God Endowed Humans with Free Will?

[Immanuel Can]

this whole an all-knowing, all-good deity would not allow for evil spiel makes no sense to me

it assigns characteristics to god that aren't, in my deistic view, necessary for god to be god, and it ignores that god is a person with his own purposes and agenda

Well, that's true, for sure. It's funny how men are derivative of the Supreme Being, and everybody has their own purposes and agendas; and yet people who think about God (though not very deeply, obviously) do not expect Him to have a will and purposes of His own.

But the "good-God-can't-allow-evil" thing does have a (rather shallow) intuitive appeal. Until we think more carefully about what an environment, or a humanity, keyed to only do the best thing would actually BE like, we might think we're speaking common sense. But when we careful parse out what such an arrangement would do to things like freedom, choice, volition, personhood, identity and will, -- to say nothing of mercy, hope, truth, love, and charity -- we see what serious considerations count against it.

Thank God He has not done that.

[henry quirk]

this whole an all-knowing, all-good deity would not allow for evil spiel makes no sense to me

it assigns characteristics to god that aren't, in my deistic view, necessary for god to be god, and it ignores that god is a person with his own purposes and agenda

Well, that's true, for sure. It's funny how men are derivative of the Supreme Being, and everybody has their own purposes and agendas; and yet people who think about God (though not very deeply, obviously) do not expect Him to have a will and purposes of His own.

But the "good-God-can't-allow-evil" thing does have a (rather shallow) intuitive appeal. Until we think more carefully about what an environment, or a humanity, keyed to only do the best thing would actually BE like, we might think we're speaking common sense. But when we careful parse out what such an arrangement would do to things like freedom, choice, volition, personhood, identity and will, -- to say nothing of mercy, hope, truth, love, and charity -- we see what serious considerations count against it.

Thank God He has not done that.

only appeal I can see is for the one lookin' to discredit god, or pooh-pooh the notion of god, as in there is no god becuz...

[Immanuel Can]

only appeal I can see is for the one lookin' to discredit god, or pooh-pooh the notion of god, as in there is no god becuz...

Well, yeah. I guess it's often the case that people follow a line of thought only to the point at which they "get what they were looking for," and then jump off. But we can't do that with this question, and get any good answers.

[henry quirk]

only appeal I can see is for the one lookin' to discredit god, or pooh-pooh the notion of god, as in there is no god becuz...

Well, yeah. I guess it's often the case that people follow a line of thought only to the point at which they "get what they were looking for," and then jump off. But we can't do that with this question, and get any good answers.

so, on one side we got if god is god he'd allow no evil, and on the other we got god values individual freedom enough to accept the possibility or inevitability of evil

like the free man vs the slaver: I'm not seein' any accommodation is possible between the two positions

[Immanuel Can]

so, on one side we got if god is god he'd allow no evil, and on the other we got god values individual freedom enough to accept the possibility or inevitability of evil

like the free man vs the slaver: I'm not seein' any accommodation is possible between the two positions

Then we need a question, instead of a fixed "position," to arbitrate between them. There's no fixing the people who are already entrenched on one side of the debate or another; but for those still open to being rationally convinced, a good question might sort where restating the positions doesn't.

And the question, I would suggest, is this: "Just how important is freedom?"

Maybe that's the simplest way to put it.

[henry quirk]

so, on one side we got if god is god he'd allow no evil, and on the other we got god values individual freedom enough to accept the possibility or inevitability of evil

like the free man vs the slaver: I'm not seein' any accommodation is possible between the two positions

Then we need a question, instead of a fixed "position," to arbitrate between them. There's no fixing the people who are already entrenched on one side of the debate or another; but for those still open to being rationally convinced, a good question might sort where restating the positions doesn't.

And the question, I would suggest, is this: "Just how important is freedom?"

Maybe that's the simplest way to put it.

a very good question, with an obvious answer...as I say, even as a slaver affixes a price to a man he'll tell you plainly he belongs to himself, that he's free...no one willingly wears a leash

I'm curious how DAM and others will answer

[Dontaskme]

a very good question, with an obvious answer...as I say, even as a slaver affixes a price to a man he'll tell you plainly he belongs to himself, that he's free...no one willingly wears a leash

I'm curious how DAM and others will answer

I'd answer by saying no man can be free while he is alive and dependant on others things for his own survival.

True freedom to me, just means never having been born at all.

I do not know if anyone else understands what I'm saying here, or they will, IDK?

[henry quirk]

a very good question, with an obvious answer...as I say, even as a slaver affixes a price to a man he'll tell you plainly he belongs to himself, that he's free...no one willingly wears a leash

I'm curious how DAM and others will answer

I'd answer by saying no man can be free while he is alive and dependant on others things for his own survival.

True freedom to me, just means never having been born at all.

I do not know if anyone else understands what I'm saying here, or they will, IDK?

nonexistence is not freedom...and: bein' free was never about bein' god-like...self-direction & self-responsibility are not about bein' god-like

[Immanuel Can]

... even as a slaver affixes a price to a man...

That's a very interesting point, Henry...can I expand it a little?

It's interesting that an enslaver fixes a price on a slave, isn't it? It suggest that something is being "sold" that has value. And what is being sold? Not merely the man/woman himself/herself, but his/her freedom as well.

Freedom has value. And one group of people who know it are those who want us enslaved.

[Dontaskme]

a very good question, with an obvious answer...as I say, even as a slaver affixes a price to a man he'll tell you plainly he belongs to himself, that he's free...no one willingly wears a leash

I'm curious how DAM and others will answer

I'd answer by saying no man can be free while he is alive and dependant on others things for his own survival.

True freedom to me, just means never having been born at all.

I do not know if anyone else understands what I'm saying here, or they will, IDK?

nonexistence is not freedom...and: bein' free was never about bein' god-like...self-direction & self-responsibility are not about bein' god-like

Freedom implies one is bound, there is no escape from either concept in knowledge, aka in knowing.

No man in this incarnation is free Henry, no matter how much you want to believe he is.

[Dontaskme]

Freedom has value. And one group of people who know it are those who want us enslaved.

Freedom only becomes of value because man believes he can be subject to enslavement. No man is ever free while he believes he is enslaved.

So even as you believe you live, you will be life's slave. Only in death, are you released of enslavement.

[Immanuel Can]

No man is ever free while he believes he is enslaved.

Is a slave free if he just believes he is free?

It seems to me that Feminists would simply say that was "internalizing their oppression."

[Dontaskme]

No man is ever free while he believes he is enslaved.

Is a slave free if he just believes he is free?

No, not while the belief is there...because the concept he is free implies he is bound.

[henry quirk]

... even as a slaver affixes a price to a man...

That's a very interesting point, Henry...can I expand it a little?

It's interesting that an enslaver fixes a price on a slave, isn't it? It suggest that something is being "sold" that has value. And what is being sold? Not merely the man/woman himself/herself, but his/her freedom as well.

Freedom has value. And one group of people who know it are those who want us enslaved.

yes...enslavin' a man isn't just about usin' him as a labor-saver...degradin' him, reducin' him, makin' him less is a big part of the slaver's intent

[henry quirk]

Freedom only becomes of value because man believes he can be subject to enslavement. No man is ever free while he believes he is enslaved.

no, bein' free is a function of a man belongin' to himself, bein' his own...the value is inherent cuz a man is valuable to himself

the slave, unless he's been broken, never accepts his status...he tolerates it till he can be free of the leash..even leashed, he knows he is his own...that's why the leash chafes him, becuz he knows it doesn't belong, should not be, on his neck


So even as you believe you live, you will be life's slave. Only in death, are you released of enslavement.

no...I live, I self-direct, I'm self-responsible, right here and now