Our Moral God

[Lon]

One is the opposite of the other, and is based on it.
We cannot know what's wrong until we know what's right.
AD was basically trying to put down the Christian idea of what is right.

Yes, true. Yet, you have to adequately define at least one, without the other. Wrong for instance: "not right." Right "no wrong." Anyone unfamiliar with English (i.e.ESL), is going to be rightly confused and cannot, by the defined limitation, ever grasp either meaning, just that one is not the other but no idea what either means.

 

[Lon]

I have no time except to say one thing....

I do not, nor does any open theist I have ever read, define the word love as "the ability to do otherwise". If anything that is what it means to have a will.

Do you believe that it would be conceptually possible for a being that had no will to love? Or don't you agree that will-less love is an oxymoron?

On page. I believe you, but I've several open theists tell me love cannot exist without 'ability to do otherwise' (see even Derf's 'want to do otherwise" above) thus making it at least part of their definition and their understanding of love. I very much appreciate you agree with me on point (or I with you). Be blessed today, and thanks for the moment -Lon

 

[Clete]

And perhaps the phrase should be, "the ability to want otherwise". Sometimes we want simething that is withheld from us, so the ability to do otherwise is not there.

That would be redundant. To do or to do otherwise refers to any act, whether in thought, word or deed.

 

[Clete]

Right. He said "according to the outcry against it that has come to Me."
He already knows, but He is going to confirm it. He knows what the sin is, but there's something He doesn't know about it. He also knows the result, just as Abraham did, based merely on the statement above, because Abraham responds by asking for mercy for the town.

No! NO! NO!

Where is this even coming from?

Where is the payoff for you to water this down?

The reason He knew was because of the outcry, not because He knows everything there is to know! Not only that, but He doesn't take the testimony of those He's heard from as proof but it going down Himself to confirm what He's been told which also makes no sense at all if He already knew it!

The point may still be valid, but if you use an invalid premise, your readers will be swayed that your conclusion is invalid.

The premise isn't invalid. Your baseless objection to it is what's invalid.

If you say He never envisioned a particular evil (meaning He didn't even think anyone might do that sin), but the words of the bible show that He did foresee that particular evil as a possibility, then your premise is shown to be invalid.

Nonsense. The bible is that which comes right out and says that it never entered His mind. God's own words talking about the state of His own mind. You can't get more solid than that.

But "invent" is not the concept being considered. "Envision" is.

What's the difference? Are you seriously going to sit there and try to convince me that the righteous God and creator of every good thing in existence came up with the idea of child molestation before some evil pervert did?

Please, by all means, explain that one to me.

"Invent" follows more closely with what I proposed. If God said, "Thou shalt not make a digit calculator," and then, after it was invented said, "I never thought of a digit calculator before," God would be lying.

The fact that the same sin is mentioned by God prior to the Jeremiah 18 passage is not relevant. The reason the command was given was because God has seen other evil pagans doing such things, not because He thought of it first and was trying to be proactive in His prohibition. There wasn't even any NEED for Him to have made such a command in the first place because He had already commanded "Thou shalt not murder.", which was immoral before He gave the commandment!

Look, I don't mean to get so angry. I just cannot fathom why anyone would feel the need to minimize or contradict the fact that it never entered God's mind to ever command anyone to murder their children as a sacrifice to Him! How is it not just intuitively obvious that God would never think of doing such a thing? Where is the need to believe that God has to be the first one to think up every vile act of evil? It just makes no sense at all to the point that it drives me crazy.

 

[Clete]

On page. I believe you, but I've several open theists tell me love cannot exist without 'ability to do otherwise' (see even Derf's 'want to do otherwise" above) thus making it at least part of their definition and their understanding of love. I very much appreciate you agree with me on point (or I with you). Be blessed today, and thanks for the moment -Lon

Why didn't you answer the question, Lon?

Love cannot exist without the ability to do otherwise! No moral act of any kind can exist without the ability to do otherwise. The ability to do otherwise is what it means to have a will. You MUST be able to choose if the term "morality" is to have any meaning. It is precisely the fact that you chose to do something which makes you morally culpable for that action, whether good or bad. If it was not your choice, whether it was an accident or someone coerced you or whatever, then you do not hold any moral responsibility for the action. It is the fact that you chose to act that makes an action YOUR action and not someone else's.

Now, I ask you again...

Do you believe that it would be conceptually possible for a being that had no will to love? Or don't you agree that will-less love is an oxymoron?

If you believe it is an oxymoron, then you agree with me and a whole slew of Open Theists as well as every other human being on planet Earth who understands what the term "justice" means.

 

[Derf]

On page. I believe you, but I've several open theists tell me love cannot exist without 'ability to do otherwise' (see even Derf's 'want to do otherwise" above) thus making it at least part of their definition and their understanding of love. I very much appreciate you agree with me on point (or I with you). Be blessed today, and thanks for the moment -Lon

Part of their understanding, yes, but not part of the definition.

Love is patient, but you don't have to not be "impatient"?

Love is kind, but it's ok to be unkind?

Love does not boast, except when it does boast?

The definition doesn't have to include the not-opposite, though it does in the "boasting" case, but the understanding always does.

 

[Lon]

Why didn't you answer the question, Lon?

Oops, sorry missed this and needed to edit. I missed, what was the question (still missing it)?

Love cannot exist without the ability to do otherwise!

Ah, I thought you said it was not part of love's definition. Do you see how you logically mean it 'must be' here? You guys are insisting that it is necessary, thus 'part' of the definition at the very least. Look: If you cannot have love without 'ability to do otherwise' it is absolutely necessary, for your definition to have 'love is {fill-in} and/coupled with the ability to do otherwise.'

No moral act of any kind can exist without the ability to do otherwise.

This goes back to the origins of theodicy, a yin/yang philosophy of the universe. I'll simply assert at this venture and if needful, can open quite a bit of dialogue: a thing can exist completely without contrast, and a thing can be done completely without any other option. Love motivates itself by proposition.

The ability to do otherwise is what it means to have a will.

I believe you acquiesced rather that simply 'ability' is the only requirement? Either way, at odds at this point.

You MUST be able to choose if the term "morality" is to have any meaning.

There are truths by identity principle without need of contrast. For instance, you can define cold adequately without heat as a contrast. Adam and Eve didn't know the difference between Good and Evil. They were incapable until the tree, yet they had a good relation with each other and their Creator. Intuitively (assertion, perhaps with need of proofs) 'to do otherwise' isn't necessary both because it has no need in the definition of love, and with something I see as apparent: love in the Garden is known and understood prior to the Fall between creature and Creator.

It is precisely the fact that you chose to do something which makes you morally culpable for that action,

I'd argue that it is precisely that act, 'to do otherwise' that is the 'why.' I believe we are on page that 'to do otherwise' is 'no love.' It isn't until after the Fall that we can even choose 'to do otherwise' freely. The largest disconnect I and other theologians that hold freewill suspect, is especially in any sense where freewill is seen as a 'gift' rather than a consequence. I.E. 'to do otherwise' is a direct result of 'doing otherwise,' an act of sin that led to death. That is an incredibly large hurdle that needs a lot of discussion simply to empathize and walk in your shoes to entertain the notion. I'm 'resistant' but want to cross that barrier to at least understand why Freewill theists call it a gift. It initially seems the exact opposite, a curse.

whether good or bad. If it was not your choice, whether it was an accident or someone coerced you or whatever, then you do not hold any moral responsibility for the action. It is the fact that you chose to act that makes an action YOUR action and not someone else's.

On that, I think there is an agreement among we who aren't freewill theologians. I/we'd argue that you don't need to be responsible for what God is responsible for. As it relates to the Garden, God is carrying that responsibility in knowledge of both with a command not to get that ability themselves.

Now, I ask you again...

Do you believe that it would be conceptually possible for a being that had no will to love?

No, but...

Or don't you agree that will-less love is an oxymoron?

Supra, with: I'm not talking about 'will' but 'will to do otherwise' specifically. You will argue (I believe) 'to do otherwise' is implicit in the definition of will as it is with love but I believe this a conflation rather, because I'd posit I can give adequate definition of love and will without 'to do otherwise.'
Will: volition, inclination (I believe along with dictionaries, 'to do otherwise' unecessary for 'meaning' hence a freewill stigma that can be shown merely by understanding to be superfluous. Because of that, the 'need' for freewill posits aren't needed but by posit alone (they don't prove themselves out to be true).
Love: dedicated to another's highest good (again without 'ability to do otherwise' as superfluous).

Ability: the wherewithal to do something

The question is as simple as this: Do you (I) understand these definitions? Yes. Are they correct? Me: yes, but certainly up to objection. It is logically true, simply if I am correct and have properly demonstrated correct logical definitions that stand well without 'ability to do othewise' implicit in their scope.

If you believe it is an oxymoron, then you agree with me and a whole slew of Open Theists as well as every other human being on planet Earth who understands what the term "justice" means.

You are correct (is it slough or slew? I've never gotten this colloquial right), most Christians actually agree with you and there is something that isn't quite a popularity fallacy: most times when an audience is polled, the majority is actually right. I agree, argument by the #'s has a lot of weight even if suspect. The only laurels I have is/are if my posits above can stand on their own. I don't have a majority with me.

 

[Lon]

Part of their understanding, yes, but not part of the definition.

Love is patient, but you don't have to not be "impatient"?

Love is kind, but it's ok to be unkind?

Love does not boast, except when it does boast?

Confusing. I think you are saying it is important to say an opposite so someone doesn't get confused that it involves the opposite, but simply saying 'love is patient' already means it isn't impatient. Nobody is saying love is not impatient (simply moving a negative into definition).
Not only that, we are not dealing with definition from Paul's set anyway. I don't for instance write in a dictionary: "Love is patience."
Patience is its own thing: longsuffering. Rather it is the coincidence and impetus of patience.

If I said Patience is Love, I'd be open to rebuttal on point because someone would argue if you were always patient, that is all you'd have to be in order to stay married, or to follow God.

In that instance, you 'can' use impatience as a contrast to help one discover an aspect of love or display. I am rather arguing if you can have love and its comprehension without ever mentioning impatience. The answer is yes. It is only during impatience that a need to address love arises. Likewise, 'an ability, desire to do otherwise' is 1) the opposite thus 'not doing otherwise' is the actual definition of love.
On point, this is a gross oversimplification, Freewill theist are claiming that love demands 'not-love' in its definition to the point where one may well read "Love is, or at least carries an ability to not love, in its conception (true) and definition thus: "Love is an ability to love enabled by your ability to not love"!

The definition doesn't have to include the not-opposite, though it does in the "boasting" case, but the understanding always does.

You have a double-negative, perhaps against what you are trying to say. In essence, you've said a definition of a thing does not have to include 'what it is' (not-opposite), as long as you have what it is not (exactly what Judge Rightly was calling on the carpet, whether he meant to or not).

 

[Right Divider]

Yes, true. Yet, you have to adequately define at least one, without the other. Wrong for instance: "not right." Right "no wrong." Anyone unfamiliar with English (i.e.ESL), is going to be rightly confused and cannot, by the defined limitation, ever grasp either meaning, just that one is not the other but no idea what either means.

You're missing the forest for the trees.

If <something> is defined as NOT <something-else>, then you have to know what <something-else> is before you can know what <something> is.

 

[Lon]

You're missing the forest for the trees.

If <something> is defined as NOT <something-else>, then you have to know what <something-else> is before you can know what <something> is.

Well one of us is missing the forest.

Let's take forest for instance: What it is "a large number of tree over a large area." What a forest is not: A small number of trees over a small area (about as clear as mud until we know what large actually means, but it should suffice).

From here let us determine what best informs our idea of a forest:

1) Forest - not a small number of trees in a small area

Questions: a) do you know what a forest is by its contrast at this venture? -no
b) Do you at least know what a forest is not -yes

Similarly, you can say Love is not 'doing otherwise but is an ability to not do otherwise' 0.o

2) Forest - large group of trees, over 100, covering an area say, larger than 4 acres.
Once I give you a clear idea what it 'is' what it isn't isn't as necessary, including any and every absurd as well as its opposite
(A forest is not a cord of wood or line of telephone poles, nor a mirth of cats). As such, I don't need to mention them to apprehend 'forest.'

The discussion then, do I need/is it required 'ability to do otherwise' to grasp what love is and is not? Such isn't implicit to my ability to be loved or understand it. You don't have to tell me "well, I could have been driving a truck" when you hand me a beverage. The act itself without contrasts is both understood and appreciated simply by virtue of its own expression. It is specifically because I know you love, because of Christ, that I apprehend your gesture was done from that value. Its opposite has no constructive meaning or appreciation for me, other then when we have to wade through times and actions that aren't loving. Then and generally only then, is love the contrast of meaning (an encouragement to avoid one ever after).

The context and concept of love, without 'ability to do otherwise' is appreciated and apprehended, thus without the need or mention. I'm good in its absence with nothing lost between us, and rather, with the context of Our Lord Christ Jesus, more greatly understood and appreciated in that I share the greater in connection with the action and believe He is the fuller meaning of any demonstration of love and its value. I therefore posit that context is of exponential value over and against contrasts. I.E. context and not contrast is the establishment of a thing. I don't need 'ability to do otherwise' but rather 'context for' that gives love its meaning.

 

[Right Divider]

Well one of us is missing the forest.

Let's take forest for instance: What it is "a large number of tree over a large area." What a forest is not: A small number of trees over a small area (about as clear as mud until we know what large actually means, but it should suffice).

From here let us determine what best informs our idea of a forest:

1) Forest - not a small number of trees in a small area

Questions: a) do you know what a forest is by its contrast at this venture? -no
b) Do you at least know what a forest is not -yes

Similarly, you can say Love is not 'doing otherwise but is an ability to not do otherwise' 0.o

2) Forest - large group of trees, over 100, covering an area say, larger than 4 acres.
Once I give you a clear idea what it 'is' what it isn't isn't as necessary, including any and every absurd as well as its opposite
(A forest is not a cord of wood or line of telephone poles, nor a mirth of cats). As such, I don't need to mention them to apprehend 'forest.'
The discussion is rather if I need 'ability to do otherwise' to grasp what love is and is not. I don't believe it implicit to my ability to be loved or understanding. You don't have to tell me "well, I could have been driving a truck" when you hand me a beverage. The act itself without contrasts is both understood and appreciated simply by virtue that you care. That to say, it is specifically because I know you love, because of Christ, that I apprehend your gesture was done from that value. Its opposite has no constructive meaning or appreciation for me.

That is, the context of love, without 'ability to do otherwise' is most appreciate as well as fully apprehended, thus without the need or mention. I'm good in its absence with nothing lost between us, and rather, with the context of Our Lord Christ Jesus, is more greatly understood. I therefore posit that context is of exponential value over and against contrasts. I don't need 'ability to do otherwise' but rather 'context for' that gives love its meaning.

My post had nothing to do with love or choice. It was about a specific thing that Clete wrote.

So you missed the universe completely.

 

[Lon]

My post had nothing to do with love or choice. It was about a specific thing that Clete wrote.

So you missed the universe completely.

It goes back to the right/wrong conversation: I said an opposite isn't needed to grasp the meaning of a thing. In this case, specifically, that love, nor will, nor ability, have a need for the contrast 'to do otherwise' for understanding. That was your point of entrance with an example of a lawyer who said "I may not know what is right, but I know what is wrong!"

This reminds me very much of a time that I heard the lawyer Alan Dershowitz discussing some moral point. He made the following ridiculous statement:

"I don't know what's right, but I know what's wrong".​

So laughably illogical and exactly like you're talking about. Apparently, he had no idea that the very definition of "wrong" is "not right".

Light/dark right/wrong.

A definition of a thing 'with' its opposite contrasted is a double-negative description.

On point, was the lawyer off? Can you in fact know that a philips doesn't fit yet have no concept of a star-tool fitting?

 

[Right Divider]

It goes back to the right/wrong conversation: I said an opposite isn't needed to grasp the meaning of a thing.

I never said that "an opposite is needed to grasp the meaning of a thing". I'm saying that some things are DEFINED as the opposite of some other things.

In this case, specifically, that love, nor will, nor ability, have a need for the contrast 'to do otherwise' for understanding. That was your point of entrance with an example of a lawyer who said "I may not know what is right, but I know what is wrong!"

What he said was completely illogical, because you to first know the thing that is the basis of understanding its opposite.

Light/dark right/wrong.

A definition of a thing 'with' its opposite contrasted is a double-negative description.

Nonsense.

 

[JudgeRightly]

For instance, you can define cold adequately without heat as a contrast.

This is false, since "cold" is just "absence/lack of heat."

Cold isn't a temperature. It's describing a relative (keyword "relative") absence of energy.

 

[Lon]

I never said that "an opposite is needed to grasp the meaning of a thing". I'm saying that some things are DEFINED as the opposite of some other things.

For instance?

What he said was completely illogical, because you to first know the thing that is the basis of understanding its opposite.

Nonsense.

Fixed it a bit atf. Will likely change our conversation quite a bit.
Er when you say love isn't not love? Double-negative, demonstrably

 

[Lon]

This is false, since "cold" is just "absence/lack of heat."

Cold isn't a temperature. It's describing a relative (keyword "relative") absence of energy.

How we conceive of cold is the absence of heat, by degrees... If you know one, the other will simply be a point on a number scale and point of interest 'where frostbite sets in.' In this case, cold and heat are relative to 'temperature' and hot OR cold will only be informative to the need (you will not need both). Meh, we both know this basic stuff, this doesn't seem very important but for the enjoyment I have with you in conversation (and I do, actually enjoy your input). For me it means we are self-serving at this venture :Z

 

[Right Divider]

On point, was the lawyer off?

Totally off.

Can you in fact know that a philips doesn't fit yet have no concept of a star-tool fitting?

A philips is NOT the opposite of a star-tool. Your example is a complete non-sequitur.

 

[Lon]

A philips is NOT the opposite of a star-tool. Your example is a complete non-sequitur.

Depends where it is and I am in the garage! (good point, back to the drawing board, it was rather on the precept that I can know 'something' and not the other so likely too superficial to suffice :Z).

You're missing the forest for the trees.

If <something> is defined as NOT <something-else>, then you have to know what <something-else> is before you can know what <something> is.

Actually, if I misread prior, I agree with this. In context of thread (if important to your point), I was rather saying that it is better simply to define a thing rather than go to its opposite, but as I said in thread one or the other has to have a definition that stands on its own to serve the definition of the other 'if' a contrast is used and that its own definition is better. It did delve back on the most important point of contention of thread: "to do otherwise" as necessary for existence hence definition of love (as its opposite).

 

[Clete]

Oops, sorry missed this and needed to edit. I missed, what was the question (still missing it)?

Ah, I thought you said it was not part of love's definition. Do you see how you logically mean it 'must be' here? You guys are insisting that it is necessary, thus 'part' of the definition at the very least. Look: If you cannot have love without 'ability to do otherwise' it is absolutely necessary, for your definition to have 'love is {fill-in} and/coupled with the ability to do otherwise.'

This goes back to the origins of theodicy, a yin/yang philosophy of the universe. I'll simply assert at this venture and if needful, can open quite a bit of dialogue: a thing can exist completely without contrast, and a thing can be done completely without any other option. Love motivates itself by proposition.

I believe you acquiesced rather that simply 'ability' is the only requirement? Either way, at odds at this point.

There are truths by identity principle without need of contrast. For instance, you can define cold adequately without heat as a contrast. Adam and Eve didn't know the difference between Good and Evil. They were incapable until the tree, yet they had a good relation with each other and their Creator. Intuitively (assertion, perhaps with need of proofs) 'to do otherwise' isn't necessary both because it has no need in the definition of love, and with something I see as apparent: love in the Garden is known and understood prior to the Fall between creature and Creator.

I'd argue that it is precisely that act, 'to do otherwise' that is the 'why.' I believe we are on page that 'to do otherwise' is 'no love.' It isn't until after the Fall that we can even choose 'to do otherwise' freely. The largest disconnect I and other theologians that hold freewill suspect, is especially in any sense where freewill is seen as a 'gift' rather than a consequence. I.E. 'to do otherwise' is a direct result of 'doing otherwise,' an act of sin that led to death. That is an incredibly large hurdle that needs a lot of discussion simply to empathize and walk in your shoes to entertain the notion. I'm 'resistant' but want to cross that barrier to at least understand why Freewill theists call it a gift. It initially seems the exact opposite, a curse.

On that, I think there is an agreement among we who aren't freewill theologians. I/we'd argue that you don't need to be responsible for what God is responsible for. As it relates to the Garden, God is carrying that responsibility in knowledge of both with a command not to get that ability themselves.

No, but...

Supra, with: I'm not talking about 'will' but 'will to do otherwise' specifically. You will argue (I believe) 'to do otherwise' is implicit in the definition of will as it is with love but I believe this a conflation rather, because I'd posit I can give adequate definition of love and will without 'to do otherwise.'
Will: volition, inclination (I believe along with dictionaries, 'to do otherwise' unecessary for 'meaning' hence a freewill stigma that can be shown merely by understanding to be superfluous. Because of that, the 'need' for freewill posits aren't needed but by posit alone (they don't prove themselves out to be true).
Love: dedicated to another's highest good (again without 'ability to do otherwise' as superfluous).

Ability: the wherewithal to do something

The question is as simple as this: Do you (I) understand these definitions? Yes. Are they correct? Me: yes, but certainly up to objection. It is logically true, simply if I am correct and have properly demonstrated correct logical definitions that stand well without 'ability to do othewise' implicit in their scope.

You are correct (is it slough or slew? I've never gotten this colloquial right), most Christians actually agree with you and there is something that isn't quite a popularity fallacy: most times when an audience is polled, the majority is actually right. I agree, argument by the #'s has a lot of weight even if suspect. The only laurels I have is/are if my posits above can stand on their own. I don't have a majority with me.

Okay, first of all, pointing out that there's a lot of people who agree, IS NOT AN APPEAL TO POPULARITY FALLACY!!!!!

You just cannot understand how much it drives me crazy when people do this sort of thing! It's just so much hubris. It's just an attempt to say something that makes you sound like you know what you're talking about.

As for the rest of your post, you simply want to have things two ways and are either blind to the contradiction or simply don't care that its a contradiction. That and you are intentionally ignoring what I say.

I am going to state, more or less for the record because I know that you will continue to ignore it, that I DO NOT include the ability to do otherwise in the definition of love. I offered you a definition of love and you ignored that too and then took the first opportunity you could find to mindlessly claim that I do what I just explicitly and very clearly explained that I do not do.

In short, you aren't discussing this anymore and I'm sick to death of repeating myself with no payoff.

Clete

P.S. Trying to keep it as lite as possible here.....

"Slew" is an Irish word meaning "crowd", so it's unquestionably "slew" not "slough"!

 

[Lon]

Okay, first of all, pointing out that there's a lot of people who agree, IS NOT AN APPEAL TO POPULARITY FALLACY!!!!!

Thank you for reply with constraint. Much appreciated. On point, Wouldn't matter if it was, is what I'm saying (I hope I'm making the right response, am listening to what you are throwing down).

You just cannot understand how much it drives me crazy when people do this sort of thing! It's just so much hubris. It's just an attempt to say something that makes you sound like you know what you're talking about.

I don't think you were making an appeal to popularity, but I took the weight of the suggestion. I think this one wasn't a fallacy. Yes, the masses can be wrong, but when I do trivia, banking with the majority has only lost me one (1) point to date. The majority simply are right most often. Because of that, I often wonder how this became in any toward sense. Regardless (and forgive this and the initial side-rail), I was rather not treating it as a fallacy, but something that I think has to weigh on anyone coming against freewill because the majority of us are freewill theists. It was my way of saying, "Yes, thank you, good reminder." Again forgive off topic. I took the majority point seriously but truly did know you avoid fallacies strenuously. Even the mention was my bad.

As for the rest of your post, you simply want to have things two ways and are either blind to the contradiction or simply don't care that its a contradiction. That and you are intentionally ignoring what I say.

Out the gate, however, apologies for an unintentional side-rail. All I am saying is I recognize on freewill, I'm the usurper. It is a way of saying "hey, I'm objecting, but necessarily have to listen here. I'm the guy who is rocking the boat."
As such, it is likely true to some extent (not my belief, not my value at this point). Rather, if we go any further, short-hand will be out the window so think of my reply as a bit of cursory summation in the event we don't go down that long road. It isn't that I'm not listening, just trying to say 'if I get into this, the commitment is a long-haul," like taking a full-load all the way to Florida. That said, I may again have not listened, what were you saying? (apologies)

I am going to state, more or less for the record because I know that you will continue to ignore it, that I DO NOT include the ability to do otherwise in the definition of love.

Not ignoring but I do think I missed it. Do you embrace 'an ability to do otherwise' as necessary for love (and/or relationship), will, ability, to exist (if you don't, my bad). A few Open Theists who have made that requirement, such will necessitates at least an encyclopedia paragraph, if not a dictionary redefinition of love, ability, will. On this, I've been fairly bombarded by Open Theists so if misattributing to you, forgive the slight. I thought I'd seen you state 'ability to do otherwise' as necessary for one or more of these to exist. At this venture, forgive what you don't embrace and please, more clarification if at all you embrace any sort of 'to do otherwise' in a definition of will, ability, or love. I've argued 'to do otherwise' belongs to none of the three in definition. Logically, if something is necessary for it to exist, we include such in definitions. I've stated in this and other threads I'm very interested we define terms for agreement. I'd love to see you take a few Open Theists on in conversation over the matter. If you are frustrated, I'm confused and at times I'm sure it gets frustrating because the rest of us learning from/about Open Theism, are left frustrating the other half of who we are talking to. It is not my intention to throw the blame or any angst at other Open Theists, just an attempt to assuage/mete out a bit of your frustration. I 'think' I get it. I've had a few of these lately with an abortion discussion where the other insists a zygote is not human. It is a terrible argument and frustrates me greatly.

I offered you a definition of love and you ignored that too and then took the first opportunity you could find to mindlessly claim that I do what I just explicitly and very clearly explained that I do not do.

In short, you aren't discussing this anymore and I'm sick to death of repeating myself with no payoff.

Not my intent. Apologies. I've read one of your definitions before as something similar to mine: Committed to another's highest good. In thread, I've read one a bit different than that. My endeavor at this point is simply to deal with anybody saying "Love cannot exist without an ability to do otherwise" no matter who said it. They are insisting, but the insistence, that 'to do otherwise' is necessary for definition at that point, whether they realize it or not. It is logically what they are insisting: If I cannot love without 'ability to do otherwise' then necessarily it is what they mean by defining love in the first place. One necessarily follows by the insistence, if not in definition, at least in Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia.

Clete

P.S. Trying to keep it as lite as possible here.....

Thank you. You've been phenomenal and I appreciate patience (and long suffering as it goes).

"Slew" is an Irish word meaning "crowd", so it's unquestionably "slew" not "slough"!

I've learned something nough! Who knough? (sorry, have to go back to school on several points, ty).