Re: clinton surgery question

From: Steve Harris sbharris_at_ROMAN9.netcom.com (sbharris_at_ix.netcom.com)
Date: 09/27/04 

Date: 26 Sep 2004 17:19:34 -0700

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <andrew@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message news:<1096066504.aSvnOEk8qA5BnqvRwN7B9Q@teranews>...
> "Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com" wrote:
>
> > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <andrew@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message news:<41540EE1.4390@heartmdphd.com>...
> > > Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > John <john9212112@aol.com> wrote in message news:<ptv1l0p3rhcmf9hs60iup4ush3curn8rti@4ax.com>...
> > > > > >COMMENT:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Excuse me? There's a lot of agony in the world, and I want to know if
> > > > > >you think all of it is necessary.
> > > > >
> > > > > A good portion of the agony in the world is caused by people's free
> > > > > will choices. Would you be willing to give up free will to avoid rape
> > > > > and murder? Unfortunately, free will allows people to make bad,
> > > > > really bad choices that harm themselves and others. But free will
> > > > > without the ability to make a bad choice isn't free will, is it?
> > > >
> > > > COMMENT:
> > > > Why no, but I think you're about to make a splendid argument why
> > > > Christians should never put violent criminals into prison, since the
> > > > effect of this is to remove free will and free choice from people who
> > > > make persistantly bad choices to do evil.
> > >
> > > Fyi, incarceration does not remove free will. It does limit options for
> > > exercising free will.
> >
> > COMENT:
> >
> > No ***, Einstein.
>
> Then why write it?

COMMENT:

For the benfit of John (see above) who was the person originally to
claim that "Would you be willing to give up free will to avoid rape
and murder? Unfortunately, free will allows people to make bad,
really bad choices that harm themselves and others. But free will
without the ability to make a bad choice isn't free will, is it?"

And to John's credit, I believe he speaks for the majority of those of
his faith, whether he does for you (Chung) or not. The overwhelming
belief among Christians is that this is so-- in other words, that
freedom of will entails not only freedom of thought and mental
selection, but also some minimal freedom of action. Standard English
definitions of the term countennence both meanings. But independent of
the dictionary, I'm simply pointing out that Christians think this
way, because the uniform Christian response as to why God doesn't just
remove the ABILITY of evil people to do evil things (without
interfering with their ability to have malicious thoughts, if they
wish), is John's answer. WHich is that that some divine intenvention
to cause people to ACT benificently at all times, whatever evil they
might be thinking, would still be some kind of interruption of "free
choice."

This is consistant with the way English is generally used. For
example, to insist that I continue to retain the "free choice" of
whether or not to go to Mars, despite lack of all ability to do so, is
to abuse the language.
 

> > And exacly the same argument applies to god. There
> > are many possible ways he could restrain evil people from carrying out
> > evil actions, without depriving them of free will.
>
> Correct. For example, He could have prevented the crucifixion of His Son but then we would not have been saved.

COMMENT:
We're not talking about the crucifixion of Jesus, but the ordinary
brutal and deadly and cruel acts of the world. Even if brutalization
of Jesus was somehow necessary (let's posit it for the sake of
argument), are you really suggesting that the same is so of every
murder victim, children included?

> > But whenever
> > nonbelievers wonder why a compassionate and omnipotent god doesn't DO
> > any of these things (give Ted Bundy polio or John Wayne Gacy a
> > paralyzing spinal tumor or something) it's always the believers who
> > chime in to say that this use of force would remove free agency.
>
> What I discern is that such actions would be contrary to His will and plan.

COMMENT:
That's a totally empty comment. "Because god wants it that way"
explains nothing. One might as well say "Because the universe wants it
that way."

COMMENT:
> > What is it--- does something in your brains make you Rock-Stupid when
> > it comes to your own beliefs, but magically make the dummy-think wear
> > off temporarily when those same beliefs are fed back at you in
> > disguised form?
> >
>
> This would not be about my beliefs but about what is true.

COMMENT:

This would be about your beliefs. Since, contrary to what you imagine,
you don't have the ability to somehow "discern" pure truth. You just
think you do, because (as noted) you're a narcissistic weenie.

SBH

Quantcast