Repressive Tolerance

[Immanuel Can]

Oh, so between you and your God you don't think 100 million dead people is a problem?

Oh, 110 million dead? You mean Socialism. You're referring to Socialism. Of course.

You think God should prevent Socialism.

Well, at least WE should.

[Skepdick]

Well, at least WE should.

I think it's safe to say we've tried and failed to prevent all sorts of evil. Probably because we don't know how.

Which is why I suggested you ask the omnipotent/omniscient guy. He should know how...so he can tell us.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, at least WE should.

I think it's safe to say we've tried and failed to prevent all sorts of evil. Probably because we don't know how.

But it comes from us.

We invented Socialism -- and then used it to justify the killing of 100 million people.

[Skepdick]

But it comes from us.

It doesn't matter where it comes from.

Malaria comes from mosquitos. Do you expect the mosquitos to solve it?

The entity most vested and capable of solving the problem should solve it.

We are vested but incapable.
Your God is capable (apparently) and perhaps vested.

[Immanuel Can]

But it comes from us.

It doesn't matter where it comes from.

Yeah, it does. If we have free will, that means, by definition, we have the choice to do things God does not prefer us to do. If we lack that option, then we do not have free will at all.

[Skepdick]

Yeah, it does. If we have free will, that means, by definition, we have the choice to do things God does not prefer us to do. If we lack that option, then we do not have free will at all.

Since you insist on using the term "we" in the context of mass murder I am just going to assume you mean "We, Marxists".

So then, tell me. Why did you, Marxists, freely choose to kill 110 million people?

Alas, your tangent on free will is a red herring.

Since we have free will, we can stop you, Marxists, from murdering people IF the omniscient God told us how.

[Immanuel Can]

Yeah, it does. If we have free will, that means, by definition, we have the choice to do things God does not prefer us to do. If we lack that option, then we do not have free will at all.

Since you insist on using the term "we" in the context of mass murder I am just going to assume...

Don't bother. Just ask me what I mean.

When I say "we" I merely mean "we humans." We are sinners. That's the sort of thing we do. And I don't make myself out to be an exception: if I did, I wouldn't need to be a Christian.

Why did Marxists freely choose to kill 110 million people?

To defend Marxism against its inherent failures.

Every time it fails to produce, they find scapegoats; and since they are so passionately committed to the belief that Marxism is the road to progress, the future, equality, justice and happiness, that means that any scapegoats must be, in their eyes, very evil people. Thus it is no longer "wrong" in their eyes to incarcerate, abuse, torture or even murder them...and the passion of their Marxist anger, they think, will attest to their passion as the Marxist "faithful." It will show them to be good, committed human beings, they think.

You're seeing this in its early stages in the US right now. It started off with "Anybody who disagrees with our 'social justice' is a 'Nazi' and must be 'silenced,' 'de-voiced' or 'punched.'" Then it moved up to, "Anybody who expresses any reservations must be 'silenced,' etc." Then it became anybody who was insufficiently passionate, and they must kneel in the streets and confess their crimes against the revolution. Then it was, "Burn down anybody's small business, because they're part of the status quo, and hence 'oppressors' by default." And now, it's any voice on the other side must be taken off social media and internet platforms altogether, and must be prosecuted by laws designed for "hate crimes." Their books must be banned and burned. It's also, "We don't owe it to follow democratic processes, because we are right, and anything done for the glory of our side is pure."

It always goes this way. It has, in every case in history so far. Watch for the next step. It's coming.

Footnote: I'm sorry: not "coming." It has come. One of the PBS execs has just been recorded advocating that conservatives' children should be taken away from them and put into "Enlightenment Camps."

It's all so utterly predictable.

[Skepdick]

Don't bother. Just ask me what I mean.

When I say "we" I merely mean "we humans." We are sinners. That's the sort of thing we do. And I don't make myself out to be an exception: if I did, I wouldn't need to be a Christian.

All you are saying is that you don't identify as Marxist, but despite the different label you've given yourself you do the same things as Marxists.

To defend Marxism against its inherent failures.

Would you kill 110 million people to defend Christianity against its inherent failures?

[Belinda]

But it comes from us.

It doesn't matter where it comes from.

Yeah, it does. If we have free will, that means, by definition, we have the choice to do things God does not prefer us to do. If we lack that option, then we do not have free will at all.

But a random guess, which is what Free Will must be,is hardly a choice.

If you choose to do what you believe God wants you to do that is not Free Will, that is caused by your volition which is to please your God.

[Immanuel Can]

Don't bother. Just ask me what I mean.

When I say "we" I merely mean "we humans." We are sinners. That's the sort of thing we do. And I don't make myself out to be an exception: if I did, I wouldn't need to be a Christian.

All you are saying is that you don't identify as Marxist, but despite the different label you've given yourself you do the same things as Marxists.

Not "the same things." I'm just saying that there are different "bad things" to which every human being is drawn. The sinful nature is characteristic of all of us: and I make myself no special case in that. Apart from the intervention of God, we're all susceptible to that.

To defend Marxism against its inherent failures.

Would you kill 110 million people to defend Christianity against its inherent failures?
[/quote]
I wouldn't kill one. It wouldn't help me "defend" what I believe if I did, because it would actually undermine it. I believe in a right of free will. That means I have to allow that people will choose a different belief from my own. And if I don't allow that, in what sense, then, am I honouring their freedom?

The same point carries with reference to God. If God makes it impossible that I can do anything but what He chooses, then I am not free. Whatever I do, have chosen neither good nor evil, since I never had a choice in the first place. So any declaration, "I choose the good" is just nonsense: it means no more than "I choose what I am forced to choose." Indeed, even the term "I" comes up for doubt, since what does it mean to say there's a "me" if that "me" has no will distinct from a "you" or a "Him"? Identity is then also an illusion. We're back to robots, and robots don't have a unique identity. They are not persons, not volitional beings.

[Immanuel Can]

It doesn't matter where it comes from.

Yeah, it does. If we have free will, that means, by definition, we have the choice to do things God does not prefer us to do. If we lack that option, then we do not have free will at all.

But a random guess, which is what Free Will must be...

No, that's not correct. You can, in fact, have free will while having full information about both alternatives between which you're choosing. Indeed, you're more free when you have information than when you do not: your choice is more fully your own, and your volition is more effective for the ends you desire.

There's no reason to reduce free will to mere guesswork. That's just not so.

If you choose to do what you believe God wants you to do that is not Free Will, that is caused by your volition which is to please your God.

Free will is not "non-volitional" at all. Volition and will are synonyms. You're mistaking "random choice" with "intelligent choice." A will guided by the latter is far better, and far more free than the former.

[Belinda]

Yeah, it does. If we have free will, that means, by definition, we have the choice to do things God does not prefer us to do. If we lack that option, then we do not have free will at all.

But a random guess, which is what Free Will must be...

No, that's not correct. You can, in fact, have free will while having full information about both alternatives between which you're choosing. Indeed, you're more free when you have information than when you do not: your choice is more fully your own, and your volition is more effective for the ends you desire.

There's no reason to reduce free will to mere guesswork. That's just not so.

If you choose to do what you believe God wants you to do that is not Free Will, that is caused by your volition which is to please your God.

Free will is not "non-volitional" at all. Volition and will are synonyms. You're mistaking "random choice" with "intelligent choice." A will guided by the latter is far better, and far more free than the former.

Indeed, a will guided by intelligent choice is better than a will guided by random choice.( I am glad you use the word 'choice' correctly!)

I agree volition and will are synonymous. If your will is to act so to please your God, then your will is caused by your desire to please your God. A caused will is not free of causation.

________________

Adam in the Garden of Eden was wholly God's creature and Adam's will was identical with God's will until Adam ate the Apple and acquired the capability to decide matters for himself. Man's freedom and responsibility to evaluate has been a burden to men. Men have had to decide whether or not they are alone or alternatively whether God cares.
Obviously if you believe God's incarnation is proof He cares , you must be a happy man.

[Immanuel Can]

If your will is to act so to please your God, then your will is caused by your desire to please your God. A caused will is not free of causation.

The problem is your wording there: "...your will is caused by your desire..." Your desire is chosen. It's an expression of one's will. So you've got a circular statement there: essentially, you've said, "desire...causes...will."

No, desire IS will.

Man's freedom and responsibility to evaluate has been a burden to men.

A "burden"? Yes. But also a blessing.

It is because man (or woman) is free that he has identity, a personality distinct from his origins, a will that is his own and not merely a mechanical extension of a deterministic Creator. He is constituted as a being that can choose his own actions, his own purposes, his own desires, his own responses, and have his own, distinct identity, all because he has freedom and responsibility to "evaluate" for himself. It is because he is free that he is truly what we know as a human person.

Obviously if you believe God's incarnation is proof He cares , you must be a happy man.

I am, actually. How could I not be, when the greatest thing that could come to a human being is mine? God loves me, and has shown me in the most unequivocal way He possibly could. If a man cannot be happy after that, then that man has no gratitude in him.

[Belinda]

If your will is to act so to please your God, then your will is caused by your desire to please your God. A caused will is not free of causation.

The problem is your wording there: "...your will is caused by your desire..." Your desire is chosen. It's an expression of one's will. So you've got a circular statement there: essentially, you've said, "desire...causes...will."

No, desire IS will.

Man's freedom and responsibility to evaluate has been a burden to men.

A "burden"? Yes. But also a blessing.

It is because man (or woman) is free that he has identity, a personality distinct from his origins, a will that is his own and not merely a mechanical extension of a deterministic Creator. He is constituted as a being that can choose his own actions, his own purposes, his own desires, his own responses, and have his own, distinct identity, all because he has freedom and responsibility to "evaluate" for himself. It is because he is free that he is truly what we know as a human person.

Obviously if you believe God's incarnation is proof He cares , you must be a happy man.

I am, actually. How could I not be, when the greatest thing that could come to a human being is mine? God loves me, and has shown me in the most unequivocal way He possibly could. If a man cannot be happy after that, then that man has no gratitude in him.

True, freedom is both burden and blessing.

I agree will may be construed as desire. However will, for men, is more than basic needs but is basic needs plus acquired beliefs and attitudes.All of those, basic needs, beliefs, and attitudes are caused . There is no reason, apart from religious doctrine, to presume the existence of something called "Free Will".

Heaven may exist as an order of being that rules the order of being we all know from experience. And I am impressed by IC's practical experience in Africa as having attributes of Heaven , but it is a mistake to leap from that to the entirety of Church doctrines.

[Iwannaplato]

The problem is that conservatives believe in freedom of conscience, and Leftists just don't. For Leftists, only thinking the politically-correct thoughts is permissible.

That means that Leftist educational procedures can be single-mindedly propagandizing, whereas classical liberal/conservative ones have to be focused on empowering independent inquirers, critical minds and participatory citizens to think for themselves. That means that the latter have to be cautious and restrained, skills-focused to allow a range of free and independent opinion; whereas the former can simply choose to suppress, manipulate, indoctrinate and deceive without any hesitation or pangs of conscience.

I'm an older guy, but this is not my experience at all. I find both the right and the left have political correctnesses and use authority and social pressures to enforce, and then also the law. There has been a shift to more dominance of the Left, perhaps, in political correctness, but when I was growing up it was the right (US that is). I could not in school have questioned us policies, patriotism, saluting the flag or I would have face very unpleasant censure, and I watched this happen. It was politically incorrect to be gay and there were legal, social and authority pressures of all kinds around this. To question corporate practice in Latin American would have gotten me labelled a commie and in school caused me problems. Heck, there was a right way for a man to cross his legs and a different right way for women. Communities that were dominated by right wing people were filled with all sorts of social shaming practices around political issues of all kinds, social issues of all kinds, and had their own rigidity around how one should speak, act, move one's body. I think all of this is still true today, though in many areas it is now the political correctness of the left that dominates. However the political correctness on the right is still there wherever it can be held in place. There are people on both sides, in the past and now, who believe in exploratory discussions and study and a few do this. But as far as thinking for themselves, most people on the right and most people on the left avoid this. It's a tricky concept by the way, thinking for oneself. But however one determines and defines this, it is a rare quality and I am sorry but in the US I do not see democrats or republicans as, in general, thinking for themselves. Everyone takes a party line. And they play wackamole with anything that does not seem to fit the party line.

I'd respect the right much more if they said, yeah, we used to have the political correctness dominance and we shut people up and worse. Now that we're on the wrong end of that stick we realize we don't think this is the right thing to do. But they don't do this. Hell, in the past you didn't even need to give it a name. Left political correctness was first a rebellion against the right's version, then it became dominant, with all the attendant problems, but having been shat on by right wing political correctness as a rule in my education and in general for much of my youth, sorry, I don't buy this at all.