Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The problem of evil (reply to Steve Adams) LONG!
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 13:23:58 GMT
  <adams.714961727@spssig> <1992Aug28.013822.7183@ac.dal.ca> <1992Aug31.172420.7245@ac.dal.ca>
Organization: SPSS Inc.


In article <1992Aug28.013822.7183@ac.dal.ca>, hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
> In article <adams.714961727@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>> 
>>>In article <adams.714863266@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>
>>>> I do smell a fish! ;-)  In your logic again.  If God created people who
>>>> would ALWAYS chose the right way, they aren't truly free!
>> 
>>>Why?  My friend M. will ALWAYS choose not to murder a child who annoys her
>>>mildly.  I personally will ALWAYS choose not to brutally beat a child who
>>>steals my hat, and runs away, taunting me.  Am I not "truly free?"
> 
> Humor me and answer the above question. :) You're saying that people
> who ALWAYS chose the right way aren't truly free. I'm saying, in certain
> kinds of situations, you and I ALWAYS choose the right way. This is
> a fact.  There is no chance at all that I will brutally beat a child
> who steals my hat.  There is NO possibility of me freely choosing to do
> that. This is a fact. For 50 points, explain how this can be, in the light
> of your theory of free will.
"Theology for 500, please, Alex'

Ok.  My hypothesis (and it's only that) is that given truly free will, and
the real, logical possibility of evil being actualized, someone, somewhere
will commit an 'evil' act at some point.  Granted, you won't do the things
you said, but what about some lesser 'evil'?  Like say, telling a lie.  Or
getting too much change and not returning it.  Or taking the name of God in
vain.  Or calling someone a name.  Or cheating on your taxes? I'm not accusing 
you of anything, just pointing out that 'evil' is anything which separates
us from God (ie == sin).

So while you are correct in saying that you can decide never to commit a
heinous act, I doubt that you live a sinless (no evil) life.

+50 :-)

>(points are redeemable for valuable cash prizes, conditional on my winning
>the lottery)
;-)

>>>* WHY will I ALWAYS make the same choice, seeing as how I'm truly free?
>>>Or, assuming I'm dead by the time you read this, why DID I always make
>>>the same choice, since, according to Christian doctrine, I'm truly free?
>> 
>> Your freedom does not imply that you will do these things.  The point is
>> that they are actually possible, and you freely chose not to do them.
>> Ever.  The point is that you truly could and are able to do them.  Note
>> well that some people do.  
>> 
> 
> But WHY don't I choose to do them? When a child steals my hat, I do not
> look at the situation and say: "Hmmm. Free choice time! Will I or won't I
> beat this child? It doesn't matter which, so I guess I'll..." 
> 
> What is the key phrase in that fictional quotation? The one that makes
> nonsense out of it (and out of the whole concept of free will that you
> are advocating)?  Ten points if you find it! Bonus points if you can 
> show how it shows that the concept of free will you are advocating has
> no relation to reality. 
> 
> Again, humour me and answer the questions as best you can. 
Your basic nature, and your basic makeup, which are products of your
envirnonment, has lead you to understand that the particular situation does
not call for the response you have hypothesized.  Note well that there ARE
people who would respond in the way you have noted. 

Our reactions to anything are shaped by our environment.  One of the
componants of the environment of Eden (assuming for the moment that the
story is literally true) was the serpent.  This componant tempted Eve to do
something that she hadn't intended to do.  She was shaped and molded by the
environment.

In the above, I'd say the fictional part was "It doesn't matter which".
Because now you are talking about a basic, moral system.  And since there
are systems to explain 'right' from 'wrong' we can act accordingly and do
not need to think.  Well, I think I can propose a situation that fit
societal norms yet is repugnant.  Female infanticide was socially
acceptable in Rome & Greece.  Does that make it any less evil?

Similarly, some people believe that abortion is murder, while others do
not.  This is shaped by our environment, beliefs, etc.  There is no
concensus on the issue, but some people regard it as evil, others would do
it if necessary/needed.

Moral 'aboslutes' change with society.  They aren't really absolute.

Do I get the 10 points and the bonus? ;-)

>>The specific idea of 'evil' is not simply horrible, terrible things.  All
>>sin (that is, that which separates us from God) is evil.  I would be
>>willing to bet loads of money that you sin (whether you happen to be
>>Christian or not). 
> 
>Who, me???  Nahhh....
No sin?  I find that hard to believe! ;-)  Not Christian?  That I believe! ;-)
Remember, what you considder 'sin' may not be the same as what I considder
sin.  And since we're looking at my theology, I get to make that
determination...;-)

>>Thus, you do, occasionally, chose to seperate yourself
>>from God.  The evil may appear to be minor, but that's not the point.
>  
>Ah...this hurts no one but me, as I well know. This, however, is a side
>issue.
You are fully correct in this.  As I've said over and over to numerous
people, each person is responsible for their own relationship with God, and
God will judge each person individually.  And make whatever decision He
wants.  That could well be to save everyone...ask Iraneus or (more modern)
John Hick.

>>>And since God is omnipotent, and therefore BY DEFINITION always gets
>>>what he wants,  he WANTS evil to exist, he WANTS people to fail, be separate
>>>from him, etc. 
>>                
>>No, I disagree. 
> 
>Ok - watch this carefully. If I may point out, your response to this consists
>completely of unprovable assertions. I mention this because I know how easy
>it is to get in the habit of responding from the internal textbook instead
>of using our own noodle. 
Since God is an unprovable assertion, this isn't particularly surprising.
I'll see what you have to say and do my best to respond.

>>He wants freely given love and worship. 
>>A byproduct of
>>this is people separating themselves from Him.
> 
>Maybe...but the reasoning is questioning if this is compatible with the
>supposed "omni" characteristics of God. You haven't responded to the argument
>yet.
Sure it is.  To borrow a quote from Job "Though he slay me, yet will I hope
in Him".  The book of Job is a pretty long answer to this whole problem.
The old maxim "The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away" comes from this
book, too.

I have no clue as to what God's plans are, and cannot judge why God brings
or allows a particular evil to occur.  When Job questioned God, he got
lectured at length on the issue!  And didn't get an answer.

Along the same lines is the blind man in John 9.  The Apostles ask who
sinned, the man or his parents, that he was born blind.  Jesus rebukes them
saying that the man was not blind because of sin, but so that the work of
God could be shown.

>>  But, God has provided a way
>> for all of us to reconcile ourselves to Him - Jesus Christ.  I do not claim
>> that it is an 'unintended' or 'unforseen' consequence.  God knew *exactly*
>> what would happen, but chose to create anyway.
> 
> Ok - so you accept foreknowledge then. That's something - it means you're
> stuck with the nasty dilemma outlined below.  Notice that you have not 
> responded to the above argument with anything other than doctrinal 
> assertions. You haven't dealt with the argument at all except to say,
> "I disagree." Just pointing this out. Forgive me if I don't eat my words
> just yet...:)
No problem!  I have run into the same problem that theologians much more
skilled than I have run into.  Namely Calvin, Augustine, Luther, etc.  

I don't deny that I've responded with doctrinal assertions, though you'll
find that my assertions often differ with 'accepted' ideas...heck, I've
been called a heretic around here more than once!

>>>I'm interested to see if you are as flexible in your thinking 
>>>WRT the next step in this logical chain. This one is a little nastier, 
>>>I'm afraid, because, as I explained before, and will again now, a God
>>>who is omnipotent and omniscient knew beforehand who was going to be
>>>saved and who was going to be damned - but he created the ones who 
>>>were going to damn themselves ANYWAY.  Again, you can't run from this one. 
>>
>>Nope.  I won't run from it at all.  You are truly correct.  Omniscience
>>requires this stand.  I can't deny it.  To do so would be to contradcit
>>what I'm trying (note well, trying!) to defend.
>  
> Brave man! You're heading into dangerous waters with head held high. :)
Or stupid, eh?  At least you had the courtesy to say brave! ;-)

>> Although reasonably well formed, and seemingly (at least to me) consistant,
>> they aren't carved in stone...
>> 
>>>Calvin, the theologian who is perhaps most responsible for modern 
>>>conservative Protestantism, freely admitted this. He was a hard-nosed
>>>cuss who didn't object to a God who would knowingly create beings
>>>who would condemn themselves to eternal torment. Today, we're a little
>>>more decent, I'd say - such a God seems repugnant to us. Alas - the
>>>God described by hellfire and brimstone Christianity is just such a
>>>being. There is no escape from this conclusion, as Calvin knew - except
>>>one:
>> 
>>>"That's the spirit, Blackadder! When all else fails, irrational stubborness
>>>and a thick-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will carry us
>>>through..." - Gen. Melchet, "Blackadder Goes Fourth"
>> 
>> Well, I don't happen to agree.  I don't see that God is to blame for this.
>> Sure, he is *responsible*, but the individual is to blame. 
>                 
> Maybe - but he IS to blame for creating a being that he KNOWS is going to
> damn itself to eternal hell. And he didn't have to. 
Well, there are some philosophical arguments about this.  Most people would
consider creating better than not creating.  Something being better than
nothing.  It seems clear to me that God had a choice as to whether or not to 
create, and whether or not to give free will.  And my comments evolve from
that point.  That once God created the logical possiblity of evil (in other
words, for a true free choice to exist, evil in some form had to exist), it
was done.  And eventually some being would exercise free will by chosing
the 'wrong' option.

Remember, for freely given worship and love to be truly free, the actual,
logical possiblity of NOT doing so had to exist.

>But he did it anyway. Nice guy.  Do I leave a kid alone in a room with a 
>gas can and a lighter?  After all, it's his free choice whether or not to 
>play with the lighter....   I wouldn't do this to a kid I hated, let alone 
>one of my own children. >od's supposed action is worse - after all, he KNOWS 
>beforehand that the kid is going to play with the lighter. BEnefits of 
>foreknowledge.  But you're saying God sends the kid in anyway, just so he can 
>exercise his "free choice." 
One needs to know the PURPOSE of the actions.  God's purpose appears to be
freely given love and worship.  Beyond that, there is only speculation as
to how things will turn out in the end.  Eschatology and soterolgy are
higly speculative, with little direct evidence given other than spotty
references in the Bible that are couched highly in allegory, metaphor,
poetry, etc.

The Christian understanding of soteriology is fairly clear.  Christ's
sacrifice on the cross.  But eschatology is so muddled and unclear that
there are hundreds if not thousands of opinoins on this!

>AND *important*  Since God does do this, and he doesn;t HAVE to, it means
>he must WANT some people to go to Hell and suffer forever. He must WANT it,
>because if he didn't he just wouldn't create those people. Christianity
>says he did.  Forgive me if I am not overcome with adoration for such
>a "loving" being.
I understand your problem with this.  There are people who God knows will
commit acts and damn themselves to Hell.  Questions arise about this,
though.  Did these people chose their paths themselves?  Are they serving
God's will?

Perhaps one of the reasons for the existance of evil (theodicy is just as
muddled as eschatology) is education and growth.  And to show us what is
good.  If no evil exists (the solution proposed by Christian Scientists -
it's all in our minds), then how does one defined 'good'.  

I still hold to the arguemnt that if the logical possiblity of evil exists,
it will be actualized at some point.

>>Remember, God
>>alone knows the final result.  It may well be that Iraneus is correct, and
>>that ALL souls eventually end up with God.  Iraneus didn't believe in a
>>literal fall.  He thought that life was learning and growing, and that this
>>continued even after death, and that all souls eventually came to God.
>>John Hick is a modern proponent of this idea.
> 
>Fair enough. I'm not attacking you, rather I'm attacking the concept of God
>that says an all-loving God can knowingly, unnecessarily (he's omnipotent,
>after all) send his own children into unceasing torture.

I understand that you aren't attacking me personally.  That's actually a
change from the usual style around here! ;-)

As I've said, this is, as you've pointed out, a major problem area with
Christianity.  And it's been a problem since early on!  Even the Apostles
asked questions about this....the example above about the blind man.  They,
like Job's friends, assumed that the suffering person had sinned.  That
wasn't the case.  God allowed (Job) or caused (the blind man) suffering to
acheive a higher purpose.

>> Any comments on the resolution of this are purely speculation.  It is
>> within God's purview to do as He pleases. 
> 
>Maybe so - but we don't have to love him for it, if he wants to be a 
>bastard like that. Love for a being that does stuff like that is
>just horrifying, in my view. Inhuman in the extreme. Like the love the
>SS had for Hitler:  "After all, he's good to US..." 
Perhaps so.  But, God and Hitler are quite different, in my opinion.  It is
within God's perview to do as He pleases with His creation.  Hitler has no
such claim.

This example will surely be quite different than God's actions, but the
point is the same.  If I create something out of clay, do I not have the
right to destroy it?  Granted it isn't sentient, but I'm the creator so I
can destroy it.

How about a fictional example.  Dr. Tsung creates 'Data' and 'Lore', two
human-like computers.  One turns out good, the other bad.  Is it OK to turn
off Lore?  How about Data?  If one and not the other, why?  Who gets to
decide?  Remember the legal ruling: Data is a toaster!  Are we any
different compared to God?

>> And it is not my position to
>> complain. 
> 
>Why not?  Did you ASK to be created?  (mind-boggling concept, that!)
>Do you have no natural love for anything?? Do you only love what you're
>told to love? 
No to all three.  I don't love God because I am told to.  In fact, I pretty
much ignored God until recently.  I was raised Roman Catholic, but I didn't
get to know God until early this year.  I came to Him of my own free will.
Noone made me.  Noone forced me.  The proverbial 'ligthning bolt'
conversion experience.

>> Eschatology and theodicy are unclear and undefined. 

>Another way to put that is : our concept of God has big problems that
>we can't fix, despite 2000 years of trying. Since we don't dare question
>the fundamental postulates that underlie that concept, we have to 
>paper these problems over with the word "mystery."  
Not at all...I have questioned quite a bit of what's been said over the
last 2000 years...I don't ascribe to any particular theologian the 'voice
of God'.  I'll check the evidence provided by Scripture.  Granted, I do
rely on someone else's decision as to which books are canonical.  The two
basic assumptions I start with are that God exists, and that the Bible
correctly reflects God's dealings with man.

Those were concious decisions that I do not wish to change.  As such, I'll
work within that framework.

I can see what you're thinking...and yes, it's true.  I do want God to
exist.  I do want life to mean more than just the 70 or so years that we
get.  It's a basic philosophical thing...

But, just wanting God to exist does not make it so.  I'll admit that.  I
believe that there is a God and I trust Scripture.  Do I have any proof?
Nope.  Not at all.  That's what faith is all about.  Perhaps you'll say
it's blind, but I don't think it is.  What I see around me confirms to me
that God exists.

>>I believe
>>Calvin himself said that God didn't want us to know too much about it...
> 
>Calvin was a son-of-a-bitch, make no bones about that. He was quite content
>to think that his God could desire the destruction of His children. And it
>suited him well, as he burned anyone who disagreed with him, to cover over
>the evil of his own doctrine with advice like that...
I don't disagree with your evaluation of Calvin.  I don't like his theology
a whole lot...nor that of any single theologian.  I've rejected Calvin's
"solution" to the problem...

>>>God KNEW before he created us which of us were going to return to Him
>>>and which of us were going to reject Him. Right? 
>>
>> Yes.
>> 
>>>If so, he could simply have created those of us who were going to 
>>>freely choose GOOD. And not created those who were going to choose
>>>evil. He could, as it were, figure out that "If I create this particular
>>>person, he will reject me, given the conditions of the universe I am 
>>>making. How cruel it would be to create him and let him damn himself!
>>>I will not do such an abhorrent thing. I will create only those who 
>>>I know will freely choose to accept and love me."
>>
>> But since (and boy are my fundamentalist friends going to have fits) none
>> of us knows the mind of God, none of us can know who will be saved, and who
>> will be damned (if anyone).
> 
> If you don't mind my saying, this is true, but irrelevant.

Say anything you wish....that's what the net is here for!  You're a lot
more reasonable than most...;-)

I don't think it is irrelevant.  Recall the two basic assumptions I start
with: God exists & Scripture represents his interaction with men.  Thus, I
don't see it as irrelevant...

>GOD knew. You admitted this. This is all that counts. He could have said
>the words I put into his mouth above, but your doctrine says he did not.
>Your doctrine says that he knowingly, WILLINGLY created souls who would
>choose damnation.  He did it willingly, even though he had other options
>(not to create them) - therefore he MUST WANT THIS TO BE THE CASE.

If God had not created any beings who would reject him, then the actual
possibility of a being rejecting God never would have existed!  Thus, no
free will!  There was no possiblity that a living being would reject him,
since he created no beings who would do so.  Evil would never have existed
in the world, would never have been a actual choice, since nothing in the
universe was or contained evil.  God would have eliminated those things
which would lead people into evil...or the people so led.

I think the only option here, if free will is desirable, is not to create,
or to allow evil.  If you begin by eliminating the most evil thing, a new
thing becomes the most evil.  Since God's creation is in His image and
likeness (ie not an exact copy) it is less perfect and less good than he.
As such, on a relatvisitic scale, with only two points, we have "evil" and
"good", or "less good" and "perfectly good".

I'm not saying that God can't create a perfectly good world.  But to do so
would, in my opinion, eliminate free will.

>Therefore:
> 
>HE MUST WANT THERE TO BE SOULS THAT WILL BE SEPARTE FROM HIM,
>   DAMNED, TORMENTED, etc. 
> 
>QED
> 
>I put this in caps because you seem so (understandably) reluctant to confront
>this nasty conclusion head on. For the sake of the discussion, deal with it.
God kewn in advance what people would do.  He did not PREDESTINE them to do
it.  That's the difference between Calvin's position and mine.  God, being
outside of time, knew what decisions people would make.  But they are not
forced into it.

Your conclusion and mine are not very different, I don't think.  I do put
responsibility for everything in creation at God's feet.  I agree that He
knew who would separate themselves from Him and thus damn themselves.  He
chose to create anyway.  You assing some sort of malevolance to this, and I
don't.

Why not?  Because I don't fully understnad God's purposes and reasons for
doing things.

>> Thus, since I am not in a position to judge a persons salvation, I'm not in
>> a position to judge God on His plans. 
> 
>Irrelevant. The issue here is the fact that ANYBODY who is going to
>damn themselves gets created at all!  Don;t judge God - judge the CONCEPT
>of God that has been taught to you by people who knew less about this
>matter than you do, probably!   I'm saying: you can't have the doctrine
>of salvation (Christian style) and still have a "omni" God. 
>It's like having a sqaure circle. It's a broken defintion. 

First of all, I would like to make the point that there is no single
definition of 'salvation Christian style.'  This has been one of the major
differences among denominations for a long time...I make no claim that I
have the right answers, just the ones that fit the information I'm using.

I don't have a problem with the concept, that's just it.  I've quoted Job a
couple of times, and I stand by that sentiment, as thickheaded as that may
be.  You are offering the same advice (though in much nicer terms) that
Job's wife did.  When all manner of evil was perpetrated on Job, she
advised him to "Curse God and die!"  He refused.   At the risk of being
flip, "me too."

>The problem of evil is a false problem of exactly the same nature as
>the square circle or the boulder that God can;t lift.   Both arise from
>attempts to break a definition.  In this case, instead of a 
>square circle, you want a cruel, loving God.   <Buzzz> Can't do it!
>Sorry!  I'm not saying reject God. If you have a personal conviction of
>the existence of a loving creator, hey, go nuts. But the Christian
>theology is in direct contradiction to this loving creator, (if he exists.:)
Well, the problem here is again a sweeping generalization of "the Christian
theology".  This isn't an excuse, but there is a wide variation among
denominations about Christian theology.  Varying from Roman Catholicism to
the United Church of Christ to Baptists to Orthodox and to some of the
disputed branches such as Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses and
Mormons.  "Christians" as a monolithic group do not agree on theology.
Heck, within the Roman Church there are massive disagreemnets.  That's what
causes schisms.

I'm out to formulate my own understanding of God, His works and His plans
based on the Scriptural record.  I'll take what I find there, compare what
others are saying, and either accept of reject it based on what I find in
the docuemnts.

>That's all I'm saying!
No problem...and I'm repeating that my theology has been called heretical!
;-)  So I get it from both sides!

>>I simply accept the situation as it
>>is.
>  
>See the quotation from "Blackadder" above.... are you sure you want to do
>this? 

I've admitted to a certain stubborness...based on the two assumptions I've
made.  As I've said, I am looking at the evidence and although I see what
you are getting at and disagree with your assesment.

>> As you can see, what I'm saying in lots of words is that I don't have an
>> answer to this.  I'm tending more and more to Hick's position.  My problem
>> with it has to do with actions having consequences.  In this case, our
>> actions have no real consequences, as we gain salvation no matter what.
>> 
>> Perhaps, someday, I'll have a good, strong answer for it.  Who knows.
> 
> You won't, unless you radically alter Christian teaching to the point 
> that you're effectively a heretic of some form or another. 
I've already been called that...;-)  But in these days of rampant scism and
creation of new denominations, being called a heretic just doesn't carry
the weight that it did, oh 500 years ago!  I take pride in that...it means
I've examined the evidence and concluded that some orthodoxy is wrong...;-)

> The 3 "omni's"
> and the doctrine of salvation and damnation stand in the same relation
> to each other as do the words "square" and "circle."  Theodicy is
> an endless search for the square circle. A loser's game. The root of
> the problem lies in the formulation of the question. You have to 
> look at the two premises. One of them has to go. Which is up to you,
> I guess. God hasn't revealed it yet, as far as I know... :)
Nope, He hasn't.  When He does, I'll let you know.  Don't hold your breath,
though, and I won't either.  It may appear to you a 'loser's game' but I
don't see it that way...it's a nice tough nut to chew on for the next 60
years of so...;-)  Keeps me off the streets...;-)

>> I agree with you.  That's why theodicy is where I expend a lot of my
>> effort.  I want an answer that works, is logical and is supported by
>> Scripture.  No one has got it yet.  I fall back, at the moment, finally to
>> "My ways are higher than your ways, my thoughts higher than your thougts"
>> and do not claim to be able to explain everything about God.
> 
>You fall back on what may truly be called blind faith. That's fine, just
>don't pretend it's reasonable. Of course, you can do that too, if you want...:)
There will always be some aspect of this when one believes in an unprovable
assertion.

>And there is a reason, as I said above, why "no one has got it yet,"
>and why no one ever will.
I ascribe this to our limited intellect and understanding of God.  You
ascribe it to contradictions that our intellect and understanding can't
resolve.  I say God has and will resolve them...you disagree.  The crux of
the problem!

>>Intellectual honesty is one of my prime requirements for myself.  And
>>probably the biggest stumbling block there is.  I could fall into one 
>>of the fundamentalist schools and just ignore it.  But that would not
>>answer my own questions in any way that I found satisfactory.
> 
>I respect that.  It'll take cojones for you to face up to the implications
>of the stuff we're discussing here. Only you know if you've got 'em.
Well, let me know how I did....keep hitting me with this stuff...I enjoy the
discussion and the challenge...

>> Yep, that's right.  I'm trying to answer the questions just as many
>> theologians have for centuries...
> 
> I hope this discussion helps you. When you get them solved, e-mail me,
> please!!!  :)

As I said before, don't hold your breath! ;-)  And yes, it has helped.  I
ought to have no problem getting an A in my future theology classes! ;-)

>>My theology is, as you say, a product of 2000 years of human interpretation.
>>But, I've already rejected a lot of what I was taught when I was younger,
>>based on what I've read in the Bible.  I have disagreements with most
>>Christians I know on this topic.  My theology is a hodge-podge of various
>>ideas, gleened from what I read.  I should have a huge 'under construction'
>>sign on my statements...
> 
> Aye, shouldn't we all...
Aye...that we should, laddie, that we should...;-)

>>>The ultimate disclaimer:
>> 
>>>The above opinions are not my responsibility, but Yahweh's, since he created
>>>me in such a way that I would feel that they are correct. Complaints should
>>>be directed to Him, not me, bub. 
>>
>>YHWH is responsible, but you would be at fault...that's the implication I
>>find...since you have the ability to chose!
> 
>Wrong, comrade.  These opinions seem to me to be correct - I was led to them
>by inescapable logic. I did not choose them. My intelligence was created in
>such a way that these opinions would seem correct to it. I can't help it
>if they look right to me!! Talk to the guy who made my brain! 
Well, once I finish the logic class I'm taking this fall semester, I'll let
you know...;-)  If my faith can survive a degree in Philosophy, I figure
it's in reasonable shape.  Nyet?

>Ask yourself: is it possible to CHOOSE to hold, I mean really sincerely
>believe, an opinion which appears false to you? Can you believe something
>you don't believe? If you can, tell me how! I'll convert tomorrow! :)
No.  That's the issue here.  Unless you are willing to accept the basic
premises, even though they appear contradictory (ie what you call false),
then no, you won't convert.  I don't expect you too.  Evangelization isn't
my mission...theology is.  The two generally have nothing to do with each
other! ;-)

>If you don't mind my saying - you're hung up hard by a completely
>artificial notion of free will. A notion that is logically valid, 
>but that has no connection at all to experiential reality. Let's hit that
>one hard in the next posts.
Go for it!  I do think it fits experiential reality.  I think you're
examining it in a micro way, when it is a macro concept...not everyone will
do every evil.  But any evil that can be conceived will be done,
eventually...in some form or another.

> Wheee! Isn't this fun??
Beats working....Gee, maybe 10 years from now I'll be able to do this for a
living...I hope to teach theology...;-)

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558