The "right" to... whatever!

[frangiuliano115]

Sure. Everyone who argues for unbridled free will, everyone who argues for natural disasters IMPLICITLY advocates and endorses their corollaries. Of course they will never openly admit it… it is even possible that they don’t even realize what they are “voting for”. Though it is hard to imagine.

When someone says that God should interfere with the “free will” of rapists and murderers, the answer is, that such interference would rob the rapist of his free will, and that free will is the greatest good. They sometimes add that the rape and murder are the price WE must pay for the free will. Observe, they say “WE must pay”. Of course the victims of such acts are the ones who must pay the price. But, what the heck? If the price is paid by others… no problem.

When someone advocates that God should prevent the tornadoes and tsunamis, they have a “pat” answer. They say: but if there would be no natural disasters, how could people practice charity and compassion? The courage and compassion are so important that the price “WE pay” (as they like to put it) is worth to have the superior “good” of compassion. Again, it is NEVER the victims who say that. It is always those others, who do not have a skin in the game. You know, it is easy to endure someone else’s misfortune.

okay… I see. This is the robot theory. If we didn’t have free will we’d just be robots. God didn’t want robots, He wanted someone to really love Him back and you can only do this if you have free will. If you force me to love, it’s not real love.

I agree with that. But it doesn’t solve any problems. Couldn’t I love God and NOT have evil around?

I understand the concept of free will. I understand that this is the only way to love.

I don’t understand why this has anything to do with evil, tsunamis, rapes, and the rest.
I hope I don’t get posts. I’m just saying that this does NOT solve the problem of evil. We come up with variouis definitions and reasons - all fall short.

Fran

 

[zyzz]

okay… I see. This is the robot theory. If we didn’t have free will we’d just be robots. God didn’t want robots, He wanted someone to really love Him back and you can only do this if you have free will. If you force me to love, it’s not real love.

This is close, but no cigar. Freedom has many levels, it is not a binary variable. Right now you have the freedom to buy a gun and go on a shooting spree. But you don’t, because you don’t want to do it. You feel repulsed by the idea that you would go an randomly kill people - even if you could get away with it. And fortunately you are not unique in this respect. Most of us would never use this kind of freedom. We have it, but we don’t use it.

There are a few people, a miniscule percentage who have no such self-imposed, built-in barrier. They love to kill, to torture, to destroy. When we capture these people, we put them in jails, in other words we take away their freedom - as much as we can. So the concept of limiting one’s freedom is perfectly fine. Mind you, these people still have a lot of freedom. But their freedom to cause mayhem is taken away. No one of sound mind would argue that we should let these psychopaths roam freely and do whatever they want to do.

We curtail their freedom. Is there anything wrong with that? I don’t think so. Just because someone’s freedom is limited, that does NOT turn them into “robots”. The “robot” defense is one of the worst attempts to approach the problem of evil. (Of course they are all bad.)

I agree with that. But it doesn’t solve any problems. Couldn’t I love God and NOT have evil around?

Of course you could. As long as you have the freedom to make choices between two “good” options, you have sufficient freedom.

I don’t understand why this has anything to do with evil, tsunamis, rapes, and the rest.
I hope I don’t get posts. I’m just saying that this does NOT solve the problem of evil. We come up with variouis definitions and reasons - all fall short.

Of course you cannot understand. Not because you are limited in understanding, rather because there is no connection there.

Now there is one more “hurdle”. There are some really strange people, who assert that having the freedom to choose between two good options is not enough. They say that without the ability to choose “evil”, there is no “real” freedom. They say that “evil” is necessary to have “true” freedom.

So let’s give them what they want. Let’s allow some real “evil”, good, yummy, “mortally sinful” actions. Something that is supposed to make God real sad or angry (though I rather doubt that God would care). For example let’s give the freedom of being able to masturbate, to fornicate, to use contraception, all those deliciously “sinful” sexual actions, which have nothing to do with procreation, but have everything to do with mutual pleasure. That would allow the “heathens”, who do not love God to express their lack of love, while not hurting anyone else in the process. Those who “love” God could go one their ultra-scrupulous, nitpicking ways. They could close their eyes when a steamy sexual act is displayed in a movie. They could feel horrified at looking Rodin’s beautiful sculpture: “Kiss”, since it is sheer “porn” in their eyes.

So we can have the best of two worlds. No “robots”, lots of freedom to love or not love God, while no freedom to kill, rape or mutilate other people.

 

[PRmerger]

okay… I see. This is the robot theory. If we didn’t have free will we’d just be robots. God didn’t want robots, He wanted someone to really love Him back and you can only do this if you have free will. If you force me to love, it’s not real love.

I agree with that. But it doesn’t solve any problems. Couldn’t I love God and NOT have evil around?

That happened once. But 2 people ruined it.

 

[frangiuliano115]

This is close, but no cigar. Freedom has many levels, it is not a binary variable. Right now you have the freedom to buy a gun and go on a shooting spree. But you don’t, because you don’t want to do it. You feel repulsed by the idea that you would go an randomly kill people - even if you could get away with it. And fortunately you are not unique in this respect. Most of us would never use this kind of freedom. We have it, but we don’t use it.

There are a few people, a miniscule percentage who have no such self-imposed, built-in barrier. They love to kill, to torture, to destroy. When we capture these people, we put them in jails, in other words we take away their freedom - as much as we can. So the concept of limiting one’s freedom is perfectly fine. Mind you, these people still have a lot of freedom. But their freedom to cause mayhem is taken away. No one of sound mind would argue that we should let these psychopaths roam freely and do whatever they want to do.

We curtail their freedom. Is there anything wrong with that? I don’t think so. Just because someone’s freedom is limited, that does NOT turn them into “robots”. The “robot” defense is one of the worst attempts to approach the problem of evil. (Of course they are all bad.)

Of course you could. As long as you have the freedom to make choices between two “good” options, you have sufficient freedom.

Of course you cannot understand. Not because you are limited in understanding, rather because there is no connection there.

Now there is one more “hurdle”. There are some really strange people, who assert that having the freedom to choose between two good options is not enough. They say that without the ability to choose “evil”, there is no “real” freedom. They say that “evil” is necessary to have “true” freedom.

So let’s give them what they want. Let’s allow some real “evil”, good, yummy, “mortally sinful” actions. Something that is supposed to make God real sad or angry (though I rather doubt that God would care). For example let’s give the freedom of being able to masturbate, to fornicate, to use contraception, all those deliciously “sinful” sexual actions, which have nothing to do with procreation, but have everything to do with mutual pleasure. That would allow the “heathens”, who do not love God to express their lack of love, while not hurting anyone else in the process. Those who “love” God could go one their ultra-scrupulous, nitpicking ways. They could close their eyes when a steamy sexual act is displayed in a movie. They could feel horrified at looking Rodin’s beautiful sculpture: “Kiss”, since it is sheer “porn” in their eyes.

So we can have the best of two worlds. No “robots”, lots of freedom to love or not love God, while no freedom to kill, rape or mutilate other people.

ONE

 

[frangiuliano115]

TWO

Hi Zyzz

You know, atheists make sense to me. My problem is NOT that they don’t make sense. I actually agree with everything you’ve said above.

I’ve never heard the concept of needing evil to be able to make a real choice. I’m just wondering if this is a true Christian concept or if christians are just saying they need to choose between the two since evil already exists and the choice is present. I can’t reply to this because I haven’t heard of this and I’ve been around a long time. I’d have to agree with you that it’s a rather sick theology if it IS true. I could ask Fra’ Lorenzo who knows all the church teachings but he’ll carry on for an hour or more. I just can’t address this.

I’m repeating now, but my point is that since there is good and evil - we must choose the good. So YES for putting people in jail. Of course freedom has to be limited. But you see, YOU see freedom in a bigger context. Christians see freedom in smaller context.
So you see freedom as having the choice to get a gun and go on a shooting spree. But what about what happens once you’ve decided you’re a moral person and are NOT going to do that? Is there a further change possible? Or is that it? IOW Are we ever really good enough? Are we ever really moral enough? Is there a limit?

Take the Dalai Llama for instance. Is he content with not seeing The Kiss? (haven’t seen it - don’t live in the states). Does he even WANT to see it? Or that other stuff you speak of. See, this is where I think we part in our concept of Christianity. It’s not a set of rules. You could be christian and still be staring at the statue. OR you could be a christian and it could really turn you off. It depends on what level you’re functioning on. Doing something or not doing something doesn’t make me a christian. Following Jesus does that. And you learn how to follow more and more as you go along - even to the point that The Kiss DOES turn you off! NOT because it’s supposed to or because I’m trying so hard to be “holy”. I think you’re getting the following of rules mixed up with Christianity. I’d say christianity goes beyond rules to the core of the person. I’d say christianity doesn’t depend on what you DO but on what you ARE. It’s a being, not a doing.

I think it’s difficult to understand something by looking at it or studying it from the outside. Some on these threads have sent me links when we’re speaking about a particular subject. A link? They think you could learn something so deep from the internet?? I think not. Professor Google knows a lot of things - but he doesn’t know how a christian feels or what his core beliefs are.

This miniscule percentage of people yo speak of who have no barrier. This is a moral problem to you, right? To me this is a spiritual problem. We could get closer and closer to the evil one. They’re so close they’re truly oppressed by him. Do you see this difference? I see evil as a real thing - not a moral problem.

Oh. And those people who say evil is necessary for true choice - yeah. We do have to come up with an explanation for evil, don’t we? Even if it makes no sense. We cannot be able, as christians, to just say that there is no explanation. I read a book titled Why Bad Things Happen to Good People. My thought was to get a Jewish persepective. A whole book No answer! Because there is none!

So maybe you see christianity as limiting freedom? It really doesn’t. Anybody on this side of the fence WANTS to be there or they wouldn’t be. They do have the freedom to leave at any time.

I feel that God is a totally different question. I think it’s simply a question of salvation. Salvation from the bad - whatever you care to make that mean. But in a deeper more spiritual way. Maybe the key word is Spiritual? Maybe it just means feeling our oneness with the universe MORE than seeing what’s around us or taking a look at The Kiss? I don’t know for sure. Larry Mullen, the drummer for U2 and who doesn’t like to talk,was asked why they were touring the states for the Rattle and Hum album. His reply was:
It’s A Spiritual Journey.

I guess we’re all just on a journey. Should any spirituality be a part of it?

Happy Holidays!
Fran

 

[PRmerger]

Oh. And those people who say evil is necessary for true choice - yeah.

Reason tells us this is so.

If we are free to choose God, then we MUST be free to not choose God.

Otherwise, we aren’t really *choosing *God, are we? It’s just “God by default”.

Imagine what it would mean if there were 100 women for your husband to marry, and he chose YOU, intentionally, to spend his life with…

vs

There are no other women in the world, and he ends up with you as his wife by default.

Which one speak of love and freedom?

We do have to come up with an explanation for evil, don’t we?

Yes, indeed. It demands an answer.

And “stuff happens” is so unsatisfying.

It doesn’t cut it for any other important question.

It NEVER cuts it for science. No scientist ever ends with “stuff happens” to any question posed in science.

So it’s curious that this answer suffices for science-advocates in this arena.

I guess we’re all just on a journey. Should any spirituality be a part of it?

Absolutely not.

This should never be a part of anyone’s spiritual journey:

youtube.com/watch?v=LF_tGgLjc20

 

[zyzz]

Happy Holidays!

Best wishes to you, too. I am looking forward to your return. In the meantime, have fun reading this little gem about Santa Claus:

cvaieee.org/html/humor/santa.html

Warlord Zyzz

 

[zyzz]

Reason tells us this is so.

If we are free to choose God, then we MUST be free to not choose God.

Since Fran is on suspension, I will take the liberty for answering in her name. If I am wrong, she can correct me when she returns.

You are perfectly right. We must have the option of NOT to choose God, in order to make the choice meaningful. Unfortunately you are also totally wrong, if you think that NOT choosing God must logically and inevitably lead to rape, torture, mayhem, and other assorted really evil actions.

Since I (personally) do not believe that God exists, I am UNABLE to “choose” him. But it does not follow that I go around and indulge in shooting sprees, kidnapping girls and keeping them as sex slaves. As a matter of fact, the only difference between an avid believer and me is that I do not go to worship to any church, I do not pray (but I do not prey either). I (we, with my wife) give to charities, help those in need. We also engage in activities which are considered “morally evil” by the church. So there is plenty of “evil” we perform, but never hurting others. That kind of “freedom” is not logically necessary.

Yes, indeed. It demands an answer.

And “stuff happens” is so unsatisfying.

Just because an answer is “emotionally unsatisfying”, it does not mean that it is wrong. You asserted that you have the answer. So, bring it on. The greatest theologians could not answer the question of “how to reconcile God’s alleged benevolence and omnipotence with the existence of natural and moral evil”. The “free will” defense does not work. The “greater good” defense (your analogy of the "meany nurse torturing the 5 years old kid with a hypodermic needle) does not work.

It NEVER cuts it for science. No scientist ever ends with “stuff happens” to any question posed in science.

Wrong. The basic principles of science are like that. Since explanations cannot go to infinity, there is always a “brute fact” at the end of the chain of explanations. And scientists understand that.

I know that you made a decision of disregarding my posts, and that is fine. I direct this post to all those who advocate the existence of moral and natural evils in the name of “choosing God”. Let them think about the details.

By the way, Merry Christmas and Happy Nude Year to all of you!