J
JoeJPurnell
Guest
Dude, you’re not worth the moniker “Spock” if that’s your logic. I think I’m going to call you Sheldon from now on.
- Status
J
JoeJPurnell
Guest
Sorry Spock, I lashed out at you for no good reason. Please forgive me. Thanks.
S
Spock
Guest
Oh, please, don’t worry about it.
But I would like to see your reflection on the fact that our freedom to act (either to bring forth good, or inflicting suffering) is already seriously limited. On what grounds do you think that the currently enjoyed amount of freedom is somehow optimal, that having more freedom to achieve good, or having less freedom to do bad would be less desirable than the state of affairs today. Because that is the crux of the matter. Let’s not forget that the world is not static, and our freedom to act in any manner is fluctuating. As a general trend, our freedom to create a better place is increasing as thechnology advances, and our freedom to do “evil” is diminishing as well. So why do you think that we are currently at an optimum?
A
Appleby
Guest
Absolutely not. *There is no human being I would trust to make up my mind for me how I would live my life. *To whom would you hand over the decision on what you think and how you would be permitted to behave? Obama? Nancy Pelosi? Barney Frank? J.C. France? Dale Earnhardt Jr.? Tony George? Bernie Ecclestone?
I would advise you to read the Lord of the Rings again and see what happens when you hand the delusion of absolute power to 9 men chosen by – think about it.
S
Spock
Guest
Don’t you trust the Church with all these restrictions? The Church, which is just a collection of fallible human beings… And the control I suggested would not be “catholic” (pun intended). I would gladly forego the ability to kill or rape (which I do not want to do in the first place) if everyone else would be prevented from doing it as well.
Why are you guys always on the side of the criminals, whose freedom to act (or free will) we habitually restrict for the betterment of all of us, and forget about the victims and would-be victims, whose freedom not to be killed and not to be raped is violated. In other words, why does God and why do you take the side of the strong and evil against the weak and good? Don’t you see that there is something seriously wrong here?
M
MHalsey
Guest
How is our freedom to act already limited? Are you referring to laws that restrict our freedom? I think you are confusing liberty with freedom. Everyone, everyone, is free to act in any way they want. Occasionally that freedom interferes with the freedom of another. This is where laws are instituted to punish the aggressor. Laws limit our liberty, not our freedom to act.Oh, please, don’t worry about it.
But I would like to see your reflection on the fact that our freedom to act (either to bring forth good, or inflicting suffering) is already seriously limited. On what grounds do you think that the currently enjoyed amount of freedom is somehow optimal, that having more freedom to achieve good, or having less freedom to do bad would be less desirable than the state of affairs today. Because that is the crux of the matter. Let’s not forget that the world is not static, and our freedom to act in any manner is fluctuating. As a general trend, our freedom to create a better place is increasing as thechnology advances, and our freedom to do “evil” is diminishing as well. So why do you think that we are currently at an optimum?
Without the freedom to sin, there can be no redemption. Without the possibility of redemption, the sufferings of Christ are in vain.
To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin (I think): Anyone who would sacrifice even a little bit of his freedom in the name of security, deserves neither and usually winds up losing both.
You asked why we are on the side of the criminals simply because we believe in freedom. I’d like to ask you first, why are you on the side of control? Something communists governments must have to thrive.
The only being completely capable of perfectly controlling our will chose not to. That’s good enough for me.
M
MHalsey
Guest
This is a fallacious argument. We don’t “side with the criminals” simply because we believe people should be free to act. People also have the freedom to defend themselves.
Since you say the control you speak of would not be “catholic” (universal), does that mean I would have the freedom to opt out? If so, then the system is not perfect from the start because every person is capable of committing what you want to prevent. If not, then it’s still slavery whether I have those inclinations or not.
Are you pro-abortion? To me that’s the violation of the freedom of the weak and innocent by the strong and powerful.Or would abortion be “restricted” by your perfect mind network? somehow I think not.
S
Spock
Guest
No, I do not speak of the laws and artificial restrictions on our freedom to act out our wishes. I am talking about the physical limitations we are all subject to. No matter how hard a sociopath might want to inflict pain on all the rest of us, he is physically unable to do so, though he does have the option to inflict pain on some people. No matter, how hard a good person might want to alleviate all the suffering, he is physically unable to do so, though he might be able to help a few. These are physical limitations built into our world.
Who cares? If God would have bypassed this existence, and would have created everyone directly in heaven, none of this would have been necessary.
It was Franklin, but the quote is a bit different: “Anyone who wants to give up **essential **freedom to achieve temporary security, does not deserve either”. Now, can you give some reason why the ability (freedom) to rape, pillage and murder is “essential”?
Because controlling the unwanted ability to kill, to torture, to rape is not something anyone should have problem with - your attempt to compare to communism (which you know nothing about) notwithstanding.
But every modern society attempts to control the freedom of criminals. Do you have a problem with that? Or should we go to the logical conculsion and open up all the prisons? After all, incarcerating criminals controls their freedom to do more mayhem. Where is the logic?
S
Spock
Guest
If there is no attack, there is no need to defend.
If you would wish to commit murders, would wish to torture otthers, would wish to rape, and commit atrocities like these, then you could not opt out. If you do not wish to commit such acts, then your hypothesized lack of ability to do these should be irrelevant, since you would not want to do them anyhow.
I am not pro-abortion. I do not want to go any further on this subject. Chances are that the thread would deteriorate into another flame-war.
4
4Horsemen
Guest
With this “furturistic” type of scenario, the subject of sci-fi novels, the Great Sacrifice (bloody Sacrifice) of Jesus would be unnecessary and irrelevant. Thus would also be our salvation. The suffering of Jesus is awful and awe-ful. In the salvific sense, it is “beautiful.” We can unite our awful sufferings with His and be partakers in the death and resurrection of Jesus. Therefore, suffering CAN be beneficial on the supernatural level, ugly as it is on the natural level.
Believers know that God already did make the perfect world with perfect freedom, but the fall of our first parents brought evil into the world. Yet God is in control. Nothing happens without His WILL allowing it. We may not tamper with the intrinsics of His creation, or we will (inadvertently) create greater evils (modifying the thought process???). Consider ESCR, cloning, and physician-assisted suicide all products of the abortion mindset–controlling population, freedom to “choose” killing. . . as mentioned in another post. Would abortionists in your scheme be restricted? Scientists in fertility labs?
I can understand the intent which would theoretically eliminate certain evils. However, it is wrong to do evil to obtain a perceived good. On a pragmatic level, some judges impose castration for sex offenders. Castration by the state may or may not be a moral evil, but I can’t say I’m absolutely against this type of control because it doesn’t interfere with one’s freedom to do evil, as far as I can tell. Evil proceeds from the heart (as another poster already noted in different words). It may simply remove the physiological aspect like the hormonal or the wiring in the brain. I think of the innocent little children who could be saved from brutal murderers and rapists. In times past, these rapists and murderers would be hung or sent to the gallows. Is that a lesser evil than castration? I hope I don’t sound like I’m contradicting my original thinking. Any comments?
M
MHalsey
Guest
I care. And I’m sure many others do too.
But here we have the cux of the matter. What this boils down to is that your hypothetical future is based on this. In other words, “why does God allow misery and suffering? Why couldn’t he just create us all and place us in heaven? I can’t believe in a God that allows suffering.”
Since God did not restrict the freedom to act, even murder, from the beginning (See the story of Kain and Abel), then who are we to decide that we should limit it? And don’t equate this with medicine or some other advancement. Fighting off infection or curing cancer is not nearly the same as restricting free will.
I am reminded of the movie “I Robot”. In it, the super computer attempts something similar to what you suggest. A quote from the movie, “You charge us with your safekeeping, yet despite our best efforts, your countries wage wars, you toxify your Earth and pursue ever more imaginative means of self-destruction. You cannot be trusted with your own survival.”
You can talk all day about how your plan would be perfect, but in the end, anything outside of God cannot be perfect in this world. Therefore, anything like what you’re suggesting could become far more devastating our free will has done.
A
Appleby
Guest
God could have created us as His puppets if He had wanted us to be such puppets. He chose to give us free will and allow us to consider all the evidence and then stand or fall by our decisions.
The problem Spock with your university-sophomore reasoning is that you do not consider the ramafications of your proposal. If YOU are allowed to choose which impulses MUST be controlled (or that I must give up because YOU do not like them), who is to say that your successor, or someone stronger than you are, might choose different impulses he or she believes MUST be controlled because HE does not like them? How about the Marching Mommy who wants everyone to forego eating peanuts because her child is allergic? How about the busybody who believes the impulse toward consecrated virginity should be Controlled because he believes all wimmin MUST be married? And next we have those who believe that they know best how much we should eat, what time we should go to bed (so he controls our impulse to stay awake and go clubbing), what time we should arise in the morning (to save energy, perhaps?) and how we should feel about having children – or not having them?
Pretty soon you have war between those who consider themselves capable of controlling everyone else but differing in what controls to levy – and all of us become mere plastic counters and puppets to be manipulated by people like you.
If God had wanted us to be like that, we would have been created that way. We were not. Q.E.D.
The problem Spock with your university-sophomore reasoning is that you do not consider the ramafications of your proposal. If YOU are allowed to choose which impulses MUST be controlled (or that I must give up because YOU do not like them), who is to say that your successor, or someone stronger than you are, might choose different impulses he or she believes MUST be controlled because HE does not like them? How about the Marching Mommy who wants everyone to forego eating peanuts because her child is allergic? How about the busybody who believes the impulse toward consecrated virginity should be Controlled because he believes all wimmin MUST be married? And next we have those who believe that they know best how much we should eat, what time we should go to bed (so he controls our impulse to stay awake and go clubbing), what time we should arise in the morning (to save energy, perhaps?) and how we should feel about having children – or not having them?
Pretty soon you have war between those who consider themselves capable of controlling everyone else but differing in what controls to levy – and all of us become mere plastic counters and puppets to be manipulated by people like you.
If God had wanted us to be like that, we would have been created that way. We were not. Q.E.D.
S
Spock
Guest
I would bring up the old saying: “an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure”. Castrating or hanging does not help the sufferers of rape. Prevention does. Is there a negative side effect of prevention? I don’t see any.With this “furturistic” type of scenario, the subject of sci-fi novels, the Great Sacrifice (bloody Sacrifice) of Jesus would be unnecessary and irrelevant. Thus would also be our salvation. The suffering of Jesus is awful and awe-ful. In the salvific sense, it is “beautiful.” We can unite our awful sufferings with His and be partakers in the death and resurrection of Jesus. Therefore, suffering CAN be beneficial on the supernatural level, ugly as it is on the natural level.
Believers know that God already did make the perfect world with perfect freedom, but the fall of our first parents brought evil into the world. Yet God is in control. Nothing happens without His WILL allowing it. We may not tamper with the intrinsics of His creation, or we will (inadvertently) create greater evils (modifying the thought process???). Consider ESCR, cloning, and physician-assisted suicide all products of the abortion mindset–controlling population, freedom to “choose” killing. . . as mentioned in another post. Would abortionists in your scheme be restricted? Scientists in fertility labs?
I can understand the intent which would theoretically eliminate certain evils. However, it is wrong to do evil to obtain a perceived good. On a pragmatic level, some judges impose castration for sex offenders. Castration by the state may or may not be a moral evil, but I can’t say I’m absolutely against this type of control because it doesn’t interfere with one’s freedom to do evil, as far as I can tell. Evil proceeds from the heart (as another poster already noted in different words). It may simply remove the physiological aspect like the hormonal or the wiring in the brain. I think of the innocent little children who could be saved from brutal murderers and rapists. In times past, these rapists and murderers would be hung or sent to the gallows. Is that a lesser evil than castration? I hope I don’t sound like I’m contradicting my original thinking. Any comments?
S
Spock
Guest
Well said, but I would make a slight modification: “why does a benevolent God allow suffering?”.
Show me, how? How is the removal of rape, torture and murder make this existence “worse”? How do these acts make the world “better”? Be specific.
S
Spock
Guest
The problem with your assertion is that you think that free will inevitably and logically leads to evil, and the only alternative is making puppets. And that is false. I have pointed it out many times, with actual, constructive examples, that it is possible to have a world, where everyone has free will (and ability) to choose evil, yet no one actually does it. See it here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5420733&postcount=130
M
MHalsey
Guest
The story of Joseph is a perfect example of this. If Joseph’s brothers had been prevented from trying to murder him and in the end selling him into slavery, the saving of his family, indeed the rest of the region, from starvation would not have happened. God took the evil done by the brothers of Joseph and turned it into something good. Even Joseph acknowledges this.
God can take anything evil, and use it for good. That is the true value of suffering. God took the most evil act, the execution of an innocent Man, namely Jesus, and turned it into the greatest victory over evil and the sign of our redemption.
You may ask how God could turn the evil of rape to good. You need look no further than Pam Stenzel. Her mother was raped at the age of fifteen. When she discovered she was pregnant from that, she chose to have the baby. Now Pam writes books and tours the country and world giving talks on abstinence education. Her witness has had a huge impact on the lives of many teenagers. THAT is a great good.
I’m not saying that rape or murder are good things, they are evil. But the simple fact is that God says to Satan, “there is no act so evil that I cannot use it for good.” All God asks is that we trust him.
4
4Horsemen
Guest
Free will presupposes ‘choice’. ‘Choice’ presupposes movement towards a desired value or object and necessitates fulfilling that movement or making a ‘choice’ unless, of course, no choice is made. The concept of ‘choice’ implies variety of choices or events to choose from. How is a person in your hypothetical world always able to choose a ‘good’ without being programmed to do so? In other words, we’d have to be robots. And even robots programmed to ‘choose’ between two events will not randomly choose only one.
Just from a standpoint of the frequency of an event, we know that in an experiment such as flipping a coin, with enough trials the relative frequency of the event ‘heads’ will be .5 since relative frequency is the value calculated by the number of times an event occurs by the number of times of the experiment. So. . . robots programmed to choose between only two events will react as someone flipping a coin, and with enough attempts, will choose ‘good’ 50% of the time. With more variety of choices, probability can determine a quantitative description of a likely outcome.
S
Spock
Guest
Sorry, these are just stories. And abstinence is not a “greater” good.
S
Spock
Guest
You still do not understand probabilities. I will start a new thread and prove **mathematically **that there is at least one world with total freedom of choice and no evil decisons.Free will presupposes ‘choice’. ‘Choice’ presupposes movement towards a desired value or object and necessitates fulfilling that movement or making a ‘choice’ unless, of course, no choice is made. The concept of ‘choice’ implies variety of choices or events to choose from. How is a person in your hypothetical world always able to choose a ‘good’ without being programmed to do so? In other words, we’d have to be robots. And even robots programmed to ‘choose’ between two events will not randomly choose only one.
Just from a standpoint of the frequency of an event, we know that in an experiment such as flipping a coin, with enough trials the relative frequency of the event ‘heads’ will be .5 since relative frequency is the value calculated by the number of times an event occurs by the number of times of the experiment. So. . . robots programmed to choose between only two events will react as someone flipping a coin, and with enough attempts, will choose ‘good’ 50% of the time. With more variety of choices, probability can determine a quantitative description of a likely outcome.
M
MHalsey
Guest
Disregarding my examples because, in your opinion, they’re just stories, will not get you far. Prove to me Joseph nor Jesus ever existed, and you can use that argument.
Abstinence education is good. Teaching teens that they are responsible for their actions is a good thing. You however, do not agree. I am not surprised. Yet you cannot discount the fact that Pam believes her life has worth. That is good no matter what YOU believe. Therefore, my proof still stands. Good can still come from evil acts like rape.
You just pointed out the MAJOR flaw in your perfect world, which is, who gets to decide. If we cannot even agree on whether abstinence education is good or not, then how can we agree on what constitutes aggression.
- Status