How do you react?

[promethius]

According to many people on this forum arguing for God and free will, love is meaningless if it does not come from a freely willed choice for the other. The only way this choice can be free is if the possibility of choosing evil exists.

That is true. But you are still suffering a critical error of understanding where people are coming from.

Children have free will to choose good or evil. It is entirely possible a child can strike another child in anger or with desire to hurt the other child.

However, what makes a child free from culpability for mortal sin is NOT lack of free will, but rather LACK of sufficient knowledge of what constitutes objective good and evil.

A child who loves does so with every bit of free will that any one else does.

 

[slywakka250]

However, what makes a child free from culpability for mortal sin is NOT lack of free will, but rather LACK of sufficient knowledge of what constitutes objective good and evil.
.

Thanks for that clarification.

So the child has the free will to love and to love completely , but not the knowledge to commit a fully informed sin??

is this lack of knowledge also a limit on the child’s love?? That appears to be the question at hand.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

And the emotional “Love” you’re discussing here isn’t the same as Christian “Love”, i.e. the virtue of Charity. Christian Love does not consist in emotional feelings of affection. It is first with regard to God, putting your will in complete union with the will of God. And with regard to other people, it is wanting what is good for them, you Love them if you care about their well being, just as you naturally care about your own well being.

Ok, let’s have it your way. If someone is about to help you, what do you care if he is “compelled” to help you, or if he chooses volitionally to help you? Suppose the helper could choose to hurt you, instead of helping you, but he chooses to help. Does the possibility to hurt “add” something to the helping? Is the act of helping more valuable if he could have hurt you instead?

ummm, how is that “having it my way”?

Whatever one’s motives in helping someone, whether they’re looking for a quid pro quo or they’re just a nice guy, I didn’t say or hint that the possiblity that someone could instead hurt you adds to the helping.Can’t see where we’re “having it my way” here.

I did say that geniune Christian love is not the emotional “feeling” of love, heck I’ll bet even Hitler, Saddam Hussein, or even Keith Olbermann had those emotional feelings we call “love” for someone. Real Christian love is caring about someone’s well being or their “soul”, a parent who grounds a kid for a month because he stole some candy is doing that because they love them and don’t want them start down a road that ends with them becoming a degenerate lacking a moral code. No emotional feelings of “love” there, just caring about the child’s well being.

 

[promethius]

is this lack of knowledge also a limit on the child’s love?? That appears to be the question at hand.

I would say no. Love is a mystery, because God Himself is Love. No one has perfect understanding of Love, and it seems the less we rationalize emotions the more “pure” they can be.

In a way, I would say that lack of knowledge of sin is a more pure and unjudgemental love than with said knowledge and understanding. If a child has a drug dealer as a parent, they still love that parent unconditionally (assuming the parent is good to the child and earns said love)… whereas once the child has reached an understanding of intrinsic right and wrong, that love may be tempered by understanding and become conditional.

So back to my first statement: no, love is not limited by lack of knowledge about grave matter.

 

[Spock]

ummm, how is that “having it my way”?

Whatever one’s motives in helping someone, whether they’re looking for a quid pro quo or they’re just a nice guy, I didn’t say or hint that the possiblity that someone could instead hurt you adds to the helping.Can’t see where we’re “having it my way” here.

And yet, this is the crux of the matter. The posters I am referring to say, that to have “genuine” free will, one must be able to choose between good and evil. One must be able to hurt instead of helping. Yes, the guy could be just a “nice guy”, whose internal “programming” compels him to be helpful, instead of hurting, or maybe just walking by. The other posters insist that he is just an automaton, programmed to be a “nice guy”, but he has no “genuine freedom”.

I did say that geniune Christian love is not the emotional “feeling” of love, heck I’ll bet even Hitler, Saddam Hussein, or even Keith Olbermann had those emotional feelings we call “love” for someone. Real Christian love is caring about someone’s well being or their “soul”, a parent who grounds a kid for a month because he stole some candy is doing that because they love them and don’t want them start down a road that ends with them becoming a degenerate lacking a moral code. No emotional feelings of “love” there, just caring about the child’s well being.

I know and I understand it. I don’t agree, but I am willing to accept your point for the sake of this discussion. This is what I meant to “have it your way”. The point is: “does that nice guy have ‘true, genuine free will’, if he is compelled to help?”. When I was in the position to take some extra money, because the cashier made an error in my favor, and my “programming” prevented me from accepting that money, did I act as a “robot”, without free will? And the next question: “who cares?”. If someone sees me in dire need of help, and comes up to help, why would I care if he acts on his volition, or if he is “programmed robot”?

 

[Spock]

That’s just silly. Lack of moral culpability is based on the lack of knowledge to understand what actions are gravely sinful. When a baby strikes with it’s fist, it is not doing so with an understanding of violence so it is NOT sinful.

I did not mention sin at all. I don’t care about sin. I am talking about the concept of “love”. Love is a state of mind, an emotion. Of course it must be expressed in action, otherwise it is just an empty word. Love is not an “act of will”, contrary to what most posters say. I can choose to go and kick someone and that would be an “act of will”. No sane person would assert that this was “love”.

I know that Christians wish to use the word “love” differently. They insist that love is “choice” between good and evil. They say that love is volitional. I disagree, and in this thread I am giving a reason why I disagree. That child has no real “choice”, he cannot choose “evil”, since he has no concept of evil. Does it mean that the child’s action of hug and kiss is not an expression of love? What the heck is it then?

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

And yet, this is the crux of the matter. The posters I am referring to say, that to have “genuine” free will, one must be able to choose between good and evil. One must be able to hurt instead of helping. Yes, the guy could be just a “nice guy”, whose internal “programming” compels him to be helpful, instead of hurting, or maybe just walking by. The other posters insist that he is just an automaton, programmed to be a “nice guy”, but he has no “genuine freedom”.

I know and I understand it. I don’t agree, but I am willing to accept your point for the sake of this discussion. This is what I meant to “have it your way”. The point is: “does that nice guy have ‘true, genuine free will’, if he is compelled to help?”. When I was in the position to take some extra money, because the cashier made an error in my favor, and my “programming” prevented me from accepting that money, did I act as a “robot”, without free will? And the next question: “who cares?”. If someone sees me in dire need of help, and comes up to help, why would I care if he acts on his volition, or if he is “programmed robot”?

You seem to be bouncing all over the place here without making a consistent point. One minute you’re saying “everybody” here says you must have Free Will to choose to do Right or Wrong, then you’re saying people here "insist that he is just an automaton, programmed to be a “nice guy”, but he has no “genuine freedom” ".

Tell you what, I can’t make sense of where you’re going here so let’s start with some baby steps, an easy to clarify statement, where YOUR postion stands on this. Do you consider YOURSELF to be an automaton with no choice in your actions?

 

[tonyrey]

I do not analyse my reaction towards my children and grandchildren when they hug or tell me that they love me.

“analyse” is the key word. A person cannot be split up into different components like a material object. It is sheer fantasy to demand that we have certain specifications like something we buy in the shops. You’re either a person or you’re not!

 

[Spock]

Tell you what, I can’t make sense of where you’re going here so let’s start with some baby steps, an easy to clarify statement, where YOUR postion stands on this. Do you consider YOURSELF to be an automaton with no choice in your actions?

Of course I do not consider myself an automaton. But, in a very good sense my freedom is very seriously limited, due to my upbringing. From a very young age I was taught that lying is wrong, stealing is unacceptable, etc… Theoretically I am free to do any of these acts, but - due to my upbrining - I cannot bring myself to to do them. I simply do not want to do them. So, is this freedom “genuine” in your eyes? Because that is the question.

If you say that my freedom is not “genuine” then where does “genuine” freedom start? Do I have to act against my “nature” to prove that I am free? That would be sheer nonsense. If you say that my freedom is “genuine”, then God could instill the same psychological barriers into everyone - and still have “genuine” freedom without any evil.

Of course I have plenty of freedom otherwise. I am not constrained in my ability what to have for dinner, how to dress, what books to read. The fact that I would not be able to torture someone is not relevant. And, of course I can love, both as an emotion, and also I can act in someone else’s best interest, even to my own detriment, if necessary. I can also hate others, but I cannot bring myself to act on that emotion. So, in your eyes, do I have “genuine” freedom?

 

[UnityofTrinity]

What is wrong with it? It happens all the time. People fall in love, and then realize that it is built on “quicksand”. They have very little in common, and the emotion is gone. Why would it be preferable to keep a meaningless relationship alive? Better to end it and start a new one.

But, as long as the emotion is there, it is worth to keep it there. Better to be loved for a while than never to be loved at all.

Still, I have to point out that this has NOTHING to do with the question at hand.

Except that sometimes people fail to realize that “love” is not just a noun, it is also a verb.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

Of course I do not consider myself an automaton. But, in a very good sense my freedom is very seriously limited, due to my upbringing. From a very young age I was taught that lying is wrong, stealing is unacceptable, etc… Theoretically I am free to do any of these acts, but - due to my upbrining - I cannot bring myself to to do them. I simply do not want to do them. So, is this freedom “genuine” in your eyes? Because that is the question.

If you say that my freedom is not “genuine” then where does “genuine” freedom start? Do I have to act against my “nature” to prove that I am free? That would be sheer nonsense. If you say that my freedom is “genuine”, then God could instill the same psychological barriers into everyone - and still have “genuine” freedom without any evil.

Of course I have plenty of freedom otherwise. I am not constrained in my ability what to have for dinner, how to dress, what books to read. The fact that I would not be able to torture someone is not relevant. And, of course I can love, both as an emotion, and also I can act in someone else’s best interest, even to my own detriment, if necessary. I can also hate others, but I cannot bring myself to act on that emotion. So, in your eyes, do I have “genuine” freedom?

True and genuine freedom must bring us to an inner peace, don’t you think? If you can do everything you like, live as immoral as you can, but it does not bring to us any satisfaction, then is it true freedom. In a sense, you’re right, you can do everything you want, but if you do everything you want, does it make yu any freer? Or does it plunge you into a deeper misery.

Take this for an example,Brian, a type 3 obese man can eat whatever he want, free of any gym scheduling, and can choose when to sleep or when to wake up, when to eat and what to eat, according to you, it’s genuine freedom isn’t it? Isn’t that genuine freedom when he can act “in accordance” of his “nature”? But does his eating habit bring him to the true freedom? Does it bring him peace? Does it make him feel light and open and free to do what he really love other than eating the frozen pizza in front of the tv screen?

Then we have Leo, a man who eat with moderation, who watches his calories daily. Every morning at 7 he like to jog, he go to the gym after work at 4 PM. most of his food are either lean or are vegetable. Now according to you, since this man put barrier on himself, thus he has no freedom. But does he has the true freedom? He can walk and run without having an inhaler in his hand, he has the capacity to play with his children, to enjoy nature, to jog, to hike, and on one side effect incredible sex.

If a man is truly free, and as you mean he can do whatever he wants, then shouldn’t that man also have the freedom to put those limits on himself to achieve the true freedom that Leo has? Indeed Lao tzu himself once said:
“Heaviness is the root of lightness
Serenity is the root of restlessness”

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

Of course I do not consider myself an automaton. But, in a very good sense my freedom is very seriously limited, due to my upbringing. From a very young age I was taught that lying is wrong, stealing is unacceptable, etc… Theoretically I am free to do any of these acts, but - due to my upbrining - I cannot bring myself to to do them. I simply do not want to do them. So, is this freedom “genuine” in your eyes? Because that is the question.

So you NEVER lie and NEVER steal because you “cannot bring myself to to do them”? Either you have a false opinion of yourself, are being disingenuous with us, or it looks like Jesus was not the only man to have never sinned, there are now TWO of them out there.

You never stole a pen from work? Or stole “time” from work? Never “lied” by calling in sick when you weren’t?

I have to admit, this whole thread has been littered with oversimplifications and strawmen from the first post on.

 

[Spock]

True and genuine freedom must bring us to an inner peace, don’t you think?

No, and I have no idea what your post is about.

 

[Spock]

So you NEVER lie and NEVER steal because you “cannot bring myself to to do them”? Either you have a false opinion of yourself, are being disingenuous with us, or it looks like Jesus was not the only man to have never sinned, there are now TWO of them out there.

You never stole a pen from work? Or stole “time” from work? Never “lied” by calling in sick when you weren’t?

“Sin” is a religious concept, irrelevant to the discussion. Certainly I did not tell the truth, the whole truth every time I answered a question. That is not an outright lie. It did happen that I used a pencil outside of the office. Is that “theft”? No, I did not call in sick when I was not sick. Especially since there was no separate sick leave and vacation. It would have been pointless.

I have to admit, this whole thread has been littered with oversimplifications and strawmen from the first post on.

And it seems to me that you do not care about a genuine conversation, you only care about irrelevanices to avoid a conversation. Typical.

But, since you brought up Jesus: “Did he have a free will?”.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

“Sin” is a religious concept, irrelevant to the discussion. Certainly I did not tell the truth, the whole truth every time I answered a question. That is not an outright lie. It did happen that I used a pencil outside of the office. Is that “theft”? No, I did not call in sick when I was not sick. Especially since there was no separate sick leave and vacation. It would have been pointless.

Sin is the concept that is necessary for the claim of morality, without a definition of sin, anything that claim to be moral would be as if having a cup of English tea without sugar. If there is no such thing as sin, then what is morality? Since there is no morality, why shouldn’t I kill that child which just said he/she love me? Without that morality, well, I may say that the Aztec were right to sacrifice huamn to the sun God

And it seems to me that you do not care about a genuine conversation, you only care about irrelevanices to avoid a conversation. Typical.

But, since you brought up Jesus: “Did he have a free will?”.

In fact He did, but He surrendered Himself and said: “But not by my will, but yours”

 

[UnityofTrinity]

No, and I have no idea what your post is about.

My post is a response toward your definition of freedom, and toward your statement on what such as “genuine freedom”:

"If you say that my freedom is not “genuine” then where does “genuine” freedom start? Do I have to act against my “nature” to prove that I am free? That would be sheer nonsense. If you say that my freedom is “genuine”, then God could instill the same psychological barriers into everyone - and still have “genuine” freedom without any evil.

Of course I have plenty of freedom otherwise. I am not constrained in my ability what to have for dinner, how to dress, what books to read. The fact that I would not be able to torture someone is not relevant. And, of course I can love, both as an emotion, and also I can act in someone else’s best interest, even to my own detriment, if necessary. I can also hate others, but I cannot bring myself to act on that emotion. So, in your eyes, do I have “genuine” freedom? "

Yes, you have a choice to bring out tht hatred which can result into violence act, but if you’re truly freedom, why can’t you restrain yourself? Isn’t that’s what freedom is about? To act superior to your instincts? To be human?

 

[Spock]

Sin is the concept that is necessary for the claim of morality, without a definition of sin, anything that claim to be moral would be as if having a cup of English tea without sugar. If there is no such thing as sin, then what is morality? Since there is no morality, why shouldn’t I kill that child which just said he/she love me? Without that morality, well, I may say that the Aztec were right to sacrifice huamn to the sun God

Morality is just another meaningless concept, also irrelevant to the discussion. One man’s self-sacrificing hero is another man’s horrible terrorist. It is all a matter of opinion. Of course, opinions matter, but there is no objective way to decide between the two viewpoints.

In fact He did, but He surrendered Himself and said: “But not by my will, but yours”

Irrelevant again. Did Mary have free will? The principle you guys keep on repeating is that to have true free will it is necessary that “evil” exist, actually, and not just as a possibility.

You say that a “robot”, which is programmed to be unable to commit evil is inferior to a person who does not want to commit evil. You say that the “love” of a robot is meaningless, while the love of person is meaningful. I am exposing the problematic nature of this idea. A child is unable to commit evil, and that does not make his love meaningless.

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

I am a mother and a grandmother. I do not analyse my reaction towards my children and grandchildren when they hug or tell me that they love me. I simply respond with love. Do you have children and grandchildren, Spock?

That’s my experience. When my child hugs me or tells me they love me, I smile and enjoy the moment.

“you look at him and think: Bah, that is not love! This is just a biological automaton, which is programmed to say those meaningless words! After all he is incapable of doing anything evil, so his love is worthless!”.

Negative.

“Or, maybe, just maybe, your heart melts, tears come into your eyes and you appeciate the selfless love he displays. No hate in his little heart, just pure love. Nah, cannot be. My first guess is the correct one. Or is it?”

Negative.

 

[Roger_Kamus]

Assume that there’s no such thing as God or meaning of life or meaning of after life, I’ll assume love as a reaction, an emotion of an ordinary human which came from a chemical reaction of the brain. Then what good is there for love? Then if I run out of love for my wife, I’ll assume that I’ll just go out there and have an affair with an another woman.

How does thinking about love as an emotional biochemical reaction erode its importance to humans? Love is a rewarding phenomenal experience, that is important to everyone I know, regardless of what causes it. I see no logical justification for attaching notions of immorality to an alternative cause.

 

[hazcompat]

sort of on topic…does anyone remember who said ‘it is by binding that we free ourselves’?

peace