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.
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.
It doesn't matter where it comes from.
Since you insist on using the term "we" in the context of mass murder I am just going to assume you mean "We, Marxists".Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:14 pm 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.
Don't bother. Just ask me what I mean.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:56 pmSince you insist on using the term "we" in the context of mass murder I am just going to assume...Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:14 pm 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.
To defend Marxism against its inherent failures.Why did Marxists freely choose to kill 110 million people?
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.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 5:54 pm 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.
Would you kill 110 million people to defend Christianity against its inherent failures?
But a random guess, which is what Free Will must be,is hardly a choice.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:14 pmYeah, 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.
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.Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 12:57 pmAll 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.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 5:54 pm 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.
Would you kill 110 million people to defend Christianity against its inherent failures?
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.Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 12:58 pmBut a random guess, which is what Free Will must be...Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:14 pmYeah, 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.
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.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.
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!)Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 4:35 pmNo, 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.Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 12:58 pmBut a random guess, which is what Free Will must be...Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:14 pm
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.
There's no reason to reduce free will to mere guesswork. That's just not so.
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.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.
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."
A "burden"? Yes. But also a blessing.Man's freedom and responsibility to evaluate has been a burden to men.
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.Obviously if you believe God's incarnation is proof He cares , you must be a happy man.
True, freedom is both burden and blessing.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 8:12 pmThe 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.
A "burden"? Yes. But also a blessing.Man's freedom and responsibility to evaluate has been a burden to men.
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.
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.Obviously if you believe God's incarnation is proof He cares , you must be a happy man.
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.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 10:57 pm 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.