Acta non Verba Wrote:Your definition of free will seems predicated on possessing the ability to make certain decisions. That being that if one does NOT possess the required mechanism, then there is no lack of free will.
That being said, IF angels WERE given the ability....then to force them not to, once they ahve the ability, would violate their free will.
Ok.....so where do we get the idea that angels were built without the ability to disobey their deity?
One of the (several) common views of angelic decision making is that they lack or have limited free will. They cannot go against the Maker's* wishes to perform certain tasks. Non-angelic beings (humans, for example), within this viewpoint, are perfectly free to embrace their Maker or not, to believe or not, to decide their own role.
The thinking is that if angels (or any individuals, for that matter) have restrictions on what they can choose to do or think then that is a limit on their free will. I disagree, because in my opinion a thought or a decision is an "act" the same as kicking a ball is. As such, an angel built with the rule "you cannot disobey" is an angel with every bit as much free will as a human built with the rule "you cannot fly". I may have already made that clear - if so, I apologise for repeating myself.
Now, on to your question . . .
What possible utility is there in making an angel that is capable of disobeying orders? Circular saws are built with safety guards and such so that they cut wood, but not your arm off. Hammers aren't built so that sometimes they hammer nails, but they're also capable of refusing to leave the toolbox. Computer programs aren't created to perform a task - sometimes adaptively - but not to delete the data from your harddrive unintentionally and then melt your motherboard. And these are things built by imperfect human engineers.
They question isn't "Why would angels be built without the ability to disobey the Maker?" - the question is "Why would the Maker deliberately built angels with the capacity to refuse to do the job for which they were built?"
* I say "the Maker" as opposed to "their Maker" because I find the concept of multiple-separate-deities-with-their-own-separate-angels to be nonsense, really. I'm not saying I know who the Maker is, though. But when I talk about "angels" and "the Maker" I'm not referring to any constructs made by a big dude with a scary voice; only to constructs made by the one that also made Everything. If there is no such one, then it's all academic anyway.