Free Will
Wed, 01/30/2008 - 12:43 — admin
If we consider human suffering in relation to personal freedom and responsibility, as many prominent theologians have, then the burden of such suffering rests not on the shoulders of God, but on those of each and every individual possessed of such free will.
It is a common belief of Hinduism, Vaishnavism, and also many Christian religions that God has endowed the living entities with willpower and freedom of choice, and that by the proper or improper utilization of such will, they bring upon themselves either pain or pleasure. Since every living entity is at least to some degree a free moral agent, the possibility is naturally there that he may act in a manner which will bring suffering upon himself or others.3
MICHAEL: This idea has been challenged by some philosophers who argue that an all-powerful God should be able to create beings who, although they have free choice, would never act wrongly.4
TEACHER: This is tantamount to saying a person is free to go wherever he or she desires, so long as it is not out of the yard! In other words, there is not much question of freedom, since if this were the case, it would mean that God had built a control factor into the living beings which placed external stipulations on the internal exercise of their free will.5 What’s more, this argument tends to move us in the direction of being pawns in a game, since the factor of predestination enters proportionately to the degree that we consider external stipulations to be part of our free will and power of choice.
Thus, the argument that God is not all-powerful since He didn’t create free-willed individuals who would never act wrongly does not have a solid foundation.
Narada is a perfect example of a bona fide disciple. Even though his guru, Lord Brahma, was immensely powerful, still Narada did not blindly accept him as the Supreme Lord Himself.Free Will
Science of Identity Foundation – Chris Butler Speaks
If we consider human suffering in relation to personal freedom and responsibility, as many prominent theologians have, then the burden of such suffering rests not on the shoulders of God, but on those of each and every individual possessed of such free will.
It is a common belief of Hinduism, Vaishnavism, and also many Christian religions that God has endowed the living entities with willpower and freedom of choice, and that by the proper or improper utilization of such will, they bring upon themselves either pain or pleasure. Since every living entity is at least to some degree a free moral agent, the possibility is naturally there that he may act in a manner which will bring suffering upon himself or others.3
MICHAEL: This idea has been challenged by some philosophers who argue that an all-powerful God should be able to create beings who, although they have free choice, would never act wrongly.4
TEACHER: This is tantamount to saying a person is free to go wherever he or she desires, so long as it is not out of the yard! In other words, there is not much question of freedom, since if this were the case, it would mean that God had built a control factor into the living beings which placed external stipulations on the internal exercise of their free will.5 What’s more, this argument tends to move us in the direction of being pawns in a game, since the factor of predestination enters proportionately to the degree that we consider external stipulations to be part of our free will and power of choice.
Thus, the argument that God is not all-powerful since He didn’t create free-willed individuals who would never act wrongly does not have a solid foundation.