Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ssc-vax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!microsoft!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david
From: david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Free will and Love
Message-ID: <748@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 12-Jan-84 12:10:10 EST
Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.748
Posted: Thu Jan 12 12:10:10 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Jan-84 03:10:14 EST
Organization: Boeing Aerospace, Seattle
Lines: 78

James Jones posted a reasonable article asking some questions.  (I have deleted
those paragraphs which I feel did not ask for a response;  if I missed
something, James, please let me know).

>>...  [Tim's] argument [about why he does not worship the Christian God]
>>seems sort of circular to me.
> I think not; it's of the form of the proverbial Caliph's argument for
> burning the Alexandrian library (the comparison is intended *solely*
> as a brief description of logical form, not to indicate disapproval),
> i.e.			1. p -> q
>			2. !p -> q
>	therefore	q.

My point was to drive home the premises for the discussion; i.e., that God
exists.  Tim prefaced his first article with "I don't believe it, but for the
sake of argument...".  Tim has, I think, realized this.  What I was trying to
avoid is just what has happened (but from other net readers):  "You haven't
proved God exists", or "the assumption that God exists is stupid".  That is
not what Tim and I are debating.  When I said Tim's initial argument seemed
"circular", I was trying to prevent the old "argument-hopping" technique.  I did
not mean to imply logical error.  

> I'd greatly appreciate a description of what you mean by the term "free will,"
> and what it means for a creature to have free will given the existence of an
> omniscient and omnipotent God. ...
>
> Surely God is aware we all fall short, or rather at the time (if that makes
> any sense) we (or the universe) were created He knew we would all fall short
> of His standards. If we were created despite that knowledge, then God either
> indeed wants many of us to go to Hell or considers it worth the suffering of
> the vast majority of us to have a few escape. ... 
>
> ... If one accepts this analogy,
> one grants that it's worth the eternal suffering of some to save others,
> although under this analogy the proportions are skewed.)...
>
> OK. Granted that, surely God knows that as well as you do, so again, why
> would He create a race that was certain to wind up in eternal torment?
>
> You may be right; please give details of the proof of the former statement,
> being sure to include what you mean by "usable" (I assume that information
> about what love is will be included).

I lumped these together as the topic seemed to be the same.  You would make
it seem that, for some to go to Heaven, others are *required* to go to Hell;
as if it were some kind of prerequisite.  I don't think this is the case.
Again, we return to the topic of free will.  I think that it is easy to see
that, for love to exist, it must be given freely.  You can't force someone to
love you.  In order that man be allowed eternal life, he must also be allowed
to choose eternal damnation.  Take away that choice, and we take away any
love inherent in that system.  This hints at God's purpose at creating man. 
The fact that this is a boolean decision does not imply "the lesser of two
evils" (this, I think, is what Tim & I are debating).  Clearly, God does not
want anyone to go to Hell; but He must allow you that decision in order for
love to exist.

Now some feel that God is getting something out of all this praise and
worship.  A Christian's love for God stems from God Himself.  Humans are
like mirrors, whose brightness depends wholly on the light that shines on
them; they have no inherent luminosity of their own.  If a boy asked his
father for a quarter to buy him, say, a birthday present, we can easily see
that the father is no more ahead on the deal.  God is not getting anything
He has not already given.

I had supposed that the requirement of suffering wherever there is love
was very generally understood.  For a quick example, take the love of one
human for another one.  Sooner or later, one of them is going to die.  This
will most certainly cause pain and grief (sometimes anger and resentment) in
the other party.  Anything less, and I might conclude that they didn't love
each other after all, or that they aren't very human.  The only way of
avoiding this is to love no one and nothing.  This assumes that love is needed
in a workable system, and I suppose that someone would debate it;  but I
find it hard to imagine how a universe would work.  "The Four Loves" (Lewis)
does very well in describing Christian Love;  I would recommend it to anyone.

	-- David Norris
	-- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david