Who is my neighbor?

[Ibelsd]

You've argued no concept of free will. Please do so and be specific as I've previously asked.

Been there done that. Either read my posts and supporting links or bow out. Either way. In case you are unable to find it, I've made it easy for you
http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l=1#post554620
Post #91.

[CowboyX]

Been there done that. Either read my posts and supporting links or bow out. Either way. In case you are unable to find it, I've made it easy for you
http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l=1#post554620
Post #91.

It seems you said free will is moral responsibility. Is that right? Your source doesn't say that. It says it is connected to moral responsibility.

Here's what the Catholic Church has to say about it: (Oh, it's derived from the bible, there are links in the source)

"ARTICLE 3
MAN'S FREEDOM

1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. "God willed that man should be 'left in the hand of his own counsel,' so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him."26

Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.27
I. FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY

1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one's own responsibility. By free will one shapes one's own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

1733 The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to "the slavery of sin."28

1734 Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary. Progress in virtue, knowledge of the good, and ascesis enhance the mastery of the will over its acts.

1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.

1736 Every act directly willed is imputable to its author:

Thus the Lord asked Eve after the sin in the garden: "What is this that you have done?"29 He asked Cain the same question.30 The prophet Nathan questioned David in the same way after he committed adultery with the wife of Uriah and had him murdered.31

An action can be indirectly voluntary when it results from negligence regarding something one should have known or done: for example, an accident arising from ignorance of traffic laws.

1737 An effect can be tolerated without being willed by its agent; for instance, a mother's exhaustion from tending her sick child. A bad effect is not imputable if it was not willed either as an end or as a means of an action, e.g., a death a person incurs in aiding someone in danger. For a bad effect to be imputable it must be foreseeable and the agent must have the possibility of avoiding it, as in the case of manslaughter caused by a drunken driver.

1738 Freedom is exercised in relationships between human beings. Every human person, created in the image of God, has the natural right to be recognized as a free and responsible being. All owe to each other this duty of respect. The right to the exercise of freedom, especially in moral and religious matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person. This right must be recognized and protected by civil authority within the limits of the common good and public order.32"

lol, that last part is crucial.

So, again, I see nothing in what I have said that takes away your free will, that is the ability to choose between good and evil (moral or immoral).

[Ibelsd]

It seems you said free will is moral responsibility. Is that right? Your source doesn't say that. It says it is connected to moral responsibility.

Here's what the Catholic Church has to say about it: (Oh, it's derived from the bible, there are links in the source)

"ARTICLE 3
MAN'S FREEDOM

1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. "God willed that man should be 'left in the hand of his own counsel,' so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him."26

Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.27
I. FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY

1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one's own responsibility. By free will one shapes one's own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

1733 The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to "the slavery of sin."28

1734 Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary. Progress in virtue, knowledge of the good, and ascesis enhance the mastery of the will over its acts.

1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.

1736 Every act directly willed is imputable to its author:

Thus the Lord asked Eve after the sin in the garden: "What is this that you have done?"29 He asked Cain the same question.30 The prophet Nathan questioned David in the same way after he committed adultery with the wife of Uriah and had him murdered.31

An action can be indirectly voluntary when it results from negligence regarding something one should have known or done: for example, an accident arising from ignorance of traffic laws.

1737 An effect can be tolerated without being willed by its agent; for instance, a mother's exhaustion from tending her sick child. A bad effect is not imputable if it was not willed either as an end or as a means of an action, e.g., a death a person incurs in aiding someone in danger. For a bad effect to be imputable it must be foreseeable and the agent must have the possibility of avoiding it, as in the case of manslaughter caused by a drunken driver.

1738 Freedom is exercised in relationships between human beings. Every human person, created in the image of God, has the natural right to be recognized as a free and responsible being. All owe to each other this duty of respect. The right to the exercise of freedom, especially in moral and religious matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person. This right must be recognized and protected by civil authority within the limits of the common good and public order.32"

lol, that last part is crucial.

So, again, I see nothing in what I have said that takes away your free will, that is the ability to choose between good and evil (moral or immoral).

It is nice that you've chosen to highlight the sentences you wanted to cherry pick, but from your own set of quotes:
"1734 Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary. Progress in virtue, knowledge of the good, and ascesis enhance the mastery of the will over its acts."

Key word: voluntary. Taxation. Forcing someone to pay for your charity isn't virtuous. Paying based on a requirement is not virtuous.

Even the sections you made highlighted do not support your position. Take for example 1732.

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

It is acknowledging that man has the possibility to choose between good and evil and that judgement (i.e. praise, blame, merit, reproach) all follow from the choices made. You are reading this as some sort of mandate to limit freedom. Nothing could be further from the truth. Again, just go back to the original parable. The Samaritan did good of his own free will and asked no one else (certainly did not mandate anyone else) follow his course of action. This is the freedom of our responsibility. Our actions only have merit when we act with the freedom of our responsibility. If I am forced to care for a sick child, I am not being virtuous. When I send money to the government, knowing failure would lead to prison, I am not acting virtuously. It does not matter what the tax money is being used to do. It is not an act of my own responsibility. It is not a sign of virtue. Nothing you have offered contradicts this position, and as I've shown, your quotes actually support my position.

[CowboyX]

*sheesh* talk about cherry-picking:

It is nice that you've chosen to highlight the sentences you wanted to cherry pick, but from your own set of quotes:
"1734 Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary. Progress in virtue, knowledge of the good, and ascesis enhance the mastery of the will over its acts."

Key word: voluntary. Taxation. Forcing someone to pay for your charity isn't virtuous. Paying based on a requirement is not virtuous.

If there wasn't a commandment from Jesus - "go and do likewise" - I might agree. But there is.

He also told us to pay our taxes and that was regardless of what they were used for.

So, again, your free will is in no way hampered by a law that coincides with a moral teaching of Christ.

[Ibelsd]

*sheesh* talk about cherry-picking:



If there wasn't a commandment from Jesus - "go and do likewise" - I might agree. But there is.

He also told us to pay our taxes and that was regardless of what they were used for.

So, again, your free will is in no way hampered by a law that coincides with a moral teaching of Christ.

Again, until you actually understand the meaning of free will from a Christian perspective, there isn't really anything to debate. You insist on using the term incorrectly despite my repeated corrections. If you want to refute my definition/usage, that's fine. However, up to this point all you have done is either ignore it or simply argue, uh-uh. Neither of which are valid positions.

[CowboyX]

Again, until you actually understand the meaning of free will from a Christian perspective, there isn't really anything to debate. You insist on using the term incorrectly despite my repeated corrections. If you want to refute my definition/usage, that's fine. However, up to this point all you have done is either ignore it or simply argue, uh-uh. Neither of which are valid positions.

How have I mischaracterized it?

Maybe explain what you meant by the keyword being "voluntary".

[Ibelsd]

How have I mischaracterized it?

Maybe explain what you meant by the keyword being "voluntary".

I fully explained it and offered an example based upon the parable you provided in post #103.

[CowboyX]

I fully explained it and offered an example based upon the parable you provided in post #103.

Ok, "The Samaritan did good of his own free will and asked no one else (certainly did not mandate anyone else) follow his course of action." quote from you post 103.

But there's more to it than that, isn't there? Because the lord commands us to "go and do likewise".

So, again, what is the problem?

[Ibelsd]

Ok, "The Samaritan did good of his own free will and asked no one else (certainly did not mandate anyone else) follow his course of action." quote from you post 103.

But there's more to it than that, isn't there? Because the lord commands us to "go and do likewise".

So, again, what is the problem?

Key word, God. Not governor. Not neighbor. God. If you wish to follow God's will, it is a choice. You ask if there is more to it than that? I don't know. I guess that's your argument to make and I have not seen you put forth a compelling one to this point.

[CowboyX]

Key word, God. Not governor. Not neighbor. God. If you wish to follow God's will, it is a choice. You ask if there is more to it than that? I don't know. I guess that's your argument to make and I have not seen you put forth a compelling one to this point.

Indeed, and you also have a choice to follow the governor's or neighbor's will or not. So really your whole free will argument is irrelevant.

[Ibelsd]

Indeed, and you also have a choice to follow the governor's or neighbor's will or not. So really your whole free will argument is irrelevant.

Well, since you see no difference in making a choice and being mandated to pay a tax, not much left to say here. This is the upside down world we live in.

[CowboyX]

Well, since you see no difference in making a choice and being mandated to pay a tax, not much left to say here. This is the upside down world we live in.

Yes, it's the same choice you have to follow the "mandated" commandments or not.

[Ibelsd]

Yes, it's the same choice you have to follow the "mandated" commandments or not.

That makes absolutely no sense. If you offer a parable to demonstrate your point, and that parable turns out to support the opposition view, shouldn't you just acknowledge that? I mean you have offered this argument which, at every turn, has been demonstrated to be weak. Your parable. Your selected bible quotes. Even the basic reasoning you have deployed. None of it supports your claim. You have reached a conclusion and have decided to shoehorn all facts to support it. In response to your statement above. No. It isn't the same. You have simply doubled back onto your original point, never countering the points I've offered. You've simply argued something is because you've claimed it to be so. You have clearly run out of ideas. Yet, you continue....

[CowboyX]

That makes absolutely no sense. If you offer a parable to demonstrate your point, and that parable turns out to support the opposition view, shouldn't you just acknowledge that? I mean you have offered this argument which, at every turn, has been demonstrated to be weak. Your parable. Your selected bible quotes. Even the basic reasoning you have deployed. None of it supports your claim. You have reached a conclusion and have decided to shoehorn all facts to support it. In response to your statement above. No. It isn't the same. You have simply doubled back onto your original point, never countering the points I've offered. You've simply argued something is because you've claimed it to be so. You have clearly run out of ideas. Yet, you continue....

Hello, kettle? Pot calling.

How isn't it the same?

[Ibelsd]

Hello, kettle? Pot calling.

How isn't it the same?

You can keep asking, but I've properly explained and supported this claim. You'd like to continue in circles, each time pretending the past never happened. Seriously, unless you have something new and/or interesting, we are done.

[CowboyX]

You can keep asking, but I've properly explained and supported this claim. You'd like to continue in circles, each time pretending the past never happened. Seriously, unless you have something new and/or interesting, we are done.

My initial claim:

"So the Samaritan paid for the healthcare of the hated foreigner. What does this tell us about our society where we often hear complaining about "illegal aliens" showing up at our emergency rooms for care? Doesn't Jesus say we should take care of them(answer: yes, never refuted by you)?

How about when people claim that constitutional rights do not apply to non-citizens? Is this true? Does morality stop at a borderline?(answer: no, never refuted by you"

You "None of it supports your claim." post 114

Looks like a nyu-uh response from you if I've ever seen one.

[Ibelsd]

My initial claim:

"So the Samaritan paid for the healthcare of the hated foreigner. What does this tell us about our society where we often hear complaining about "illegal aliens" showing up at our emergency rooms for care? Doesn't Jesus say we should take care of them(answer: yes, never refuted by you)?

How about when people claim that constitutional rights do not apply to non-citizens? Is this true? Does morality stop at a borderline?(answer: no, never refuted by you"

You "None of it supports your claim." post 114

Looks like a nyu-uh response from you if I've ever seen one.

You are just creating a big dizzying circle of nonsense. Until you understand/recognize the meaning of free will, there is nothing more to debate. From you post above, it is clear you are still either ignorant to its meaning or in denial.

[CowboyX]

You are just creating a big dizzying circle of nonsense. Until you understand/recognize the meaning of free will, there is nothing more to debate. From you post above, it is clear you are still either ignorant to its meaning or in denial.

Another nyu-uh moment.

Perhaps you think there is a difference between free-will under a state and under a deity?

[Ibelsd]

Another nyu-uh moment.

Perhaps you think there is a difference between free-will under a state and under a deity?

Nope. You miss again. You're still refusing to acknowledge the definition of free will I've provided. Keep sluggin' slugger.

[CowboyX]

Nope. You miss again. You're still refusing to acknowledge the definition of free will I've provided. Keep sluggin' slugger.

I'm not sure how since I provided way more support than you ever did and a clearer definition related to the debate...not just a link war as you did.

"the possibility of choosing between good and evil" for starters...post 102.