I think my personal vision of God is a lot like the version of him in the comic series Preacher.
Chief attributes being 1) mysterious, actions rarely make any sense. 2) dodgy, only shows up when he feels like it and refuses to take any direct questions. 3) schizo - alternates between a smooth-talking merciful type and a vengeful feel-my-wrath-sinner shtick. 4) irrelevant in the larger scheme of things.
I’m not sure I follow you here. Would it help if I said “I can choose to do some loving and some hateful things?”
But, as far as the Spirit is concerned, I have always been the same, right? Why was it needed for the Spirit to guide a body through a mortal life, if the Spirit has always been the same? If the one servant’s heart is good, and the other servant’s heart is not, there is no need for a field at all, since the field cannot affect the heart.
Um, Lib? You still there? 
Gaudere
Yes. I suppose I got lost when the new libertarian thread popped up along with the massively redundant new threads on theistic metaphysics, scooting this to the bottom of the page. (Actually, I found it on page 2 when I became a bit bored this morning.)
No, sorry, it wouldn’t. The Spirit does not choose what to do. The brain does that. The Spirit chooses what to be.
Who said it was “needed”? When Beethoven composed tunes in his head, why did he “need” to scribble them down?
OK, so can the Spirit can choose to be partially good and partially evil?
I don’t think I follow your analogy; Beethoven wrote down the music so he would remember it and so that he could have other people play his music. I cannot think of a similar justification as to why God created a atom-world for Spirits to act out their morality, when the Spirits have already chosen what to be. Not that I’m complaining; I rather like this atom-world, and the atomless Spirit-world does not sound too exciting, personally.
I have no idea what that means. What is partial goodness?
Cannot think of a justification? 
How delightfully innocent! Oh, how I love you, Gaudere!
You must not expect to see any justification for the decisions of any being until you look at things from His Frame of Reference. (c.f., empathy).
Your coziness with the wave peaks is understandable. Have you seen Sling Blade?
I guess I am having trouble putting people neatly into “good” and “evil” bins. “There’s so much good in the worst of us, and so much bad in the best of us…” For example, I worked with a guy who was rather nasty–stole from me, too, although I know he thought he was justified. Basically a jerk (he was also a Christian preacher; it’s a wonder I’m not more biased against Christians, all the really nasty people I meet are devout Christians (they’re probably not Christian by your defintion, though, Lib)). However, he adopted a little girl with fetal alcohol syndrome, which I definitely see as a loving act. He was weaselly, yes, IMHO, but I can’t deny that he loved his little girl and wife deeply. Is he wholly good? Am I? I mean, I usually do the right thing, but not always. I have a few hacked programs that I have yet to pay for; I am planning to do so within a month or so (word of honor–I’m just waiting until I get the cash on hand, although I could buy them right now if I really wished to), but I know it’s wrong to use them if I haven’t bought them yet. But I still do it. If I was perfectly good, I’d pay for the programs now, instead of later. So I tend to think of people as a mix of both good and evil; I can’t see how you can have either wholly good or wholly evil spirits with no in-betweens. I mean, even Hitler loved children and animals.
Well, do you have an idea of why God set up the atom-world, or is this just a mystery?
I started to once but fell asleep at the very beginning; it was very late at night. I know it’s supposed to be really good, though, so I’ll probably rent it someday and hopefully actually stay awake.
Lucky for you, then, that you don’t have to! As God has designed it, we put *ourselves * into them!
My comprehension is that God created man so that He might be loved by free moral agents, and thus be glorified.
If you do, you will see what I mean about actions themselves being amoral. When you see it, come back here and let me know whether you think the action at the end of the movie was moral or immoral.
So you are saying the people really are either wholly good or wholly evil?
Yeah, but He already had His free moral agents once He spun off the little Spirits, so why create the atom-world and go through billions of years just to pop the eternal Spirits into a human body for a maximum of 120 years?
Well, it’s a Schroedinger’s cat, isn’t it? They are neither good nor evil. Not until they’ve made their choice.
Billions of years? You contextualize it as though it were significant. The billions of years are already finished. (Why do you either refuse or neglect to view these issues from His reference frame of eternity? That is particularly surprising given your penchant for empathy.)
Libertarian says:
“Billions of years? You contextualize it as though it were significant. The billions of years are already finished. (Why do you either refuse or neglect to view these issues from His reference frame of eternity? That is particularly surprising given your penchant for empathy.)”
How can a human even pretend to have empathy with an all-powerful deity? How do we know what that deity’s reference frame about eternity would be? Just because this deity supposedly is eternal, doesn’t mean the passage of time would be insignificant to her/him/it. Maybe it would be just the opposite; how are we mere mortals to know?
I was thinking, at lunch, about the stuff with FoG from last night (one can only read the mind-numbing coverage of the Demo convention for so long). His “word from God” about matt turned out not only to be incorrect, but incorrect in a way that FoG could not really have predicted. This leads to three major interpretations, with some minor classes:
The statement was produced solely by FoG’s mind, and
a. He honestly believed it was a revelation from God.
b. He knew it was not from God, but said it anyway, figuring it would look good if he gambled and won.
c. He knew it was not from God, and didn’t care about the consequences of saying it.
God deliberately told FoG something that was incorrect, and
a. wanted FoG to say it to embarrass him.
b. was testing FoG’s “spirit of discernment.”
c. had mysterious reasons for doing it.
God told FoG something that he thought was correct, but turned out not to be.
I’ll give the benefit of the doubt and guess that what happened was choice 1(a), but the cynical side of me thinks it was 1(b).
Wait, I thought they had already made their choice; my Spirit has already decided whether it is wholly good or wholly evil, right, since it is eternally one or the other? If my Spirit has chosen to be wholly good, why do I sometimes do less-than-perfectly-loving things? If Hitler was wholly evil, how could he love at all?
Well, His actions seem a little odd, that’s all. Here’s God, existing in eternity along with loving Spirits that are Him and unloving spirits that are not Him. Why create this little blip of a time-dependent atom world? It does not affect the Spirit’s nature, and it’s not like anyone was bored (I hope); why not just chill in eternity?
You will recall that your decision has been made, is being made, and will be made all at once. Your brain must wait for the has been made. When you ask about things you “know”, I assume you mean things your brain knows.
Well, it doesn’t seem odd to me. God does not exist along with the unloving spirit. That spirit is dead. You will recall that the atoms are to provide a context for morality. How can decisions be made without a context? Remember, the decision is a single event that spans the whole continuum.
I’m afraid I still don’t understand. Can you explain specifically how a person possessed of a perfectly loving spirit can sometimes do unloving things?
Hmm. So if there were no atoms, and the Spirits did not have a context for morality, would they be neither good nor evil?
Of course not. Is that what you think I believe?
Didn’t you see what I told David that Jesus said about the tree? A good tree does not bear bad fruit, and a bad tree does not bear good fruit.
Yes!
I do remember this, it just doesn’t jive with my experience with the world. I know people, including myself, who don’t always do what a perfectly loving person would do, yet are still basically loving. And there are very nasty people out there who still love someone. I guess I have trouble saying that a person who loves some people but doesn’t love others has a perfectly loving Spirit, but I also have trouble saying that that person would have a wholly evil Spirit, too. If Hitler sincerely loved his mother, did he have a wholly evil Spirit?
So, God would be neither good nor evil if He did not create the universe. Why are atoms the only context for morality?
Forgive me for my pretense, but you say that because you cannot let go of the notion that an action is either moral or immoral. The idea that murder is a sin is so indelibly etched into your psyche that you cannot conceive that murder is not necessarily a sin.
Go right now. Turn off your computer and go. Rent Sling Blade. Pop it in. Stay awake.
If his Spirit was not good, then he never loved his mother.
When there is One And Only One Reference Frame, there is no need for context of any kind. God is eternally love. It is the notion of other free moral agents, existing (ablatively) separate from God that makes a moral context meaningful. There are now many reference frames, and only One that has, from the reference frame of this Spirit in this time and this place (i.e., me) , decided to be Good.
The waves (or the atoms) are a wonderfully elegant means to implement context for reference frames.
Oh, I can conceive of murder not being a sin, no problem. Sometimes the moral choice may be murder (although only in certain specialized circumstances). But I submit that I know people who are loving, yet not always or perfectly loving. People do not seem to be always either perfectly loving or perfectly unloving, even if you take into account extenuating circumstances that might explain why a person might do an apparently moral or immoral thing.
::grumble, grumble:: I need to buy a cord for my VCR. Maybe tonight, though.
So if Hitler did truly love his mother, he had a perfectly good Spirit. You seem to be saying that if you love anyone at all, you therefore must be perfectly loving, and that’s simply not borne out in my experience of humanity.
Libritarian, I’m not sure I’m following this. Your sprit is either good or evil, right? And the brain makes the decisions, so does that mean that we conciously override our spirit, or are you saying that the brain just makes after-the-fact justifications for our spirit’s actions?
There was at least one study that seemed to imply something like the latter. It ended up in a Dilbert comic, if I remeber correctly, but I don’t know what the actual experiment was.
In either case, you’re saying that if someone has a good spirit, they are incapable of actually evil actions. And vice versa for the evil spirits and good actions.
So, anyone with an evil spirit (If they seem to love something, they’re either fooling us or themselves) and if someone has a good spirit, their “evil” actions are actually just missunderstood by everyone?
Am I getting close here?
Wait. So God created these other frameworks to be able to define himself as good? That can’t be what you mean, can it? Seems kind of . . . petty, dosen’t it?
–
“The good die first!”
“Most people are morally ambiguous, which explains our random dying patterns.”