The four requirements of justifyable pain, suffering or harm

[pnewton]

And that is how God “raises” us. He does not interfere even when someone is about to make a fatal mistake, and jeopardizes his “salvation”.

He doesn’t? I do not know that we can know the mind of God well enough to know that. We do not yet see the end to all the means.

 

[Spock]

He doesn’t? I do not know that we can know the mind of God well enough to know that. We do not yet see the end to all the means.

Yes, we can. If you assume that there is at least one human who ends up in hell, then God abdicated his responsibility in that particular case.

 

[pnewton]

Yes, we can. If you assume that there is at least one human who ends up in hell, then God abdicated his responsibility in that particular case.

I see. So you think God should have created automatons? That would have been an option. I happen see the need for freedom of will. Even a child raised perfectly may go astray, no fault of the parents. I do not believe in a person forever dodging personal responsibility and forever blaming his parents. Like that recalcitrant child, a man can forever blame God for his sin. Such blame does not make God responsible.

 

[Spock]

I see. So you think God should have created automatons? That would have been an option. I happen see the need for freedom of will. Even a child raised perfectly may go astray, no fault of the parents. I do not believe in a person forever dodging personal responsibility and forever blaming his parents. Like that recalcitrant child, a man can forever blame God for his sin. Such blame does not make God responsible.

Very well… let’s allow that child to play with loaded guns, to poke into live sockets, etc… after all there is his precious free will, which must be respected. And when he shoots his buddy, let’s wash our hands… “But I told him never to pull the trigger, when pointing the gun toward others!”. Yeah, very, very convincing. Let’s stop this nonsense, shall we?

 

[The_Exodus]

This all hangs on the phrase “just punishment” and the extent of the punishment. It is generally accepted that retribution or revenge is not a moral principle. “Restitution”, if possible, could be justified, revenge cannot be.

Revenge is obviously not the same thing as punishment. Strawman.

Irrelevant. It is not man punishing man, but God punishing man through man. Though I am not saying the Jews were punished for their sins, or anything like that. Further, I am speaking in principle, not particular matters.

spock:

Eternal punishment for a temporal “crime” is never just, since it is out of proportion.

Time has nothing to do with the gravity of sin. Hence I may murder a man in one instant. You wouldn’t say this was on the same level as telling a white lie, which took the same amount of time.

Also, this crime is against the infinite source of all good, and the surpreme authority of the universe. Ergo, the sin is in nature necessarily infinite.

In metaphysical principle, yes. I’m not saying the doctrine is emotionally appealing or that I would accept it under extreme torture. I am only saying metaphysically it is sound.

 

[pnewton]

Let’s stop this nonsense, shall we?

I will not trade insults here with you.

 

[Momofmyangels]

Very well… let’s allow that child to play with loaded guns, to poke into live sockets, etc… after all there is his precious free will, which must be respected. And when he shoots his buddy, let’s wash our hands… “But I told him never to pull the trigger, when pointing the gun toward others!”. Yeah, very, very convincing. Let’s stop this nonsense, shall we?

Spock,
I agree and see pnewton’s point here. As parents, we train our children, we set boundaries, rules, curfews…for them to follow. We teach them to stay away from loaded guns, live sockets and whatever else could possibly harm them. But, if they go and chose to do something wrong, despite our teaching otherwise, how can we be held accountable? We are not going to go through life with each of our children holding their hands and preventing them from each and every thing that we think might be wrong or harmful. There comes a time when we have to let go and have faith that the upbringing they received from us will take over and hopefully help them make right decisions and stay out of harm’s way.

Just like our children, we have been given rules to follow. If we chose not to follow them, then that is our choice and only ours. To blame God every time some evil is committed, because “He is our father and should have taught us better” is frankly a cop-out.

Regarding your four examples quite a few posts back on someone inflicting harm on non-volunteers…even though those things may have been/are being done, who ever said that they were right things to do? All four examples are morally wrong actions. As far as I am concerned, life is precious, period. Just like no one may take the life of another, no one may inflict harm on another.

 

[Spock]

Spock,
I agree and see pnewton’s point here. As parents, we train our children, we set boundaries, rules, curfews…for them to follow. We teach them to stay away from loaded guns, live sockets and whatever else could possibly harm them. But, if they go and chose to do something wrong, despite our teaching otherwise, how can we be held accountable? We are not going to go through life with each of our children holding their hands and preventing them from each and every thing that we think might be wrong or harmful. There comes a time when we have to let go and have faith that the upbringing they received from us will take over and hopefully help them make right decisions and stay out of harm’s way.

Just like our children, we have been given rules to follow. If we chose not to follow them, then that is our choice and only ours. To blame God every time some evil is committed, because “He is our father and should have taught us better” is frankly a cop-out.

If that would be my argument, it would be a cop-out. But it is not. The difference between the human parent and God is that the human parent is not omni-anything. The excuse that “I did not see it coming up…” or “I was powerless to prevent it…” may be applicable to a human parent, but inapplicable to God. You see my point?

 

[Momofmyangels]

If that would be my argument, it would be a cop-out. But it is not. The difference between the human parent and God is that the human parent is not omni-anything. The excuse that “I did not see it coming up…” or “I was powerless to prevent it…” may be applicable to a human parent, but inapplicable to God. You see my point?

I believe I see the point you are attempting to make, but it is a faulty one. We are not God’s puppets, Spock. Just like we do not control each and every action our children make, God does not control ours. You stated you were a parent, well, how pleased are you when your child/ren, under your guidance, make/s morally right decisions based on what you have taught them? How much more pleased are you when they make those right decisions without your guidance, drawing only on the rules, boundaries and experiences you have set before them prior to setting them out on their own? Would it not be the utmost example of love and respect for you that they have chosen to accept your teaching and live accordingly?

Even if we, as human parents had the gift of omni-everything, would we be as pleased and felt as loved and respected by our children if they were just programmed to follow our rules and expectations rather than if they truly chose to do so? One is certainly true love, the other just doesn’t quite measure up.

 

[vz71]

We are to love God.

Without free will, there can be no love.

 

[tonyrey]

We are to love God.

Without free will, there can be no love.

The famous atheist Sartre said we are not persons unless we are free to choose.

 

[Spock]

I believe I see the point you are attempting to make, but it is a faulty one. We are not God’s puppets, Spock. Just like we do not control each and every action our children make, God does not control ours. You stated you were a parent, well, how pleased are you when your child/ren, under your guidance, make/s morally right decisions based on what you have taught them? How much more pleased are you when they make those right decisions without your guidance, drawing only on the rules, boundaries and experiences you have set before them prior to setting them out on their own? Would it not be the utmost example of love and respect for you that they have chosen to accept your teaching and live accordingly?

Even if we, as human parents had the gift of omni-everything, would we be as pleased and felt as loved and respected by our children if they were just programmed to follow our rules and expectations rather than if they truly chose to do so? One is certainly true love, the other just doesn’t quite measure up.

What you say is correct, but it is completely beside the point. If you allow your child to commit a fatal mistake, which you know of, and have the opportunity to prevent, and still don’t do it, then you are not a loving parent. That is all. Do you have any argument against this principle?

 

[Spock]

Without free will, there can be no love.

Love is not a volitional act. Love is a state of mind, which is either there or it is not. If you love someone you cannot decide to hate him. If you hate someone you cannot decide to love him. Of course to act on love is a volitional act. But to confuse the state of mind with the act based upon the state of mind is nonsense.

If you hate someone, you still can decide to act in his best interest, but that is not love. If you hate someone, you can still decide to sacrifice yourself for him. But that is not love, it is a sign of insanity. The commandment: “love your enemies” is met by the question: “why?”. And there is no rational answer.

 

[Momofmyangels]

What you say is correct, but it is completely beside the point. If you allow your child to commit a fatal mistake, which you know of, and have the opportunity to prevent, and still don’t do it, then you are not a loving parent. That is all. Do you have any argument against this principle?

But, it is not a principle. It is a statement made by you that leaves out so many essential details to be accurate. Firstly, as a human parent, of course we would do most everything in our power to protect our children from committing any fatal mistakes. But, even still, there are limitations here. There comes a point when we have to let go and let them do as they choose. We can’t really lock them behind closed doors for the duration of their lives to protect them, now can we? Why would we have children then in the first place? We humans attempt to exercise way more control on each other than we should. We are not at peace until we’ve gotten someone to see it our way, do it our way and think our way. This is NOT out of a genuine concern for the wellfare of others 100% of the time.

God, on the other hand, does have genuine care and concern for our welfare 100% of the time. As I have stated before, we are not his puppets. He does not control us. He has set the rules, the boundaries, the path to live by. And in so doing, He has left it up to us to follow them. His love for us is so far from what we could even comprehend, that He lets us choose our own path even if it is to our own detriment. If He did this without any instructions, without any rules, without any help, then yes that would have been irresponsible parenting. But, He hasn’t. He has given us all the instructions and help we could possibly need. But, again He has not forced us to seek it out, that has to be our choice. This, Spock is true love. It is not as you say merely a state of mind. And it is not eternally absolute. One can certainly decide to change their hatred towards someone and love them. It is an extreme act of love to change hatred into love.

 

[vz71]

Love is not a volitional act. Love is a state of mind, which is either there or it is not.

I’ll not argue the meaning of love with somone that demonstrates such a misunderstanding of it.

Love is many things, but perhaps the most important is that it is a choice.

Those that have been faithfully married for any real length of time can readily attest to that fact.

 

[vz71]

What you say is correct, but it is completely beside the point. If you allow your child to commit a fatal mistake, which you know of, and have the opportunity to prevent, and still don’t do it, then you are not a loving parent. That is all. Do you have any argument against this principle?

The only opportunity that God would have to prevent our choosing death is to remove our choice. That is something that God will not do.

 

[pnewton]

Love is not a volitional act. Love is a state of mind, which is either there or it is not. If you love someone you cannot decide to hate him. If you hate someone you cannot decide to love him. Of course to act on love is a volitional act. But to confuse the state of mind with the act based upon the state of mind is nonsense.

I’ll not argue the meaning of love with somone that demonstrates such a misunderstanding of it.

The only way to know love is to know God. It is understandable that those who do not know God can not know love, and thus, do not understand suffering. Feelings of love and acts of love are pale shadows of love.

In this, we see the best answer suffering. We ask God why. Our answer is love. We do not understand the answer, and God repeats it. The more we know and trust in God’s love, the less we need an answer. This is not exactly what we want, but it works well.

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

“Love is many things,”

That’s one problem with discussions about love. We use only one word to convey so many different things. When we say we’re “in love” with someone we’re usually discussing eros / erotic or romantic love.

“but perhaps the most important is that it is a choice.”

Seriously? People fall in love all the time with others who are terrible matches, and you can’t make yourself love an otherwise good person if you ‘lack chemistry’. Hence the Greco-Roman idea of Cupid’s arrows making people fall in love.

“Those that have been faithfully married for any real length of time can readily attest to that fact.”

That’s not my experience. What you can do is to choose to rekindle a flagging romantic relationship by setting the mood with flowers, candles, and soft music and going out on a date together. That often works! But you can’t directly choose whether you fall in love.

Perhaps lifetime monogamous relationships are unnatural–not many animals seem to practice it. For the benefit of kids, mothers and fathers should form long-term friendships, but perhaps only make love to whomever they’re in-love with at any point and time. To clarify, such a system does not require any lies, dishonesty, or cheating. And I’m not even proposing that such a relationship be called marriage, although “open marriages” have existed for a long time.

 

[pnewton]

Seriously? People fall in love all the time with others who are terrible matches, and you can’t make yourself love an otherwise good person if you ‘lack chemistry’. Hence the Greco-Roman idea of Cupid’s arrows making people fall in love.

The problem with chemistry is that it can explode in your face.

I think the Greeks disprove, rather than prove your poing. Cupid is only the Roman name for the Greek Eros, from which we get the word “erotic”. Yes, love has more than one meaning and the Greeks separated the erotic from the brotherly and then from true charitable love. It should go without saying that for the purpose of understanding suffering, we should only focus on the latter. Of this love, “falling” has no part.

Yes, a relationship based on erotic love, or even brotherly love, lacks a foundation for a life of commitment, which is why we have such a problem with the family unit today. We have forgotten what the ancients knew and substituted paper mache for rock.

 

[tonyrey]

Perhaps lifetime monogamous relationships are unnatural–not many animals seem to practice it.

You seem to be proposing that we should model ourselves on animals and follow the law of the jungle! Otherwise why single out monogamy from every other human activity?

For the benefit of kids, mothers and fathers should form long-term friendships, but perhaps only make love to whomever they’re in-love with at any point and time.

In other words fidelity, commitment and unselfish love count for nothing…

To clarify, such a system does not require any lies, dishonesty, or cheating. And I’m not even proposing that such a relationship be called marriage, although “open marriages” have existed for a long time.

That is the logical consequence of the man=ape theory. Morality gives way to expediency in your scheme of** things. **Persons disappear out of the window…