Debate over free will vs no will

Forums Forums All General Topics Debate over free will vs no will

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • Author
  • #15784

    Hello Sir, I came across this discussion about the position in the bible regarding free will and the fact that evil exists because there is free will but in one of your articles you had mentioned that the devil exists but it is not necessarily evil. Could you please explain our position regarding this and why do you think evil does not exist but the devil exists?

    Ashish Dalela

    Good and evil are political concepts that were instituted in Christianity to say that those who followed the Pope were following God and those who disobeyed the Pope were following Satan. God and Satan were having a fight with each other and so the Pope would wage a war on followers of Satan, which were nothing but those who did not obey the Pope. In short, Abrahamic faiths invented a character called Satan for political purposes. Their free will does not allow a choice of alternative religions. What kind of will is that which doesn’t allow any alternative possibility?

    For the Vedic tradition, the word evil simply means choice without responsibility. To destroy that evil, the person who makes the choice is shown his responsibility. When he faces the tit-for-tat responsibility, he calls it evil because he doesn’t want to accept responsibility for his actions. He blames someone else. In short, the evil person sees evil in the world. The good person says: You made a choice and you have to bear a responsibility for choice. Therefore, there is no evil in the Vedic tradition other than people who want to make choices without responsibilities.

    In the Vedic system, when the soul wants independence from God, he comes to the material world in which he either pretends to have become God or tries to become God. Of course, the world is actually owned, operated, and administered by God. To become God in this world, the soul tries to acquire wealth, power, fame, beauty, knowledge, and independence by dint of his effort and labor. God gives the soul these things in accordance with its previous effort and labor. When the value of that limited effort and labor is finished, then God takes away those things.

    In short, God has a transactional relationship with the soul in the material world. You give so much effort and God will give you so much reward. If you take without giving, then God allows you to take in proportion for what you have already given and after that you don’t get anything. You can cry religion as much as you like. But you won’t get anything. Hence, the material world is a transactional place even for God. Abrahamic faiths initially universalized this transactional relationship as religious covenants and then continuously reduced what they had to give while increasing what they were taking until the religion became taking without giving.

    In the Vedic system, God doesn’t enjoy transactional relationships. For Him, this is an austerity. But He takes that austerity to correct the choice without responsibility. He could send the soul to eternal hell. But He does not. He tries to correct the soul. That is His goodness. Even in a transactional relationship, God shows goodness. The act of showing goodness becomes an austerity in the face of incessant evil.

    Ensuring responsibility for choice is not evil. It is the definition of justice. But the person who wants choice without responsibility thinks that justice is itself evil. Death and destruction are not necessarily evil. War is not necessarily evil. When they are used for correction, then they are not evil. But the evil person calls justice evil.

    For me, any religion that doesn’t accept karma and reincarnation is not a religion. So, Abrahamic faiths are not religions for me. Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, and anyone else who accepts karma and reincarnation can be accepted as a religion. Accordingly, the Bible, Koran, and Torah are not scriptures for me. Anyone who says that this is the first birth and the last life doesn’t have the first idea about the soul. What he says about will doesn’t matter because (a) if there is will, it is without responsibility, and (b) if there is no will it is still without responsibility. In both cases, there is no responsibility. So the concept of will is at most talking about making choices without future responsibilities. That is the antithesis of religion for us.

    Christianty has carefully constructed a devious theology to avoid responsibility for one’s actions. First, the soul doesn’t come to the material world because of its will. Rather, it is the curse on Adam and Eve that is responsible for its birth in the material world. Second, the soul is not responsible for its evil deeds because it is born from an evil father and mother. So, the bad genes of the parents have ensured that the soul will keep committing evil deeds. Third, God forgives the evil deeds of the sinners if you confess and accept Jesus as a savior. You don’t have to endure the bad consequences of your deeds if you accept Jesus. Fourth, all those who do good deeds but don’t accept Jesus as savior are going to eternal hell despite their good deeds. Fifth, those who accept Jesus have the God-given right to kill those who don’t accept Jesus. Their property is the property of Christians. Their life is at most meant to be spent in the slavery of Christians. In this way, Christianity crafts self-serving dogmas and responsibility avoidance schemes through logical arguments. Foolish people are enamored by these arguments. They don’t know that the net result of such carefully crafted arguments is enjoyment without responsibility. Even a materialist argues for enjoyment without responsibility although the argument doesn’t rely on soul and God. When the conclusion of religion is same as that of materialism, there is no reason to call it religion. We might also call it materialism.

    In the entire course of their existence, followers of these religions have not been able to develop moral character. Their history is filled with crimes against humanity. Whatever their opinions about the soul and God are, they were the causes of crimes against humanity. What is the use of discussing those opinions when we know that they are responsible for innumerable crimes against humanity? Their actions have spoken louder than their flowery words. We give priority to actions over words.

    Traditionally, the Vedic system had unpleasant names for such people. Today we don’t use those names although they are true even today. Those names were not given whimsically. They were given based on people’s characters. Their characters were judged before their opinion was heard. When the character is not good then the opinion won’t be good. We don’t waste our time discussing such opinions.

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.