(March 13, 2016 at 12:52 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:(March 12, 2016 at 6:49 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: The difference between a human parent running out to grab their toddler son off the street, and God changing things that would naturally happen, is that for God to do it would require divine intervention. And like Tibs said, you start getting into a slippery slope. Why didn't God stop the toddler from getting hit by a car? Why didn't God stop my brother from getting severe food poisoning last week? Why didn't God prevent me from stubbing my toe? If God were to prevent every negative thing that were about to happen, we wouldn't have free will anymore.
This seems to be a common view, that without the possibility of bad things, we aren't really free. Why. Am I not still free to choose from an wide array of neutral and pleasant outcomes? How does elimination of some of my actions result in elimination of all of my free will? That doesn't seem to make sense.
I disagree. I think having the choice to only do good things and think good thoughts is a huge impediment to free will. I think Tiberius already addressed this way better than I ever could several pages back.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh
