The "right" to... whatever!

[PRmerger]

So I am still much better than God.

Careful, PA…

Smiley face nothwisthanding, this comment you’ve made, twice, is quite contemptuous.

It is good for you to be here and in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics, so I suggest you learn from your past mistakes and reconfigure your dialogue so you can continue the discourse.

 

[PRmerger]

Looks like you keep avoiding what I said. I am only interested in “Utopia 1.0” where the murderers, the rapists, the torturers and other VIOLENT offenders are eliminated. And I do adhere to these requirements, I do what I “preach”.

guanophore’s point remains quite trenchant.

You claim that you would create a world where no one desires to do bad, i.e. only desires the good…*and yet you yourself can’t even make **yourself *be this person.

And you have absolute control over your own actions.

#cognitivedissonance

 

[PRmerger]

A fanatic may very well do that.

Please cite at least 3 examples of people who died under torture knowing they were proclaiming a lie, who did not recant.

Sources, please, with evidence to support this.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Looks like you keep avoiding what I said. I am only interested in “Utopia 1.0” where the murderers, the rapists, the torturers and other VIOLENT offenders are eliminated. And I do adhere to these requirements, I do what I “preach”. There might be blasphemers, master-baiters (especially on deep-sea fishing boats), fornicators and other assorted vile abominations. What the heck, there can be even embezzlers, cheaters, liars, too. Not to mention “evil” comedians who make politically incorrect jokes to fun at other peoples’ beliefs. Also idolaters. That world would be incomparably better than the current one. And there would be a lot of “free will”. What is your objection to this world?

Utopia 1.0 seems to be getting more corrupted the farther you get into the actual working model, which, by the way, seems to change minute by minute.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Pallas Athene;13465435:

So the only thing you really abhor is violence? What about natural disasters? Would you abolish all tornados, earthquakes, floods, famines? Would you abolish all cars, planes, sports, etc., because they can lead to violent deaths in the form of accidents? How about birth itself? Mothers and babies often die in childbirth. Or are you really saying you would abolish death itself?

Only Christ can abolish the finality of death!

Atheism certainly cannot abolish it.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Utopia 1.0 seems to be getting more corrupted the farther you get into the actual working model, which, by the way, seems to change minute by minute.

I need to go step by step, because you don’t seem to be able to comprehend how the “final product” can be established in one fell swoop. Not my fault.

So the only thing you really abhor is violence?

That is the first step, yes. Because the violence (unless it is done as a self-defense) cannot be justified.

Moreover, you did not attempt to bring up ay argument against the “Utopia 1.0”. I suspect because you cannot. And instead of admitting it, you try to change the subject. As before: par for the course.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I need to go step by step, because you don’t seem to be able to comprehend how the “final product” can be established in one fell swoop. Not my fault.

That is the first step, yes. Because the violence (unless it is done as a self-defense) cannot be justified.

Moreover, you did not attempt to bring up ay argument against the “Utopia 1.0”. I suspect because you cannot. And instead of admitting it, you try to change the subject. As before: par for the course.

No I think that would be you trying to change the subject. Would you abolish death in Utopia 1.0?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

No I think that would be you trying to change the subject. Would you abolish death in Utopia 1.0?

Which part of “first step” don’t you understand?

And until you attempt to bring up some argument against “Utopia 1.0” I will not entertain your attempts to move the goalposts.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Which part of “first step” don’t you understand?

And until you attempt to bring up some argument against “Utopia 1.0” I will not entertain your attempts to move the goalposts.

I already pointed out the arguments. You would have to abolish almost everything in your world to eliminate violence. Violence is a natural force in life. If you eliminate all violence you would have to ultimately eliminate death. Without death, no birth. Without birth, no life. Thus your utopia would be populated by robots.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

And until you attempt to bring up some argument against “Utopia 1.0” I will not entertain your attempts to move the goalposts.

You moved the goal posts quite a distance a while back.

"Looks like you keep avoiding what I said. I am only interested in “Utopia 1.0” where the murderers, the rapists, the torturers and other VIOLENT offenders are eliminated. And I do adhere to these requirements, I do what I “preach”. There might be blasphemers, master-baiters (especially on deep-sea fishing boats), fornicators and other assorted vile abominations. What the heck, there can be even embezzlers, cheaters, liars, too. Not to mention “evil” comedians who make politically incorrect jokes to fun at other peoples’ beliefs. Also idolaters. That world would be incomparably better than the current one. And there would be a lot of “free will”. What is your objection to this world?"

Why would you think God would stop only sins of violence when he could stop all sins that could send us to hell from a thousand different directions?

You see, your argument lack internal consistency. You want to disallow the sins you don’t like but allow the sins you do like (such as blasphemy).

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I already pointed out the arguments. You would have to abolish almost everything in your world to eliminate violence.

Sheer nonsense. We could live without wars, rapes, tortures etc… just fine. None of those are “necessary”.

Why would you think God would stop only sins of violence when he could stop all sins that could send us to hell from a thousand different directions?

I would have no problem with that, but I try to “accommodate” those ones, who “long for” some evils. For them the FREE ability of choosing between red or blue ties is not “free enough”. Also the choice of giving one hug to your child or ten is still not sufficient freedom. Those who are “restricted” to choose between two “good, loving choices” are apparently “robots” in human skin “disguise”.

You see, your argument lack internal consistency. You want to disallow the sins you don’t like but allow the sins you do like (such as blasphemy).

As I said, that is for your “convenience”. The major argument for a truly good “Utopia X.0” was that without evil, there can be no “freedom”. So I decided to allow some juicy, yummy evils, so you can have your “mortal sins”. There is no logical need for human-to-human atrocities, when one can “hurt” God. Any “evil” is better - for you - than the peace and harmony of the real “Utopia”. Now where did this nonsense come from? I have no idea, but the one who first invented this belongs to a loony bin.

Damned if I do, and damned if I don’t? Would be interesting to see SOME consistency.

 

[PRmerger]

Sheer nonsense. We could live without wars, rapes, tortures etc… just fine. None of those are “necessary”.

Of course we *could. * But as guanophore so aptly pointed out, if you can’t even control your own frustrations, then how is it that you think you could create a world where there were no wars, rapes, tortures, etc?

 

[guanophore]

I need to go step by step, because you don't seem to be able to comprehend how the "final product" can be established in one fell swoop. Not my fault.

Moreover, you did not attempt to bring up ay argument against the “Utopia 1.0”. I suspect because you cannot.

Were we supposed to “argue” against your desire to create a Utopia? You are right, I have no argument. Everyone is entitled to their fantasies, and if this is yours, who am I to argue?

Catholics believe that such a creation is not possible, becuase of what God has revealed to us about the nature of humankind.

You have stated that you are better than God, and I guess part of that is that you can/would create humankind “better” than God, so that he does not have a desire to be violent.

You seem to beleive that Christianity is a speculative fantasy, but if so, at least it is one that makes sense out of our daily lives, our suffering, and gives us meaning.

It seems to me that entertaining a speculative fantasy about Utopia 1.0, that you don’t even have the power to create, does none of those things.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

As I said, that is for your “convenience”. The major argument for a truly good “Utopia X.0” was that without evil, there can be no “freedom”. So I decided to allow some juicy, yummy evils, so you can have your “mortal sins”.
.

There it is again, internal inconsistency.

You would settle for any sin but the violent ones?

For myself, the manner of one’s dying is trivial compared to the manner of one’s eternal destiny, which we are allowed to choose. You would preserve hell as an option for all the other sinners, but no one goes to hell for homicide because your God has created only those who will never choose homicide. In other words, no one is really free to commit homicide because they were programmed by God never to do so. But everyone is free to go to hell because they were programmed by God to choose among all the other sins.

You have your priorities all wrong.

To be internally consistent, you really should be arguing that God should have created everyone to choose heaven without the possibility of choosing hell … less pain that way …

In other words, we should all be heaven-bound robots who are not free to choose hell because God refused to create anyone who would choose hell.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Of course we *could. * But as guanophore so aptly pointed out, if you can’t even control your own frustrations, then how is it that you think you could create a world where there were no wars, rapes, tortures, etc?

Are you one of those who wish to see the technical blueprint of “how to create such a world”? Unfortunately I cannot accommodate you, because I do NOT have God-like power. But the issue is that since there is nothing “logically contradictory” about such a world, God COULD create it.

Were we supposed to “argue” against your desire to create a Utopia? You are right, I have no argument. Everyone is entitled to their fantasies, and if this is yours, who am I to argue?

You could (and were supposed to) point out if such a fantasy is logically feasible or not. Since PR agreed that such a world is possible, I will let the two of you to “fight it out”.

Catholics believe that such a creation is not possible, becuase of what God has revealed to us about the nature of humankind.

Not true. Catholics are free to believe (and MOST of them do) that there was a Garden of Eden, which was everything I described. Besides Catholics also must believe (de fide) that God can do everything except logically impossible states of affairs.

You have stated that you are better than God, and I guess part of that is that you can/would create humankind “better” than God, so that he does not have a desire to be violent.

Hold it right there. Don’t twist what I said. I simply pointed out the FACT that I help the hungry and the homeless with my limited resources, while God does none of the kind with his unlimited resources.

You seem to beleive that Christianity is a speculative fantasy, but if so, at least it is one that makes sense out of our daily lives, our suffering, and gives us meaning.

Yes, I grant you that. That is what is called the “security blanket”. No problem with that as long as you are aware of it.

It seems to me that entertaining a speculative fantasy about Utopia 1.0, that you don’t even have the power to create, does none of those things.

No, it does not. But it gives me one thing, entertainment.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

You would settle for any sin but the violent ones?

I am not interested in “sins”. I am interested in making THIS world better by eliminating the so-called “moral evils”. A small step, to be sure, but every “mile” starts with one step.

You have your priorities all wrong.

In you eyes, but since they are MY priorities, they are none of your business.

 

[PRmerger]

Are you one of those who wish to see the technical blueprint of “how to create such a world”? Unfortunately I cannot accommodate you, because I do NOT have God-like power. But the issue is that since there is nothing “logically contradictory” about such a world, God COULD create it.

And yet you cannot even make yourself be the person you want to be…

 

[guanophore]

Are you one of those who wish to see the **technical blueprint** of "how to create such a world"? Unfortunately I cannot accommodate you, because I do NOT have God-like power. But the issue is that since there is nothing "logically contradictory" about such a world, God COULD create it.

Oh. Maybe I misunderstood? What is it about you that is “better” than God?

Yes, God COULD create such a world, but since he is the Creator of humankind, He also created a world for us that is best for us.

Not true. Catholics are free to believe (and MOST of them do) that there was a Garden of Eden, which was everything I described. Besides Catholics also must believe (de fide) that God can do everything except logically impossible states of affairs.

Yes, we do believe in the Garden of Eden, but no, it is not the same as your Utopia. The Garden involved choice, which meant that people could (and did) choose evil.

I think that God can do everyting INCLUDING logicallly impossible states of affairs. In fact, scripture states that His way of doing things is “foolishness” to men.

 Hold it right there. Don't twist what I said. I simply pointed out the FACT that I help the hungry and the homeless with my limited resources, while God does none of the kind with his unlimited resources.

Pallas, you will find no organization anywhere in the world, at any time in human history, that has done more to help the hungry and homeless than the Catholic Church. We are still the largest social charity all over the world.

 Yes, I grant you that. That is what is called the "security blanket". No problem with that as long as you are aware of it.

I have been asked, 'If you learned that everything you believe is not true, would that change how you live your life"? It is a good question. My answer is no. Catholicism.creates meaning for me that is fulfilling.

No, it does not. But it gives me one thing, entertainment.

I suppose, if this is your priority in life, it is worth the effort.

I am not interested in “sins”. I am interested in making THIS world better by eliminating the so-called “moral evils”. A small step, to be sure, but every “mile” starts with one step.

Yes. One thing that we may share in common is to be free of evil. The difference for Christians, though, is that we understand that humans do not have true freedom of choice unless moral evil exists. This is what it means to be created in the image and likeness of God.

You are not even able to eliminate moral evil from your own life, or your own family, so how realistic is it that you can eliminate it from the world?

In you eyes, but since they are MY priorities, they are none of your business.

Unless you share them with us.

Now we know that entertainment is a priority for you, that puts things in perspective.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

And yet you cannot even make yourself be the person you want to be…

My, oh my! Mizz Know-It-All strikes again. How would you know what I am and what I want to be? Share it with us, if you would.

Yes, God COULD create such a world, but since he is the Creator of humankind, He also created a world for us that is best for us.

In your opinion maybe. So this is the best possible world? It cannot be improved upon? If there is any change, it will become “worse”? I heard that there are people who think that, but I never met one. Live and learn, I guess.

Yes, we do believe in the Garden of Eden, but no, it is not the same as your Utopia. The Garden involved choice, which meant that people could (and did) choose evil.

“Could” does not necessarily lead to “did”.

I think that God can do everyting INCLUDING logicallly impossible states of affairs. In fact, scripture states that His way of doing things is “foolishness” to men.

That makes you very unique. I am not aware that the literal interpretation of “omnipotence” is still held by theologians. Call me when he creates a “married bachelor” or a “four-sided triangle”. Better still, when God creates a stone that is so heavy that even he cannot lift it.

Pallas, you will find no organization anywhere in the world, at any time in human history, that has done more to help the hungry and homeless than the Catholic Church. We are still the largest social charity all over the world.

So what? It is not God, who does the charity, it is members of the church.

I suppose, if this is your priority in life, it is worth the effort.

Again, please read what I actually write. I did not say that it is a “priority”, it is fun but not the top of the list.

Yes. One thing that we may share in common is to be free of evil. The difference for Christians, though, is that we understand that humans do not have true freedom of choice unless moral evil exists.

Maybe some or many Christians believe this, but that is their problem. I am not going to use the adjective that comes to my mind.

This is what it means to be created in the image and likeness of God.

One can parse this sentence many different ways. Isaiah 45:7.

You are not even able to eliminate moral evil from your own life, or your own family, so how realistic is it that you can eliminate it from the world?

I am not aware of any “moral evil” in my life. Why don’t you sit down with Mizz Know-It-All and put your omnisciences together. Something interesting might come out of it.

 

[guanophore]

In your opinion maybe.

No, this is the revelation from God.

So this is the best possible world?

Clearly not according to your own standards.

It cannot be improved upon?

On the contrary, God placed man over the earth and commanded that he be a good steward. There is clearly much that can be improved!

If there is any change, it will become "worse"? I heard that there are people who think that, but I never met one. Live and learn, I guess.

God has given man extraordinary freedom. We have abused this freedom in many and various ways. This began when mankind refused to walk with God in the garden. Anytime we refuse to walk with God, unpleasant consequences ensue.

"Could" does not necessarily lead to "did".

No, it does not, but mankind did choose to disobey God, and incur consequences for that choice. Mankind now has a tendency toward sin, which is why creating a utopia is not possible.

 That makes you very unique. I am not aware that the literal interpretation of "omnipotence" is still held by theologians. Call me when he creates a "married bachelor" or a "four-sided triangle". Better still, when God creates a stone that is so heavy that even he cannot lift it.

I am not unique. There are plenty of theologians who believe that what the Scriptures say are true, and that God has many times violated the “laws of physics”.

So what? It is not God, who does the charity, it is members of the church.

The two are not separated, Pallas. Jesus is the Head of the Church, which is His body. We are all members of HIm, and of one another. The Church does charitable works becasue that is what Jesus commanded us to do. It is not we ourselves, but God working in and through us that makes these things happen.

Again, please read what I actually write. I did not say that it is a "priority", it is fun but not the top of the list.

Ok. I am just mindful of how much time you have invested, and I know that what we invest ourselves in reveals where our priorities lie. Just for the record, I get a lot of entertainment out of CAF.

One can parse this sentence many different ways. Isaiah 45:7.

Are you suggesting that mankind, of itself, is evil?

I am not aware of any "moral evil" in my life. Why don't you sit down with Mizz Know-It-All and put your omnisciences together. Something interesting might come out of it.

Perhaps there is a better way to say this. You cannot create utopia, even in your own human sphere.