You keep crying about not having a common language. Over and over and over… Well, learn the language of the world in which you’ve chosen to speak. You came to us!
In your scheme, would attempted murder be no crime?
Not so fast. When one needs to learn a technical vocabulary, the words are not identical to the everyday vernacular - with diametrically different meanings. So it is impossible to find out what you mean. You say that “evil” is the lack of “good”. (In normal usage “evil” is causing intentional harm.) And then you say that expressing mutual love (in a physical fashion) without the intent to procreate is also “evil”. Sorry, you make no sense.
Aha. So please enumerate the “sins” committed by the children under the age of reason, which justifies their sufferings. After all God is supposed to be just, and justice does not allow non-deserved sufferings. Be specific. I wonder, is there a specific teaching about the fate of those children who are baptized, and die before the age of reason? The church already declined to talk about the unbaptized fetuses. The conquistadores (very devout Catholics) took away the newborns from the local mothers, baptized them and immediately smashed their heads to a nearby stone. They believed that this act will assure that those children will go directly to heaven (don’t pass Go, do not collect 200 dollars). Did the church ever speak up loudly and publicly against this practice?
That is simply insane. If suffering would be “desirable” in and of itself, then every act to lower or preventing suffering would be undesirable.
Does he now? Last time I heard, the Sun shines on the wicked and the righteous alike. Bad things happen indiscriminately to everyone. And everything that happens is either directly willed or indirectly allowed by God… the events in Orlando included. So how can you NOT support something that God did not find objectionable enough to prevent. Are you criticizing God?
That “dream-world” is heaven without the “beatific vision” - whatever it might be. And you say that you don’t want it.
Not a good summary. You don’t get it at all. There is no need for “bad” options. “Good” and “neutral” options are enough. Of course in heaven (with or without beatific vision) there are no “bad” options. It is the assumption that in heaven we just sit with our virtual saliva dripping from our imaginary cheeks. After all, if God is outside of time, and to be in heaven is to be with God, it follows logically there is no “time” in heaven.
There is no significant difference between active and permissive will. You either condone an act, or you don’t. If you allow an act to take place then you no not object to it strongly enough. You let it happen because you don’t care about it. Your final conclusion of #4) is also illogical (not just irrational). The conclusion is that IF there is a God, he does not care enough what happens to us.
Your usage of “evil” is nonsensical. There is no greater evil than allowing unnecessary or gratuitous suffering, especially for those who did nothing to deserve that suffering.
You keep forgetting the multiple good options and the neutral options. When I love my kid, I do not need the “option” to take an ax and bury it in his head. After all, I would not choose that “option” anyway. And for you to love your loved ones, you don’t need the option that your neighbor would be free to torture his kid. No instance of love is contingent upon the freedom of others. Is that not blindingly obvious?
For a sovereign, self-sufficient creator, who lacks nothing, there is no need to create anything. From the peak all roads lead downhill. And, no, don’t say that God wanted to share his love with us. It would either mean that God was not self-sufficient, or irrational.
It depends how you define “attempted” murder. If a would-be-criminal would 1) buy the weapon and 2) buy the ammo to that weapon, and 3) shoot at the target then 4) miss for whatever reason, then that would be an attempted murder, to be punished. (Not the same punishment as actually hitting the target) If, however, he would just entertain the act without carrying it out, it would only be a “thought-crime”, which was only punishable by the thought-police in 1984 and Jesus. Scary thought.
Not so fast. When one needs to learn a technical vocabulary, the words are not identical to the everyday vernacular - with diametrically different meanings. So it is impossible to find out what you mean. You say that “evil” is the lack of “good”. (In normal usage “evil” is causing intentional harm.) And then you say that expressing mutual love (in a physical fashion) without the intent to procreate is also “evil”. Sorry, you make no sense.
Aha. So please enumerate the “sins” committed by the children under the age of reason, which justifies their sufferings. After all God is supposed to be just, and justice does not allow non-deserved sufferings. Be specific. I wonder, is there a specific teaching about the fate of those children who are baptized, and die before the age of reason? The church already declined to talk about the unbaptized fetuses. The conquistadores (very devout Catholics) took away the newborns from the local mothers, baptized them and immediately smashed their heads to a nearby stone. They believed that this act will assure that those children will go directly to heaven (don’t pass Go, do not collect 200 dollars). Did the church ever speak up loudly and publicly against this practice?
That is simply insane. If suffering would be “desirable” in and of itself, then every act to lower or preventing suffering would be undesirable.
Does he now? Last time I heard, the Sun shines on the wicked and the righteous alike. Bad things happen indiscriminately to everyone. And everything that happens is either directly willed or indirectly allowed by God… the events in Orlando included. So how can you NOT support something that God did not find objectionable enough to prevent. Are you criticizing God?
That “dream-world” is heaven without the “beatific vision” - whatever it might be. And you say that you don’t want it.
I don’t believe you. I think that you are just another hypocrite. If you go to the dentist or a doctor when you are in pain, then your words about the desirability of suffering are just hollow utterings. Your acts to avoid pain and suffering speak louder than your words welcoming and “praising” them. But if you really would want more suffering to help you to get detached from the world, I have a few suggestions how to achieve that.
Not a good summary. You don’t get it at all. There is no need for “bad” options. “Good” and “neutral” options are enough. Of course in heaven (with or without beatific vision) there are no “bad” options. It is the assumption that in heaven we just sit with our virtual saliva dripping from our imaginary cheeks. After all, if God is outside of time, and to be in heaven is to be with God, it follows logically there is no “time” in heaven.
There is no significant difference between active and permissive will. You either condone an act, or you don’t. If you allow an act to take place then you no not object to it strongly enough. You let it happen because you don’t care about it. Your final conclusion of #4) is also illogical (not just irrational). The conclusion is that IF there is a God, he does not care enough what happens to us.
Your usage of “evil” is nonsensical. There is no greater evil than allowing unnecessary or gratuitous suffering, especially for those who did nothing to deserve that suffering.
You keep forgetting the multiple good options and the neutral options. When I love my kid, I do not need the “option” to take an ax and bury it in his head. After all, I would not choose that “option” anyway. And for you to love your loved ones, you don’t need the option that your neighbor would be free to torture his kid. No instance of love is contingent upon the freedom of others. Is that not blindingly obvious?
For a sovereign, self-sufficient creator, who lacks nothing, there is no need to create anything. From the peak all roads lead downhill. And, no, don’t say that God wanted to share his love with us. It would either mean that God was not self-sufficient, or irrational.
Good try but let me pin your ethic down from “… miss for whatever reason …” to a concrete reason, that is lacked the circumstantial freedom to do as he desired.
Not “unable”, just unlikely. The difference is enormous.
Oh no. Jesus/God is the thought police, who condemns us for having certain thoughts, even if we do not wish to act on them. I don’t know what you mean by “morally certain”, so I cannot accept it as a part of the problem.
If you explicitly criticize the perpetrator for doing it, you SHOULD implicitly criticize God for allowing it.
Since circumstances always change “unable” can morph into “unlikely” and back again. You are wiggling a bit, I think.
Let’s just assume that God is powerful enough to end all suffering for innocent children. We observe that it has not ended, You say that it is justice that none of these children should suffer. Reason being they have no sin. You say that only sinners should justifiably suffer. (within the context of this stage of the argument. Not necessarily you own opinion but that the assertion follows the current logic)
Then one would ask, what are you doing to alleviate all of this unnecessary and gratuitous suffering?
It is tedious that you keep changing the question. I already presented the libertarian definition of free will, but I will repeat it.
I don’t claim anything. Especially since YOUR concept of “evil” is incompatible with MY concept of evil.
This is irrelevant. We do not talk about criminal law.
No problem.
Problem. You claimed:
Who is we? You and the “rat” in your pocket? Of course we talk about the law as it reflects the community’s collective judgment on right and wrong actions. While the law is not the last word, it certainly ought to be part of the conversation.
If you accept the definition of the libertarian free will, then the rest follows. So you are in self-contradiction.
Yes, I claimed all that, and I stand by them. But I did not say anything about thoughts being “evil”, because your definition is “evil” is incoherent. When I said: “I did not claim anything”, it obviously meant: “I did not claim anything about thoughts being evil”… I did not think it is necessary to spell it out. The context should have clarified it for you.
The husband who wanted to kill his wife ACTED on his desire, not just thought about it. The action is what is punishable not the thought.
No, I believe the issue is now sufficiently muddled to be irredeemable.
Dropping in the middle of a conversation, unsure if this applies; but here’s my :twocents:
I am sorry to hear that. But I hope that some issues are now clarified for you. One, that merely thinking about something and acting on that thought are VERY different. And two, that there is a negligible difference between actively performing an act and passively allowing that act to be performed. If you now understand these concepts then the conversation was not a total waste of time.
To be obsessed with something (anything) can be problem. To merely thinking about something, maybe even “toying” with the idea can actually be beneficial. I was talking about putting a thought into action.
It is very naïve to think that these are mutually exclusive. Anything and everything done in excess can be harmful.
Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut and wishes. However, the issues on the progression of a moral evil are and have always been very clear to me. Our affections determine our attitudes and our attitudes drive our behaviors.