If we had the physical ability to get by via blind instinct, free will probably wouldn't much matter. But our only real asset is our intelligence--our ability to adapt to the world around us, to consider things in ways other creatures can't--so that inevitably comes with free will included. Free will and intelligence, working in conjunction with one another, are the best tool that weak, ill-equipped beings like ourselves have with which to survive.

That, naturally, allows for stupidity. But when one person is stupid, another person is always able to recognize that fact; and when we do something stupid, most of the time we acknowledge that fact that our actions were stupid. Thus, we learn from the mistakes of our peers, and we learn from our own mistakes, and that influences our choices from then on. Free will is actually complimented by the consequences of stupidity, as those consequences act as choice's guide.

So ill choices, while hindering the survival or well-being of the individual involved, can actually help--both the perpetrators and the on-lookers.

That said, I never asserted that free will is the solve-all, cure-all. I merely said that it's the best tool we pathetic human beings have. Brains over brawn: this is how our creator/evolutionary development has molded us.

Like the animals we supposedly evolved from?  Here's where evolutionary theory breaks down.  Most animals do just run on blind instinct.  We're supposed to be more advanced than them, yet we lack a key ability they have.

And they also lack a key ability that we have.

We are weak and ill-equipped - I don't dispute that.  But, by some standards, so are ants.

And by others, they are not. They've simply developed (hypothetically allowing the truth of evolutionism) along different lines.

If that were true, the saying, "history repeats itself" would have no basis in reality.  Alcoholism, child abuse, and a whole host of other social woes would not be repeated generation after generation.  Prisons would cease to exist because people would have finally learned by now that crime doesn't pay.  I've spent much time in meetings with really smart people who blindly follow in their alky parent's footsteps.  Even my dad drank for another seven years after his drinking put him in a wheelchair for life.  Theoretically, it sounds really good that people learn from stupidity, but in reality it doesn't hold up.

Hold the phone. I didn't say we always, inevitably learn from our mistakes. I said we have the ability to learn from them. I said that when someone is stupid, there are always people who recognize that and learn from it. I didn't say that all people always recognize or learn from it, I was saying that there are always those who do.

Do you have an example of a time when a person learned from the stupidity of another person?  Or, do you have enough examples of this to support what you're saying?  I can think of plenty of examples that dispute it.

Well, for example, that madness with Hitler and the holocaust pretty much killed the whole "forced sterilization" idea...

I'm not saying you did.  Just that free will is a tool to aid our survival.  I fully agree with you that we humans are pathetic.

But you're saying that because there are kinks and flaws in the system, the system doesn't work. Well, the system sure has gotten us this far, despite those kinks and flaws. It will probably get us farther, but the fact that it's gotten us as far as it has is a testament to its effectiveness.

It's been all over the media lately that our planet is on the verge of frying due to our own choices and the whole thing could have been prevented.  Wars continue to happen.  People continue to think that revenge will get them somewhere.  Cigarettes won't kill them.  Babies can be shaken.  Exercise isn't necessary.  Unprotected sex won't make you pregnant, or give you aids or herpes or crabs.  Drinking and driving is a good mix.  I could go on but I think you get my point.

 

Well, isn't that lovely. But that often isn't free will in conjunction with the intelligence that gives us that free will--it's just free will. "Reckless abandon masquerading as liberty," as one editorialist called it. That's stupidity. It may be our undoing. But it's an unfortunate consequence of free will. It hurts us, but it helps us at the same time. The thing that really makes free will complicated is that it all depends on the individual, so there'll inevitably be problems.

So, how is our free will aiding us?

Like I said, it's gotten us this far, hasn't it?

Quote

And they also lack a key ability that we have.

That is true, but it shoots a huge hole in evolution.  Where did our ability come from if it is lacking in the animals?

Actually, it doesn't shoot a huge hole in evolution. That's like saying, "Humans have less legs than spiders--why don't humans have eight legs?! Evolution must be a load of B.S..."

Animals evolve along different lines. Why d'ya think we have some that eat plants, some that eat meat, and some that eat both? Why d'ya think we have birds, fish, and land animals, instead of only birds, fish, or land animals?

But, in a sense, you did say that.  Your position is that intelligence and free will are qualities that, hypothetically given the truth of evolution, developed to aid us in our survival.  Yet, a casual glance at history and society as a whole shows that, more often than not, we don't use them wisely.  In light of that, reality teaches something different.

-_-' A casual glance at history shows us also that intelligence and free will have gotten us a great deal further than other living things. In fact, intelligence and free will have made us pretty much the rulers of the planet. Heck, a casual glance at the present tells us that. What do you think intelligence and free will are, then, if that is true?

But, as the Kurds and the Tutsi's in Africa testify to, (actually most of them can't because they've been murdered) the idea of ethnic cleansing is still going strong.

But not here, and it's because we learned from somebody else's mistakes. I thought I already said that learning from our stupidity needn't be universal? It may sound cold, but the Kurds and the Tutsies aren't helping themselves with their bloody killing sprees, are they? Unless they wise up, they'll eventually kill most of each other off, and what then? But do we have that particular problem? NO! Because (most of us) have learned from the mistakes of the Nazis. Those among our society who haven't... like the Neo Nazis and white-supremecy folks... well, they are, thankfully, too minor a minority to really affect the larger scheme of things (thought they are definitely a BIG problem on the individual level).

If you own a home and two cars, you are in the wealthiest 5% of the world.  (I don't have the source for that one.)
Two thirds of the harlequin frogs in South America have gone extinct in the last few years. (Time Magazine.)
One third of the world is hungry, one third of it is starving.  The problem is purely political.  (Sorry, don't have the source again.)
There have been very few times throughout the history of the world when starvation was genuinely caused by lack of food - the vast majority were political.  (A Green History of the World, by Clive Ponting)
Within 50 years, there will be enough greenhouse gasses in the environment to raise temperatures 18 degrees.  This will have disasterous effects for the vast majority of the earth's inhabitants.  Ironically, it is the particle pollution that has shielded us from the majority of the greenhouse effect from methane and CO2.  As we clean up the particle pollution, the greenhouse effect will multiply.  (PBS Special on the environment)
As I told my kids the other day about a different issue, we haven't seen the rest of the story yet.   We don't know how well the system is working.
I'm not pointing a green thumb at anyone here.  My family drives the required SUV's.  I could ride my bike to the library instead of driving the big long one mile.  But I don't.  Because I am selfish and self-centered.  Because, like most everyone else, I didn't take the scientists seriously.  If most people really get honest they too will have to admit that they were only concerned with their own creature comforts.
I will say that IF people's free wills operated as designed, the world would look completely different.  But, they don't and it doesn't.

But as another person pointed out, it's really more about the individual survival than it is about the survival of the species. This may sound cold, but the fact that a large amount of people aren't well-provided-for isn't a very large blow to either evolutionism or this particular part of it.

Saying that "IF people's free wills operated as designed, the world would look completely different" is just like saying "IF God worked as he's supposed to, the world would look completely different." The difference is that the question is more confusing when applied to an allegedly benevolent and all-good God than it is when applied to a purely materialistic scientific theory, as pure materialism is inherently merciless. Just like I say when I argue that debating God's alleged behaviors is less important than considering physical and historical evidence to determine the validity of his existence, so I say that debating whether or not you like the condition of things is less important than debating how things got to be in that condition.

And a big difference between Evolutionism and Creationism... Evolutionism doesn't have to have a happy ending, so don't assume it's supposed to.

It reminds me of a joke I heard.  A guy was saying that when he got to heaven he wanted to ask God why He allowed bad things to happen.  His friend said, "He's going to ask you that same question."

Asking why God allows bad things to happen and asking why evolution allows bad things to happen really aren't so different, when you think about it...

That's kind of my point.  I don't know of one single person (actually, yes I do but too many people don't believe He exists)  Anyway, I know one person who successfully lived with free will the way it was intended to operate.

You talk like evolution is supposed to be an intelligent being with intentions! It's really just our own gradual adaptations, and it's prime concern (like the concerns of our own instincts) is the present, individual survival, and individual reproduction. And that, friend, is the essence of materialism. It's not a very romantic or idealistic view, now, is it?

Quote

Animals evolve along different lines. Why d'ya think we have some that eat plants, some that eat meat, and some that eat both? Why d'ya think we have birds, fish, and land animals, instead of only birds, fish, or land animals?

Ah, but the difference is they all have legs and they all eat.  The qualities I'm talking about are completely lacking in totality in the animal kingdom.  Where did these abilities come from?

Fine, then, why don't we have wings? Why can't we spin webs? Why can't we run as fast as a cheetah?! And why (oh why) don't we humans have sharper claws and sharper teeth instead of all these stupid guns 'n' knives?

-_-' Those are all abilities totally lacking in humanity. And they're also abilities totally lacking in much of the rest of the animal kingdom, too. Pretty much every different type of creature has its own unique advantages; it's recognized in evolutionism that each one was going to adapt to its own conditions, and they were going to do so differently. Like you said, they all have legs and they all eat. Well, they all have the means to get food and they all eat. The same principle applies here, and the same principle applies to intelligence. You can't make an exception just 'cause you feel like it, that's double standard.

Free Will - the ability to choose right from wrong.  The ability to ignore instinct.  To compare to a salmon, the ability to choose whether or not to swim upstream.

Or for a human, the ability to choose whether or not to have kids, the ability to choose whether or not to get revenge, the ability to choose whether or not to be selfish, etc...

Picture Harry and Stan, two salmon, chatting at the mouth of the river.

Harry - "Yep, I can't wait to get up there, fight those rapids, prove my manhood, ya know?"
Stan - "Yeah, I don't know.  I think I'm going to go bask in the warm waters instead.  I'm concerned about overpopulation so I'm not going."

or, to be consistent,

Stan - "I think that I can do my thing down here.  Rapids, phooey.  I don't need to fight them.  The eggs will come to me."

-_-'

Fortunately for them, salmon don't have free will, so that's a non-issue.

I suppose you blame the Jews for the Holocaust as well?

I suppose you ignored the part where I attributed the stupidity of said Holocaust to Hitler and the Nazis?

What you are expressing is classic American arrogance.

No, just simple practicality. We've gotten past that bit of foolishness, but other people are still wrapped up in it. You're speaking as if because the Kurds and Tutsis are still killing people, everyone is still killing people. Not so. Not even close. There's still a lot of that idea around, but we, as a society, have largely "outgrown" it because we saw the folly of it in others. (Why do you think people commonly consider Hitler a nutcase? Come on, think about it.)

"Well, we don't have those kind of problems because we're smarter than that."  Almost implies that we've evolved farther than the Hutus and Saddam Hussein.

Well, Saddam Hussein didn't get a very savory reward for all of his evolutionary superiority, did he?

If you are still standing on intelligence and free will being an aid to survival, then YES, it is supposed to be universal in the species.

-_-' Darwinism, which is often inexplicably tied to evolutionism, stresses "survival of the fittest." That inevitably means that part of the species, or part of the general crowd of living creatures, is going to be outmoded by the better ones. That means that it's really the individual that rules evolutionism--you get better, rise up, make babies, and behold, you're the fittest and you've survived (and perpetuated your brand of evolutionary development with young 'uns to carry it on).

And, simply because America lacks genocide issues does not mean it lacks other telltale signs of stupid.

I didn't say that, please don't assume it was implied, I said they had learned from that stupidity...

One in three American women has been sexually abused.  Crack babies.  STDs.  People are still dying from drunk driving.  Forcing parents to terminate their parental rights for neglect and abuse.  Negative savings rate, and so on and so on.

Which is stuff we're all still learning from, and which many of us have learned from. Point in question being that even if the society or species as a whole hasn't learned from it yet, the individual probably has.

But that isn't consistent with what you're saying.  It's like saying half of all spiders have eight legs and only half of those use all eight legs.  The ones with four legs survive just as well as those with eight, but eight legs developed to aid the survival of the species.  It doesn't add up.

No, it's actually like saying that most of all spiders will use those eight legs chiefly to get their own food rather than to get food for other spiders.

No, actually that's shifting the blame.  "Nope, it can't be that the people are whacked so it must be God."

Um, that's what I was saying. I was trying to point out that the question is misguided. "It can't be that the people are whacked, so it must've been a flaw in our evolutionary development!" It comes to the same thing.

Don't misunderstand me here.  This isn't about how well I like the condition of things.  I asked if the statement, "Free will is an aid to our survival." is really true.

But you criteria for what an "aid" is seems overly rigid to my eyes.

Neither does Creationism here on earth anyway.  Humans are going to mess things up pretty badly here on earth.  Kind of like global warming.

So then it's not evolution that screwed up--it's God or whatever Creator put together the universe, who screwed up! Now I'm seein' it!

Not at all.  Evolution is the lack of intelligence and lack of intentions.

So why say that intelligence and free will aren't working "as intended," if in fact they weren't intended for anything at all?

It makes things like justice, love, mercy, and so on utterly irrelevant.

That can be rightly said. But said qualities do have their practical values, which you seem to recognize when you argue that injustice and stupidity detract from the idea that intelligence and free will are aides to our survival.

My mom, a staunch atheist, likes to say, "Life is pretty cheap."

Well, as Edward Elric would point out, humans are very cheaply made.

This is straying into another area, but under evolutionary theory, global warming is irrelevant as well.  The death of a loved one doesn't matter then.  Death doesn't matter.  Kind of what we see in the animal kingdom.  Just the fact that these things are relevant to us is another death blow to evolution.  (Pun intented.)  I appreciate the atheists who claim, once again, that these things developed for the survival of the species.  But, that's not true.  Most animals don't even know who their fathers are yet they survive just fine.  Justice, love, mercy and so on actually can be a real pain in the hinder.  As can our ability to choose.  Life would be much easier if we didn't have free will.

So our intelligence would just go on and develop guns, knives, nuclear weapons, et cetera without providing us the ability not to use them. Oh, that'd be a wonderful arrangement, no mistake about it. And without those "hindering" qualities you mentioned, we really wouldn't have the incentive to use that free will thusly. It seems somewhat unreasonable to me that we should have our level of intelligence, yet no free will or morality...

Quote

Fine, then, why don't we have wings? Why can't we spin webs? Why can't we run as fast as a cheetah?! And why (oh why) don't we humans have sharper claws and sharper teeth instead of all these stupid guns 'n' knives?

That's why I'm not an evolutionist.

Neither am I, but I'm not gonna assume it's definitely wrong because all these different species supposedly developed all these different methods of survival that all happen to work despite their diversity. And inexplicably they work in conjunction to keep our planet ticking, isn't that an interesting thing?

Quote

Or for a human, the ability to choose whether or not to have kids, the ability to choose whether or not to get revenge, the ability to choose whether or not to be selfish, etc...

Exactly.

So we have the learned ability to deny ourselves immediate gratification, possibly in favor of a more effective, logical outcome, and that's a negative to free will?

...

I'm not sure I see how that merits an "Exactly."

Quote

Quote

I suppose you blame the Jews for the Holocaust as well?

I suppose you ignored the part where I attributed the stupidity of said Holocaust to Hitler and the Nazis?

Um, the Kurds and the Tutsis were the VICTIMS of genocide, not the perpetrators.

Pardon me, but all these foriegn names tend to get mixed up in mind...

Lemme see...

It was the Hutus who slaughtered the Tutsis and...

*thinks*

Dang, I can't even remember what the name "Kurd" belongs to...

Quote

Well, Saddam Hussein didn't get a very savory reward for all of his evolutionary superiority, did he?

That doesn't negate his actions.  He still managed to kill an awful lot of people.  And, he had six children so his genes have been amply passed on.

If one's talking of the effectiveness of one's actions, one must inevitably consider the consequences of one's actions. That he had six children doesn't negate that he himself came to an unpleasant end for his means, nor does it negate the possibility of one or more of his children using different methods (albeit possibly as ineffective) than he did.

Saudi Arabia has one of the worst human rights standards in the world.  As do most Muslim nations and China.  Yet, in Saudi Arabia, the birthrate right now is at over 6 children per woman.  (Twilight in the Desert by Matthew R Simmons)  I don't have exact numbers for the rest of those countries, but I know they're growing like crazy.  At the same time, America's birthrate has been below replacement level since 1970.  Your theory does not bear out in reality.

Birth rate has to take into account population and population density. There's no shortage of people here; a high birth rate would be to our disadvantage. That is true in any species; too many rabbits in an area, not enough food to feed the rabbits. Rabbits thusly starve to death 'til the number gets bumped down to a point where there's food for most or all. In other words, we survive and reproduce effectively (as opposed to unreasonably), so we are apparently quite fit as a society. I don't know enough about Saudi Arabia to conclude this or that as to its fitness.

But please, don't confuse this with "my idea." It's actually Darwins, and I'm not allied to it. I'm just defending it in my own mind--this is more for myself than for you, if you follow me.

Which totally negates evolutionary theory.  If each individual has to learn the same lessons their parents, grandparents, and so on had to learn, how is the future of the species being affected?  What is really being passed on from generation to generation?

The lessons each individual learns are passed from generation to generation and person to person. Whether that transition is always successful or permanent is a completely different issue altogether, but all children are initially indoctrinated into the beliefs of their parents (indoctrination is rocky and conflicted where parents differ in belief). This isn't just religion, it's ethics and logic.

An aid is something beneficial.

Then your criteria for "beneficial" seems to rigid. In any case, it looks to me like you expect too much.
 

Quote

So then it's not evolution that screwed up--it's God or whatever Creator put together the universe, who screwed up! Now I'm seein' it!

No, it's not God, it's the humans.  God has never held a gun to my head and threatened to kill me if I didn't beat up my neighbor.  Brute force is the only circumstance under which blame is an acceptable defence.

The point is, someone screwed up, but when considering evolution as related to free will, you attribute the blame to the hypothetical evolution, as opposed to blaming the errant individuals who, quite independant of each other, screwed up and misused their intelligence and free will.

Quote

So why say that intelligence and free will aren't working "as intended," if in fact they weren't intended for anything at all?

Because I'm not an evolutionist.

Apparently not, because to say these things are intended to work in a certain way might apply to Theist Evolutionism, but not to the materialist ideas.

They would be - if they were functioning correctly.  Given the reality we live in, our free will is corrupted.  We don't choose the right things.

What's "right," if materialism is hypothetically assumed? There is only "harm" and "help," and everything else in the middle is inconsequential. Now, if you're saying we don't choose the "helpful" things, you'd be right--in regards to certain individuals.

I guess what I'm questioning is, given the poor choices people tend to make, how can free will be seen as an aid in an evolutionary framework?  I mean, the Christian worldview accounts for crappy choices, which is the prime thing I see free will being used for.  I don't understand how that can be seen as a good thing from an evolutionary perspective.

The fun thing about unromantic materialism is that such things needn't be accounted for. It's just assumed that in the course of evolutionary or logical trial-and-error, mistakes will be made. We deal with it, fix what we can, and move on, 'cause backwards isn't possible.

Quote

So our intelligence would just go on and develop guns, knives, nuclear weapons, et cetera without providing us the ability not to use them. Oh, that'd be a wonderful arrangement, no mistake about it. And without those "hindering" qualities you mentioned, we really wouldn't have the incentive to use that free will thusly. It seems somewhat unreasonable to me that we should have our level of intelligence, yet no free will or morality...

Or perhaps we wouldn't develop guns, knives, nuclear weapons, et cetera.

But with our intelligence and the means to do it, surely we'd recognize the practical value of a bullet or blade to one who wants to catch a tasty deer or defend themself from a lion or from another human! And as for the weapons of larger destruction, surely we'd recognize the value of that kind of power when competing with other members of our species for land and resources! After all, isn't that what it all is, when you boil down our reasons for making such things? Our intelligent ability to use external tool and weapons is quite literally our only material advantage in the game of physical survival. We can kill a lion because we can shoot it, not 'cause we can punch or kick the thing with our pathetic li'l fists 'n' feet.

Long story short, if we didn't make those things, we'd probably have either died out or found ourselves in a much less favorable niche of the eco-system.

And inexplicably they work in conjunction to keep our planet ticking, isn't that an interesting thing?

Almost as if Someone planned it...

So we have the learned ability to deny ourselves immediate gratification, possibly in favor of a more effective, logical outcome, and that's a negative to free will?

But, how many people do that?

Dang, I can't even remember what the name "Kurd" belongs to...

The Kurds were gassed by Saddam Hussein.  They're in Northern Iraq.

But please, don't confuse this with "my idea." It's actually Darwins, and I'm not allied to it. I'm just defending it in my own mind--this is more for myself than for you, if you follow me.

I know exactly what you mean.  I keep wanting to put a disclaimer - I don't necessarily subscribe to everything I'm stating here - this is part exploration, part devil's advocate.

The point is, someone screwed up, but when considering evolution as related to free will, you attribute the blame to the hypothetical evolution, as opposed to blaming the errant individuals who, quite independant of each other, screwed up and misused their intelligence and free will.

No, what I'm saying is - in an evolutionary framework - free will must be, as you put it, an aid to survival.  The issue I have with that is I don't see it.  Most people do not use their free will to enhance their's or anyone else's life.  I don't see it ACTING as an aid.  In fact, most of the time, we survive in spite of our free will, not because of it.  Maybe I have a fatalistic viewpoint here, but ... well ... let's just say I could tell you stories.  While we are the "dominant species" that doesn't really mean much.  All of the other animals have survived quite nicely without free will.  I just don't see free will being adequately explained with evolution.  I do, however, see free will making perfect sense in the Christian Worldview.  

Long story short, if we didn't make those things, we'd probably have either died out or found ourselves in a much less favorable niche of the eco-system.

True, perhaps what I should say is that we wouldn't have the desire to use these things to harm others.

Rather than respond one by one, I will just share what I woke up thinking this morning...yes, I literally woke up going, "Oh, that's what I've been trying to say."  Gotta love the brain working while I sleep!  Anyway, here's what I woke up thinking...

I'm going to use our friendly salmon Harry and Stan.  Time travel with me to that point in the alleged evolution where free will developed.  I realize, since salmon still don't have free will and we didn't allegedly evolve from salmon, this isn't entirely accurate, but since we already know Harry and Stan, I'll use them.

Keep in mind, Stan has evolved free will while Harry hasn't.  Going back to my hypothetical conversation between them, Stan decided not to swim upsteam because it'd be too much work and he'd rather bask in the sun.  So, guess what?  Stan's free will was just eliminated because his genetic change wasn't passed on because he was too lazy to do his part.

We both agreed that free will is the ability to choose whether or not to listen to "instinct."  Well, if someone ignores instinct, they will a) not reproduce, b) not gather food or c) not prepare proper shelter from the cold.  All of these things will hinder their survival, not aid it.

As we discussed above, we Americans have become more "civilized" than our third world counterparts, yet they outnumber us considerably.  We are exercising reproductive restraint but they are not.  If there were a world-wide catastrophe, statistically speaking, chances for our "civilized" ways being passed on are much slimmer than the ways of the more "barbaric" nations.  In that regard, free will is counterproductive to survival.  

Unless I'm missing something, which is entirely possible, free will is actually an argument against evolution.  According to evolution, we are all interconnected and only separated by genetics.  Based on this, free will must be a genetic trait.  But, someone who ignores instinct generally would not be stronger than their instinct-abiding counterpart and then, according to evolutionism, less likely to survive.

The only way our learning could be beneficial long-term is if it affects us genetically, according to evolutionism.  So, the Americans learning from the social cruelty of Hitler and Saddam Hussein must have a genetic impart.  But, as I pointed out, Hussein had six children.  The average American family has less than two children so Hussein's traits are much more likely to survive than Americans.

It would appear that the more "civilized" or "evolved" a culture becomes, the less likely it is to survive.  Are alcoholics less likely to reproduce?  Or diabetics?  Now, in nature, these things would not be an issue.  Mothers will kill or eat their deformed offspring.  Those who don't know their mothers from birth are far less likely to survive if they aren't strong.  BUT, with humans, because of our make-up, we tend to protect the weak.  Thus, the "evolutionary" protections to keep the species strong break down - precisely because of our freedom of choice.

This is why, to me, free will aiding survival does not add up.

Free will is something that has always bothered me.  I don't consider it having to do with survival so much as giving us the responsibility, if you will, of choosing to be good or evil. That in itself isn't the bother; it's whether once evil is erased from us, does free will survive, or will we have had a lobotomy that will leave us thinking only good thoughts? Is that free will?

Actually, I think the opposite will happen.  We will know fully.  I have a very personal example.  I did something in my youth that I had tremendous shame over.  This plagued me for years.  Through an up close and personal encounter with God, I no longer have shame over that situation.  I have total peace with it.  It isn't that He removed the memory, He changed my interpretation of it.  Using the definition of science given on the "Genesis is Made Up" thread, I believe the testimony of millions of people are a pretty scientific affirmation of my theory.  Yes, God removes our tears.  But, He does by healing, not by lobotomy.

"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." Romans 12:2

I hope you're right.  I couldn't help wondering how much of us will still be us in life after life.  I believe that our souls are all of the same intelligence, an intelligence that is limited by our physical brain cells.  When our spirits leave our bodies, we will understand on a level that we can't possibly comprehend now.   But we will still remember evil unless it is erased from us.  And remembering it will mean that there is always the possibility that all may not be perfect in Heaven if another Satan comes along.  Don't say it couldn't happen.  After all, the first one did.

When I was a little girl, I couldn't wait to grow up so that I could associate with adults on an adult level, because I found other children to be so unfair. mean spirited, spiteful, and in some cases, downright vicious.  Growing up was the biggest disappointment because when I got there, I found adults to be the same.   In a small town, the prevailing motto is, "never say anything nice about anyone."  I was an adult before I realized one could praise others.  Ridiculing them behind their backs was the way to go.  And Heaven help anyone who was different!  They were really victimized.  As a misfit, I lived a lonely existence.  I find it difficult to imagine all these nasty people suddenly turning sweet without something being removed from their brains, and I won't except myself.

I have another very personal example.  I was molested by my step-father.  I hated him for years because of this.  Again, through another up-close and personal encounter with God, I now see my step-dad through very different eyes.  I cannot hate him anymore.  I have nothing but love and compassion for him.  He left my life over 20 years ago, but I still pray for him, for his salvation.  I have forgiven him completely and totally.  I no longer see him as a cruel monster who should be drown (something I used to wish for,) but instead I see him as a broken man.  How can I hate someone who is so in need of God?  That is what I mean by we will know more, not less.  Now, when I hate someone, I pray to see that person as God does.  It's really hard to hate and be mean to people when I see how precious they are.
This has changed how I view people in general.  About a year ago, I was driving.  It was the tenth hour of a ten hour drive.  I had my two kids and my step-grandson in the car.  Needless to say, they weren't being quiet.  I was a little cranky.  A guy cut me off.  On his way past, he called me a female dog and "waved" at me with a certain finger.  I prayed for him.  It wasn't even a question.  My first thought was, "This poor man.  What is possibly going on that he is in such a hurry?  What is in his heart that he doesn't hesitate to be so rude to a woman with a carful of kids?"  Now, if that had been ten years ago, I would have "waved" back!

You have the makings of a saint.  I want to pummel your step-father for you.  I didn't forgive my transgressors, I just handed them over to God.  My mind is neutral on them, I don't even think of trying to love them.  They are out of my life, gone.  I don't want them in it in any capacity.  You are much too kind.

All children deserve to go to bed at night without worrying about someone coming in and molesting them.   They shouldn't have to go through their days dreading the night to come.  Pedophiles should be castrated.

Please, please, please do NOT think that of me.  I am such a wretched sinner.  It is ONLY by the grace of God and the power of the cross that I have the peace I do.  I could tell you horror stories of who I was BC (before Christ.)  (Come to think of it, I could tell you horror stories of who I still am. Other posts I've made on other threads here have shades of that. )  That praise is not mine, but His.  (Lord, I give it to You.)  I cannot take ANY credit for any of this.  I don't know if you realize this or not, but I first came to this site as an atheist.  After nine years of the best life I had ever lived, I walked away from my Best Friend.  I was such a fool.  Because He forgave me, I forgive.  Because Jesus lives, I forgive.  Because He said, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do," I forgive.  Because my hatred and rage and shame was on Calvary's cross, I forgive.  Because He is everything good that it is me, I forgive.

There are two passages I live by today.  One is, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."  In that passage, I used to identify with the woman caught in the act of adultery.  Today, I identify with the people standing there ready to stone her.  The other isn't one specific passage, but rather an example.  That is Peter.  The Peter who said, "I'll never leave you Lord." (Something I used to arrogantly say as I was critical of those who stumbled in their walk.)  The same Peter who then said three times, "Nope, I wasn't with Him."  (Something I also said.)  The same Peter who cried bitterly when he realized what he had done. (Something I did.)

I know who I am and I know what I am capable of - trust me - "makings of a saint" does not describe me.  More like Paul's statement in 1 Timothy 1:15, "This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief."