Jesus and free will

Jesus and free will Sept 8, 2017 19:07:44 GMT

Quote

Post by cupcakes on Sept 8, 2017 19:07:44 GMT

Sept 8, 2017 18:37:54 GMT @miccee said:

Sept 7, 2017 15:34:53 GMT cupcakes said:

^tpfkar

Nope, it's free. We pick. All regular people have ever meant. And the mental asylum gush was a perfect example of your crashes in rationality. Need for reform doesn't yield suicide pills for cowards.

We pick the only option that we can pick under any given set of circumstances. And Christians are 'regular people' whose theology requires that they be able to override their own preferences, conditioning, biases and circumstances. This is necessary both to exculpate God for the suffering which exists (and lay 100% of the blame on human free will), and also to allow an individual to be 'saved' even when absolutely all causal factors and the individual's predisposition are conspiring to prevent the individual's salvation.

Christian reliance on "free will" can be argued away rationally by "God" giving them all their traits, which they do believe. That doesn't take away their free will nor responsibility, as they are what they are, however good or bad they are, but it firmly implicates a creator god as reprehensible. It is both nonsensical to "override one's preferences, conditioning, biases and circumstances" and not what Christians hold, not the way you use. Whatever they do is by definition according to their "preferences, conditioning, biases and circumstances". Not the same thing as urges and dissonances in which they ultimately choose which matters to them more - still according to their traits and preferences. It 's trivially obvious that we all do that all day long.

If we don't allow people to commit suicide, then we're still imprisoning them (especially if they are too physically disabled to be capable of suicide). My solution is both reform within the mental health system, so that fewer people desire suicide and people are supported through crises, combined with the right to painless suicide for those who are determined that this is the right option for them.

Ifs buts candies nuts. We can't stop those who aren't displaying mental illness from committing suicide, so your "don't allow" is just another of your canards. And regardless, this doesn't address your incompetent use of horrid treatment in third-world asylums as meaningful to anything save not torturing/neglecting patients but instead giving good care. Nothing at all to do with funneling the mentally compromised to permanently harm themselves.

It's not only allowed, it's virtually unstoppable. Pushing the mentally ill over the cliff at the behest of other mentally ill is an entirely different matter.

Everything is set up to prevent suicide, except for keeping the entire population under surveillance 24 hours a day. And I have never brought up the subject of involuntary euthanasia.

Who cares what irrelevancy you have never brought up. Pushing the mentally ill over the cliff as opposed to treating their maladies with a goal of improvement is somewhere between the height of negligence and pure eugenics to the point of ultimate species sterility.

As in the only meaningful "free". We choose based on who we are. Not the purposeful Tinker Bell incoherencies tendentiously proffered.

When you're asked to define this "meaningful free will", all you can do is come up with a list of the factors which act as constraints to freedom (our preferences, biases, traits, etc). So you're saying it's free and then going on to state how it's not free.

This is of course nonsense. We as individuals see, choose, do. Unconstrained externally (what we think, want, attempt, not necessarily succeed at). Regardless of your meaningless framed babble about "come up with a list of the factors which act as constraints to freedom".

Of course I haven't. That's the imaginings of madmen.

That's the implication of the beliefs held by the vast majority of people who have ever lived. 'Compatibilist free will' does not serve the function that needs to be served within Christian theology (and doubtless others, such as Islam). The only type of free will that would work for Christianity is one that is based on dualism, where the immaterial soul chooses what the material brain is going to think. Any other definition of free will gives succour to the religious and enables all of the harm and oppression that is being caused in the world by religion, because Christianity/whatever religion and 'free will' (in the "imaginings of madmen" sense) are a package deal.

I'm not interested in what serves what zealot. Only in what is, as best we can know. Certainly not the self-contradicting derangements of the hopeful species-ender partisans.

If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern.