Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,578 Year: 2,835/9,624 Month: 680/1,588 Week: 86/229 Day: 58/28 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Euthypro Dilemna
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 791 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 151 of 181 (541133)
12-31-2009 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Buzsaw
12-31-2009 7:09 PM


Buz Buz buz......
Please.
Take sexual sins, declared sinful in the Biblical record, for example. It is known that they all have adverse health problems which will be avoided by abstinence from them and adherance to the guidelines set forth in the Biblical record by Jehovah. As well we know of the social problems which are related to Biblically designated sexual sins.
Please do elaborate some more on this. Funny how it is your side who is the majority that sees a problem with "sexual deviancy" (same sex relationships). So maybe it is YOUR social problem......... We all know how clean and rape free the bible is to live our sexual lives by it, amIright?
For the past 200 years it has served our nation well.
Yes. Just ask the Native Americans! Don't forget the African Americans whom came over here willingly!

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl Sagan
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Buzsaw, posted 12-31-2009 7:09 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Buzsaw, posted 12-31-2009 11:30 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 181 (541141)
12-31-2009 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by hooah212002
12-31-2009 9:20 PM


Re: Buz Buz buz......
hooah writes:
Please do elaborate some more on this. Funny how it is your side who is the majority that sees a problem with "sexual deviancy" (same sex relationships). So maybe it is YOUR social problem......... We all know how clean and rape free the bible is to live our sexual lives by it, amIright?
Hi Hooah.
1. I never specified same sex. I generalized my point.
2. My message was not pertaining to the Biblical record relative to specific incidents of deviency. My message pertained to the diseases humans encounter by practicing deviency. This includes deviency recorded in the Biblical record, of course. The Bible is not a book for prudes. It lays it out as history happened. It did not fare well for those who practiced various deviencies according to the record.
In case you're not apprised on the extent of disease all Biblically renounced sexual deviency tends to, have a look. There's a whole lot of them.
Below Portion is OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this portion by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Yes. Just ask the Native Americans! Don't forget the African Americans whom came over here willingly!
Yah, poor folks. They collect or pay no sales tax on cigaretts & gas, no property tax get gov't & in come cases oil royalties etc. They fish & hunt freely. They get rich when the shite sheeple gamble in their lucrative casino business forbidden for white sheeple, etc.
They fare quite well with nice cars, heated homes electricity and all of the ammenities we all enjoy compared to back when they were barbaric warriors who scalped, emboweled and tortured one another in tribal wars, sacrificed their young in fires and all that paganism offers. In short, they enjoy the blessings of America without assuming the responsibilities that white sheeple must assume.
Oh, and btw, all nations at one time or other have practiced slavery. Slaves in America often fared better then their relatives back in pagan jungles. Slaves in Christian oriented America on the whole, fare better than slaves in pagan nations historically.
Lastly, don't forget all of the REPUBLICAN white blood that was shed emancipating the slaves.
HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU, YOURS AND ALL HERE IN EVC TOWN!!
Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by hooah212002, posted 12-31-2009 9:20 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-01-2010 6:56 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3091 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 153 of 181 (541165)
01-01-2010 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Buzsaw
12-31-2009 11:30 PM


Re: Buz Buz buz......
Yah, poor folks. They collect or pay no sales tax on cigaretts & gas, no property tax get gov't & in come cases oil royalties etc. They fish & hunt freely. They get rich when the shite sheeple gamble in their lucrative casino business forbidden for white sheeple, etc.
They fare quite well with nice cars, heated homes electricity and all of the ammenities we all enjoy compared to back when they were barbaric warriors who scalped, emboweled and ortured one another in tribal wars, sacrificed their young in fires and all that paganism offers. In short, they enjoy the blessings of America without assuming the responsibilities that white sheeple must assume.
Wow, you really are a fucking racist bigot Buzz. It is amazing that some racist bigots are still trying to rationalize away the systematic ethnocide of tens of millions of human beings.
Europeans in the name of Manifest Destiny and other divine/political mandates only committed one of the largest-scale system ethnocide both directly and indirectly in human history of another culture even larger than the more recent Jewish Holocaust. And then you get pissed because the few surviving American Indians whose culture was systematically destroyed and dismantled and replaced by Europeans, who live on 1/50th the land they used to live on and most of it having few if any natural resources (which even if they had the government has and can come in and take for themselves), have resorted to any means available survive.
You got to be kidding me Buzz. Are you this fucking stupid? If white people suffered the same plight you would be either dead or living on one of these 300 reservations which occupy less than 2% of the United States. Would you be saying the same thing?
Slaves in America often fared better then their relatives back in pagan jungles. Slaves in Christian oriented America on the whole, fare better than slaves in pagan nations historically.
What a crock of shit. Where can you show me that slaves in America fared better than there free African relatives?
So slavery is acceptable as long as white Christians are doing the slaving huh. I guess we Abraham Lincoln was wrong in trying to empancipate the slaves then huh?
I guess these attrocities never happened:
District Judge Caruthers convened a grand jury in June 1911 to investigate the lynching of the Negro woman and her son. In his instructions to the jury, he said, "The people of the state have said by recently adopted constitutional provision that the race to which the unfortunate victims belonged should in large measure be divorced from participation in our political contests, because of their known racial inferiority and their dependent credulity, which very characteristic made them the mere tool of the designing and cunning. It is well known that I heartily concur in this constitutional provision of the people's will. The more then does the duty devolve upon us of a superior race and of greater intelligence to protect this weaker race from unjustifiable and lawless attacks."
This was just good Christian white folk keeping the ignorant black nigers in check.
Lastly, don't forget all of the REPUBLICAN white blood that was shed emancipating the slaves.
The Republican Party founded shortly before the Civil War is nothing like the Republican Party of today. In fact I would venture that many people of that era, especially in the South, would call the Republican Party both liberal and progressive which is a complete 180 degrees of today. The Democratic Party originally founded on the principles of small government and fiscal conservatism of Thomas Jefferson's Anti-Federalist party and was a conglomerate of several clashing subgroups including both abolitionists from the North and anti-abolitionists of the South and. In fact the Democractic party was originally called the Democratic-Republican party. Both of these parties have done a complete reversal of their original purpose and are nothing like the original political groups they only share a name with. One reason I am still an Independent is that I believe both parties have been taken over by politically corrupt extremists and hypocrites.
Go read your history books Buzz and stop inventing your own white supremacist racist history.
I am sorry for the threadjacking but it is about time to call a spade a spade or I should say a racist a racist!
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Buzsaw, posted 12-31-2009 11:30 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by AdminPD, posted 01-01-2010 8:51 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied
 Message 173 by Buzsaw, posted 01-05-2010 10:01 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 154 of 181 (541169)
01-01-2010 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by DevilsAdvocate
01-01-2010 6:56 AM


Argue Position, Not Person
DevilsAdvocate,
The name calling is unnecessary. Stick to arguing the position and not the person.
I"m sure readers can discern a "spade" when they see it.
All Participants: Please stick to the topic and preserve sufficient detachment to maintain an academic approach to the topic.
Thanks and Happy New Year.
AdminPD

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-01-2010 6:56 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 155 of 181 (541180)
01-01-2010 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by DevilsAdvocate
12-31-2009 3:30 PM


iano writes:
Yet one point of goodness (in the sense of your dealing with the flavour of God) has already been furnished: it's use as a tool in the setting up of choice for us.
DA writes:
That is ridiculous and illogical. Goodness by your definition is an attribute of God, specifically his behavior. Therefore to say the purpose of goodness is to differentiate it from evil is like saying the purpose of the chocolate flavor of ice cream is to differentiate it from vanilla or the purpose of my blond hair is to differentiate it from brown hair. Saying it has a purpose or "is a tool in the setting up of a choice for us" implies that there is an even more fundamental principle that regulates goodness/evil that is more fundamental of God.
Goodness is another word for 'the flavour of God's activity'. For example: God tends towards punishing those who act contra his will and that experience is considered negative/undesirable/painful by those exposed to it. The flavor: negative/undesirable/painful/etc. is God's flavour when dealing with those who act contra his will. That flavour is described as good.
I didn't say the purpose of goodness was to differntiate from evil. I said one point of goodness has to do with our being provided with a choice. Goodness forms one option, evil another. The two are rendered distinguishable from each other according to God. He has given us his knowledge of good and evil. That we call what he calls evil 'good' and vice versa doesn't alter anything. What's in a name?
The fundamental principle is our being equipped to know the difference between God's view of good and evil (a knowledge of good and evil) by God. There is no implication that we need step outside that in anything I've said.
-
Really? So mentally handicapped people, children, elderly people suffering from demensia, those suffering from PTSD and the like (in other words nearly all humans on this planet) all have equal knowledge and comprehension of your stark black and white "good" and "evil"?
Children grow up. Mentally handicapped people aren't devoid of conscience. Elderly people with dementia were once young people without dementia. PTSD doesn't mean the destruction of conscience.
What you seem to be angling for is a reason to absolve folk. Whilst I've no doubt that God will take all into account - the PTSD, the desparate upbringing, man can still be judged on what he knew - however little that was. Remember that it's a persons wilful response to what they know that is posited as contributing to their decision - not whether they knew a little or a lot. In other words: a scale is balanced whether you put a gram on either side or a kilogram (of knowledge of good and evil)
-
If we took a child and placed him/her in an environement in which social norms and right and wrong implications of there actions are not taught to them from birth, do you think they would have a very strong comptehension of good and evil, even if they call it something else? I think not.
See above.
-
If normally decent human beings can succomb to the pressure of social experimentation for short durations of time i.e. the Stanford "Prison" Experiment, it is not a stretch in the least to understand how much of our conscience is a result of social programming from birth, though I do believe "nature" (genetics) has a role in this as well as "nuture" (social programing after birth).
Man is a sinner and everything that works to cut the shackles of conscience will result in a natural slide into depravity. Whether the social programming is an experiment at Stanford or an experiement in Nazi Germany isn't the issue. The issue is man's inherently evil nature - arrested only by conscience.
-
Your god in the Bible can't even maintain consistency with his own rules and regulations in the Bible much less any human alive or dead.
You mean, no doubt, God "breaking" a commandment issued to mankind to govern mankinds dealing with each other eg: "thou shalt not kill". Given the definition of good = God's will then God is being entirely consistant. He doesn't want man to kill man and commands him so (God's will). He does, however, want to kill man for x reason and does so (God's will).
Where's the inconsistancy.
(there is, in addition, the not-too-simple problem of supposing God subject to commandments he issues to mankind to resolve. On what basis do you suppose him subject to laws issued to us to govern our dealings with each other?)
-
This coming from a God who merciliessly and indiscrimanetly murders innocent children and others in the Bible while at the same time demanding people to bow down and worship him for eternity. If this is selfless I would hate to see a real selfish entity.
God kills everyone at some point: directly or no. What's indiscriminate about it?
God can't murder - he cannot act unrighteously (per definition). And murder is classed as an unrighteous killing.
There are two ways to bow to God for eternity. Willingly with joy or willingly without. The willing with joy is obvious - those who chose for God have no issue with bowing to him. Those who will bow otherwise will do so simply because they'll get to see God as he is: Lord of all. It is in mans makeup that he bow on recognising God as he is - God designed man to be so willing. It's just that there'll be no joy involved for some - they will recognise what God's lordship means for them.
If you considered, truly considered, the scale of God as he must be were it that he did indeed create all this then you'd quake at the idea of shaking your fist at him. Not simply because he can squash you - but because your abilty to correctly evalute the truth of the matter can't hope to compete with his. All he has to do is show you the whole working of this mechanism involving your sin and his salvation - including where your arrogance/deceit/pride allowed for an alternative, God-denying mechanism - and you'll wilt.
-
You see you think your religion is simple in its beliefs when in reality it is not when you dig into this fabrication. Life is not this simple. Morality is not this simple. Humanity is not this simple. It definately is not this monocrome good vs evil fairytale you make it out to be. It reminds me of politics where one side calls anyone that opposes them liberals, socialists and communists and the other side labels the other right wing extremists. This (both religious and political) is a cop out for thinking deeply and scientifically about subjects and trying to determine the true nature of things (what is reality) rather than painting everything with an absurdly broad brush of groundless assumptions and religious/political pandaring. As Jesus himself says "What is truth?".
Jesus said "I am the truth .. and no one comes to the father except through me" About as black and white as one could possibly be.
I agree that the world isn't simple and I'm not suggesting that what's good and evil (according to God) can be worked out simply in every case. There are those difficult issues to do with young children or the severely mentally handicapped where the Bible doesn't give us pointers.
But to suppose that leaves us void of very clear direction is to err seriously.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-31-2009 3:30 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Briterican, posted 01-01-2010 12:45 PM iano has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 156 of 181 (541186)
01-01-2010 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by iano
12-31-2009 11:07 AM


That said, one point of goodness has already been furnished you: it's use as a tool in the setting up of choice for us
But the choice could still exist if the commandment was 'Hate thy neighbour'.
That different people have different moralities is neither here nor there: all men have a knowledge of good and evil (as defined by God) and all men suppress that knowledge in this way and that and to this degree and that as it suits them
So you claim. But it still seems to be the case that we cannot rely on our 'taste receptors', since they give us seemingly contradictory responses.
You might begin to appreciate that it's not all that relevant that you can classify good and evil (as God sees it) so as to be able to look at any particular action (yours or others) so as to decide whether it sits on this side or that side of Gods will.
Actually - it is relevant by definiton. I'm not sure how you can make the claim that it is not relevant to be able to know god's will to be able to judge if a particular action is god's will or not.
Goodness (God-style) has at it's source, love. Love in this case being that which is selfless (agape).
And what is special about agape?
Attributes given above. The why has to do with God's nature. He simply has that flavour s'all. There's no more reason to ask why he's omnipotent as ask why his flavour is the way it is. God is love (selfless)
So we don't need God at all?
It seems we can create the same 'flavour' by merely being selfless ourselves. Even the choice to be selfish or selfless could exist without God.
God demanding that you obtain to his standard of good will result in one of two things....
The results still seems to be the same if he had commanded us to 'hate our neighbour'.
If God demanded that you hate your neighbour (by, for example, removing the constraint of conscience and leaving you to your capable-of-only-evil-only will) then you could neither be saved nor condemned.
I'm not suggesting he remove the contraint of conscience at all. I'm suggesting that he tells us to hate our neighbours and keeps our 'conscience' in tact. That way we are still faced with a choice (obey god, or make life on earth easy by getting along with those that are close to us). When we realize we can't do that - we get those 'benefits' you speak of.
Expressing you're will independently from God involves suppressing God's will regarding what you do. That isn't good.
Why not? It is God's will that we have a will that is independent of him. If God did not will it - it wouldn't have happened.
It is good (obviously ) that God permitted you the potential to act contra his will - for it made possible for God's will to be done with regard to a greater goal.
Sounds very confused. The first part is obvious, by definition. The second part makes no sense. It isn't good because it makes something possible, it is good because God wills it/it has the flavour of god's will. That's what you said.
The greater goal stuff doesn't seem consistent with this definition.
Consider it permitting the temporary existance of evil in order to achieve a greater good.
What can possibly be a 'greater good' than the flavour of god's deeds?
By god's actions, 'evil' exists. Evil, therefore, has the flavour of god's actions. Therefore evil is good.
I'm not sure we're getting very far here.
You argue a choice needs to be possible, but I don't see any reason it has to be the choice that we have and not some other choice. You seem to indicate that god is ultimately a slave of his own flavour or 'nature' which implies that goodness could exist without god. But you argue that this isn't the case. You seem to argue evil is bad, but it was god's actions that generated the possibility of evil which makes it good.
I'm no Socrates, but I'm fairly sure this isn't the coherant, consistent understanding he was looking to take into the courtroom.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by iano, posted 12-31-2009 11:07 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by iano, posted 01-01-2010 1:59 PM Modulous has replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3939 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 157 of 181 (541194)
01-01-2010 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by iano
01-01-2010 11:51 AM


Black and white my backside
iano writes:
Jesus said "I am the truth .. and no one comes to the father except through me" About as black and white as one could possibly be.
If by "black and white" you mean "completely and utterly ambiguous", then I agree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by iano, posted 01-01-2010 11:51 AM iano has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 158 of 181 (541206)
01-01-2010 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Modulous
01-01-2010 12:18 PM


Modulous writes:
But the choice could still exist if the commandment was 'Hate thy neighbour'.
The command/influence 'love thy neighbour' (written in conscience) acts as a balance/counter to the sinful nature of man which commands/influences man to "hate thy neighbour'. Influences in both directions thus (God drawing us in one direction / our natures drawing us in the other) means you now have the set up of choice.
Had God designed conscience to command man to 'hate thy neighbour' then you'd have both conscience and sinful nature comanding man to 'hate thy neighbour'.
And so you would be bereft of choice.
(Which means you can neither chose* for what God stands for - nor can you be condemned for robotically 'chosing' for what God hates. Which renders God's Mission Unaccomplished)
-
So you claim. But it still seems to be the case that we cannot rely on our 'taste receptors', since they give us seemingly contradictory responses.
Supposing my claim is correct then what is the issue? We have an explanation for varying, contradictory morality between men. We also have (by same suppressive mechanism) a reason why the individuals own personal compass is rendered wonky. What we can conclude in the general and the individual case is that man is responsible for the state of affairs.
Note that this all fine and dandy as far as the mechanism of salvation/damnation is concerned. A man's sin is utilised in the attempt to save him (guilt and shame attach to sin and have a certain 'motive power' which drives the salvation/damnation mechanism). Or a man's sin is utilised in justifying his damnation.
Conscience.. and the suppression of it, are core drivers in this affair.
-
Actually - it is relevant by definiton. I'm not sure how you can make the claim that it is not relevant to be able to know god's will to be able to judge if a particular action is god's will or not.
Sorry - the point was framed poorly. Permit me to another attempt.
It's not all that important what name (good/bad) you attach to events/actions by way of moral judgement. What matters is what God judges them as. Which means there can exist possibilities that something you consider good are actually bad and vice versa. You may even find your self fighting for a cause that everyone and his brother thinks is bad but you think good - and God thinks good. In which case it is good.
Point being - God see's the heart. Man-judged titles don't count for anything.
-
And what is special about agape?
It happens to be a central ingredient of God's scent and the choice we're faced with involves spending an eternity around that scent or outside any trace of it.
The set up of things in this world gives us a taste of both that scent.. and it's opposite number - and all shades inbetween. And God's goal is that we get to make a choice about it. A positive pro-God choice will take the form of a hearts desire for more of that scent (without necessarily knowing that God is it's source). Or a hearts desire to be rid of the stink of it's opposite number (without necessarily knowing that God is the means of being washed clean). A negative, contra_God choice will look like the opposite of that
-
So we don't need God at all?
It seems we can create the same 'flavour' by merely being selfless ourselves. Even the choice to be selfish or selfless could exist without God.
Made in his image and likeness I'm afraid. When truly expressing selflessness (and I'd challenge even ourselves to judge ourselves accurately on that) it's only because of God's image in which we are made.
We are not our own - we're Gods. And he has sat us between choice. His will empowering one direction (whenever our will remains in neutral/unexpressed on the issue) or our will empowering the other.
-
I'm not suggesting he remove the contraint of conscience at all. I'm suggesting that he tells us to hate our neighbours and keeps our 'conscience' in tact. That way we are still faced with a choice (obey god, or make life on earth easy by getting along with those that are close to us). When we realize we can't do that - we get those 'benefits' you speak of.
Has the point up top clarified this? The constraint of conscience intact means he cannot instruct us to hate our neighbour - the conscience and the instruction are one and the same thing.
-
Sounds very confused. The first part is obvious, by definition. The second part makes no sense. It isn't good because it makes something possible, it is good because God wills it/it has the flavour of god's will. That's what you said.
The greater goal stuff doesn't seem consistent with this definition.
Would it help if we used the analogy of the good involved in letting a child learn to eat. It is not willed that food end up all over the floor - indeed the parent wishes that it didn't. But that un-want is considered a necessary evil in the context of the greater want: the child learning to eat.
-
What can possibly be a 'greater good' than the flavour of god's deeds?
By god's actions, 'evil' exists. Evil, therefore, has the flavour of god's actions. Therefore evil is good.
God willed to create a being with free will. That is good (clearly). But creating the potential for evil isn't creating evil anymore than placing a rock at a high place creates kinetic energy.
The being created evil in the very choosing against God's will (clearly). There is no basis for saying it was God's will that a being choose against God's will. All we can say it it was God's will that the being was able to chose against God's will)
-
I'm not sure we're getting very far here.
You argue a choice needs to be possible, but I don't see any reason it has to be the choice that we have and not some other choice.
Hopefully this will be now clearer: balance of influence means opposing influences love vs. hate neighbour. Your suggestion hate neighbour (via God power) vs. hate neighbour (via sinful nature power) isn't, you'll surely agree, a choice.
-
You seem to indicate that god is ultimately a slave of his own flavour or 'nature' which implies that goodness could exist without god.
God can't not be God, true. But I'm not sure how you arrive at the second statement given that goodness is merely the flavour of God. Without God there is no God flavour surely?
-
But you argue that this isn't the case. You seem to argue evil is bad, but it was god's actions that generated the possibility of evil which makes it good.
I'm no Socrates, but I'm fairly sure this isn't the coherant, consistent understanding he was looking to take into the courtroom.
Hopefully much has been clarified. If not then by all means probe.
-
* One doesn't choose for God as such. As pointed out, a move in the direction of God's will is a function of God's power drawing + your silent not activating against. You will activates in only one direction - away from God.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Modulous, posted 01-01-2010 12:18 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Modulous, posted 01-01-2010 5:04 PM iano has replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3885 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 159 of 181 (541212)
01-01-2010 2:41 PM


Son Goku & iano
Hi Son Goku, I thought this would be a better place to discuss my comments on this. Message 104
Son Goku writes:
In Christian theology God is one being with three personhoods, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
The personhood known as the Son has two natures:
(a) The divine nature, the Son who resides in eternity with the father
(b) The fully human Jesus of Nazereth, who has a temporal existence.
So that's:
One being.
Three persons.
One of the persons has two natures.
Since Jesus is fully human he may claim descent from David through Joseph.
This view is Chalcedonian Christianity and includes virtually all modern western churches.
I should also say that the two natures of Jesus have two separate wills. Which is how Jesus could suffer, even though he was the fully divine "Son".
Would that make 4 wills altogether, or just 2?
In any case, would this extra human will that didn't agree with his divine will make him a sinner, using the concepts exposited by iano above? Message 141
iano writes:
The war is between your (contra-God) will and God's will. Your choices (involving compliance with his will or suppression of his will and expression of your own) are the blows struck in that war. It's not that ambigious.
Or, at the very least, is this what we mean when we say that Jesus is "good" in the sense that he does not sin, but could have?
. . .
Hi iano, I'm dragging the Trinity in here because most of your audience are becoming more and more unsatisfied with your defense. To make this clear, I'm going to summarize the dilemma again.
Either goodness is something separate from God, to which his behavior can be compared, in which case the statement that "God is good" has a practical meaning, ie that he is trustworthy, has our best interest in heart, may work in mysterious ways but only because he has inside information. It is similar in quality to saying "My dad is cool."
OR goodness is merely a word for whatever the will of God commands, in which case the claim that "God is good" is just a syllogism, with no real substantive meaning at all. This is similar to saying "My dad is the source of my Y chromosome."
The position that you are taking, that the will of God is what created our sense of goodness at all etc., regardless of how true it may be in your worldview, simply looks like fence-sitting in regard to the actual dilemma. It's not a solution, merely avoidance of the problem, which reduces God to a cypher.
The normal theological solution to problems like this one is the Trinity. This makes it possible to postulate a) goodness, beyond our judgement, as the arbitrary nature of God (the Father); b) goodness as something external to himself, which can be submitted to by God (the Son); and c) goodness as a mediated relation between the created and the creator God (the Spirit).
What's keeping you from using the tools you have for arguments like these? I'm a wicked sinner, why is my understanding of theology and logic so much better than yours?

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by iano, posted 01-01-2010 4:46 PM Iblis has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 160 of 181 (541232)
01-01-2010 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Iblis
01-01-2010 2:41 PM


Re: Son Goku & iano
iblis writes:
Hi iano, I'm dragging the Trinity in here .. I'm going to summarize the dilemma again.
Fair enough.
-
OR goodness is merely a word for whatever the will of God commands, in which case the claim that "God is good" is just a syllogism, with no real substantive meaning at all. This is similar to saying "My dad is the source of my Y chromosome.
There are various angles to this attribute ' good', various ways in which we can examine it. In this case, the statement "God is good" would be addressing mankind, who understand (and to large degree, agree on what globally constitutes..) the notion of "goodness". This statement tells them that the centrepoint of this general notion - from which the myriad of man-opinionated goodnesses derive .. is God. That all their subjective paths regarding goodness devlolve from one objective summit.
You are incorrect in saying that goodness has no substantive meaning. The working definition of good used of late (looking at another angle of goodness being sourced in God) has been "the flavour of God's doings". A flavour is a substantive thing. Ask the Midianites.
-
The position that you are taking, that the will of God is what created our sense of goodness at all etc., regardless of how true it may be in your worldview, simply looks like fence-sitting in regard to the actual dilemma. It's not a solution, merely avoidance of the problem, which reduces God to a cypher.
How so, given that we can expand on what this flavour looks (I mean tastes ) like? Indeed, I've gone so far as to give a key ingredient of it to Modulous. The flavour of agape love-driven kindness, generousity, patience, etc. are substantive things - perhaps not always easy to identify as applying in the individual case - but no matter, it's not vital that we can prove that the love behind the action is agape.
-
The normal theological solution to problems like this one is the Trinity. This makes it possible to postulate a) goodness, beyond our judgement, as the arbitrary nature of God (the Father); b) goodness as something external to himself, which can be submitted to by God (the Son); and c) goodness as a mediated relation between the created and the creator God (the Spirit).
What's keeping you from using the tools you have for arguments like these? I'm a wicked sinner, why is my understanding of theology and logic so much better than yours?
Ockams Razor?
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Iblis, posted 01-01-2010 2:41 PM Iblis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Iblis, posted 01-01-2010 7:28 PM iano has replied
 Message 167 by Otto Tellick, posted 01-03-2010 7:36 PM iano has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 161 of 181 (541236)
01-01-2010 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by iano
01-01-2010 1:59 PM


The command/influence 'love thy neighbour' (as written in conscience) acts as a balance/counter to the sinful nature of man which commands/influences man to "hate thy neighbour'. Influences in both directions (God drawing us in one direction / our natures drawing us in the other) means you now have the set up of choice.
So why couldn't
quote:
The command/influence 'hate thy neighbour' (as written in conscience) acts as a balance/counter to the sinful nature of man which commands/influences man to "love thy neighbour'. Influences in both directions (God drawing us in one direction / our natures drawing us in the other) means you now have the set up of choice.
that be the case?
Had God designed conscience to command man to 'hate thy neighbour' then you'd have both conscience and sinful nature comanding man to 'hate thy neighbour'.
No. You'd have conscience telling us to hate thy neighbour and the sinful nature commanding us to 'love thy neighbour'. It wouldn't be a sinful nature if it urged us to abide by god's nature would it?
Supposing my claim is correct then what is the issue? We have an explanation for varying, contradictory morality between men. We also have (by same suppressive mechanism) a reason why the individuals own personal compass is rendered wonky. What we can conclude in the general and the individual case is that man is responsible for the state of affairs.
Because it doesn't help at all.
I say it is moral to kill my grandmother who is suffering.
but for some reason that other person is saying I shouldn't.
Who is listening to the god nature and who is listening to sinful nature and how can we tell which we are doing?
As you say:
Which means there can exist possibilities that something you consider good are actually bad and vice versa
This seems to me to be as much as a shrug of shoulders as we can get. You have us making choices between god's way and our way, but then we don't necessarily know which is which but sometimes we might think we know even when we don't.
So it seems to me that you are simply saying
quote:
I don't know Socrates. I suppose we could assign one entity's actions or will to be morally right and suppose that it is our nature to be opposed to that position - but we won't necessarily know what either is. I suggest, when you get to court you should just tell the court that it has no better access to right and wrong than anybody else and that they have no business even attempting to determine it.
Made in his image and likeness I'm afraid. When truly expressing selflessness (and I'd challenge even ourselves to judge ourselves accurately on that) it's only because of God's image in which we are made
Maybe so. But I see no reason to suppose that selflessness cannot exist without a deity.
God willed to create a being with free will. That is good (clearly). But creating the potential for evil isn't creating evil anymore than placing a rock at a high place creates kinetic energy.
What is evil? Evil is doing that which is against god's will. God created beings that can go against god's will (and will according to your theology, we WILL DEFINITELY not live up to god's standards). It is therefore good to go against god's will, by definition.
This is like over-balancing a rock at the top of a cliff and claiming that it wasn't your actions that resulted in it falling.
Without God there is no God flavour surely?
I've eaten Strawberry ice cream which had never even seen a Strawberry. I see no reason to suppose that if my actions are called 'grib' that without my existence nobody could do the same actions as me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by iano, posted 01-01-2010 1:59 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by iano, posted 01-01-2010 7:05 PM Modulous has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 162 of 181 (541248)
01-01-2010 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Modulous
01-01-2010 5:04 PM


Modulous writes:
So why couldn't..
The command/influence 'hate thy neighbour' (as written in conscience) acts as a balance/counter to the sinful nature of man which commands/influences man to "love thy neighbour'. Influences in both directions (God drawing us in one direction / our natures drawing us in the other) means you now have the set up of choice.
That kind of nature isn't the nature Adam plumped for with his free-willed choice (with that nature being passed on down to his offspring). The sin captive, contra-God nature arises naturally from a freewilled contra-God choice. Choose death and death you shall have.
Interestingly, in the very fruit of his falling (and loosing free-willed choice), is contained the means whereby choice of a slightly different construction is rendered to Adam (and us). Eating of the fruit lost him his free nature - but gained him conscience. Which puts Adam in precisely the same position as all his offspring - in need of salvation and equipped to choose "yea or nay".
Salvation being by sacrifice-powered grace alone gives a number of arguable benefits:
- it clears the way for man to love God totally, no holds barred. Man's love cannot be diluted by his having done something to merit the benefits of salvation. By grace alone "so that none can boast" as Paul puts it.
- it permits saved man to be content in whatever position God finds fit for man, eternally. Man has nothing but wrath to look forward to - anything better than that is a bonus. That this position is as elevated as it is (adopted) sons of God is astounding. Yet that position sees God in his rightful place before man: Sovereign.
-
I say it is moral to kill my grandmother who is suffering.
but for some reason that other person is saying I shouldn't.
Who is listening to the god nature and who is listening to sinful nature and how can we tell which we are doing?
All that matters to God is your hearts motivation in the matter. He knows the equipping you've had to evaluate according to his measure. And he'll take note of whatever answer your heart gives in the matter whilst taking all other influences into account. All the rest is noise.
One thing is sure: you will make a decision one way or the other and you will have a motivation(s) for making the one you make. And God will see.
-
This seems to me to be as much as a shrug of shoulders as we can get. You have us making choices between god's way and our way, but then we don't necessarily know which is which but sometimes we might think we know even when we don't.
As I'm sure I've said at some point in this discussion; the mechanism of your salvation/damnation doesn't require that you even believe in God's existance prior to your salvation. Still less does it matter that you can't ascertain God's will in this matter.
You'll make the choice according to God-powered, sin-dulled conscience, influenced by a sinful nature that is geared to seek it's own interests first (whatever you believe). And that choice will be entered into the mechanism. And the salvation/damnation mechanism will roll onwards.
Remember I said that sin is utilised by God in his atttempt to save a person? It's not that choosing anti-God is necessarily terminal in the case of your granny - indeed, it may well be your sinning here is the sin that breaks the camels back of your rebellion against God. And so you will be saved.
Sin Saves!
(an analogy occurs to me which deals with this. Consider yourself in rebellion as a wooden fence post stuck well into the ground. The farmer who wants to free the post utilises a rocking back and forth motion. Likewise, the mechanism of salvation utilises your following consience (good) and your not doing so (evil, sin) as a rocking back and forth motion aimed at releasing you from your captivity.)
-
Maybe so. But I see no reason to suppose that selflessness cannot exist without a deity.
Fair enough. But such a notion lies outside the scope of this discussion I think.
-
What is evil? Evil is doing that which is against god's will.
Doing that willingly so (to dot an 'i').
-
God created beings that can go against god's will (and will according to your theology, we WILL DEFINITELY not live up to god's standards). It is therefore good to go against god's will, by definition.
This is like over-balancing a rock at the top of a cliff and claiming that it wasn't your actions that resulted in it falling.
God created beings (Adam and Eve) with potential to create evil. Providing them that potential was good (by definition). But it doesn't follow that the product created by Adam was good. We need to differentiate between what's good and what's necessary.
That post-Adamic mankind will surely sin is merely a consequence of Adams choice delivered upon by God - as promised.
Adam wasn't sure to sin -the rock was left perfectly balanced for Adams own will to freely decide which way to topple it. No over-balancing need apply.
-
I've eaten Strawberry ice cream which had never even seen a Strawberry. I see no reason to suppose that if my actions are called 'grib' that without my existence nobody could do the same actions as me.
But ice-cream that has never seen strawberries isn't strawberry flavoured Mod. It's something-else masquerading as strawberries flavoured. Similarily, without God there can be no God flavour.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Modulous, posted 01-01-2010 5:04 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Modulous, posted 01-03-2010 12:50 PM iano has replied
 Message 175 by Son Goku, posted 01-15-2010 9:39 AM iano has replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3885 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 163 of 181 (541249)
01-01-2010 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by iano
01-01-2010 4:46 PM


Re: Son Goku & iano
Ockams Razor?
Thanks! I was just wondering.
"the flavour of God's doings". A flavour is a substantive thing. Ask the Midianites.
More about this please, as you get the chance in working your argument.
Specifically more about what the "flavor of God" is like. I assume that if I'm considering doing something, and get the sudden feeling that I have been eating crackers and grape juice, that that isn't a clincher in the decision-making process.
Edited by Iblis, : removed inaccurate crap -- praps a bit less liquor next year huh

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by iano, posted 01-01-2010 4:46 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by iano, posted 01-02-2010 6:00 AM Iblis has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 164 of 181 (541277)
01-02-2010 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Iblis
01-01-2010 7:28 PM


Re: Son Goku & iano
iano writes:
"the flavour of God's doings". A flavour is a substantive thing. Ask the Midianites.
Iblis writes:
More about this please, as you get the chance in working your argument.
Okay. Suppose you are a sinner on whom God visits his wrath after Judgement. The "flavour of his doings" will in the first instance be experienced as negative, unpleasant. This doesn't alter it being good however. There will also be the sense of harmoniousness about your suffering - because installed in you (by God) is a mechaniism which finds it harmonious that evil-doing attract punishment.
Unpleasant/harmonious - the flavour of God's doings.
Another example involves the believer who might be going about his daily business when God reveals his glory ever so slightly. It might be revealing how it is that he has worked for the benefit of the believer in a way hithertoe unrealised by the believer, or it might be an strong sense of his presence. These things are experienced as joy and peace by the believer: "God is there, is on my side, will never leave me - no matter what"
Peace/joy - the flavour attached to God's doings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Iblis, posted 01-01-2010 7:28 PM Iblis has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 165 of 181 (541418)
01-03-2010 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by iano
01-01-2010 7:05 PM


That kind of nature isn't the nature Adam plumped for with his free-willed choice (with that nature being passed on down to his offspring). The sin captive, contra-God nature arises naturally from a freewilled contra-God choice. Choose death and death you shall have.
I have no idea how that is meant to answer the question.
All that matters to God is your hearts motivation in the matter.
All that matter's to God is whether he would have done likewise. I appreciate that, but that doesn't help us to determine what is good. It seems you are conceding that you can't know what is right and what is wrong.
As I'm sure I've said at some point in this discussion; the mechanism of your salvation/damnation doesn't require that you even believe in God's existance prior to your salvation. Still less does it matter that you can't ascertain God's will in this matter.
So - we're agree that by attempting Aquinas' false dilemma argument the argument results in us having no knowledge of what is good or not.
God created beings (Adam and Eve) with potential to create evil. Providing them that potential was good (by definition). But it doesn't follow that the product created by Adam was good. We need to differentiate between what's good and what's necessary.
If God didn't want beings that did things that were against his will, he wouldn't have created them.
So it must be good to go against god's will since it is god's will that this state of affairs exists.
If it weren't, it wouldn't be the case.
.
That post-Adamic mankind will surely sin is merely a consequence of Adams choice delivered upon by God - as promised.
So it has the flavour of God's doing which means that it is good.
But ice-cream that has never seen strawberries isn't strawberry flavoured Mod
Yes it is. It tastes like strawberries.
It's something-else masquerading as strawberries flavoured
It has the same flavour as strawberries.
Similarily, without God there can be no God flavour.
But something could 'taste' the same, without there being god, right? Just like we could have something that tastes exactly like strawberries even if strawberries were extinct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by iano, posted 01-01-2010 7:05 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by iano, posted 01-03-2010 3:58 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024