Your Own Way...

[rusmeister]

Adoption services: Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle — during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill "condoning discrimination" — Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006.

This blurb doesn't give enough information. Adoption is a legal institution, with legally-binding contracts and legal requirements. If it's illegal to discriminate for this reason, then it's illegal to discriminate for this reason.

But maybe Catholic Charities plays a role that's not a part of the legal requirements? Simply matching couples with babies is something any number of companies might be able to do before getting to any legal issues, and they might all do the matching using whatever criteria they want. Then the matches have to go through legal procedures.

However, from this blurb, it doesn't seem to matter. According to this, Catholic Charities was not fined, ordered to place children with same-sex couples, ordered to shut down, or penalized in any other way. People were fighting the organization's stance, but it seems to say they quit the business before things were officially decided. That's their decision.

Housing: In New York City, Yeshiva University's Albert Einstein College of Medicine, a school under Orthodox Jewish auspices, banned same-sex couples from its married dormitory. New York does not recognize same-sex marriage, but in 2001, the state's highest court ruled Yeshiva violated New York City's ban on sexual orientation discrimination. Yeshiva now allows all couples in the dorm.

Depends. If the school is funded with tax dollars, then they are obligated to follow the laws. Privately funded schools do not.

On a similar note, there are Catholic and Jewish highschools in my area, and I live a mile from Most Precious Blood Elementary School. They all have classes that teach their specific religions. It individuals and churches are paying for the school, and parents want to send their kids there, go for it.

Parochial schools: California Lutheran High School, a Protestant school in Wildomar, holds that homosexuality is a sin. After the school suspended two girls who were allegedly in a lesbian relationship, the girls' parents sued, saying the school was violating the state's civil rights act protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination. The case is before a state judge.

Same as the above.

Medical services: A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women's Care Medical Group in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship, and he claimed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. (The doctor referred the patient to his partner, who agreed to do the treatment.) The woman sued under the state's civil rights act. The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in May 2008, and legal experts believe that the woman's right to medical treatment will trump the doctor's religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business.

Try as I may, I cannot come up with anything close to a good reason the doctor shouldn't be able to treat whoever he damned well pleases, for whatever reason. Fining him, giving him jail time, or forcing him to treat the woman would be as bad a violation of his rights as any I've ever heard.

Psychological services: A mental health counselor at North Mississippi Health Services refused therapy for a woman who wanted help in improving her lesbian relationship. The counselor said doing so would violate her religious beliefs. The counselor was fired. In March 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with the employer, ruling that the employee's religious beliefs could not be accommodated without causing undue hardship to the company.

North Mississippi Health Services has the right to employ whoever they want. If they want their image and direction to be one where same-sex issues are welcome, then that's their business. If they want to be one where same-sex issues are welcome, but not every employee is obligated to be involved, that's also their business.

Unless the NMHS is funded with tax dollars. In which case, the laws must be complied with.

In this particular case, the lesbian is stupid. Why would she want to force someone who opposes her lifestyle to work with her in this way?? Does she think the counselor is able to put her all into the case? Is she going to be truly trying? Is it possible in such a case? I doubt it, and I sure wouldn't want a counselor working with me if they didn't really want me to achieve my goals.

Civil servants: A clerk in Vermont refused to perform a civil union ceremony after the state legalized them. In 2001, in a decision that side-stepped the religious liberties issue, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that he did not need to perform the ceremony because there were other civil servants who would. However, the court did indicate that religious beliefs do not allow employees to discriminate against same-sex couples.

The clerk was in the wrong. He is paid by the government to follow the laws. If the laws say two consenting adults, regardless of their gender combination, can be joined in a civil union if they fill out the forms correctly, and whatever other requirements, the clerk does not have the right to refuse. The clerk needs to get a job that does not put him in such a position. I wouldn't get a job in a synagogue, then refuse to wear the skullcap.

Adoption services: A same-sex couple in California applied to Adoption Profiles, an Internet service in Arizona that matches adoptive parents with newborns. The couple's application was denied based on the religious beliefs of the company's owners. The couple sued in federal district court in San Francisco. The two sides settled after the adoption company said it will no longer do business in California.

Same as the first one.

Wedding services: A same sex couple in Albuquerque asked a photographer, Elaine Huguenin, to shoot their commitment ceremony. The photographer declined, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning same-sex unions. The couple sued, and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found the photographer guilty of discrimination. It ordered her to pay the lesbian couple's legal fees ($6,600). The photographer is appealing.

Another absolutely insane case. Unless there's information we don't know about, this is disgusting. Did the photographer initially agree, then, after soul-searching for days/weeks/month, decide she couldn't do it - but only a couple days before the wedding, when there was no time to find another photographer?

Wedding facilities: Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of New Jersey, a Methodist organization, refused to rent its boardwalk pavilion to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony. The couple filed a complaint with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. The division ruled that the boardwalk property was open for public use, therefore the Methodist group could not discriminate against gay couples using it. In the interim, the state's Department of Environmental Protection revoked a portion of the association's tax benefits. The case is ongoing.

Does the OGCMAofNJ own the boardwalk or not??? That should be the end of it.

Youth groups: The city of Berkeley, Calif., requested that the Sea Scouts (affiliated with the Boy Scouts) formally agree to not discriminate against gay men in exchange for free use of berths in the city's marina. The Sea Scouts sued, claiming this violated their beliefs and First Amendment right to the freedom to associate with other like-minded people. In 2006, the California Supreme Court ruled against the youth group. In San Diego, the Boy Scouts lost access to the city-owned aquatic center for the same reason. While these cases do not directly involve same-sex unions, they presage future conflicts about whether religiously oriented or parachurch organizations may prohibit, for example, gay couples from teaching at summer camp. In June 2008, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asked the California Supreme Court to review the Boy Scouts' leases. Meanwhile, the mayor's office in Philadelphia revoked the Boy Scouts' $1-a-year lease for a city building.

Not enough info. Does any other group get free access? Or were they asking for special treatment?



And no, of course the church cannot be forced to marry same-sex couples.

On the whole, it seems that what you are doing is appealing to the law. That's great - when the law supports what you happen to believe in. 60 years ago I imagine there would be no trouble in compiling similar sob stories from people who believe that (things like) homosexual desire is a normal thing about laws that denied them. Of course, there is an enormous difference in that beliefs religiously held are a far cry from ones merely held because a person thinks them right, or worse, merely because they desire them.
But the whole point is that the tendency of law now is working against those who hold firm traditional religious beliefs, and that this will lead people to civil disobedience just as it lead the people who are martyrs in the modern mind to civil disobedience - openly or covertly, which breaks down the rule of law. If law cannot be commonly agreed on - on the basis of commonly-held beliefs, then the rule of law is an illusion - or a tyranny. That's why any society trying to make it on pluralism will fail when beliefs diverge enough. Diversity is an opposite of unity. A little, like a spice, is a good thing. Too much and it becomes intolerable.

[Fist and Faith]

You manage to twist my agreeing with you into a bad thing.

No. You are wrong. You only want your beliefs to rule the day. But people can live together with other rules. The rules a society needs are the ones that stop threats to a society. Murder. Theft. Many, to be sure. But not so many as your beliefs would demand. (You are, of course, intending to show that your worldview's feelings on homosexuality are, indeed, a threat to society. Reasonable and rational, rather than merely blind faith. We'll see what evidence you present.)

And, if your beliefs were the path, the only path, to stable society, I would expect to find such a society, still strong after centuries. Where is it? How is it that those who agree with you have never managed to live together for any length of time, a shining example to the world?

Most of your words can be returned to you. I guess I'll just do this part:

Of course, there is an enormous difference in that beliefs religiously held are a far cry from ones merely held because a person thinks them right, or worse, merely because they desire them.

Beliefs held religiously are held because a person thinks them right, or worse, merely desires them to be. And the "objective standard" they give you will be thrown away if you decide you no longer believe them. And I am just as likely to change my "subjective" belief that random murder is wrong as you are to give up your faith.

[aliantha]

Diversity is an opposite of unity. A little, like a spice, is a good thing. Too much and it becomes intolerable.

Intolerable, or just unwieldy?

I mean, we can do "dueling outrages" from now until the cows come home. The point is that America is a democracy (well, technically, it's a democratic republic, but anyway) and the legal framework in America can only endorse what's best and fairest for the majority of the people. I am sorry that you feel as tho you're not getting your due, rus, but keep in mind that everybody else *also* feels as tho they're not getting *their* due in some way. That was the point of my rant about my sabbatical.

I also understand that you don't feel you should be asked to compromise on things that go against your religion's teachings. But my answer to you, unfortunately for you, is the same one the hawks gave the hippies in the '60s: You don't like how we do things here? Move somewhere else. (Which, apparently, you did.... )

[Xar]

part:

Of course, there is an enormous difference in that beliefs religiously held are a far cry from ones merely held because a person thinks them right, or worse, merely because they desire them.

Beliefs held religiously are held because a person thinks them right, or worse, merely desires them to be. And the "objective standard" they give you will be thrown away if you decide you no longer believe them. And I am just as likely to change my "subjective" belief that random murder is wrong as you are to give up your faith.

Rus, I'd also like to point out that once again, it really depends on the point of view. Religion is an intensely personal experience: your point of view on many issues is certainly influenced by your religion or lack thereof, but (as long as you are well-informed on the objective facts) your point of view is exactly as worthy of attention as that of someone else.

In the case of homosexuality, since this is the example we're talking about, the "objective facts" are that it exists; that (unlike what some people think) it's not a "disease" - neither biologically nor psychologically; that homosexuals are still first and foremost human beings, sharing the capacity to think, dream, love, worship that all human beings have; and that they should be granted the same rights as anyone else. Now it may be one's point of view that this is all unnatural and should be squashed; a religious person may view it like that because of his or her religious convictions, while an atheist might do so out of his or her own specific morality and feelings about the whole thing (I don't think any of us here thinks that all atheists accept homosexuals, after all). But the fact remains that both points of view are nowhere more acceptable or more "right" than their opposites.

As such, while religious beliefs should be respected and religious freedom should be endorsed, if a country has specific laws to ensure the equality of all its people, and these laws go against a religious institution set up in that country... well that religious institution can of course follow its own laws (say, forbidding religious marriage for homosexuals) but only insofar as they do not go against the country's laws - which were written for the well-being of ALL the country's people, regardless of how different religions view them. I fully agree with Fist on his comments about those situations you described, rus - in all cases where the religious institution's operations are based on secular laws, those laws have to be followed. If adoptions are regulated by the state and the charity is given mandate to organize them, the charity has to do so by following the state's laws. If the state allows same-sex civil marriages, the clerk registering said marriages has no right to refuse doing so on grounds of religious freedom. Nobody forced him to take that particular job, after all. As a civil servant, he must obey the laws of the country.

If any one religion is allowed to rewrite the laws of the country according to its own tenets, or is allowed to break the country's laws in accordance with its tenets, then a different kind of path than you propose is likely to be followed. You need look no further than to countries such as Iran, a nation with a state religion which, according to that radical brand of religion's tenets, sentences homosexuals to death.

[rusmeister]

You manage to twist my agreeing with you into a bad thing.

No. You are wrong. You only want your beliefs to rule the day. But people can live together with other rules. The rules a society needs are the ones that stop threats to a society. Murder. Theft. Many, to be sure. But not so many as your beliefs would demand. (You are, of course, intending to show that your worldview's feelings on homosexuality are, indeed, a threat to society. Reasonable and rational, rather than merely blind faith. We'll see what evidence you present.)

And, if your beliefs were the path, the only path, to stable society, I would expect to find such a society, still strong after centuries. Where is it? How is it that those who agree with you have never managed to live together for any length of time, a shining example to the world?

Most of your words can be returned to you. I guess I'll just do this part:

Of course, there is an enormous difference in that beliefs religiously held are a far cry from ones merely held because a person thinks them right, or worse, merely because they desire them.

Beliefs held religiously are held because a person thinks them right, or worse, merely desires them to be. And the "objective standard" they give you will be thrown away if you decide you no longer believe them. And I am just as likely to change my "subjective" belief that random murder is wrong as you are to give up your faith.

Hi Fist,
What we do agree on, unfortunately, is incidental, since there is so little of it. But I do appreciate where we do; I just don't have anything to say to that. None of us care to see the other side descend into self-congratulation just because they happen to agree (and no, that's NOT some dig at you).

When you say threats, you seem to assume that said threats will be obvious. I say that some are not. Some are much more subtle, and based on the intricacies of human nature, most especially its self-serving and self-deceptive aspects. These people will not agree on, either because of honest reasoning or because of those problems of human nature.

That culture has survived - it is that western culture that we would export to the world, and that the rest of the world struggles to come to the west to get or copy. Only it is all bent. (A great term from Lewis's "Space Trilogy" describing the nature of Fallen beings) The world is wrapped in what we call "sin" - a constantly and sometimes deliberately misunderstood term. This caused the splits in Christianity, and what good there is is from the extent to which people actually retained elements of orthodox (small 'o') faith. None of it will be "shining" because all of it is Fallen. But our legacy, like it or not, was influenced more by that faith, however bent, than anything else, and ultimately responsible for what good there is in our culture.

I largely agree with you on religious beliefs. However, I do see a difference between merely thinking something right, and believing that anything we think on our own authority may be suspect. There are some things that we would both agree that we WILL not throw away, because to do so would be to deny the cumulative experience of our whole lives - at any rate, reason would forbid us to throw them away. We might find transformative knowledge, but not something that tells us that (in my case) that my faith is largely or completely wrong or (in your case) that random murder is wrong (something , thankfully, that we agree on).

[rusmeister]

part:

Of course, there is an enormous difference in that beliefs religiously held are a far cry from ones merely held because a person thinks them right, or worse, merely because they desire them.

Beliefs held religiously are held because a person thinks them right, or worse, merely desires them to be. And the "objective standard" they give you will be thrown away if you decide you no longer believe them. And I am just as likely to change my "subjective" belief that random murder is wrong as you are to give up your faith.

Rus, I'd also like to point out that once again, it really depends on the point of view. Religion is an intensely personal experience: your point of view on many issues is certainly influenced by your religion or lack thereof, but (as long as you are well-informed on the objective facts) your point of view is exactly as worthy of attention as that of someone else.

In the case of homosexuality, since this is the example we're talking about, the "objective facts" are that it exists; that (unlike what some people think) it's not a "disease" - neither biologically nor psychologically; that homosexuals are still first and foremost human beings, sharing the capacity to think, dream, love, worship that all human beings have; and that they should be granted the same rights as anyone else. Now it may be one's point of view that this is all unnatural and should be squashed; a religious person may view it like that because of his or her religious convictions, while an atheist might do so out of his or her own specific morality and feelings about the whole thing (I don't think any of us here thinks that all atheists accept homosexuals, after all). But the fact remains that both points of view are nowhere more acceptable or more "right" than their opposites.

As such, while religious beliefs should be respected and religious freedom should be endorsed, if a country has specific laws to ensure the equality of all its people, and these laws go against a religious institution set up in that country... well that religious institution can of course follow its own laws (say, forbidding religious marriage for homosexuals) but only insofar as they do not go against the country's laws - which were written for the well-being of ALL the country's people, regardless of how different religions view them. I fully agree with Fist on his comments about those situations you described, rus - in all cases where the religious institution's operations are based on secular laws, those laws have to be followed. If adoptions are regulated by the state and the charity is given mandate to organize them, the charity has to do so by following the state's laws. If the state allows same-sex civil marriages, the clerk registering said marriages has no right to refuse doing so on grounds of religious freedom. Nobody forced him to take that particular job, after all. As a civil servant, he must obey the laws of the country.

If any one religion is allowed to rewrite the laws of the country according to its own tenets, or is allowed to break the country's laws in accordance with its tenets, then a different kind of path than you propose is likely to be followed. You need look no further than to countries such as Iran, a nation with a state religion which, according to that radical brand of religion's tenets, sentences homosexuals to death.

Hi Xar,
My brief responses - see my signature on points of view and relative equality of worth.
Actually, I think there are many other things we could talk about besides homosexuality. Abortion is an even better one because it is the ONE issue that the Church takes a stand supporting political involvement, because it involves the murder of helpless babies and the very term "abortion" is a euphemism which falsifies the nature of the act. But on homosexuality, some of what you call "objective facts" are merely your subjective view - which is, by your philosophy, no more worthy of respect than mine (which I insist is not "mine" in the sense you generally understand it to be). I agree that it exists, that the people suffering from it are first and foremost human beings; I disagree that it is not a disease (ALL sin is a disease from the Orthodox point of view, or at least, the desire, the tendency toward sin is) - the part that is wrong is when will gives in to desire, be it homosexual or any extra-marital sexual acts, gluttony, anger, pride (which needs extensive clarification), drunkenness, envy, etc. Chastity IS a virtue, unpopular though it may be today, and promiscuity a vice. I disagree that some things cast as "rights" are in fact rights to be granted or denied. But I disagree most of all with your idea that a point of view cannot be wrong. It is manifest that a POV can arise from mistaken beliefs, perceptions or reason. I do agree that a POV can, and most often does, contain some truth, and that the truth in the POV is indeed worthy of respect and consideration.

Re: laws that "have to be followed", if they force a conflict with non-negotiable aspects of a given faith, civil disobedience is logical and inevitable. Here you DO seem to think that one POV could actually be more right than another, and one more mistaken.

You're going to have a God, Xar, whether you want one or not. You're simply setting up the State as God in this case to replace potential competitors. (FWIW, I agree that Iran is a nation in the wrong - but then that is because I believe Islam to be in the wrong. Even an Orthodox nation, like historic Russia or Greece, is going to be messed up in some ways because of the Orthodox teaching - that all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.

[Xar]

Hi Xar,
My brief responses - see my signature on points of view and relative equality of worth.
Actually, I think there are many other things we could talk about besides homosexuality. Abortion is an even better one because it is the ONE issue that the Church takes a stand supporting political involvement, because it involves the murder of helpless babies and the very term "abortion" is a euphemism which falsifies the nature of the act.

That's your opinion, Rus... scientifically speaking - and this is an objective fact - a human embryo is no different from an animal embryo. It's only when you get into the religious mindset and call into question the matter of a soul that you create a difference between the two - but the objective fact is that from a physical point of view, the only difference is genetic (and therefore not greater than the difference between, say, a mouse embryo and a rhinoceros embryo).

Of course, you may point out that science is not the end of the story, but the fact is that scientific facts are based on observations and analysis which can be quantified. As soon as one leaves behind the realm of science he or she enters the realm of faith, and there the question whether the embryo has a soul or not, and if so when this soul first manifests, depends exclusively on your personal beliefs, which however cannot be tested. So in the case of abortion: objectively speaking, there is no scientifically demonstrable difference supporting the idea that a human embryo deserves to live more than an animal embryo. It doesn't matter whether you believe your religion is the right one or not: that's your own personal point of view and it is not an objective statement.

Generally speaking, as I feel the need to clarify here - I define objective those facts that are measurable, which can be analyzed and inferred from unbiased observations, and which can be determined by anyone no matter what is their religion or lack thereof (or in other words, facts which both an atheist and a deeply religious person would agree upon because they're based on simple observation of physical evidence, i.e. the sun rises and falls, a tree has roots through which it feeds, and so on). Anything which is specific to one or more religions and which cannot be physically observed (such as the presence of a soul in an embryo) is de facto subjective: you can say the soul is there, an atheist can equally say it's not. There's no way to prove your point or to have it disproved, therefore it entirely depends on your own beliefs - i.e. it's subjective.

But on homosexuality, some of what you call "objective facts" are merely your subjective view - which is, by your philosophy, no more worthy of respect than mine (which I insist is not "mine" in the sense you generally understand it to be). I agree that it exists, that the people suffering from it are first and foremost human beings; I disagree that it is not a disease (ALL sin is a disease from the Orthodox point of view, or at least, the desire, the tendency toward sin is)

Ah, but see, as soon as you mention that sin is a disease in Orthodoxy, your statement becomes subjective. Scientifically, homosexuality is not a disease: there is no evidence whatsoever of this, there is no "homosexuality virus" or "homosexuality bacterium". Neither a Christian scientist nor an atheist scientist would be able to find such a virus, because it does not exist. Therefore, scientifically it is not seen as a disease. The fact that Orthodoxy sees it as a disease is a subjective view.

the part that is wrong is when will gives in to desire, be it homosexual or any extra-marital sexual acts, gluttony, anger, pride (which needs extensive clarification), drunkenness, envy, etc. Chastity IS a virtue, unpopular though it may be today, and promiscuity a vice.

Again, this is a subjective view based on the concept of sin in Orthodoxy. Other religions have different points of view about some or even all of these acts. Chastity may be a virtue for you, but there may be cultures in which it is not; there is no universally acclaimed consensus stating it is. Same for the others. This is a subjective view (and so it would be more correct for you to say "the part that is wrong, in my opinion..." or "based on the tenets of Orthodox Christianity...".

I disagree that some things cast as "rights" are in fact rights to be granted or denied.

Well, in some instances you are correct: for example, suicide is a personal choice and the law should not impinge on whether it's allowed or denied.

But I disagree most of all with your idea that a point of view cannot be wrong. It is manifest that a POV can arise from mistaken beliefs, perceptions or reason. I do agree that a POV can, and most often does, contain some truth, and that the truth in the POV is indeed worthy of respect and consideration.

A POV cannot be wrong by definition. Since POVs are personal statements of belief, the moment you decide your POV is wrong - either because someone got through and showed it to you in no uncertain terms, or because you have changed your mind - it is no longer a POV. I'll give you a mundane example. Let's say that I hold to the POV that women should not be given maternity leave when they have babies, because it damages the company by forcing it to both pay her stipend and to hire someone else in the meantime, thus increasing the company's expenses. As far as I am concerned, my POV is right. You on the other hand may think that not only women should get maternity leave, but that it's unfair not to give paternity leave to new fathers, too. As far as you are concerned, your POV is right and mine is wrong. We can butt heads all you want, but it's very likely we'll both think our POVs are right. But then maybe my girlfriend gives birth to a baby, and my company doesn't give her any maternity leave; I see that she is struggling to deal with the baby and with work, and realize that companies should give maternity leaves to new moms. My POV changes drastically. Now I may also think that those who believe women should have no maternity leave are wrong; but my POV is still right (because it changed).

Re: laws that "have to be followed", if they force a conflict with non-negotiable aspects of a given faith, civil disobedience is logical and inevitable. Here you DO seem to think that one POV could actually be more right than another, and one more mistaken.

Objective vs. subjective, rus. The law of a country must be followed regardless of creed, race, gender, and so on: the whole basis for a system of law is that the law should be equal for everyone. If exceptions are made, then the whole system crumbles. Now; while it is true that secular law should not intrude on purely religious matters (such as passing a country-wide law that states who can be elected priest or not, or that a church must perform religious rites for same-sex marriages), it is also true that all matters of secular jurisdiction - even if taken care of by a religious institution - should abide by secular laws (for example, if adoption is a secular process in that it is sponsored by and controlled by the country, then a religious institution providing adoption services still must follow the country's laws, or pull out of the adoption business: the fact that it is a religious institution doesn't mean it can defy the country's laws on secular matters). In my opinion, all secular matters are under the jurisdiction of secular law, and no religious institution should impinge upon that. Vice versa, religious rites and the governance of religious institutions is a prerogative of that religion's hierarchy and should not be impinged upon by secular laws. It's a complicated concept, but I hope I clarified it a bit.

You're going to have a God, Xar, whether you want one or not. You're simply setting up the State as God in this case to replace potential competitors.

No, I'm saying that the State has the right to enforce its laws regardless of who is at the receiving end. Just like the State cannot tell the Church how to choose its ministers or how to officiate Mass, so too the Church cannot tell the state who should get a baby or whether two people can be married in a civil ceremony.

FWIW, I agree that Iran is a nation in the wrong - but then that is because I believe Islam to be in the wrong. Even an Orthodox nation, like historic Russia or Greece, is going to be messed up in some ways because of the Orthodox teaching - that all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.

Again, this is a subjective statement; I suspect that many in Iran would say that they're perfectly right and that God smiles upon them.

[Fist and Faith]

When you say threats, you seem to assume that said threats will be obvious. I say that some are not. Some are much more subtle, and based on the intricacies of human nature, most especially its self-serving and self-deceptive aspects.

Can you give us a list? Homosexuality will, of course, be on it. But claiming it, or any other threat, is, indeed, a threat, is a far different thing from it actually being one. I await your evidence that it truly is one.

These people will not agree on, either because of honest reasoning or because of those problems of human nature.

Or because it's not really a threat, but merely something that your belief system does not like. For you, yes, homosexuality is a threat. If you will not approve of a society other than one where all share your faith; where every family is a mother, father, and children; where all are heterosexuals - then those who are not Orthodox, families made up in other ways, and homosexuals are all threats. I, however, do not require a society to be defined as you do. Therefore, what you see as threats are not.

To try another analogy, I'd say something along the lines of if you believed only music written in the tonality of about 1700-1800 was good, but I thought plenty of music from 1800-now is good. Chords built on various combinations of notes might be bad, in your opinion. Which is true, within the tonal system you like. But it's fine in various tonal systems I like.

That culture has survived - it is that western culture that we would export to the world, and that the rest of the world struggles to come to the west to get or copy. Only it is all bent. (A great term from Lewis's "Space Trilogy" describing the nature of Fallen beings) The world is wrapped in what we call "sin" - a constantly and sometimes deliberately misunderstood term. This caused the splits in Christianity, and what good there is is from the extent to which people actually retained elements of orthodox (small 'o') faith. None of it will be "shining" because all of it is Fallen. But our legacy, like it or not, was influenced more by that faith, however bent, than anything else, and ultimately responsible for what good there is in our culture.

There's certainly merit to that last sentence. Jesus is possibly the most influential person in human history, and certainly in the western world. That pervasive influence is the reason I assume he did, indeed, exist, rather than claim that he was just a sort of conglomerate of various ideals that people have held. Some historical figures might be nothing more than that, but the biggest historical figure is likely not.

[rusmeister]

When you say threats, you seem to assume that said threats will be obvious. I say that some are not. Some are much more subtle, and based on the intricacies of human nature, most especially its self-serving and self-deceptive aspects.

Can you give us a list? Homosexuality will, of course, be on it. But claiming it, or any other threat, is, indeed, a threat, is a far different thing from it actually being one. I await your evidence that it truly is one.

These people will not agree on, either because of honest reasoning or because of those problems of human nature.

Or because it's not really a threat, but merely something that your belief system does not like. For you, yes, homosexuality is a threat. If you will not approve of a society other than one where all share your faith; where every family is a mother, father, and children; where all are heterosexuals - then those who are not Orthodox, families made up in other ways, and homosexuals are all threats. I, however, do not require a society to be defined as you do. Therefore, what you see as threats are not.

To try another analogy, I'd say something along the lines of if you believed only music written in the tonality of about 1700-1800 was good, but I thought plenty of music from 1800-now is good. Chords built on various combinations of notes might be bad, in your opinion. Which is true, within the tonal system you like. But it's fine in various tonal systems I like.

That culture has survived - it is that western culture that we would export to the world, and that the rest of the world struggles to come to the west to get or copy. Only it is all bent. (A great term from Lewis's "Space Trilogy" describing the nature of Fallen beings) The world is wrapped in what we call "sin" - a constantly and sometimes deliberately misunderstood term. This caused the splits in Christianity, and what good there is is from the extent to which people actually retained elements of orthodox (small 'o') faith. None of it will be "shining" because all of it is Fallen. But our legacy, like it or not, was influenced more by that faith, however bent, than anything else, and ultimately responsible for what good there is in our culture.

There's certainly merit to that last sentence. Jesus is possibly the most influential person in human history, and certainly in the western world. That pervasive influence is the reason I assume he did, indeed, exist, rather than claim that he was just a sort of conglomerate of various ideals that people have held. Some historical figures might be nothing more than that, but the biggest historical figure is likely not.

I know you're waiting, Fist, and don't intend to let you down. But because of the size of your request (you are asking to me to upload x number of gigabites here), you are on a waiting list. So I won't respond to the threat question yet. If you read all of TSOD, and saw how divorce is shown to be (in my opinion) an actual threat to the family and society; if you could admit actual threats, then that would be a step towards considering the possibility that there could be other threats. That would be something you could do without waiting for me.

But no, I deny that it is a matter of taste, musical or otherwise.

I appreciate your seeing merit!

[Fist and Faith]

I know you're waiting, Fist, and don't intend to let you down. But because of the size of your request (you are asking to me to upload x number of gigabites here), you are on a waiting list. So I won't respond to the threat question yet. If you read all of TSOD, and saw how divorce is shown to be (in my opinion) an actual threat to the family and society; if you could admit actual threats, then that would be a step towards considering the possibility that there could be other threats. That would be something you could do without waiting for me.

No. First, based on the Intro and three chapters of TEM, and parts of several of your links, I think he's a terrible writer. It's too difficult and annoying to read him. Without having reason to think he's going to say anything worth the effort, I won't bother. He talks about everything but what he's going to talk about. He uses long, elaborate metaphors, some of which I think are ridiculously bad, to demonstrate what he's not going to talk about; he tells us who has championed what he's not going to talk about; he trys to pass his own opinions and theories off as fact, after criticizing others for doing the same thing; and on and on. "It is supposed to be very unbusinesslike to begin at the beginning." Very little danger of that with GKC.

Second, I'm not having a discussion with him. I know you believe the only way to discuss a belief is through him, but I'm hoping that, as you're restating his words, a few of your own will slip in. Think how far we could have gotten if you'd been willing to discuss things step by step. You took the first, by defining the type of family you want to talk about. Think how far we could have gotten in the weeks since then if you did not insist that only GKC can represent a position.

And, seriously, what do you hope to accomplish with his words? You say you don't intend to change anybody's beliefs; you only want to show that yours are reasonable and logical. But the only way you will try to show us that is using the words of someone your audience thinks is unreasonable and illogical. It is flawed, and can't succeed. It will fail. And when it does, you will blame your audience.

But no, I deny that it is a matter of taste, musical or otherwise.

That's not what I was getting at. I meant there are more than one kind of society. Many different kinds have and do exist. A threat to one is not necessarily a threat to all. It is not necessarily a threat to the concept of society. Unlike murder, which is a threat to every kind of society, and the concept of society.

[Zarathustra]

If I were god, I find a way to make myself mortal, and then trick humans into killing me, so that they would know that god is dead, and get on with their lives. (But I suspect that some of them would invent stories about seeing me three days later and spoil the whole thing, damnit.)

Back to the evil/freewill points . . . if some people choose to only do good things, and they do this because they are basically good people, it's entirely possible for a god to create only those kinds of people, and everyone still have freewill. Are people who choose good not free? Just make more of those people, and stop making assholes, god. That's what I would do.

Or, god could still make assholes who choose evil, but intervene before their choice actually hurts someone. You can be a pedophile rapist . . . but god stops you before you rape a child, substitutes a memory of raping the child instead, so that you think you've raped a child but no one actually got hurt. There, freewill is preserved, god can still keep making assholes (for those who think they are necessary, for some reason), and no one gets hurt. This isn't that hard, people! With infinite powers, you bet your ass I could make this world better.

I can't choose to become a lion and chase antelopes across Africa. Does that violate my freewill because that choice is impossible for me? Why is the choice of becoming a pedophile absolutely essential to reality? Why couldn't it be more like the choice of becoming a lion and murdering antelopes (in other words: impossible)? If some things are impossible for me, and yet I still have freewill, then it wouldn't violate my freewill for a few more things to be impossible, too. I can't believe that raping children was ever essential to this universe.

I call bullshit. Bullshit, I say!

[Fist and Faith]

First, of course, I don't believe any god made anything. We're on our own.

But if there is a g/God that made things...

Maybe God doesn't make assholes. Maybe he just makes us with the freedom to choose to be assholes.


Maybe God did make some horrifyingly evil things impossible. Things we can't even conceive of. Things that would make raping children seem pretty dull in comparison. And if he made raping children, and a few other biggies, impossible, and we couldn't conceive of them, we might think shoplifting was the ultimate act of evil.

[Zarathustra]

Fist, I understand that people have the freedom to be assholes. However, clearly there are differences between people that account for the differences in their choices. I'll never rape a child, and that's not because I have strong will power to resist them. It's because I'm not attracted to children. So everyone could still have freewill, and yet god could simply not make people who are attracted to children. If I have freewill without this attraction, then so could everyone else. Being attracted to children isn't a choice. I can't choose to have this attraction. For me, it's impossible (though I suppose I could still choose the act, even if I don't have the attraction).

Likewise, I don't have to *try* not to kill 6 million Jews. It's just not in my personality. I didn't choose to be like this, this is just the way I am. And yet I still have freewill.

I'm arguing against the idea that if god made good people they wouldn't have freewill. It's nonsense. Good people still have freewill.

For the sake of argument, I'm accepting Rus's idea that the possibility of choosing sin is necessary for people to be free, but why do the sins have to be so horrific? It was sufficient for Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit. Why can't we all have that choice, instead of being able to rape and murder each other? Why do there have to be victims in order for me to be free?

I think it's nonsense. An omnipotent god could make a world where we are unable to victimize each other, and yet we'd still have freewill. Like I said before, he could even make assholes (if we suppose that's necessary), but intervene before they hurt anyone. This wouldn't keep them from being free, no more than God stopping the Egyptians from recapturing the Jews (by drowning their army in the Red Sea) kept those soldiers from being free (assuming that story was true).

If intervening before a bad person is able to hurt someone violates their freewill in a way that threatens the framework through which salvation is possible, then how could we ever justify crime prevention?

These thought experiments reveal the logical inconsistencies in such thinking. It's nothing more than rationalization to suppose that god couldn't have made this world differently if he wanted. And since he could have, the problem of evil and suffering becomes much more problematic. These rationalizations are nothing more than inhumane dismissals of human suffering, and unwillingness to recognize a problem with the worldview that requires them to be necessary merely so they can continue believing in a god who lets so much suffering happen.

[Xar]

Fist, I understand that people have the freedom to be assholes. However, clearly there are differences between people that account for the differences in their choices. I'll never rape a child, and that's not because I have strong will power to resist them. It's because I'm not attracted to children. So everyone could still have freewill, and yet god could simply not make people who are attracted to children. If I have freewill without this attraction, then so could everyone else. Being attracted to children isn't a choice. I can't choose to have this attraction. For me, it's impossible (though I suppose I could still choose the act, even if I don't have the attraction).

Likewise, I don't have to *try* not to kill 6 million Jews. It's just not in my personality. I didn't choose to be like this, this is just the way I am. And yet I still have freewill.

I'm arguing against the idea that if god made good people they wouldn't have freewill. It's nonsense. Good people still have freewill.

For the sake of argument, I'm accepting Rus's idea that the possibility of choosing sin is necessary for people to be free, but why do the sins have to be so horrific? It was sufficient for Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit. Why can't we all have that choice, instead of being able to rape and murder each other? Why do there have to be victims in order for me to be free?

I think it's nonsense. An omnipotent god could make a world where we are unable to victimize each other, and yet we'd still have freewill. Like I said before, he could even make assholes (if we suppose that's necessary), but intervene before they hurt anyone. This wouldn't keep them from being free, no more than God stopping the Egyptians from recapturing the Jews (by drowning their army in the Red Sea) kept those soldiers from being free (assuming that story was true).

If intervening before a bad person is able to hurt someone violates their freewill in a way that threatens the framework through which salvation is possible, then how could we ever justify crime prevention?

These thought experiments reveal the logical inconsistencies in such thinking. It's nothing more than rationalization to suppose that god couldn't have made this world differently if he wanted. And since he could have, the problem of evil and suffering becomes much more problematic. These rationalizations are nothing more than inhumane dismissals of human suffering, and unwillingness to recognize a problem with the worldview that requires them to be necessary merely so they can continue believing in a god who lets so much suffering happen.

Now we're slipping into the nature vs nurture argument... sure, you as you are now, as the product of your specific life experiences, in their specific contexts, would never do that. But it's possible that if you had entirely different life experiences, in entirely different contexts, you might have turned out rather different as well. I think Fist's assumption tends to be more correct: it's not that people are born good or assholes, it's rather that they grow up to be either good people or assholes because of what happens to them as they are growing up. It's been shown, after all, that an abused child is statistically far more likely to become abusive as an adult.

As for your question,

If intervening before a bad person is able to hurt someone violates their freewill in a way that threatens the framework through which salvation is possible, then how could we ever justify crime prevention?

In my opinion, you're comparing apples to oranges here. Human crime prevention systems do not exist to enforce free will, quite the opposite: they exist to prevent your free will from harming others. They are human constructs and have nothing to do with the presence or absence of God. Vice versa, the concept of God not preventing evil acts would hypothetically exist to ensure that free will is paramount within Creation. The purposes are entirely different and therefore one can justify crime prevention even if one accepts the belief that God does not intervene in order to prevent horrific acts.

An omnipotent god could make a world where we are unable to victimize each other, and yet we'd still have freewill.

And how would that not be a restriction of free will? You'd have the free will to do everything you wanted within the constraints of being prevented from doing something. Besides... the definition of "victimization" is awfully vague. If God had made a world in which you would be unable to rape, people there would ask why God had made a world where killing is allowed. If that was also forbidden, they'd ask why God had made a world where wounding is allowed. Or where stealing is allowed. Or where emotionally hurting someone with a swearword is allowed. Or where tripping people to make them fall is allowed. It's a slippery slope - no matter how much you restrict "evil", people will still come up with something they think God should have prevented. This kinda fits with Fist's comment - that for all we know, this world could already prevent even more horrific acts from being carried out, and we're simply not aware of what they are because, well, they've never been done.

[rusmeister]

I know you're waiting, Fist, and don't intend to let you down. But because of the size of your request (you are asking to me to upload x number of gigabites here), you are on a waiting list. So I won't respond to the threat question yet. If you read all of TSOD, and saw how divorce is shown to be (in my opinion) an actual threat to the family and society; if you could admit actual threats, then that would be a step towards considering the possibility that there could be other threats. That would be something you could do without waiting for me.

No. First, based on the Intro and three chapters of TEM, and parts of several of your links, I think he's a terrible writer. It's too difficult and annoying to read him. Without having reason to think he's going to say anything worth the effort, I won't bother. He talks about everything but what he's going to talk about. He uses long, elaborate metaphors, some of which I think are ridiculously bad, to demonstrate what he's not going to talk about; he tells us who has championed what he's not going to talk about; he trys to pass his own opinions and theories off as fact, after criticizing others for doing the same thing; and on and on. "It is supposed to be very unbusinesslike to begin at the beginning." Very little danger of that with GKC.

Second, I'm not having a discussion with him. I know you believe the only way to discuss a belief is through him, but I'm hoping that, as you're restating his words, a few of your own will slip in. Think how far we could have gotten if you'd been willing to discuss things step by step. You took the first, by defining the type of family you want to talk about. Think how far we could have gotten in the weeks since then if you did not insist that only GKC can represent a position.

And, seriously, what do you hope to accomplish with his words? You say you don't intend to change anybody's beliefs; you only want to show that yours are reasonable and logical. But the only way you will try to show us that is using the words of someone your audience thinks is unreasonable and illogical. It is flawed, and can't succeed. It will fail. And when it does, you will blame your audience.

But no, I deny that it is a matter of taste, musical or otherwise.

That's not what I was getting at. I meant there are more than one kind of society. Many different kinds have and do exist. A threat to one is not necessarily a threat to all. It is not necessarily a threat to the concept of society. Unlike murder, which is a threat to every kind of society, and the concept of society.

Hi Fist,
On Chesterton, I can confidently say that you are wrong. When he's speaking seriously, it's all for a reason, even though it doesn't get to the point very quickly, the way we are used to today in the age of the soundbite. If you can't hang around long enough to understand his points, I can't help that, unless you really want me to. It DOES take mental effort and energy, more than reading Lewis. It's like asking to see the bottom of the ocean and then complaining that it is murky. If you could possibly refute him, show him to be wrong in an objective way, then I would take your comments on him seriously. But since he DOES talk about the things you say he doesn't talk about, I can only conclude that you do not understand him. This gives anyone defending his arguments powerful ammunition against you. If you understood him, and disagreed, as you do on some of his metaphors (fine, but a metaphor has a limited and generally auxiliary purpose) that's be one thing, but to say that he doesn't get to his point to me, when I know that he does, tells me volumes.

I don't say that only he can represent him. I do say that he HAS represented him, and that it is something that will definitely take me hours in quiet to do over again in a manner you can better understand. Posting is easy, because it's quick and fun. Writing a book is work, and people usually pay you for it. My intentions stand.

So don't read him. You are only depriving yourself. As far as I am concerned, it is like refusing to read Mark Twain because one doesn't like how he snubs the Catholic Church, or Donaldson because of his anti-fundamentalist attitude, or whatever. It is depriving oneself of the opportunity to meet a really great writer, and a genius. You can see the beauty of Donaldson, as can I. Why is it that millions can't? They may complain about the heavy prose style, the vocabulary, the twisting plots. It's still heir loss if they refuse to read him.

[Xar]

I know you're waiting, Fist, and don't intend to let you down. But because of the size of your request (you are asking to me to upload x number of gigabites here), you are on a waiting list. So I won't respond to the threat question yet. If you read all of TSOD, and saw how divorce is shown to be (in my opinion) an actual threat to the family and society; if you could admit actual threats, then that would be a step towards considering the possibility that there could be other threats. That would be something you could do without waiting for me.

No. First, based on the Intro and three chapters of TEM, and parts of several of your links, I think he's a terrible writer. It's too difficult and annoying to read him. Without having reason to think he's going to say anything worth the effort, I won't bother. He talks about everything but what he's going to talk about. He uses long, elaborate metaphors, some of which I think are ridiculously bad, to demonstrate what he's not going to talk about; he tells us who has championed what he's not going to talk about; he trys to pass his own opinions and theories off as fact, after criticizing others for doing the same thing; and on and on. "It is supposed to be very unbusinesslike to begin at the beginning." Very little danger of that with GKC.

Second, I'm not having a discussion with him. I know you believe the only way to discuss a belief is through him, but I'm hoping that, as you're restating his words, a few of your own will slip in. Think how far we could have gotten if you'd been willing to discuss things step by step. You took the first, by defining the type of family you want to talk about. Think how far we could have gotten in the weeks since then if you did not insist that only GKC can represent a position.

And, seriously, what do you hope to accomplish with his words? You say you don't intend to change anybody's beliefs; you only want to show that yours are reasonable and logical. But the only way you will try to show us that is using the words of someone your audience thinks is unreasonable and illogical. It is flawed, and can't succeed. It will fail. And when it does, you will blame your audience.

But no, I deny that it is a matter of taste, musical or otherwise.

That's not what I was getting at. I meant there are more than one kind of society. Many different kinds have and do exist. A threat to one is not necessarily a threat to all. It is not necessarily a threat to the concept of society. Unlike murder, which is a threat to every kind of society, and the concept of society.

Hi Fist,
On Chesterton, I can confidently say that you are wrong. When he's speaking seriously, it's all for a reason, even though it doesn't get to the point very quickly, the way we are used to today in the age of the soundbite. If you can't hang around long enough to understand his points, I can't help that, unless you really want me to. It DOES take mental effort and energy, more than reading Lewis. It's like asking to see the bottom of the ocean and then complaining that it is murky. If you could possibly refute him, show him to be wrong in an objective way, then I would take your comments on him seriously. But since he DOES talk about the things you say he doesn't talk about, I can only conclude that you do not understand him. This gives anyone defending his arguments powerful ammunition against you. If you understood him, and disagreed, as you do on some of his metaphors (fine, but a metaphor has a limited and generally auxiliary purpose) that's be one thing, but to say that he doesn't get to his point to me, when I know that he does, tells me volumes.

I don't say that only he can represent him. I do say that he HAS represented him, and that it is something that will definitely take me hours in quiet to do over again in a manner you can better understand. Posting is easy, because it's quick and fun. Writing a book is work, and people usually pay you for it. My intentions stand.

So don't read him. You are only depriving yourself. As far as I am concerned, it is like refusing to read Mark Twain because one doesn't like how he snubs the Catholic Church, or Donaldson because of his anti-fundamentalist attitude, or whatever. It is depriving oneself of the opportunity to meet a really great writer, and a genius. You can see the beauty of Donaldson, as can I. Why is it that millions can't? They may complain about the heavy prose style, the vocabulary, the twisting plots. It's still heir loss if they refuse to read him.

Except that no one here feels the need to extensively quote Donaldson when trying to make a point about anti-fundamentalism, or tells people that if they want to understand anti-fundamentalism, they should read Donaldson's books.

I'm afraid Fist is right: he is not debating with Chesterton or Lewis, he's debating with you, and he wants to know what you think. Even if you agree with Chesterton and Lewis, Fist still wants to hear their arguments through the filter of your mind, so to speak.

Also...

but to say that he doesn't get to his point to me, when I know that he does, tells me volumes.

You know he does get to his point because of your own perception and beliefs. Fist is entitled to his opinion just as you are entitled to yours: if he doesn't like Chesterton's style, he should not be forced to read the book anyway as the only possible way to understand where you're coming from. Hence the need for you to paraphrase Chesterton's beliefs, even if you're in complete agreement with him...

[Fist and Faith]

Whatever, rus. As I said long ago, I'm not going to argue about Chesterton. I'm attempting to discuss various ideas and beliefs with you. What I think of him is not remotely relevant to these discussions. If Chesterton never existed, we could still discuss these things. At least I could. By all means, use his ideas if you want or must. (Yes, I know he did, eventually, get to the point. "He talks about everything but what he's going to talk about" is a figure of speach.) Paraphrase him. Reword him. Whatever. Just don't expect me to read him. Not more than a paragraph or two here and there.

[Zarathustra]

Now we're slipping into the nature vs nurture argument...

I believe you're not giving genetics enough credit. I personally believe there are no possible circumstances that could make children sexy to me, or make me want to kill 6 million Jews.

But maybe I'm wrong. Let's assume genetics have nothing to do with it (I know that's not you're argument, but let's assume), and that who we are is 100% contingent upon our environment and upbringing. Did it have to be that way? Couldn't God have made us the kind of creatures where we're not irreparably harmed and shaped by negative experiences in our youth? It seems like that would have made up *more* free, to be released from the Pavlovian chains of childhood shaping. If someone is attracted to children because they were abused in childhood, this isn't a choice. In other words, to allow people to be free, you're arguing that God allows them to be unwillingly, uncontrollably shaped by actions which they don't choose. It's nonsensical, and unnecessary.

In my opinion, you're comparing apples to oranges here. Human crime prevention systems do not exist to enforce free will, quite the opposite: they exist to prevent your free will from harming others. They are human constructs and have nothing to do with the presence or absence of God. Vice versa, the concept of God not preventing evil acts would hypothetically exist to ensure that free will is paramount within Creation. The purposes are entirely different and therefore one can justify crime prevention even if one accepts the belief that God does not intervene in order to prevent horrific acts.

I understand that I'm metaphorically mixing fruit--at least in the cause. But let's talk about the outcome: if someone having their evil acts stopped before they can commit them violates their freewill, then why would the source of this prevention matter? Why are they still free when humans stop them, but not free when God stops them? And if they're not free when God stops them, then did God violate the Egyptians' freewill by stopping them from recapturing the fleeing Jews? If it's okay for God to do it sometimes, why not all the time?

An omnipotent god could make a world where we are unable to victimize each other, and yet we'd still have freewill.

And how would that not be a restriction of free will?

It would not be a restriction because you could still choose to do whatever you want, you just couldn't finish the enactment of that choice. It's like coveting your neighbor's wife, without actually fucking her.

Besides... the definition of "victimization" is awfully vague.

I think victims can define it fairly easy. We have no trouble defining it in our laws.

It's a slippery slope - no matter how much you restrict "evil", people will still come up with something they think God should have prevented.

Slippery slopes usually describe something undesirable. This is desirable. Who cares how slippery or how slopey it is? Yes, people would be able to come up with a long list. So what? We're talking about a being with infinite powers. He should be able to handle it.

If what's necessary to salvation is the potential to damn yourself--the existence of the "sin possibility"--then we don't need victims at all. Just sin. As I said, merely commanding everyone to not eat from the Tree would be sufficient to satisfy this criteria. We'd only need one possible sin in order to sustain this ridiculous idea that the possibility of sin is necessary to the structure of reality. If it was good enough to damn mankind, it would suffice to replace hurting each other.

This kinda fits with Fist's comment - that for all we know, this world could already prevent even more horrific acts from being carried out, and we're simply not aware of what they are because, well, they've never been done.

But if that's true, then why doesn't that violate our freewill? And if that doesn't, then no other instance of it would, either.

[Xar]

Now we're slipping into the nature vs nurture argument...

I believe you're not giving genetics enough credit. I personally believe there are no possible circumstances that could make children sexy to me, or make me want to kill 6 million Jews.

But maybe I'm wrong. Let's assume genetics have nothing to do with it (I know that's not you're argument, but let's assume), and that who we are is 100% contingent upon our environment and upbringing. Did it have to be that way? Couldn't God have made us the kind of creatures where we're not irreparably harmed and shaped by negative experiences in our youth? It seems like that would have made up *more* free, to be released from the Pavlovian chains of childhood shaping. If someone is attracted to children because they were abused in childhood, this isn't a choice. In other words, to allow people to be free, you're arguing that God allows them to be unwillingly, uncontrollably shaped by actions which they don't choose. It's nonsensical, and unnecessary.

Actually, as a molecular biologist I'd say I'm giving genetics exactly the credit it deserves More seriously - there is no known gene responsible for these behaviours that we know of - so until one is found, if it ever happens, Occam's razor suggests it's a problem of nurture, not nature.

In my opinion, you're comparing apples to oranges here. Human crime prevention systems do not exist to enforce free will, quite the opposite: they exist to prevent your free will from harming others. They are human constructs and have nothing to do with the presence or absence of God. Vice versa, the concept of God not preventing evil acts would hypothetically exist to ensure that free will is paramount within Creation. The purposes are entirely different and therefore one can justify crime prevention even if one accepts the belief that God does not intervene in order to prevent horrific acts.

I understand that I'm metaphorically mixing fruit--at least in the cause. But let's talk about the outcome: if someone having their evil acts stopped before they can commit them violates their freewill, then why would the source of this prevention matter? Why are they still free when humans stop them, but not free when God stops them? And if they're not free when God stops them, then did God violate the Egyptians' freewill by stopping them from recapturing the fleeing Jews? If it's okay for God to do it sometimes, why not all the time?

First of all, to use the Exodus as an argument in this debate, you first must prove it really happened, otherwise I could just as easily pick up a fairy tale to prove my point Since I don't think the Bible to be a literal account of the history of the world (and I know you don't either), that topic doesn't prove anything.

Secondly, the source of the prevention matters just as much as the motives behind the prevention. Humankind by nature is not infallible: we all know this, and it is a big part of why criminals do attempt crimes - who would attempt a crime, especially a major one, if they had the mathematical certainty that the infallible human crime prevention system would catch them? Part of the thrill of a crime for a criminal is the belief that even if 99% of people attempting the same crime are captured, he's good enough to get away with it - because the human crime prevention system is also made of humans, and a human can outsmart another.
Here is where the difference with the will of God comes into play. Since we're discussing the Judeo-Christian God, He is omniscient and omnipotent. Hence, He would be perfectly successful in preventing 100% of crimes, and no would-be criminal - no matter how prepared or how astute - would be able to avoid getting caught. Moreover, everyone would know there's no way to get away with a crime - because everyone would know for sure that (a) an omnipotent, omniscient God exists ("why, just yesterday a man tried to mug me and he was shot to death by lightning from the sky...") and that (b) He prevents all crimes from occurring. As there would be no way for a non-omniscient, non-omnipotent human to outsmart God, there would be no point in even attempting a crime (unless you're a masochist). Hence, no free will.

An omnipotent god could make a world where we are unable to victimize each other, and yet we'd still have freewill.

And how would that not be a restriction of free will?

It would not be a restriction because you could still choose to do whatever you want, you just couldn't finish the enactment of that choice. It's like coveting your neighbor's wife, without actually fucking her.

See above - it would be a restriction because even the instant you had a fleeting thought about coveting your neighbour's wife, you'd know without any room for misunderstanding that as soon as you did something in that regard, you'd be unable to complete the deed because God would stop you (maybe also punish you). All you'd end up with would be frustration mounting up time and again - every single time you wanted to commit a crime and were either prevented from doing it, or stopped yourself because you knew there was no way you could succeed. So you'd have a lot of people with mounting frustration who would eventually snap - and probably die, because they could not vent that frustration out properly and couldn't even kill themselves (prevented by God, after all it's a crime).

Additionally, you weaken the concept of morality this way. If there is no conceivable way for me to do evil, I am effectively coerced into either being good or insane. This may not be a problem for someone who is already basically good, but it also means that someone with evil impulses will never be able to witness the consequences of his or her actions and seek repentance, therefore he or she will continue feeling those impulses without being able to act upon them, leading to that insanity I mentioned earlier.

Finally: if the Judeo-Christian God exists, then focusing your speculation on the world we see and touch is limiting. Divine perspective must perforce be different from ours, and if the Judeo-Christian God exists, then an afterlife must also exist, which means that those who suffer in the living world may well be rewarded with an eternity of blessings, for all we know - which incidentally would be a way to both not restrict free will in the living world, and at the same time to ensure that suffering is not in vain.

Besides... the definition of "victimization" is awfully vague.

I think victims can define it fairly easy. We have no trouble defining it in our laws.

And what's the definition of "victims"? I am a victim if they kill me; I am a victim if they mug me; I am a victim if my girlfriend leaves me and breaks my heart; I am a victim if someone punches me in the face. I don't mean to minimize the damage done by people suffering rapes or such, but my point is that everyone has a different threshold of suffering which warrants the term "victim", and if there were a God and He wanted to ensure no harm can be done to your fellow men, which definition of "harm" (and therefore of "victim") should be used?

It's a slippery slope - no matter how much you restrict "evil", people will still come up with something they think God should have prevented.

Slippery slopes usually describe something undesirable. This is desirable. Who cares how slippery or how slopey it is? Yes, people would be able to come up with a long list. So what? We're talking about a being with infinite powers. He should be able to handle it.

That's not a valid argument, because you're still not explaining how you think this should be handled. I could just as easily counteract with "We're talking about a being with infinite powers. How can you judge His actions without knowing His mind - and therefore without having all the necessary elements to judge objectively?"

If what's necessary to salvation is the potential to damn yourself--the existence of the "sin possibility"--then we don't need victims at all. Just sin. As I said, merely commanding everyone to not eat from the Tree would be sufficient to satisfy this criteria. We'd only need one possible sin in order to sustain this ridiculous idea that the possibility of sin is necessary to the structure of reality. If it was good enough to damn mankind, it would suffice to replace hurting each other.

The only way to forcibly restrict the possible "sins" to one would be to forbid humans to interact with each other at all. What would be the point of creating humans in the first place, then? How could we grow if we were unable to interact with others - and were forced to face the consequences of our actions?

This kinda fits with Fist's comment - that for all we know, this world could already prevent even more horrific acts from being carried out, and we're simply not aware of what they are because, well, they've never been done.

But if that's true, then why doesn't that violate our freewill? And if that doesn't, then no other instance of it would, either.

That statement of mine referred to your idea of God preventing crimes; and as I said before, that WOULD violate free will. Therefore, no instance of God preventing any kind of crime would not violate free will. Therefore, in order to preserve free will, God would not prevent crimes. Which means of course that the fact God is not preventing crimes in the observable universe therefore doesn't demonstrate anything, least of all God's absence. I'm glad to see you agree with me here

[Orlion]

I think we're using the term "free-will" to mean two different things, (possibly three) namely, one's desire and ones ability to choose (the third possibility is the ability to bring about one's desire...or liberty, if you will). As a result, if people were created "good" or coerced to do "good", their ability to choose is not restricted, but their desire and liberty is. But that might not matter...

If we speak about the Judeo-Christian god, we come to some interesting paradoxes, if you will. He's suppose to be omnipotent (all-powerful), which means he should be able to do anything. But, we run into a problem... he's also suppose to be omnibenevolent... which implies that he can not do evil. That's one restriction on his omnipotence. So, would the Judeo-Christian god have freewill? If he's omnipotent , he should have it. If he's omnibenevolent, well, I guess that depends on whether or not one agrees with Xar or Zarathustra.

Of course, this problem could be sidestepped if one side that God is the source of morality... but that kinda makes any characteristic that has to do with being reasonable pointless... since at any point, God could arbitrarily choose action X to be good one moment and bad the next.

Another point: God seems perfectly content in trying to coerce people with threats of hell... why not just coerce them to do good? Why create flawed beings if he could create perfect to begin with? And if he's all-knowing, does that then mean that he creates some specifically to send to hell to torture for eternity?

Finally, if nurture is what makes us who we are, then the environment in which we are born into may possibly coerce us to be whatever...much like how a boat moves not because it wants to, but because outside forces are acting on it.