OnlineBookClub.org

In The Advent of Time, one of the central arguments is that the prerequisites of relational love, such as free will, are necessary conditions for the possibility of evil and suffering. The book suggests that for love to be genuine, it must be freely chosen, which requires individuals to have the capacity to reject love—hence the possibility of evil. This idea aligns with the traditional Christian view that free will is a gift from God, but it also opens the door for moral failures. The existence of evil, then, is not a reflection of God’s lack of power or love but rather a byproduct of granting humans the autonomy needed to establish meaningful relationships with God and each other. In this framework, suffering becomes a potential outcome of free will, which God allows in order to foster true, selfless love. This concept invites readers to rethink the problem of evil, not as a contradiction to an all-loving God, but as a necessary condition for the existence of love itself.

It definitely makes sense that for love to be genuine, it has to be freely chosen—otherwise, it wouldn’t really be love, would it? But I wonder, does that make suffering an inevitable part of our experience, even when we’re striving for good?

Though it also implies that even those with the best of intentions may inadvertently or wilfully damage others, free will allows for the making of significant decisions.

While autonomy is necessary for genuine connections, it also leaves room for great suffering. Finding a responsible way to go through that space without losing sight of the greater picture of love and connection is, I suppose, the true problem.

Tarana Bagotia wrote: ↑05 Oct 2024, 14:49 In The Advent of Time, one of the central arguments is that the prerequisites of relational love, such as free will, are necessary conditions for the possibility of evil and suffering. The book suggests that for love to be genuine, it must be freely chosen, which requires individuals to have the capacity to reject love—hence the possibility of evil. This idea aligns with the traditional Christian view that free will is a gift from God, but it also opens the door for moral failures. The existence of evil, then, is not a reflection of God’s lack of power or love but rather a byproduct of granting humans the autonomy needed to establish meaningful relationships with God and each other. In this framework, suffering becomes a potential outcome of free will, which God allows in order to foster true, selfless love. This concept invites readers to rethink the problem of evil, not as a contradiction to an all-loving God, but as a necessary condition for the existence of love itself.

I just finished Chapter 1 of this book. If suffering is considered an evil, then one does not have to look farther than a newborn baby. That baby will cry when they feel pangs of hunger, feel tired, or are pining for their mother's comforting touch and breast. The mother exercises her free will by fulfilling the baby's needs or not. The mother will have the choice to exercise love or refuse to give love. If the mother refuses to give love, that refusal is evil- the baby will suffer.

"That's a powerful example of how free will plays a role in both love and suffering. The mother’s choice highlights how love, to be meaningful, must involve a decision. If love were automatic, like a reflex, it wouldn’t carry the same depth or value. The Advent of Time suggests that God allows for this kind of autonomy so that acts of love can be genuine, even though this opens the possibility for neglect and suffering.

It’s also interesting to consider that the baby’s needs aren’t inherently evil, but rather an expression of vulnerability. The suffering comes from the mother’s response to those needs. This idea reinforces the book’s argument: for love to be truly relational, it requires the ability to act freely, whether that leads to comfort or, unfortunately, to suffering. In this way, the book seems to suggest that love and suffering are interconnected parts of a greater divine purpose, allowing us to choose selflessness over self-interest.

What do you think? Does the presence of free will justify the existence of suffering in these kinds of situations, or does it feel like too high a price to pay?"

The book's first chapter examines the idea of pain in relation to a newborn. The mother uses her free will to provide for the baby's necessities, whether she chooses to show affection or not. The baby suffers if the mother withholds love because it is viewed as wicked. The book gives us the option to choose selflessness above self-interest by implying that suffering and love are related aspects of a larger divine plan. The book challenges readers to think about whether suffering in these circumstances is justified by the existence of free will.

In allowing the possibility of evil, God grants us the autonomy needed for authentic relationships. While suffering is painful, it’s a consequence of the freedom that makes real love and moral growth possible. Without that choice, love would be hollow.

I think, as bad as it may sound, evil is necessary for good to have value. With the ability of man to choose love and do good or choose hate and do evil, we appreciate the free will we have. Just like the author, I imagine a robotic world without freewill. Saying that freewill is the reason for evil isn't completely plausible because freewill is also why people do good.

Hatred is the opposite of love. You can't develop a meaningful relationship with people you hate or argue with. God gave us free will to make the choice to follow him and have a meaningful relationship with him. If we choose to argue, disobey, or hate God, then we are allowing an opening for those feelings to grow, which reflects in who we really are.