinas to Scotus to Ockham to Luther & Calvin (and, between them).

This looks like a really good book. Pelikan is a serious, extremely well-informed scholar (not an apologist) and everything I've read by him has been valuable. 

https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Through-Cen...730&sr=8-1

On this forum over the years it's been difficult for me to get across the idea that Christianity is a diverse group of phenomena. It's held together more by a constellation of concepts with family resemblance (in Wittgenstein's sense) than by some single essential core. 

In terms of the discussions we have here, it often turns out that the specific aspect of Christianity a poster wants to argue against is in fact rejected by a large number of Christians as well. If someone asserts "Christians believe X," but we know for a fact that Augustine and Aquinas, not to mention Boehme or Simone Weil or the current Pope don't believe it, then the assertion is so simple as to be useless. 

I've been told straight out that I shouldn't keep bringing up the theology of Augustine or Aquinas where it contradicts the common form of American Christianity we usually talk about. I've been told that for political reasons, we have to spend our time fighting against the local brand which is doing the trouble, and forget about the fact that Aquinas would equally reject that brand. 

It narrows and oversimplifies what Christianity is when we pretend it is less diverse than it really is.

[Belacqua]

The Christian logic is usually along the lines of "God wants you to make a free choice". This runs into trouble under Calvinism, because of predestination, though.

It runs into trouble for the simple reason that if God "wants" something" then he lacks something, and therefore cannot be infinite.

All the big-name theologians I know of (as opposed to modern apologists) agree with you that because God is infinite he cannot be said to want anything. This is standard in classical theology. 

Because God is absolutely unique, it's difficult to talk about him. Even people who understand this generally fall back on human-centered language, with the proviso that in the case of God, the words have different meanings. 

So yes, for those theologians, God does not want anything in the way that people want things. Nor does he love anything in the way that people love things. "Wanting," when used in reference to God, means the things that people can do to move more in the direction of God himself. In this view God is the Form of the Good -- goodness itself -- and so anything we do which is good for us and for others moves us more in that direction. 

Theologians who are stricter about language, in order to avoid misunderstanding, are happy to say that God wants nothing, does nothing, and doesn't exist (in the way that everything else exists).

[Anomalocaris]

Thank you, yes, but not to tens of millions or billions of people around the globe it isn't and the repercussions of that is a thread in and of itself!

Christianity is a multidimensional rainbow.  There is not one "Christianity" but many.

I don’t think that’s a problem.   They are United by their only salient attribute,  which is encapsulated by the term “exploitative bullshit”


They are a two dimensional rainbow painted on a flat sheet with bold letters written above it threatening you with dire consequences and making dire but empty threats of moral indictments if you were to ever venture to suggest it is flat.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Because we were asked about free will considered in the context of such a Being. This is a little known rhetorical technique called ‘responding to the OP’.

Boru

Perhaps, but, it's still a non sequitur; you haven't even defined the terms that you are using.

Dawn

As LFC said, it's not up to me to define these terms. They either have accepted definitions, or mainstream Christianity has already defined them for me.

Boru

[Jehanne]

Christianity is a multidimensional rainbow.  There is not one "Christianity" but many.

I don’t think that’s a problem.   They are United by their only salient attribute,  which is encapsulated by the term “exploitative bullshit”


They are a two dimensional rainbow painted on a flat sheet with bold letters written above it threatening you with dire consequences and making dire but empty threats of moral indictments if you were to ever venture to suggest it is flat.

The "threats" are coming from a choir of 500 people who are singing different songs with varying pitches. Fundamentalist Christians are not the only group (indeed, a shrinking minority) of Christians, and most mainline denominations are basically universalist with the "All roads lead to the same summit" mentality. Even among Evangelicals their views on Hell are changing with their "Four Views on Hell" book that is available on Amazon and the conferences now taking place that are debating the Atonement. It's all a kaleidoscope that is not a bother to look through.

This thread is about a proverbial boogeyman.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

An interesting (though not conclusive) thought experiment addresses ‘necessary evil’ by attempting to demonstrate that it isn’t actually necessary:

A god creates a world with 1000 people. 500 of them will always behave in a manner which this god accepts as good, and 500 will always behave in a manner this god accepts as evil. In pretty short order, the god realizes that this isn’t going to work out, as the evil people keep fucking things up. To straighten things up, the god removes an evil person every day and replaces them with a good person. In just 500 days, the god is left with a world in which there is no evil. None. No murder, no theft, no rapine, no cheating - just a world of good people who will always choose to be good.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

Seems like all christians must believe and affirm in christ, an unnecessary evil. Maybe they freely choose to do so and maybe they have no say in the matter. Good enough to read them for filth, either way, if you ask me. Or is that optional, for a christian...lol? I certainly don't envy their task of needing to reimagine their religion as they learn more and more how wrong they were and have been (whether in reality or in light of changing social mores). Self inflicted wound though, imo.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Seems like all christians must believe and affirm in christ, an unnecessary evil.  Maybe they freely choose to do so and maybe they have no say in the matter.  Good enough to read them for filth, either way, if you ask me.  Or is that optional, for a christian...lol?  I certainly don't envy their task of needing to reimagine their religion as they learn more and more how wrong they were and have been (whether in reality or in light of changing social mores).  Self inflicted wound though, imo.

Yeah, I’m not convinced that the diversity of Christian minutiae is a very strong defense against the criticism of Christian beliefs. Simply because not all Christians accept transubstantiation doesn’t mean it’s not an absurd thing to believe.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

Yup. In fact, whenever I hear "not all christians" I take that to be agreement about the thing in question being ridiculous. I bet if we got a diverse enough group of christians together they'd "not all christians" every christian belief...and then fail to learn anything from that.

[Jehanne]

Simply because not all Christians accept transubstantiation doesn’t mean it’s not an absurd thing to believe.

Boru

Asking some Christians to give-up their "belief" in transubstantiation is asking them to give-up sex.  No doubt that some prominent scientists say that they "believe" due solely to the fact that the woman they are regularly having sex with believes due, perhaps, to her mom, dad or grandmother "believing", a tradition that they got from their parents & grandparents.  And, so, an atheistic position could end-up ruining one's sex life, and so, some individuals will continue to profess belief for that reason.

Dawn