Movie: "God on Trial"

But this isn't a good analogy for God loving all of us but punishing those of us who reject Him. The child and the paedophile are two distinct people; we are not. Unless you mean to say that God only loves believers, and hates non-believers?You might say that, in the analogy, the children represent us and the paedophile represents sin, but it is we who suffer God's wrath, not sin, so that doesn't work either.

I've seen you use this type of language before, where you are differentiating between eternal torture and eternal separation from God. Are you saying that this separation from God isn't such a bad thing, maybe only a 6 on the discomfort scale rather than a 10? This might make God out to be less of a monster, certainly. But then that would kind of lessen the whole impact of Jesus being the Savior, since what we would be saving us from would be moderate suffering, which a lot of us are already undergoing here and now.If, on the other hand, this separation is real and terrible suffering, are you really saying that people knowingly and willfully, with full comprehension of the consequences, choose this over God? That seems very unlikely.

and in the same post I beg to differ, very very much. If eternal torment is the consequence that follows, then EVERY OTHER issue associated with the choice is so insignificant as to be effectively non-existant.

Are you saying that God intentionally set it up so that we can't know the real consequences of our choice, because to not do so would be to make it no choice at all, the right answer being so obvious? That sounds an awful lot like deception, never mind the other obvious repercussions of that line of argument.

I think you know that in the context of my statement the "right answer" is the answer God prefers. He may allow us to choose, but He would rather we choose Him, right?So I would still like an answer. Are you saying that God intentionally set it up so that we can't know the real consequences of our choice, because to not do so would be to make it no choice at all, the answer that God prefers being the obvious choice? So, due to whatever set of circumstances (blame it on Adam/us if you want), we have to make a choice, and one choice leads to eternal torment. That's bad, but not too bad, because not many people will choose eternal torment, for obvious reasons. Then, God steps in and makes it much more likely that billions of people WILL choose eternal torment. This makes God evil. That's quite a repercussion, I think.

Not really; your sort of dancing around the question. Maybe I'm not being clear enough. The statement you made back in post 39: sounded like you were saying that God does not want us to fully understand the repercussions of our choice, because that would make it essentially no choice at all. That idea kind of blew me away, so I've been trying ever since to find out if you believe that God has intentionally set up the circumstance so that we don't fully understand the repercussions; one of which, lest we forget, is the unimaginably inhumane eternal torment.

Well, to that, what else can I say but "holey f'ing crap"?One thing's for sure: whatever God's moral philosophy is, it certainly isn't utilitarian.

There's a couple of ways I could go with this. For one, it seems very twisted to say that the situation where information is witheld from the chooser results in a more free choice.For two, and I guess this is more opinion than cold hard logic: limiting, or even eliminating, free choice is easily justified by keeping the chooser from an eternity of suffering. It's not even close. Edited by Aware Wolf, : Clarification

Except we are never put out of our misery. We are put INTO misery, for eternity.Correction, WE put ourselves into eternal misery, by making the wrong decision- excuse me, the unfortunate decision - between two choices which have been made to look like 6 in one, 1/2 dozen in the other. This is so that God can ligitimately claim that he never biased our decision with the actual facts of the matter.

I believe I do understand it, and I still believe that the free-er choice is the one where you have all the information available to you. Just because one outcome seems preferable to another doesn't mean I'm not free to choose either outcome; just that the exertion of my free will will most often end up with my choosing the "better" option. Not sure I followed all that. You say that removing free will from a person makes him not a person. OK, I guess. It's still a thing that has nerve endings and pain receptors. Try to picture in your head a "thing" (person, non-person, whatever) writhing in agony. Now imagine that the agony never ceases, ever. Tell me your skin doesn't crawl.

If the person is free to choose either one, than it is a free choice, by definition. The fact that one choice is more attractive than the other does not magically remove someone's free will. The fact that I didn't slam my hand into my car door this morning does not mean that that choice was not available to me. Jeez, iano, seriously? If you saw that someone was about to jam an ice pick into his leg, for whatever reason, you would stand by and let it happen, because the thought of interfering with his free choice is more repugnant to you than the thought of the agony he is about to experience?

To me it's just simply obvious that interfering is the right, moral thing to do. Maybe this is an area where we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'll just make sure never to ask you to babysit my kids.It was pleasant debating you, but I think I'll head back into lurker mode.

I meant to stay in lurker mode, but I dreampt up this thought experiment and knew I just had to share it with you.I am going to be put into a box for a week. I will have all the fresh air and water I need, but as for food, I have to take it in with me. I am brought before two crates; I have to choose between these crates. One contains wholesome food that will last for a week, the other contains the rotten fillet steak you spoke of earlier. I can't differentiate the two so there's a 50% chance I'll choose "wrong"; or unfortunately, if you prefer.You are there also, and you know which is which, and are allowed to either tell me or keep the information to yourself.Will telling me which is which limit my free will, or free choice?
Which action on your part is the more moral?

Who knows from whence misspellings come? My surname does happen to be of Irish origin, but I don't know how many generations I'd have to go back - more than four, anyways - to find an ancestor living on the Emerald Isle. I see your point. Let's see if I can't improve the scenario.In this new scenario, I can see what is in the two crates I have to choose between. One has healthy, wholesome food: chicken breast, salad, oatmeal; that sort of thing. The other has chocolate cake, cookies, jelly beans, etc. Now it's no longer a guess; both choices have positives and negatives, and it's not a slam dunk either way. At least it wouldn't be for me.In this new scenario, the information you have that I don't is: the junk food is laced with some sort of chemical that will make me very sick when I eat it: stomache cramps, muschle aches - you get the point.So I pose my two questions again:
Are you limiting my free will by giving me the information?
What is the more moral thing for you to do?Edited by Aware Wolf, : Clarification of wording

Could you make this a little clearer? I understand you think intervening in this situation is the moral thing to do, but I'm not following why - I'm stuck on the whole free/unbalanced/choice/guess thing.So, clearly, I have tried to make this an analogous situation to God not revealing the entire consequences of our choice to accept or reject him. Earlier in this thread you argued that it is more moral for God to leave the choice more balanced, (that is, hide or de-emphasize the real consequence: eternal bliss vs. eternal torment) than to reveal the full information. In my thought experiment, you (in the analogous God role) chose the other way. How do you explain this?Edited by Aware Wolf, : Punctuation for clarity