Does Christianity allow for free will?

OK, they gained the 'kowledge of good & evil' when they ate of the tree. That much appears to be obvious within the context of Genesis. Innocent children are easily conned. You would think that God, being God, could have made absolutely sure they didn't fall for the serpent's "trap", but as I was tought, it was a test to see if A&E would be faithful to God. Or was it something else? Is it possible that the story has been worked over, or added to by a 'redactor'? Is it just possible that Adam & God & the serpent were buddies and were trying to finish the 'creation' without messing things up? Could it be that Eve, as beautiful as she supposedly was("...now this is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh")was a silly air-head with a hot-bod, and Adam just couldn't resist? Some christians still believe that "eating the fruit" was a metaphor for sex.

In Message 31, above, Prozacman offers that ,"some christians still believe that "eating the fruit" was a metaphor for sex."And, indeed, the Christian Bible gives examples of fruit metaphors; but few of them are exclussively sexual metaphors:"You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits." Matthew 7:16-20"Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such there is no law." Galatians 5:19Islam, on the other hand, is more direct in targetting the location of the portals of sin. Maybe the following scripture is pertinent to the Garden story subject of Message 31 above:"God's messenger said, 'Do you know the thing which most commonly brings people into Paradise? It is fear to God and good character. Do you know what most commonly brings people into hell? It is the two hollow things: the mouth and the private parts." Hadith of Tirmidhi and Ibn MajahI am not a biblical scholar, rabbi, or priest, so my personal interpretations of various biblical fables cannot be considered gospel; but I would rather think that the Deity in the Garden fable was saying, "While in Paradise, you will want for absolutely nothing so long as you unquestionably follow My dietary and moral rules, search for no answers to the mysteries of the Universe, heed no advise from nor place any stock in other entities (including each other's fantasies or 'inquisitive personal demons'), and leave the creating and procreating decisions to Me."But really, that interpretation is just as simplistically Judeo/Christian as boiling it all down to fig leaves, nakedness, carnal lust, sex, guilt, transferral of blame, and eviction from paradise interpretations given by others.So what is an alternative?"If you, Rahula, are desirous of doing a deed with the body, you should reflect on that deed of your body, thus: 'That deed that I am desirous of doing with the body is a deed of my body that might conduce to the harm of self and that might conduce to the harm of others and that might conduce to the harm of both; this deed of body is unskilled, its yield is anguish, its result is anguish.' If you, Rahula, reflecting thus, should find it so, a deed of body like this, Rahula, is certainly not to be done by you." Majjhima Nikaya i.415, Ambalatthika-Rahulovada SuttaGosh! That almost sounds like Rabbi Hillel's or Jesus of Nazareth's "Golden Rule" ideas.L'chaim chavarem.

Isn't it interesting how most(if not all?) religions on earth seem to teach similar morals? Perhaps someday the leaders of all these religions will lock themselves in a room somewhere, give up all their theologies, and stick with what they have in common. Yeah right.[This message has been edited by Prozacman, 01-17-2004]

Dear Prozacman:Some of them have, and have joined Secular Humanism.Peace.

Prozacman,
Ok, I was trying to meet two requirements in Post #27:1) Stay on topic(maybe questionable)
2) Show Phatboy that even assuming the event ocurred as written in Genesis logically the interpretation that is commonly held could not stand.Now, of course, if you bring up the questionability of the interpretation, I agree with you. I would even suggest that Adam and Eve could be two groups of people. The one group that did not fail then became the "Chosen" people. Why does it necessarily need to be that Eve was an actual female "hottie" that Adam, an actual male, could not resist. It could very well be that this story like many others is meant as the first lesson to be learned in rebeling against god? HIGHLY speculative, but yet another plausible interpretation don't you think?

Secular Humanism. Hmm... Two very bad words for conservative christians. They would have us choose against that concept for reasons which are mistaken, because their understanding of it is mistaken. I think Jesus would agree with the ideals of secular humanism; Treating people as you want to be treated, giving to the needy unselfishly, making friends out of enemies, etc. Instead we are told by the conservatives to listen to them and believe like they do or we will end up in a screaming-in-hideous-pain-forever-hell-fire. APOCALYPTIC BLASPHEMING ABOMINATIONS! Do we really have a free will?? Not by that theology.

Maybe that's a plausible interpretation. However, it may be the the ancient Hebrew writer of the story was barrowing from stories in Sumerian-Babylonian myth, and adapting them to his religious concepts; just an idea that seems to be floating around in the world of mythology. If you ask me, assuming A&E were real people, which I don't believe anyway, then they really had no choice but to "eat of the fruit". Because then the writer(s) of Genesis wouldn't have much of a story for the priests to use in controlling the population, would he? Nor would we have the mythical basis for Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, would we?[This message has been edited by Prozacman, 01-20-2004]

In fact, I think just about everything was borrowed from their differing captors. You're definitely "preaching to the choir" here.

I have always said it and I will say it again: In Genesis, God did not create evil. He created the knowledge of evil. One could say that the tree of knowledge of good and evil= the tree of the knowledge of Gods reality and all possible alternatives.
Lucifer exercised Free Will by choosing to rebel. Obviously God gave Lucifer the ability to even rebel. I would argue that at that point, God did not create evil, since God never created an evil Lucifer. God created the right to decide. Lucifer decided. Evil became a reality. Later, Eve was given a choice. God DID put both trees in the garden.
Eve was warned not to eat the fruit. If God had not put the fruit there, perhaps in the metaphysical scheme of things, Eve never would have been given an option to seek out alternative wisdom apart from God. At least, thats how I see it.

Phatboy:Please reread Message #8.In Message #8, I point out that in Genesis, on the "2nd Day" God did not "see that it was good" as he did on the other first six days of Creation. What I'm asking is "was there something inherent in the separation of firmaments that was inherently 'not good' and therefore 'evil'?" If so, then possibly this is the point in the Creation Story where creationist may start their search for the creation of evil.This is an idea put forth by others and I am asking you or other creationists directly "why did God not 'find it good' with regard to what was created on the second day.If evil was created on the second day and humans were created later, then evil preceeds "fee will."What your theory, as implied in Message #39, seems to imply is that God created everything else but evil, and that evil was created by some entity other than the Primary Creator. How does that jibe with the traditional literalists idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, singular "Creator?" Well, in fact, it doesn't.Peace.

OK, Abshalom, let me check my reference notes. The Old Testament scripture is more difficult for me to discern than is N.T. scrip.
Wycliffe ible Commentary remarks thus: Now, I am not a concrete literalist concerning Genesis. I am an abstract realist. Original Sin, for example, is a concrete fact. Adam and Eve as real people is a bit more abstract.

Phatboy:I know it's hard for Christians to focus in on the concept that there is only One God that creates Everything. I think it's hard for you when you get to the point of feeling obligated to defend your messiah against the idea that his father "created" evil.Maybe it's because y'all have a hard time conceiving that a "loving god" could create something not associated with "love." But it would seem that you also are obligated by your core beliefs, or at least by their origin (OT monotheism), to accept that One God created All.Our argument, however, focuses on "when" the One God created evil. I am not advocating a belief system, Phatboy. What I am arguing is that if you believe that One God created All, you should want to know correctly "when" a particular item was created in association with other items of creation so that you have a more clear concept of how it all fits together in the system of beliefs that you have chosen; and that when you advocate, that you advocate correctly and not in some fanciful apologetic manner that excuses your god or his parts from the whole's responsibilities for its total creation.So, until I have more time to dig out my Kabbalah references to give you exact citations of the concept that evil was created when the necessary physical space within the primordal wholeness was made for the material creation of "the earth" or "the universe" or whatever you feel was created at Genesis, I will leave you with this reference to ponder:Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."Peace.

And as I have stated before, even though I do not have a firm backing of scriptures to support my belief, I say that God did not ever create evil. He created a free willed creation who chose evil. Lucifer was created as an angel, yet Lucifer used his own mind to choose his will for life. After this, perhaps because a dualistic concept of choice was set up=namely, Choice#1=all God all the time. Choice#2=limitless possibilities that do not include God. Thus, as far as the sum total of all possible decisions and choices, an omnipotant, singular Creator allowed for free will which, by definition excluded the possible decisions and choices which that Creator would have his creation choose. The Creator never chose for us to do or commit evil. He did choose for us to choose.[This message has been edited by Phatboy, 02-13-2004]

In Message #43, Phatboy informs the reader, "I say that God did not ever create evil."In Message #42, Abshalom provides a verse wherein God, through Isaiah says he did create evil.In Message #43, Phatboy says, "He created a free willed creation who chose evil. Lucifer was created as an angel ..."Where is the creation of "Lucifer" confirmed in the Genesis Story, or for that matter, where is the creation of "Lucifer" documented anywhere other than in folklore outside the Bible?Phatboy continues, "... yet Lucifer used his own mind to choose his will for life."For himself? For the rest of us? And again, outside of folklore, where is either claim documented?Phatboy continues, "After this, perhaps because a dualistic concept of choice was set up ..."That's exactly one of my major points in Message #42, namely, that the Christian concept of good and evil is a dualistic, Zoroastrian-like concept and not a biblical (OT) monotheistic concept.Phatboy explains his dualistic (not monotheistic) concept: "Choice#1=all God all the time. Choice#2=limitless possibilities that do not include God."So, we as humans under the dualistic concept have "limitless possibilities" to challenge an omnipotent, monotheistic god? Or is it "Lucifer" who has these limitless possibilities apparently on a par (at least to the degree of creation and exercise of evil) with an omnipotent, monotheistic god?Phatboy, another way to look at the point that I'm trying to make is that the Bible, at least in the Tanakh portion of it, seems to be a process of monotheism resulting in a unified supernatural force responsible for the creation of all things and omnipotence over all creation.Therefore, if one perceives a metaphysical world made up of independent forces responsible for light and darkness, good and evil, etc., it seems that one who perceive such a metaphysical would embrace a dualistic concept like Zoroaster-ism, or another more polytheistic religion similar to the Egyptian mythologies involving Osiris (Father), Set (Satan), Isis (Madonna), and Horus (Child).Peace.

Abshalom! Great points! I will readily admit that I have no referenceas to back up my view. I will argue that my view is valid within the definitions of Trinitarian Monotheism. Both Jesus and Satan conceivably could be considered separate from God, if we are monotheistic vs Pantheistic. Jesus as Gods very character and essence in a human form still had the ability to freely choose His path. The difference in the scheme of things can be shown as folows:
1)GOD-Yahweh. Undefineable except as a monotheistic God whom chose to relate to us.
2)Lucifer-A created being. An angel who was given the right to choose and in fact did choose.
3)Mankind- Before the Fall, no knowledge of anything but God. Was given free choice and chose wrongly.(by my definition)Once "enlightened", man can no longer discern the relationship with God. Man can discern virtually limitless other stories and strategies..yet cannot find the truth.
JESUS- God Incarnate. As both a son of man and a son of God, Jesus was as we are in that He was an offspring of the good/evil flow...namely through humanity, and yet He was and Is an offspring of the Godflow...namely Yahweh. Jesus freely chose His Father Yahweh and by becoming a sacrifice for all, He reunited Man with the Truth. Now, we are all able to freely choose and we also have the wisdom of the right choice. It is up to us. That is why Christians say that Jesus is the only way. It makes some spirits mad but not the One Spirit whom loves all of us. And in this context, Isaiah is correct. God did create evil in that God created the whole process that allowed Lucifer to choose. God did not create evil for us, however. We have the choice to choose. [This message has been edited by Phatboy, 02-13-2004][This message has been edited by Phatboy, 02-13-2004]