Right to life.. right to anything?

[warpspeedpetey]

Ok, I guess, I will have to explain it in detail

ok. let me say this again.

G-d could prevent every evil act, but that would violate free will.

how do you propose that G-d prevents every evil act without violating free will?

 

[momor]

ok. let me say this again.

G-d could prevent every evil act, but that would violate free will.

how do you propose that G-d prevents every evil act without violating free will?

Forgive me for butting in. Not that I agree but if free will (the desire/intention) is separate from the freedom to act, then God can prevent the action without violating/preventing the intention. In other words God could stay your hand in the act of killing someone without removing your intention to kill (and you would still be morally culpable for that act in God’s eyes). Sort of the moral opposite of Abraham and Issac.

 

[R_Daneel]

ok. let me say this again.

G-d could prevent every evil act, but that would violate free will.

how do you propose that G-d prevents every evil act without violating free will?

I really wish you would have answered my previous post. But that is probably too much to hope for when one is confronted by an eel in that proverbial bucket of “smile” (anagram is intended!). Can I take that you agreed with the analysis? (I don’t hold my breath.)

However, I will answer (elementary courtesy). I don’t have to propose anything special, you already gave the solution. According to you an umipaired free will exists, if the person can make a decision to carry out an act, regardless whether he can carry it out or not. God can in any manner of his choosing prevent the actual execution, but since only the decision matters, not the execution of the decision, the free will is not violated. According to you, of course. And in the other thread, of course.

Interestingly enough, Jesus would support you, when he said: “whoever looks at a woman with lust, he already committed adultery with her in his heart”. A perfect example of “thought-crime” about 2000 years before 1984 was written. (There is nothing new under the Sun!) So, the person decides to commit an evil act. Check. That is something that God can punish, even if the act was prevented. Check. He person goes to hell, for his intended deed. Check. No act was committed, no one is hurt. Check. We have the perfect solution, with Jesus’s approval! What else can we hope for?

Time to eat crow, don’t you think?

 

[R_Daneel]

Forgive me for butting in. Not that I agree but if free will (the desire/intention) is separate from the freedom to act, then God can prevent the action without violating/preventing the intention. In other words God could stay your hand in the act of killing someone without removing your intention to kill (and you would still be morally culpable for that act in God’s eyes). Sort of the moral opposite of Abraham and Issac.

Good job, Mormor!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I really wish you would have answered my previous post.

i am.

Can I take that you agreed with the analysis? (I don’t hold my breath.)

nope

However, I will answer (elementary courtesy).

wow. you went from ‘eel in a bucket of slime’ to ‘elementary courtesy’. how magnanimous!

I don’t have to propose anything special, you already gave the solution. According to you an umipaired free will exists, if the person can make a decision to carry out an act, regardless whether he can carry it out or not. God can in any manner of his choosing prevent the actual execution, but since only the decision matters, not the execution of the decision, the free will is not violated. According to you, of course. And in the other thread, of course.

and what manner are you proposing? last i checked an act of free will itself can be evil. ever hear of hate?

[Interestingly enough, Jesus would support you, when he said: “whoever looks at a woman with lust, he already committed adultery with her in his heart”. A perfect example of “thought-crime” about 2000 years before 1984 was written. (There is nothing new under the Sun!) So, the person decides to commit an evil act. Check. That is something that God can punish, even if the act was prevented. Check. He person goes to hell, for his intended deed. Check. No act was committed, no one is hurt. Check. We have the perfect solution, with Jesus’s approval! What else can we hope for?

…shot yourself in the foot again.

there is no way to prevent all evil acts without violating free will, specifically because some evil acts are acts of free will.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Time to eat crow, don’t you think?

if there is any left when your finished, id be happy too.
[/quote]

 

[davidv]

I really wish you would have answered my previous post. But that is probably too much to hope for when one is confronted by an eel in that proverbial bucket of “smile” (anagram is intended!). Can I take that you agreed with the analysis? (I don’t hold my breath.)

However, I will answer (elementary courtesy). I don’t have to propose anything special, you already gave the solution. According to you an umipaired free will exists, if the person can make a decision to carry out an act, regardless whether he can carry it out or not. God can in any manner of his choosing prevent the actual execution, but since only the decision matters, not the execution of the decision, the free will is not violated. According to you, of course. And in the other thread, of course.

Interestingly enough, Jesus would support you, when he said: “whoever looks at a woman with lust, he already committed adultery with her in his heart”. A perfect example of “thought-crime” about 2000 years before 1984 was written. (There is nothing new under the Sun!) So, the person decides to commit an evil act. Check. That is something that God can punish, even if the act was prevented. Check. He person goes to hell, for his intended deed. Check. No act was committed, no one is hurt. Check. We have the perfect solution, with Jesus’s approval! What else can we hope for?

Time to eat crow, don’t you think?

Except one small problem. The bolded sentence isn’t true. The decider hurt his relationship with God. A self-inflicted hurt.

 

[R_Daneel]

Except one small problem. The bolded sentence isn’t true. The decider hurt his relationship with God. A self-inflicted hurt.

That is his business. Of course he can always repent and patch up his relationship with God.

If you want, we can say, no one else is hurt. And that is an enormous improvement - especially from the intended victim’s point of view.

 

[R_Daneel]

last i checked an act of free will itself can be evil. ever hear of hate?

I don’t accept the concept of thought-crime. Obviously, you do. An act, which is prevented from being carried out is a huge improvement over the one which is allowed to be executed. If you were the victim of that intended crime you would agree…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

That is his business. Of course he can always repent and patch up his relationship with God.

If you want, we can say, no one else is hurt. And that is an enormous improvement - especially from the intended victim’s point of view.

you cant even say that. G-d is a victim also. thats why one can commit an evil act by hating another.

 

[R_Daneel]

you cant even say that. G-d is a victim also. thats why one can commit an evil act by hating another.

Oh, the po’ Gawd. He is huwt by ouw feelings. Is he not hurt by our actions? Obviously not, since he allows them. Is God more hurt by our thoughts than our actions? Obviously, since he allows the actions… You could not be more disrespectful toward God, even if you tried to spout such nonsense about him.

 

[vera_dicere]

The right to life is a silly concept.

How do you have a right to something you already possess, freely, and without being taken illegally from another?

Its like saying you have the right to skin.

 

[vera_dicere]

My conclusion remains the same: if a right cannot be guaranteed, if it cannot be protected, it is no better than having no rights at all.

We have the right to vote in most western nations. Some people don’t vote.

In other countries, people are willing to die for the vote. They are taken, imprisoned, tortured and executed for fighting for the right to vote.

You can harp on all you want about rights not being enforced means you might as well have no rights at all, but should the govt. or anyone, take away your right to life or whatever right you deem an appropriate simile, I would imagine you wouldn’t be too happy about it.

The govt. and its law enforcement isn’t every where at every moment, and can not be expected to protected from psychos. It can, however, protect others from said psycho if said psycho is caught.

God on the other hand, will not interefer with our free will, doing so would void our need for faith.

 

[R_Daneel]

We have the right to vote in most western nations. Some people don’t vote.

In other countries, people are willing to die for the vote. They are taken, imprisoned, tortured and executed for fighting for the right to vote.

You can harp on all you want about rights not being enforced means you might as well have no rights at all, but should the govt. or anyone, take away your right to life or whatever right you deem an appropriate simile, I would imagine you wouldn’t be too happy about it.

Been there, done it, have the t-shirt to prove it. I voted with my feet.

The govt. and its law enforcement isn’t every where at every moment, and can not be expected to protected from psychos. It can, however, protect others from said psycho if said psycho is caught.

Which is no consolation for me, if I am already dead.

God on the other hand, will not interefer with our free will, doing so would void our need for faith.

A very small price to pay. I would be willing to take that exchange any day.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I don’t accept the concept of thought-crime. Obviously, you do. An act, which is prevented from being carried out is a huge improvement over the one which is allowed to be executed. If you were the victim of that intended crime you would agree…

the act of hating is considered evil, the world over among almost every culture and religion, including secular people.

G-d still cant prevent every evil act without violating free will.

 

[R_Daneel]

the act of hating is considered evil, the world over among almost every culture and religion, including secular people.

I don’t know where you got your idea from. Care to demonstrate? But I am sure if **you **would be the intended victim of an intended evil act, you would be happy if it were prevented. One of the reason we keep a police force is to prevent an evil act, if possible. Only an idiot would be concerned about an evil act, which is not put into action. The concept of “thought-crime” belongs to the worst totalitarian system ever imagnied - and to Christianity… peculiar.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Oh, the po’ Gawd. He is huwt by ouw feelings.

you should swallow that mouthful of crow before you type, it makes you sound funny.

Is he not hurt by our actions? Obviously not, since he allows them. Is God more hurt by our thoughts than our actions? Obviously, since he allows the actions… You could not be more disrespectful toward God, even if you tried to spout such nonsense about him.

all evil offends G-d.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I don’t know where you got your idea from. Care to demonstrate?

sure, things like racism, sexism, etc. hate is evil.

 

[R_Daneel]

all evil offends G-d.

That is his problem. Tell him to get over it.

sure, things like racism, sexism, etc. hate is evil.

Only if put into practise. If it stays an internal conviction, it does not hurt anyone - except God - as you say. But that is his problem, not ours. If he could fix the problem and does not do it, he can only blame himself. There are no excuses. You said that all (or almost all) civilized societies consider “hate” evil - even if not put into practice. Bring up some evidence for that claim.

 

[momor]

I don’t know where you got your idea from. Care to demonstrate? But I am sure if **you **would be the intended victim of an intended evil act, you would be happy if it were prevented. One of the reason we keep a police force is to prevent an evil act, if possible. Only an idiot would be concerned about an evil act, which is not put into action. The concept of “thought-crime” belongs to the worst totalitarian system ever imagnied - and to Christianity… peculiar.

Bad things happen because of original sin. I don’t claim to understand it but I accept it. I cannot begin to fathom God’s mind and plan for His creatures. I do know that God IS there to make good things out of the bad. It’s happened more than once in my life. It hasn’t been on my timetable, but I was always able to look back later and see how it happened. The longer I stayed mad, the longer it took to see it.

 

[Black_Rose]

Been there, done it, have the t-shirt to prove it. I voted with my feet.

Do you live in Hong Kong or perhaps Singapore as an expatriate because Hong Kong is the only country that I know that has the attractiveness of Western capitalist prosperity without the right to vote for its citizens? (it also explains the very high gini coefficient in HK compared to the US and social democratic Western European nations since citizens cannot vote for politicians advocating the provision of public goods. )