"Brother," then said the Duke of Egypt, laying his hands upon their foreheads, "she is your wife; sister, he is your husband for four years. Go."Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Not anything bad with this either.
Thank you for the further comments on the meanings of words.
You may find this useful - generally I don't like these easy guides, but for someone like Derrida, and for something like deconstruction, I find this one works. Reading the original texts of Deconstruction is unbelievably difficult without some background:
http://www.amazon.com/Deconstruction...9533432&sr=8-1
Deconstruction looks interesting. I'll check my library, but I doubt they have this book here. I might have to start straight with Derrida inspite the difficulties. :D
Let me put this as simply as possible. In matters of religion, as in sales, presentation is everything. People need to show a difference in their lives as well as in their talk. Perhaps many who do not believe in God might if they did not see Religious people acting in the same manner as those without any. Endless arguments and angry words do nothing to further either cause. People dislike being treated as fools. May I strongly urge all to remember that whatever the other believes, they are convinced, or they would believe differently. So try to be slightly more understanding of the other person. Everyone has feelings that can be hurt by grievous words. This builds anger and resentment, not the work of God or the ideas of man. It tears down and separates, rather than promotes harmonious living. And this causes naught but strife.
If I have harmed any by my words, I sincerely apologize. But I will stand up for my belief in God and Christ Jesus.
God Bless
Pen
Forgive me, but are you absolutely sure about that?Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
I will defer to your knowledge. However, the 10th commmandment deals with jealousy over what is not rightfully mine; the jealousy I speak of (reaction to a violation of the intimacy of my relationship with my wife) is a different matter, because I should - as her husband - expect certain loyalties to our vows. The 10th commandment gives a specific context within which it condemns jealousy.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Would you care to name the culture that thought theft, murder, sleeping with someone else's wife, etc were all condoned actions that the culture valued and supported?Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Don't bother with the Levitical laws - the NT invalidated most of the non-moral ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Natural law must exist because without it we have no standard by which to critique the "justness" of the positive law. If slavery once was legal, and Hitler's regime made genocide legal, the only way we can protest those laws as unjust is to appeal to a higher law as a measuring standard. Otherwise, we're back to relativism, which means we have no moral ground from which to judge a culture that participates in slavery or genocide.
Relationships are fragile things - "flings" are a violation of the relationship because they bring people into the circle of the relationship who have not made a committment. Relationships do not improve via affairs - the affair is a symptom of the ill health of the relationship. Adultery improves nothing - and the spouse who engages in it disrespects the other spouse - essentially making the adulterer as guilty as the inconsiderate spouse whom they "stepped out on."Quote:
Originally Posted by Petronius
Love cannot exist in an atmosphere of selfish betrayal.
What "bias"? I simply believe that people who experience adultery and divorce are less cavalier about its consequences and effects than those who watch (no matter how closely) from the outside.Quote:
Originally Posted by Petronius
I'm sorry - I too have emotional reactions to songs, to plays, to etc, etc...but none of them came close (by a mile) to sex - experiencing the most intimate of relationships with someone IMO far outstrips the other joys you described; granted some people feel differently, but a song, play, etc does not require me to engage with another person in an intimate, bonding way. There is a difference - there are potential consequences and ramifications involved with sex - not so with listening to music, attending a play, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Petronius
We've had sexual liberty in the US since the 60s - you tell me how things are going.Quote:
Originally Posted by Petronius
Meanings do shift - but words are not so unstable to have their meaning become whatever the user wants. Once the definition of a word is self-referential, the word is no longer useful for communication. Morality is no different - the word becomes meaningless if it simply stands for "the way I see things."Quote:
Originally Posted by Petronius
Happiness cannot be our highest value - it is the by-product of other actions and experiences. To seek it for itself is a fruitless pastime. Your definition of hedonism in sentence one suggests some sort of moral absolute - hedonism "abhors causing the suffering of others" - says who? You? Well isn't that just YOUR version of hedonism? What if MY version says "damn the torpedos - my happiness WILL be achieved, and I don't care what it costs because I deserve to be happy!"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Petronius
That doesn't mean that consequences have not been suffered by all parties. Unless you are a child of divorce or are divorced and have children, you can have no clarity whatsoever on the kind of trauma divorce puts upon kids. Period. No book, no obseravation from the outside will suffice - unless you've been there (which I have, both sides) you cannot understand the long-term ramifications - which become more heinous when the justification for tearing apart a child's world is for the self-centered and selfish gratification of a sexual desire. Your failure to see the problem in that is stunnning to me - simply astounding.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
But - as Aristotle points out in the Metaphysics - all the things that go by the term "house" must have some essential "house-ness" about them in order to be recognized as a part of the category of "house."Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Right - but natural law allows us to evaluate the justness of positve law. Without the natural law, there is no reason that slavery or genocide cannot become legal.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
And, as Andave pointed out very subtely above, you seem pretty certain about the lack of certainty in the law, in morality, in everything. How can you be so certain about the uncertainty of everything? Is there not irony in your position? If you're correct, then all law is merely random mutual agreement - which means that there is no real "right" and "wrong" which means that nothing is either - only what we personally think it is. All fine and good until you are the victim of some immoral behavior and you object. Once I rob you, rape your wife/girlfriend, steal your car and murder your kids, do I get to tell you "sorry - but what is right and wrong is not constant - and anyway, since it's self-defined, what does it matter? Have a nice day"?
I would agree to an extent. I'd say that natural law is constant though and laws made by men trying to assert their own moralities are inconsistent and inconstant.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Right and wrong in many cases is a matter of perspective.
Of course not - that's the paradox. That ends up essentially in a pragmatic answer - each makes up the rules of the game, because the rules don't exist, but one makes up natural rules, one is changing the rules to create existence, but existence is relative, so how can it be natural at the same time.Quote:
Originally Posted by andave_ya
Either way, the relativity isn't necessarily thwarted by that. The uncertainty means there is relativism, because if there is no concrete answer, then there is no possible way there is anything natural that we can know about, being that we don't have one answer. The fact that the bible provides one answer is useless in the sense that there are many scriptures, and many words of God.
To your challenge - Native American cultures, and I will narrow specifically to the Hurons had a different view of property. Since everything belonged to no one, theft did not exist. Polygamy was practiced to a great extent, and wars were fought not over land, but purely in a form of macho bravado, a deceleration of masculinity. Wives and Children were then taken from the loser's band, of a fallen warrior, in order to make up for lost life by the victorious band.
The sense of theft didn't exist, and native American divorce custom, if such a thing can be called that, given their concept of marriage was very different than Western ones, consisted merely of the couples separating, and the woman, and man taking on a new lovers.
In that context, I would say you are ethnocentric in thinking such states do not exist.
But on a more practical note, it is quite logical to assume the primitive form of life, that is, before civilization was established to humans, that such laws did not exist. The concept of property, whether it be material goods, or wives, as you seem to propose, is a formation of culture.
Honestly, your argument works both ways. Your morality of the law becomes immoral when dealing with the criminal, in the electrical chair, who thinks he doesn't deserve to die. To him the morality falsifies itself, when he thinks this morality is immoral. I may think something is wrong when it is done to me, but honestly, when I do it to others, I probably don't. And the ones committing it probably don't either.
The I'm afraid of x, so I will condemn it is purely a social construction. It is merely a social contract entered to ensure the best of x for the member of society. The same way I may or may not want to pay my taxes, but I do because it is the law, and I fear the repercussions of not paying them.
Our society takes in a number of factors, and dishes out laws to try and accommodate the values of those who are in charge.
I would like to point something out which might be hard to understand at first. In response to what someone (JBI I think) said about a thief; the thief is happy because he has the bread... now I do agree that a case by case basis must be taken into account... for instance as you say Jean Valjean was of course not in the wrong to take the bread. But then this example (of Jean) is not an argument against morality; it's a good example showing the flaws of might makes right. (Might makes right is effectively the situtation which existed there. The poor, almost slave-state Jean did not have the might; but the "system" did have the might, etc.) But killing is usually wrong. Again I would say it is not always wrong. It must be a case by case basis. For instance if a robber comes into your house with a lethal weapon and is threatening to kill your family, I don't say you should be non-violent. He should immediately be killed. But if you killed without reason, or for the wrong reason (like Raskolnikov from Crime and Punishment), then it is wrong. Anyway I am just now coming to what I wish to say, which is this: Karma. We reap what we sow.
There's a song I know that's main point is this, that we reap what we sow. It begins "Sow good seeds, everybody (repeat)... Over the mountains, down in the valleys, you gonna reap just what you sow..." then "Sow by walking, sow by talking" etc... now over the mountains isn't the main point but rather that we should always be sowing good seeds. If you spit on someone or if you insult them... some how, or some way, it will come back to you. If you hurt others, you hurt yourself, because you reap what you sow. Karma. This is the true natural law; the law of cause and effect. It is not dependent on humans.
Your example does not disprove my assertion: "community property" and the absence of a "need" to steal does not mean that theft was a valued cultural activity. No culture has encouraged, valued, or praised theft. I need you to name me a culture where theft, lying, adultery, murder, etc were actions that a culture praised, found praiseworthy, or valued among its members. Ditto for polygamy: that is not the same as adultery - I also doubt that you would support the attitude towards women that a polygamist society has - but then again, who are you to judge, since morality is relative - right?Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
You've yet to prove that any culture exists that does not value the basic values (and reject the others) that I mentioned. You can "say" whatever you wish about me, but you'll need to offer up sound evidence to claim a victory. I'm still waiting.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
All fine and true, but doesn't dent my point in the slightest.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Another false example. The thief's opinion of the law that condemns him is immaterial to the law's correctness/justness. The criminal does not need to agree with his desert in order for it to be just. That we can justify our bad behavior doesn't change the moral content of that behavior. But - if morality is self-defined, then how can we convict any criminal for any "wrongdoing" at all?Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Theft is a word for an act. If the act does not exist, to a culture, theft clearly isn't wrong.
Oh, and I even forgot. The Vikings were all about stealing other people's stuff in Raids, as were many peoples, and are many peoples today.
I think that makes a lot of sense. Since being cruel requires one to utilize immature and inferior parts of one's brain, all it does is promote an inferior way of thinking. Which is not productive in solving problems, or seeking out the greater good. What you practice you become in a sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by NikolaiI
People who are consistently wicked may not feel the effects of Karma though. Their whole science becomes lies. Perhaps living in a state with no room for honesty is Karma enough... Not to say I know anything about Karma, except for the aforementioned defintion.
Nah, I can kill someone and get away with it, and quite frankly, if I don't feel bad, I win. I don't see there being any sort of "justice" in this world - actions and consequences. If you can live with the consequences of the actions - that is, you can commit a crime and not feel bad afterward, and not get in trouble, then naturally there is nothing saying you are wrong.
That always leads to the ad Hitler argument, which says essentially that how can we condemn Hitler on those grounds. I hate to answer like this, since it may be a shocker, but quite frankly we all would be (well I wouldn't, I wouldn't exist, but you get the point) praising Hitler, and heralding him as the hero of the world, who saved it from the clutches of those filthy Jews (I am being ironic here). The point is, Religious people in general seemed unmoved by the Holocaust as it was happening. I don't recall the Pope ever condemning Hitler in his life time, and speculatively, it is possible that the current Pope would have dawned the SS uniform had the War gone longer. But I didn't hear anything about them talking about its unjustness, and unholiness, and blasphemousness while it was going on. Nothing. The only member of the Nazi party to be excommunicated from the Catholic church was Goebbels, since he, unfortunately to them, married a protestant.
Joseph Stalin died of natural causes, as did Pinochet, and others. The so called justice in this world is a mere illusion. There is no real justice - just look at the poverty rates in Africa, even in countries which are overflowing with natural resources.
Karma is a nice thought, as is Boethius's Wheel of fortune, but I think they are just thoughts. I haven't seen anything in my life to prove that the "wicked" are punished and the good rewarded.
Saved me saying it - nicely put.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Quite often - as is the case with Zimbabwe - the wicked prevail and the good are punished.
Actually, this idea of good and wicked raises another point in terms of the OP.
I don't believe there is any evidence which would convince me to follow a god whose standards are such that an atheist who has committed no crime can be sentenced to the same punishment as Hitler, Goebbels, Stalin and Pol Pot.
It's part of it. Natural law is much wider than this though.Quote:
Originally Posted by NikolaiI
That's clever, but not valid. I asked you for a culture that thought things like theft, murder, adultery, lying, cowardice and/or betrayal were praise-worthy things as part of my argument that certain values, certain rights and wrongs are consistent throughout history and throughout cultures. You've not done that. You have presented a utopian vision of an indian culture, but instead of providing me with a culture that values the things I've listed above, you've decided to argue that their lack of existence disproves my point. It does not do so in the least.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Sure - but again, "acts of war" (whether "official" or not) against another culture are very different from what is condoned and valued within the culture and the interaction of its own members. What I need you to tell me is that the Vikings condoned theft among their own community members - that would prove your point.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
The key word in sentence #1 is "IF." Have you, by chance, read Dostoyevsky's Crime & Punishment? It's very instructive in commenting upon the scenario you suggest. I would assert that the consequences enacted upon the human heart from such an action do exist - whether the doer wishes to acknowledge them or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Natural law is what allowed us to condemn Hitler's "lawful" killing of the Jews.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Christianity did indeed drop the ball badly in this instance; that invalidates Christianity, however, no more than a few bad cops invalidate the value of the police force, or a few bad doctors the value of medical treatment.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
I never suggested anything about "justice" or that the world was fair. God is just, and at the final accounting, justice will be served - that He has promised. In the meantime, in order to allow us our freedom, He must allow certain things to occur that we take issue with. It's interesting that nonbelievers complain about God and all His "rules" that they don't want to obey, but then they turn around and demand that He violate our freedom by stopping all evil before it happens - you can't have it both ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Why are they invalid? Because they defeat your argument? There are cultures/were cultures where people would kill each other to increase their status. the early Iceland peoples for instance, used to kill each other in blood feuds.
As for your proofs why my concept of theft is not a natural law, consider this: A regressive tax does just that in the economy. It takes more from the poor, and gives back less.
I see no problem with calling even that stealing.
But there are cultures, and countries, who allow Americans to come in and steal there natural resources. IF you look at the colonial and post-colonial history of the 20th century, you seem some disturbing things - you see American funded fascist regimes, you see Genocides going unpunished, and you see cultures who allow people to go and steal from their neighbor, assuming the neighbor is something that isn't like. Robbing the other is a trait of this world in many, many places.
But beyond that. I see no reason why my examples shouldn't count. If the concept of theft doesn't exist, then the society doesn't really care about it, being the natural law doesn't exist. The abstract terms invented for the sake of our social contract aren't made natural automatically. If the abstract doesn't exist, it clearly isn't universal. I hate to accuse this, but you are being ethnocentric.
As for natural law allowing us to condemn Hitler, I would say you are wrong there to. I think what really did that, was a mix of Russians, British and commonwealth, Americans, and others. The actual condemnation is a huge misconception of history. How many people were actually found guilty of war crimes and sentenced after the war? Or better yet, how was Germany's economy right after the war? Did it not sky rocket because of all the funds poured into the border post with Russia, and vice versa?
Remember this people, in most senses of the word, Hitler achieved more than what he wanted to originally. He boosted the German economy, and cleared most of Europe of Jewish people. By my reckoning, he was more successful than almost any other people. I would say he was more successful at achieving his goals than Napoleon, or Genghis Khan, or even Alexander the Great.
Keep in mind, arguing God punishes and is the only redeemer isn't much of an argument. It assumes god exists before it addresses the question, meaning it is a mere assumption, and pure sophistry.
I'd go even further and say that when goods are shared, stealing is the only way to appropriate them. The primitive taking a bowl of berries from the storage house for his personal use steals from the community, since there is no measure of linking the efforts he made in support of the group with the quantity he took.Quote:
Theft is a word for an act. If the act does not exist, to a culture, theft clearly isn't wrong.
I, eating the last piece of cake in the fridge, am stealing it from the rest of my family.
Hitler did boost the economy. You know how he did it? He provided jobs that made weapons. If he would have just sat around without putting those weapons made in factories into no use. The country's economy would have collapsed. I'm not negating anything you said. I'm just trying to make clear that Hitler's "economic policies" should not be held in awe the least bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Alexander the Great and Genghis Kahn pretty much wanted to conquer as much of the world as they could. There were no real goals.
Many things are pure sophistry. I like to go back to Quantum Mechanics. Its a confusing science and doesn't work the way we think it works. What does it prove? How little far common sense goes when it comes to explaining the origin of things. I do not think it is necesarrily romantic or fanatic to believe in a divine entity, or at least keeping an open mind to one.
The suffering populace in Africa is well noted. It contributes to one keeping an open mind about the matter. All you really need is one case study of someone suffering so much so that they don't have any options to get out to make this point valid.
They are invalid because they do not address the criteria of my argument: I asked for a culture where stealing, etc were admired and considered praise-worthy by the cutlure as behaviors acted out within that culture among its members. You have not shown that. That theft (supposedly) did not exist among a certain tribe of indians does not mean that theft was admired and condoned among the people - it means that stealing didn't exist; but if it did exist, would the people have praised and admired those who did it within their culture?Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Your example is of the positive civil law; although you may call something "theft" you have done so via interpretation; either way, no culture advocates theft as a positive way of life or a behavior that benefits the society within which it occurs. Taxes that are unfair are not condoned - but since they are not "theft" explicitly, sometimes they are permitted to exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
These are clever, but they are not the same thing; once again, your examples have to deal with interactions between cultures; I'm talking about within the culture itself; so, instead of speaking of England's "stealing" of India's resources, let's talk about England or India: in history has either country supported the idea that theft of property among its members was OK, praiseworthy, admirable behavior?Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Clearly you don't get the argument and I don't know how to rephrase it so you can understand. Within a community - whether it be tribal or national - when in history has stealing from each other, having sex with other people's wives, lying to each other, indiscriminantly killing each other, betraying each other been seen as positive, praiseworthy, admired behavior? I dare say you will not be able to find such a community. Your examples have all dealt with one culture vs. another, war-time conditions, negating the existence of the vice, or a matter of interpretation - but you've not offered an example for the criteria I've laid out 4-5 times now.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Natural law is what drove those countries to condemn and drives us now to condemn the atrocities of the Holocaust.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Hitler's "success" is not the measure of his rightness or wrongness - you have got to be kidding me; are you really taking the argument in this direction?Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
My statement that God will ultimately distribute justice isn't an argument about anything except my belief that justice will eventually be served for the wrongs done on earth - this is an answer to the charge that God is unjust because He doesn't address injustice right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
"Every action has an equal and opposite reaction?"Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
No, not really. In truth, the countries sat back and appeased Hitler. His boats in their harbor, and tanks on their ground is what caused them to go against him. The Canadians for instance, went because the British did. The Americans didn't really go, and went once they got attacked, knowing it was them next.
Not divine law - or any such nonsense. Simple survival.
As for societies that praise stealing? Raider societies. Underground societies. Vikings again, who you won't acknowledge.
For murder and killing:
Native Americans again, who used to war, as I have said, which I got out of history books, used to fight for status as men, proof of masculinity. The crusades, church sponsored keep in mind, are proof of sanctioned massacre enough. How many were butchered a) on the way, and b) once they got there? Oh wait, I guess they weren't Christian so they don't count either right?
Honestly, you narrowly dismiss history to support your own agenda, when really government sanctioned massacres have gone on, and go on to date.
My last point, was more to suggest that you can't prove God delivers justice by saying you believe in it. It is like saying, I believe in x, therefore x is proven, and therefore y exists. You cannot skip to y without providing something more substantial to x. For all you know, Hitler is basking in God's holy light right now.
This discussion of history isn't really germain to what we have on the table. It's interesting, but a tangent that I'm not interested in pursuing.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Sorry J - when you don't quote the portion of my post you're dealing with, I get unsure to which point of mine you're addressing.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
I'm getting the idea that either a) you refuse to admit I'm right; or b) you really don't understand my argument. For the 3rd or 4th time:Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
You are using examples of immoral behavior performed against other cultures, other peoples, other communities - not immoral behavior done against the community itself by members of the community with the community's blessing and encouragement. In such situations - especially if they involve war, disputes, or a struggle to survive - the normal rules of moral behavior is suspended (in part) because what is done to the "other" (another nation/community/people) is "justified" in some way (legitmately or not).
Now: imagine said Vikings are home from the raids and are living in their Viking community together. Please do not tell me that if Sven the Viking raids Erick's tent and steals his sword that Sven is going to say "Excellent - I've been robbed. Time to head over to Lars's tent and take his sword." Do you get it? No culture has seen stealing among its own people/community as a good, admirable thing - something on par with bravery (which is universally valued especially by the Vikings). How much plainer can I make it?
I'm dismissing your poor historical examples. The government sanctioned massacres aren't against their own people - and if they are, that the government "sanctions" them (as did Hitler's) does not mean that the community/society/culture in general accepted the practice as good, admirable, praiseworthy.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
I'm very aware that I cannot "prove" anything about God - and I've never suggested anywhere in these forums that I can do so in any way, shape, or form.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
I take the existence of God as a given; you don't have to. When people make the charge that God is unfair (a statement that implies that He exists) I simply give the response that the Bible tells us.
Shockingly, if Hitler repented and asked for forgiveness (sincerely so), he could be in heaven. However, there is no evidence that Hitler had a change of heart about what he enacted and enabled. As hard as it is for me to say, Hitler did not commit the unforgivable sin. The unforgivable sin is the sin of consistently rejecting the Holy Spirit's conviction of the human heart. The odds are pretty good that Hitler may have committed this sin, but until we get to heaven, we really can't know for sure.
OK fine, how about dirty wars committed by elected governments? How about what's going on in Darfur? How about Gladiators, forced to kill each other for entertainment?
Great to know - no matter what you do, if you acknowledge God in the end, you make it to heaven. You call that moral? I call that shooting ones self and argument in the foot. Killing millions is forgivable under Christian law, but denying god! Burn in hell for it!!Quote:
I'm very aware that I cannot "prove" anything about God - and I've never suggested anywhere in these forums that I can do so in any way, shape, or form.
I take the existence of God as a given; you don't have to. When people make the charge that God is unfair (a statement that implies that He exists) I simply give the response that the Bible tells us.
Shockingly, if Hitler repented and asked for forgiveness (sincerely so), he could be in heaven. However, there is no evidence that Hitler had a change of heart about what he enacted and enabled. As hard as it is for me to say, Hitler did not commit the unforgivable sin. The unforgivable sin is the sin of consistently rejecting the Holy Spirit's conviction of the human heart. The odds are pretty good that Hitler may have committed this sin, but until we get to heaven, we really can't know for sure.
That's physics, not life.Quote:
Originally Posted by andave_ya
Ask a zebra.
It is not enough to simply "acknowledge" God - since God knows the human heart, you can't fool Him; if your repentance is sincere, then God accepts you. Christ's sacrifice on the cross was to redeem all sinners - even ones who did terrible things. I do not expect you to understand or agree with that theology. But please understand that God does not "sentence" one to hell for denying Him - hell is the destination that those who deny God choose because of the simple reason that they would be miserable in heaven. To force someone to go to heaven who rejects God would be the equivalent of "hell" for that individual. God respects human freewill enough to allow His creations to choose an eternity out of His presence. Think about that for a bit before you fire back.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
But what makes government always right? Even, what makes the church always right? The church as you are referring to it is solely the human part. God didn't and wouldn't actually tell them to go "kill the infidels," not in my Bible at any rate. What I'm trying to say is, is the government always right in what it does? Is anything connected with humans always right, every single time? The Crusades were based on weird superiority complexes cloaked as "God's will."Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
And um, everyone counts. Whether saved or unsaved. Especially if they're unsaved, because -- forgive me for sounding egotistical -- but if it wasn't for God's grace I'd be in the same place, worse probably, knowing myself. So I'd better not go around sticking my nose in the air because I'm a Christian.
:lol:. But it's a law -- isn't the definition of a law is that it is applicable to everything?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
What's free will? All action is the consequence of previous actions, therefore everything is predetermined. I see no gap room for free will. The predetermined history, that is, according to the Bible, genesis to Armageddon, and the stop of time, is predecided. If one is to stray, God, being all knowing knew in creation, and therefore sets people up for failure. It is predecided if you burn in hell or not, according to a logical interpretation of scripture.
Milton tries to defend against it in Paradise Lost, and argue free will, but even he, the most learned of his generation, and one of the wisest minds failed.
Prove free will, with or without Christian scripture, and then we can go from there. But as it is, free will is but a term used by Theists which means absolutely nothing.
Where is free will when time is linear? Could time have spun another way? Can Armageddon be dodged? Of course not if you believe in scripture, then where does the room come in for free will? God created us, and he is all powerful, therefore how could he not have known we would fail him? How could he not have known who would burn and who wouldn't? He set the time in motion, providing all the necessary props to assert his dominion at the end of time, yet where is the room for free will? Where is the room for bettering?
Fix that argument before we precede. To assume something like free will exists is not arguing, it is assuming, and not proving anything.
God actually says to go out and massacre Amalechites, men, women, children, and cattle.Quote:
Originally Posted by andave_ya
God also listed a number of things punishable by death, including disobeying your parents. In fact, pre-marital sex is, by the Bible, punishable by death - to be held in the public square, with thrown rocks.
These are better - but again: the victims of these crimes were not members of the society - but "outsiders" or those considered "unacceptable" due to social status or race. I'm talking about the "mainstream" society of people who are of the same ethnicity, same religious views, etc. Nowhere in the US is there a town, city, county where theft is considered a virtue. I venture to say that that is so in most countries in terms of how the natives interact with each other. What we do to other countries, or what a government decides to "pull off" against its own country are different things - and again - when a "dirty war" is being committed, the general public does not always agree that it is virtuous or right.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
I've given clear criteria and your examples do not meet that criteria. Seriously - I'm not trying to be difficult here. I honestly do not consider your examples to be valid in terms of presenting a culture where things like theft, murder, etc are deemed good, virtuous behaviors.
Not necessarily outsiders - often times random people, people who just happened to be there, or some other factor. I think the dismissal of "other" is again a logical fallacy, used to bi-pass the proof.
It's like you saying "I gave clear criteria for you to prove that God exists, and you haven't." I don't need to fit a criteria built on ethnocentric assumptions. I have satisfied the criteria proposed enough - of course I am not going to find a society exactly like the one we live in, with only one thing changed. That's just silly. It's like saying give me an example of the United States without white people. Such a thing can not be obtained in history, and must be hypothetical.
And when you go hypothetical, the persistent necessarily fails. I cannot create a situation outside of a historical reference point.
You want a Western world with only a few minor changes as an example from history. Good luck. You essentially asked me to find a country with cars but no gas pumps.
Everyone within a society is a member of society, or are you suggesting African Americans, or any other minority group's people aren't part of a society? Natural law didn't apply to them - they happened to drive Japanese cars instead of American ones. Blah Blah.
So it was predetermined that you'd type up these words? If so, then the words really have no inherent meaning because you had no free choice to compose them - which means they can contain no truth whatsoever. Right? How can you be exempt from predetermined actions in the universe you describe (using a description that you didn't really come up with)?Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Without freewill, your thoughts become the mere consequence of random and accidental processes and forces that you are subject to. Your thoughts then become nothing more than chemical/electrical reactions that occur due to no control or direction of your own - and as such, are meaningless. You cannot dismiss freewill and then use your thoughts/words to claim it doesn't exist because your words are not the product of your conscious thinking - they are the product of natural forces that you have no control over.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
There are a number of complex explanations that could answer this difficult question. My experience here with you over the last 20 posts or so tell me that I would simply be exhausting my fingers to go over these arguments. In short, in order to say that God "knows" the future, you presume a certain idea as to how God experiences time. That conception may be wrong. As well, I do not believe God "knows the future" because the future does not exist to be known. Therefore, what God may see is simply the entire panorama of our existence in a single, all-encompassing glance - as such - there is no past, present, or future for God - all is NOW in His vision. Which means that the entire arc of your life may constantly be shifting due to your freely made decisions; God's knowledge of you, your heart and mind, and your entire make-up, means that He knows with precise accuracy what you will do - but that's different than predetermining what you'll do. That's a short form of a much longer, more complex argument. Read Richard Rice's God's Knowledge and Man's Free Will for a thorough treatment of the topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Have you "proved" determinism beyond your assertion that it's true? Would you mind doing so, so that we know that you're not assuming yourself?Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Yes, I agree, my thoughts are the product of what came before. You are trying to scare me into thinking otherwise, but in truth, it was pre-determined that I would type this, as it was pre-determined you would read this, and pre-determined if you respond to it. Are you saying, at every instance of your life, you, with the same past, replaying the same scenarios, with exactly the same parameters, would have chosen anything different? No. If you reflect, knowing the future, then you would change the past, but knowing the future would be pre-determined to begin with, so the same linear line follows.
As for no control - I have no "real" control, as I wouldn't act any differently. You are trying to use a fear statement, or an abstract logical gap to prove a point, when simply, I am not afraid and agree with you. I didn't have free will to decide to post this or not. I read your message, and based on my past, and the universes' past, I, under a direct reaction, posted this. Then I thought, and reread thour thing, and had another reaction, and edited this in.
Take a ball as an example. You push it, it moves. Now take a very complex thing, lets say, a single entity. It explodes, divides, changes, and as it does it goes along a strait path.
How can there possibly be free will anyway, if God knows everything. Knowing everything, and having a choice is a contradiction. You can't know all without a something existing. If the something exists, then you know what everyone will choose before they do. If so, it is pre-determined. Either he doesn't know all, or free will doesn't exist automatically based on logic.
But keep in mind, God not existing doesn't prove free will, which creates a bigger question, what possibly can prove free will. Contemporary physics seems to have proved well enough determinism, as does logic, but what evidence beyond a bunch of semi-intellectual theologians has even come close to proving anything like free will, without resorting to painful assumptions.
Your whole argument is necessarily flawed, because it is based on an assumption that God exists. Take away that, and anything you say becomes falsified automatically. Therefore the onus is on you to justify that belief, before you can start cutting at mine, which is based on empirical evidence and logic. You cannot prove y without proving x. If you can't prove X, as you said, then there is no purpose arguing anymore, because clearly there is no evidence Potent enough to convince the atheist. There is nothing but an assumption based on a bunch of old clergymen, and a 3000-1900ish year old text.
No evidence, no proof, only an assumption used to create contexts. You can't prove anything, therefore you cannot prove free will with logic, only with an assumption based on faith in an old, tattered book, which in itself is based on assumptions, and dated logic, not to mention contradictions within itself.
But they were people who were not considered an integrated part of the mainstream community.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Look JB - I give up. I don't know how to help you understand. Each of your examples possesses a characteristic that disqualifies it from countering my assertion. The reality is that some things are stable: all cultures have valued similar things and rejected similar things (to a certain extent). No culture sees murder of its members BY ITS MEMBERS as a positive, viruous thing. Slaves, criminals, those of different religious beliefs or race have been immorally treated with the tacit consent of society - but that society would not see that behavior enacted among its native members as virtuous or acceptable. It's not that my criteria is unreasonable; it's that no example exists to support your position.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
I want you to admit that no society has ever existed that praised thieves, murderers, adulterers, cowards and traitors.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Come on J - you're a student of history; all are "members" yes - but society also has a strata for certain members - especially those who are different in a way that the community defines as significant.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
I cannot go along with this line of thinking. Without free will, all your words become meaningless because truth cannot come out of random processess. Truth can only come from conscious freedom to discriminate between things. Without free will, your thoughts are mere random accidents. No "fear statements" here - simply the logic of the naturalists applied to their own thoughts.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Nope, only physics.Quote:
Originally Posted by andave_ya
Remember, the full phrase is "every action has an equal and opposite reaction".
I suppose you could argue that the zebra dies and the reaction to that is lion eating, but it blows your karmic hopes out of the water.