AnonymousHello woodsong you said:
“Ken, I think you’re getting hung up on the act of choosing (or freewill) rather than the result of choosing.”
Actually you are incorrect. I am not getting hung up on the act of choosing, nor am I getting hung up on the results of choosing. I was simply dismantling the false assumption that several posters made that evil must be an option in order for man to have free will. My point was, that if evil in not necessary in heaven in order for man to have “free will” than it should not be necessary on earth.
Then you said:
“We don’t have anything here on earth that equates to the relationship between God and his angels, completely positive in the very least, but we do have some negative examples. It boils down to the difference between what you would do for someone you loved as opposed to a slave/master scenario (all that’s pretty obvious so I won’t go into it).”
I think you should have went into that one! You must forgive my ignorance but, I haven’t the faintest idea what you are talking about here, you’ve completely lost me on that one! But what ever point you were trying to make, I don’t think it dismantles the point I made that evil isn’t a necessary option in order for man to have free will so my point still stands
Another point you made was
“As to all these supposedly “natural” evils, I disagree. They are only “evil” to man’s world (and the destruction of his “things”). In nature, they all serve a purpose in the maintaining of the balance of nature. Humans have gotten in the way so these will understandibly impact us, but they are not “evil.”
Now as far as natural disasters, it wasn’t me who implied that natural disasters like earth quakes were evil, that was lessofme. I was simply dismantling his point by saying that if this world was perfect, they would not be necessary
Peace
Ken
