The “Free Will” Cop-Out

As an outspoken atheist who also happens to be a female nude model with big tits, the email I get from religious types is perhaps a little different to what most men who speak out about atheism get. Instead of simply cursing me as an evil sinner, they often want to “save my soul” (presumably in the hope that they can have a relationship with me in either this world or the next), and indeed often tell me about how I lead them into sin. My standard response to this is: “If God didn’t want you to look at my tits/naked body, then why did he make you enjoy it so much? Does he want to torture you or something?” Their standard response to this is that God gave them the free will to do evil things, and that they just can’t help themselves committing the sin of looking at my tits/naked body. Hence it seems to me that we should take a good, long, hard look at this “free will” concept, as it is crucial to the credibility of religion—without it, they cannot explain how a perfect, all-loving, all-seeing and all-knowing God can allow evil, sin, pain and suffering in the world he is supposed to have created. Quite frankly, the blatantly obvious logical flaws in this argument make it amazing to me that I even have to point them out, but given that millions of people depend on this concept to make sense of how the nature of their supposed creator conflicts with the nature of the world, clearly I must do so.

First of all, there is the very obvious point that God is supposed to have created the universe and everything in it. This obviously means that God not only created the free will that compels us to do evil, but also evil itself. The Bible basically says as much in the creation story: God put the “tree of knowledge”* in the garden of Eden to tempt man to sin, complete with a talking snake** to tempt him even more. When man inevitably fell victim to God’s temptation, it is called the “original sin”—prior to that, man is supposed to have been perfectly innocent and completely free of sin. However, this is clearly impossible: if man was indeed originally free of sin, he would never have been able to commit the original sin the first place, as he wouldn’t have had the capacity to commit any sin at all. And it gets even worse than that: God is supposed to have created man in his image. As such, God didn’t only create man with the capacity to do evil, but God himself must also have that capacity. In fact, the most logical conclusion we can draw from the Biblical creation story is that God is a sadist, who created us so that he could tempt us into pain and suffering for his own personal amusement.

And believe it or not, it gets even worse than that! For much of the sin that is attributed to “free will” actually cannot even be called free will in the first place. By definition, free will is individuals making intellectual decisions of their own volition about something. However, when it comes to the sin that I lead people into—the most common sin of all, the desire for sexual pleasure—free will actually has nothing to do with it. The desire for sexual pleasure clearly isn’t an individual decision, because we all have a desire for it, and we all derive pleasure from it. The desire for sexual pleasure is not the result of an individual’s free will, but of a universal instinct we all share, not only as human beings, but as animals in general. Whether you think God made us or not, clearly we are made with a strong and fundamental desire for sexual pleasure. From a scientist’s point of view, this all makes perfect sense, as it drives us to reproduce and perpetuate life. But for a theist who thinks sexual desire and pleasure are sins, this is a huge problem: it means that God not only created us with the free will to commit sin, but he created us as sinful creatures by nature. Once again, this leads to the conclusion that God is a sadist who wants us to be wracked with guilt over the sins he has forced us to commit.

Ultimately, this all leaves us with only two logical possibilities: an evil, sadistic God, or none at all.

*Am I the only person who finds the name “tree of knowledge” both disturbing and very appropriate? The clear implication is that knowledge is evil, and that ignorance (in this case, blind faith) is good.

**So how did God punish the snake for tempting man into sin? By making him crawl on his belly for the rest of his life! How can any sane, educated person possibly take this ridiculous story literally?

UPDATE: I’ve just found out about a very clear-cut quote where God says he is the creator of evil:

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7)

So there you go: as God himself says, evil didn’t originate through free will, but through God himself.

Tags: ,

Logic and faith cannot occupy the same space at the same time. The whole Judaeo-Christian matrix is based on guilt, punishment and atonement and the series of obligations that arise from them. Remember, these are the same people that gave you the Crusades, the Inquisition and the slaughter of the Albigensians as well as the witch trials.

  
Quote
  Reply

Well, one could argue that the pantheists of pre-Homeric time gave us the Trojan War as well. One of the basic hypocrisies of organized religion — whatever religion you’re talking about, in whatever historical epoch — is the way it is used to justify murder, which is a sin if practiced on your neighbor, on a massive scale, called war, to protect ourselves and our loved ones from “the other,” whomever they may be. This is called “patriotic duty,” but really has nothing to do with patriotism, religion or anything or anybody that we love. It’s all just a rationalization to justify human aggression and self-aggrandizement.
I think a far greater problem than “free will,” which implies choice, self-determination and the notion of taking responsibility for one’s actions, is the notion of pre-destination. As Captain Ahab said: “Starbuck, we have played out this scene a thousand and a thousand times before the dawn of man.” In other words, saying: “It’s God’s will,” is a convenient way of blaming our own failures and our own aggressive tendencies on God. Therefore, it’s “not my fault (or our fault)!” and we can still be “victims.” Sarah Palin and Carrie Prejean are making careers out of this kind of behavior over here in America.

  
Quote
  Reply

I agree with both of you two but let’s give credit to Sachiko for beginning this conversation. She’s had to endure religious zealots trying to “save” her from their delusions. We need to support and defend her when they attack. No more live and let let live. These people take advantage of our complacency and need to be dealt with immediately. I don’t discriminate between hard core Christian, Muslim, or Jewish proselytizers – they can babble their delusions to themselves not others.

As a lifelong Atheist I encourage everyone to question and discover for themselves everything before them. Science, technology, even language evolve everyday while religion has remained centuries behind. Why? Because religion began and continues as a political force that attempts to control people.

I lived and was married in China to a woman who never experienced the psychotic religious zealots that I did in Texas’ Bible Belt. Needless to say we don’t suffer for any lack of religious dogma at home.

Yes, yes we all admire Sachiko’s voluptuous body but the more and more she reveals her thoughts you must agree this woman champions a truthful, balanced view.

Let’s support her and encourage her future posts. We have the free will to do so.

Be well and do good things.

  
Quote
  Reply

@Firefly – As I’ve said before, the big problem with religion is that it gives those who want to do evil credibility, and gives them the support of entire communities. It may not be the root cause of human evil, but it sure as hell makes it a lot more powerful and dangerous, and a whole lot more widespread.

@Doug Ross – Thankyou. :-)

  
Quote
  Reply

Sachiko: I don’t see your body as a challenge to my morality. That’s just crazy. Even if I did, and I were worried about your atheism, I would just try to find a nude model who does believe in God–a non-thinking man’s glamour model, if you will.

It gets even crazier when we start talking about homosexuality. I have never thought that that was even the slightest temptation, or as something that needs to be “controlled”. People who do obviously are struggling with their own homosexual tendencies. (I have a theory that the apostle Paul was a repressed homosexual, because Jesus said nothing about it, but for some reason Paul obsessed about it.)

Religion continues to confuse matters by categorizing innate genetic predispositions as moral choices. Many gays and transexuals have been forced to suffer as a result.

  
Quote
  Reply

An old song…..

Plaisir d’amour ne dure quand moment
Chagrin d’amour dure tout la vie

This is another way in which certain kinds of inevitable suffering can lead a human mind to reach for the unknowable, perchance to discover, somewhere in the borderland of the partly knowable, certain icons, energies, or salve-existences that will take away pain of memory, or perhaps obscure it with sufficiently extreme entertainments. Returning to daily social life after such a quest, such findings might be presented as compelling religious inspiration. I sometimes think about a certain poetic narrative by Sachiko (which accompanied some of her music) and wonder what finally might have become of a certain man that observed a certain (presumably Asian) lady in private enjoyments from across a great river. What could happen next, once he had (supposedly with self-respecting prudence) chosen to look away and continue on some wandering path he thought he had previously chosen, to some destination convenient only for the time of day, not selected with a great depth of thought? There are many, many psychic choices: it seems unlikely that our friend would miss out on all of them. A modest and positive suggestion might steer him toward examining his idea of “self-respect”, or “prudence”, or “free will” as demonstrated in his hazy choices for his day’s walk. There are some other options we need not discuss, which we hope our friend would avoid.

  
Quote
  Reply

@M McQuown – Let’s not forget the fall of Rome, the burning of many libraries (esp. Alexandria), persecution of ancient men (and a few women) of the mind, the general loss of the sciences developed in the ancient world not rediscovered until the Renaissance and the insanity that pervaded the Middle Ages.

@Sachiko- I wonder how many of those emails you receive are simply to get a rise out of you? I’ve received emails like that as an escort and usually the best response is to ignore because what they want to do is draw you into an unresolvable argument. People like that feel the only way to excise their “demons” is to make you feel bad so I just refuse to give them that satisfaction.

I would suggest that any repeated emails from the same person (separate emails, not just responses to the same email) keep a wary eye.

But I found myself nodding in agreement to everything you said in that post. Excellent!

@Doug Ross: Congratulations on surviving living in Texas as a lifelong atheist! Personally, I think anyone who manages that deserves a metal of honor of some sort.

  
Quote
  Reply

@Aspasia – I actually do ignore them most of the time, especially when (as you say) it’s repeated. I respond sometimes just to see what sort of BS they’ll come up with, and I’ve found it’s always pretty much the same thing. I thought it would make for an entertaining article, as it does make me laugh!

  
Quote
  Reply

On the subject of “free will”, we are taught that we are given free will by God, but we are also taught that God knows all that was, is and will be. If God knows the we will make, then is that really free will? I’m still working on that one.

On the subject of what I will call Faux-Christians using the excuse of leering at your nudity for the sake of trying to “save” you. I guess we can call this “The Sachiko McClean Factor” (similar to what I call “The Sarah Palin Factor”). We have a number a alleged Christian males that think they a chance of sex if they save your “heathen” soul. This probably falls in the never teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time and annoys the pig (not that I would ever compare you to a pig, but we all get the point).

My personal opinion on nudity and nude models is that there is nothing wrong with this, I’m an artist and can appreciate the human body as the “good Lord intended”. People tend to blur the line of nude models and pornography to the point that they can’t tell the difference. I have had people that have seen some nudes I have done and called them dirty (probably a reflection of the fucked up Puritanical view of sex Americans tend to have).

Anyhow, I’m tired and I’m probably starting to ramble. Thanks for this forum.

  
Quote
  Reply

@Curt Russell – That’s exactly right – “free will” is a total cop-out, as everything that ever was and ever will be is supposed to be known and have been created by God, including the consequences of free will, free will itself, and the evil it allows. The free will argument is basically an admission that an omnipotent God is impossible. And if he isn’t omnipotent, then he can’t be anywhere nears as great as most religions say he is – once again, the most logical conclusion is that he is a sadist.

  
Quote
  Reply

With free will comes responsibilities. These religious fanatics hope to save you from what I don’t know. Most likely they are sexually frustrated and wouldn’t know how to be free of their repressive attitudes. I admire Sachiko’s fresh approach of nude modeling with a brain. We need more women who speak their minds and to show sexual power over men. The fact that Sachiko has a stunning body makes her all the more attractive as a woman with more on her mind. I hope she finds an equal partner to share her life and continue to grow intellectually.

  
Quote
  Reply

Thanks again for your support and appreciation Doug. :-)

  
Quote
  Reply

@Doug Ross: Congratulations on surviving living in Texas as a lifelong atheist! Personally, I think anyone who manages that deserves a metal of honor of some sort.

I was recently banned from a blog when I complained to the moderator/owner who claimed to be a Ph.D about another poster’s conservative christian sociopathic rantings from the OK, TX, AZ area. I was stunned to be the one to be blackballed instead of the sociopath.

  
Quote
  Reply

Originally Posted By Robert@Doug Ross: Congratulations on surviving living in Texas as a lifelong atheist! Personally, I think anyone who manages that deserves a metal of honor of some sort.

I was recently banned from a blog when I complained to the moderator/owner who claimed to be a Ph.D about another poster’s conservative christian sociopathic rantings from the OK, TX, AZ area. I was stunned to be the one to be blackballed instead of the sociopath.

Yeah, welcome to the blogosphere. Sanity is banned and craziness is a model of rectitude.

  
Quote
  Reply

Originally Posted By Aspasia
Yeah, welcome to the blogosphere. Sanity is banned and craziness is a model of rectitude.

Not around here I hope. :-)

  
Quote
  Reply

Nope! :) And even better, you use proper grammar and spelling!

There are the occasional oases around the interwebs. I try to stick to those sites and blogs.

  
Quote
  Reply

Originally Posted By Aspasia
Nope! :) And even better, you use proper grammar and spelling!

Actually, you have my webmaster/photographer/producer/editor Lee to thank for that – although as English is my second language, at least I have an excuse for not always getting everything right. :-)

Seriously though, even without Lee’s help, I suspect my grammar and spelling would be better than a lot of the fundamentalists I’ve seen – it’s really amazing how bad their English can be sometimes.

  
Quote
  Reply

And yet they can spell their children’s names: mordecai, jebediah, jehoshsphat, zachariah…….I guess when you only have one book and you read it over and over and over again……

  
Quote
  Reply

It’s only one book that was rewritten over and over again called revisionist/delusionist history. Has anyone seen the two videos that make a compelling case that the Christians co-opted a dozen similar tall tales and made a mash-up that people still believe today? One video online is called, “The God Who Wasn’t There” (www.thegodmovie.com) and the other online is called, “Zeitgeist” (www.zeitgeistmovie.com). Both made by friends of mine that I helped with exhibiting them in New York City. Have a look and please comment.

  
Quote
  Reply

Originally Posted By Sachiko

Originally Posted By AspasiaNope! :) And even better, you use proper grammar and spelling!

Actually, you have my webmaster/photographer/producer/editor Lee to thank for that – although as English is my second language, at least I have an excuse for not always getting everything right. :-)

I’ve tutored many ESL students and a lot of times they make a better effort in making sure their English is correct than native speakers.

But not to derail your thread, I’ve always thought the “Free Will” cop-out is the biggest CYA (cover your ass) ever invented by man.

  
Quote
  Reply

@Doug – I saw “Zeitgeist” and I’ve heard of the God movie but haven’t seen it yet. I was very impressed by Zeitgeist. I’m guessing you’ve also read Acharya S and her books? If not, check them out, they’re awesome.

  
Quote
  Reply

@Doug – I’ve seen The God Who Wasn’t There, but I haven’t been able to see Zeitgeist unfortunately.

  
Quote
  Reply

Here’s their website, Sachiko: http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com . You can watch it on there.

  
Quote
  Reply

Thanks Aspasia!

  
Quote
  Reply

Hey,
I am a Christian and I would like to say “Shame on those self righteous, hypocritical, pious fakes”! They have no right for taking their insecurities on you. I am really sorry that Christians have come across this way to you. Please know that not all Christians are like that.

I would like to say that your understanding of the bible is a little off. I am willing to explain any misunderstandings or answer any questions that you have. I hope that I can change your mind about Christians being a bunch of assholes. I am not going to lie; I think that I am pretty nice.

Red

P.S
I think that you are very beautiful.

  
Quote
  Reply

Welcome to my blog Red!

If my understanding of the Bible is flawed, then why don’t you enlighten us all in the comments here?

  
Quote
  Reply

It’s evangelical prosthelytizing from Christian and Muslims I have a hard time stomaching because their delusions are so ingrained that they can’t see reality any more. The Bible nor Koran should not be taken literally but only as a collection of stories with valuable lessons for society. Organized religions have always been political organizations wishing to exert control over their flock. Today they’ve adopted the business model of corporations and political parties with lobbyists seeking to control health issues, oppose LGBT rights, oppose science facts, and so on. The only self righteous, hypocritical, pious fakes I recognize are the folks who use religion to further their political/business ambitions. If you wish to believe in delusional, abstract supernatural beings that answer prayers, participate daily in human lives or you hope to spend eternity in a blissful heavenly state of conscienceness- well then go ahead keep beating your head against the wall. However, it feels so good when you stop.

  
Quote
  Reply

“What is growing up in a cult like?” -A YouTube video. The video diarist addresses the subject Red introduces upstream.

  
Quote
  Reply

Ok, I will try my best to point out some common misunderstandings. When God put the tree called “The tree of Knowledge” He didn’t put it there to temp man but to allow man to make a choice. Man had the ability to sin before he even took a bite of the fruit but, he didn’t sin until he took a bite. Why did God want man to have a choice? Well, because if God said to man, “You can choose between me or evil,” and then gave man no way of being able to choose evil then we would have the Ferrari paradox. That is; you can have a Ferrari in any color as long as it is red. God wanted man to choose Him on his own accord not because man had to. That is not love.

The original sin is not man eating the fruit but, Satan rebelling against God and trying to place himself as God. Satan was God’s greatest angel and was also God’s best looking creation but, when Satan got too big of an ego, he decided to lead an army of his followers against God and God’s followers. Satan lost but God spared him and let him live on earth and in hell.

God does have the capacity to do evil but, God does not have the desire to because it would go against who He is. If you read the Old Testament you can read a lot of stories of God killing people. In Sodom He rained down fire and brimstone on the city. That is pretty harsh but, it said that the people were leading the world away from God and they were breaking God’s commandment to go and populate the world. They were even sacrificing babies on alters to false gods. God knew in His heart that no matter what he did they would never follow Him but they would lead the world away from Him and into its early demise. God never gets any pleasure from destroying His creation.

When God created woman, I personally think, God had made his greatest creation. Women are great. I love women and I know that I have a strong sexual desire for women too. Having a sexual desire is not a sin but, I think that married people should be faithful to their spouses. In a Christian marriage not only does the man promise the woman to be faithful but, he also promises God that he will be faithful to the woman and the reciprocal is true too. The breaking of a promise to God and the spouse is what the sin is. I agree with you that from a scientist’s point of view that sexual desire is what perpetuates life. It really is what drives people to want to make babies and continue the cycle of life. I actually have never had sex but, I think that sex is the second best thing that God created (women being the first). While I think that sex is great, I also think that sex is even better with the one person that we were meant to be with. Those are my personal beliefs and what I understand the bible tells me too. Oh, and I have no problem with looking at porn. I read somewhere that porn actually stops people from raping others.

The tree in the Garden of Eden was actually called “”he Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil” not just “The Tree of Knowledge”. Also Adam and Eve did not have blind faith. God would come down and talk with them and He would even explain stuff to them too. God did not want them to be ignorant nor does he want us to be ignorant. The medieval Popes did because if people could read the bible for them selves then well, they might post some sort of ninety five point thesis on the door of a German church.

@M McQuown: The Albigensians were Christians who saw the evil in the Roman Catholic Church and broke off from them.

@Doug Ross: I lived in Kansas and I would like to say that the people in that area are nothing more than ignorant selfish people who would love nothing more to put other people down and commit evil. They use religion to achieve that goal rather than religion uses them. Religion to them is nothing more than a tool. I would say that a good majority of the people in the bible belt region don’t have a clue of what the bible means.

@Mark Crawford: The apostle Paul was one of the Sanhedrin. He then left them to become a follower of Christ. The Sanhedrin was staunchly opposed to homosexuality. I think that Paul saw that other churches had homosexuals in them and his old habits came back to haunt him. I actually think that he was too depressed to have any sexual desire. He had been tortured for many years before he had wrote any of his letters.

@Aspasia: The fall of Rome was caused by unlearned Goths who feared anything that they could not understand. Books were like giant spiders to them; they scared the crap out of them. Saying that I would like to point out that they understood that anyone who could read could also lead an army against them unless of course there was some sort of punishment if you did. Hell makes a great punishment. They really had no control of who went to hell and who didn’t of course but it kept them safe while they ruled Rome.

@Curt Russell: God doesn’t interfere with our decisions. He knows what we will do but that doesn’t take away from free will. It just means that He knows what we are about to do.

One last thing before I go get something to eat; using free will as an excuse for their problems is a total cop-out and is not an explanation. Ok, I got to eat. I hope that I have explained myself well. I will try to get to some of the other stuff later.

  
Quote
  Reply

@Red: Oh please, tell it to someone who has never read a word of history. The most powerful, militarily and economically, empire at the time, even with its increasing internal rot, was overcome solely because a bunch of “unlearned Goths” invaded? Right, because the Roman powers that be were such bookworms they were just sitting there unawares when the bullies came to demand their lunch money. I understand you need to believe that in order to absolve the Church of any and all responsibility. I do not work on belief, I work with fact.

Fact: By 410 CE, when the Goths invaded, Christianity was the ONLY legally recognized religion in Rome and it led to an internal rot because of the below mentioned fact.

Fact: Theodosius I, by c. 390 CE, had already enacted severe persecutions against pagans, including scholars and philosophers…the learned ones with all the books. Many of those same scholars and philosophers were the first to begin debunking Christianity, even way back then.

Fact: Barbarian was and remains a racist, exclusionary term and as such does not actually prove anything about those who it supposedly describes beyond “those people are not like us”. The Greeks invented it and used it to describe civilizations as advanced (or even moreso) as theirs: Egyptians, Phoenicians, and Persians among others. What’s the connecting thread? They weren’t Greek. And the use of the word in other civilizations? Again, simply to say, “those people are not like us”. Since the contemporary history we have of those times were written by the very people the Goths fought against, obviously there just a bit of bias there. That leads to the next fact.

Fact: The Goths/Visigoths who invaded in 410 CE? Arian Christians. So, it was Christian v. Christian. Considering your idealistic and extremely ignorant responses regarding the religion and the scripture to which I’m assuming you profess your faith, you probably also don’t know too much about the various Christian incarnations. Here’s a history lesson for those who don’t know: Arians denied the Trinitarian aspect of modern Christianity.

The Arians were the cause of much controversy and the Council of Nicea was a major contributor to the end of Arianism in early Christendom. This is why all good little Christians in western Christendom learn the Nicene Creed:

“And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of very God, Begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made;”

In short, everything the Arian Christians denied was the “revealed truth” of Christianity. The strongest opponents of Arianism, btw, came from the strongholds of the Holy Roman Empire: Alexandria, Constantinople and Cordoba.

Getting the picture now, of why the Goths, who were Arian Christians, were referred to as “barbarians”?

Fact: Those same Goths/Visigoths under Alaric I worked with the Theodosius I as a troop commander. When Theo died, his sons screwed over Alaric and the Germanic tribes working with their father, sparking resentment and rebellion that culminated in the Sack.

I never cease being amazed by the creative ways Christians come up with to cover their collective asses about the breadth and depth of destruction, mayhem, chaos, ignorance and hatred in the past two millennia inspired by their religion and its Holy Scripture.

Finally, Red, I was baptised and raised in the Christian faith attending Anglican, Episcopalian and Presbyterian churches. My late aunt Dorothy was the pastor at my Presbyterian church. My uncle Charles is a preacher at a Baptist church in North Carolina. I am currently enrolled at a Catholic university where I am majoring in art history, recently finishing a course discussing the very time period in which you have shown a great deal of ignorance: the Fall of Rome. Believe me, I learned more truth at this Catholic university about the culpability of the Church in the mess that was the end days of Rome and if anyone should be doing a major CYA about that time period, it’s the Catholic Church. I am not talking out of my ass.

I began questioning the Church and its teachings at age nine and finally left for good at age twenty-one. I left not out of some silly, emotional fit of teenage anxiety but out of careful study and consideration. I have read the Bible, all the parts and not just the parts that support the “ideal” manifestation of The Word. All. Of. It. I have had discussions about the Bible with people who have read it in the original Latin and Greek, with people who were raised as Evangelicals who know Scripture better than most priests. The Scripture is found wanting morally, intellectually and emotionally and I have a very negative reaction to those who attempt to defend it and who have not read every part of the book despite claims to the contrary.

And before you even start with the usual Apology of, “Well, it’s not supposed to be taken literally”, again, I suggest you actually READ the entire book without skipping parts that make you feel uncomfortable. Furthermore, taking that Apology as is remains unsatisfactory for sceptics because then it becomes obvious that Christianity is loosely interpreted and those with moderate and liberal Christian leanings at that point have to admit that the fundamentalist crazies who “hijack” the religion have as much right to pick and choose chapter and verse that makes them feel good inside as the moderate, liberal Christian Apologist does.

We can’t get rid of fundamentalists until we get rid of their fuel: The Bible itself.

And I’m done arguing this and won’t be responding to any of your responses. Having been in far too many online and IRL spats with True Believers, the most dogged oddly enough being those of moderate and liberal leanings, I know how you’re going to respond. The argument goes round and round without end and the only reason I am posting this is because you addressed me personally. Just do us a favor? Learn some history before spouting off to atheists about what they don’t “know” concerning Christianity and other Savior-based faiths. More often than not, they know more than you about your own religion. More often than not, they’re right.

  
Quote
  Reply

Originally Posted By Red
Ok, I will try my best to point out some common misunderstandings. When God put the tree called “The tree of Knowledge” He didn’t put it there to temp man but to allow man to make a choice. Man had the ability to sin before he even took a bite of the fruit but, he didn’t sin until he took a bite. Why did God want man to have a choice? Well, because if God said to man, “You can choose between me or evil,” and then gave man no way of being able to choose evil then we would have the Ferrari paradox. That is; you can have a Ferrari in any color as long as it is red. God wanted man to choose Him on his own accord not because man had to. That is not love.

I don’t really see what difference any of this makes to what I wrote in my article. God did make the “tree of knowledge” tempting – in accordance with what you say above, this was necessary so that man had a viable alternative to following God. The thing is though, man didn’t really consciously choose “evil” – he was duped by the temptation God put in front of him (the tasty Apple, the talking snake etc.). This sort of thing would be thrown out of a court of law as entrapment, yet this is the sort of shenanigans the supposed creator of the universe indulged in so that he could have someone to love him! This therefore means that he not only is a sadist, but utterly sad and pathetic as well.

Also, let’s not forget that God created everything involved here, and he is supposed to know all that ever was, and ever will be. So he should have known what the results of his temptation would be.

The original sin is not man eating the fruit but, Satan rebelling against God and trying to place himself as God. Satan was God’s greatest angel and was also God’s best looking creation but, when Satan got too big of an ego, he decided to lead an army of his followers against God and God’s followers. Satan lost but God spared him and let him live on earth and in hell.

This is one of my favourite absurdities of the Bible – God supposedly created hell for Satan, as he is supposedly the greatest sinner of all. Yet God spared him and sent him down to earth, where he supposedly tempts we human beings into evil, so that many of us end up burning in hell instead!

There is another absurdity here as well. Heaven is supposed to be a place of perfect peace, yet (as the Bible says) there is at least one great war there. So how is heaven any better than earth then?

God does have the capacity to do evil but, God does not have the desire to because it would go against who He is. If you read the Old Testament you can read a lot of stories of God killing people. In Sodom He rained down fire and brimstone on the city. That is pretty harsh but, it said that the people were leading the world away from God and they were breaking God’s commandment to go and populate the world. They were even sacrificing babies on alters to false gods. God knew in His heart that no matter what he did they would never follow Him but they would lead the world away from Him and into its early demise. God never gets any pleasure from destroying His creation.

I will be writing about this in my next post. God in fact has a greater capacity to do evil than anyone else we know of – Hitler and Stalin pale in comparison to the atrocities committed by God in the Old Testament. There certainly isn’t anything to indicate that he doesn’t enjoy genocide and torture.

When God created woman, I personally think, God had made his greatest creation. Women are great. I love women and I know that I have a strong sexual desire for women too. Having a sexual desire is not a sin but, I think that married people should be faithful to their spouses. In a Christian marriage not only does the man promise the woman to be faithful but, he also promises God that he will be faithful to the woman and the reciprocal is true too. The breaking of a promise to God and the spouse is what the sin is. I agree with you that from a scientist’s point of view that sexual desire is what perpetuates life. It really is what drives people to want to make babies and continue the cycle of life. I actually have never had sex but, I think that sex is the second best thing that God created (women being the first). While I think that sex is great, I also think that sex is even better with the one person that we were meant to be with. Those are my personal beliefs and what I understand the bible tells me too. Oh, and I have no problem with looking at porn. I read somewhere that porn actually stops people from raping others.

I personally agree with your views on sex and porn, but you are obviously at odds with the teachings of your church here. Your views are perfectly harmonious with a purely scientific standpoint though.

  
Quote
  Reply