Originally posted by David C"God did it thusly, according to scripture...and God is Perfectly Just, again, according to scripture...and therefore anything undertaken by God is Just.
At the risk of putting words in anyone's mouth, I'd think FKBH's use of the word "just", in this context, may mean something different than one might normally consider. Perhaps he will offer "God did it thusly, according to scripture...and God is Perfectly Just, again, according to scripture...and therefore anything undertaken by God is Just. Since we are me ...[text shortened]... God's actions". Or something like that.
Is there a way out of that particular circle?
This is simply question-begging, and if one is willing to stand on that, all I can do is point it out. Adding “according to scripture” just adds a (well-known) loop to the circle.
The thing really reduces to—
(1) Any act, A, of God, is just;
(2) A is an act of God;
(3) Therefore, A is just.
Or—
(1) Just means whatever God does;
(2) God does A;
(3) Therefore just means A.
Here, the only meaning assigned to the word “just” is “whatever God does” (or “any act of God” ). So, what it ends up saying is no more than “whatever God does is whatever God does”, or (in the first inference) “any act of God is any act of God”. Beyond that, “just” remains undefined, and says nothing at all about the character of God’s acts.
”Since we are mere men and cannot understand Perfect Justice . . .
Well, now we have two terms to define: “perfect” and “justice”.
Setting that aside, if one cannot understand the phrase “X”, then one cannot understand the phrase “God is X”—so all one is really saying is “I do not understand what I mean when I say ‘God is X’.”
Or: “Since we as mere humans cannot understand ‘perfect justice’, then I do not understand what I am saying when I say that ‘God is perfectly just.’”
. . .we are not in a position to question God's actions".
There might be any number of reasons claimed why we ought or ought not to question God’s actions—I am only interested here in that based on our inability to understand the terms used (if that argument is in fact made).
That aside, what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: if I ought not to question what I cannot understand, then the other ought not to assert what they cannot understand. Communication is not a requirement, but if I cannot communicate anything that is understandable, then perhaps I ought to just keep quiet...
- Joined
- 30 Dec 07
- Moves
- 9905
26 Feb 08
Originally posted by FreakyKBHCould you point out the inconsistencies in the statement: "The Bible has no definitive proof of being God's genuine word. God has no definitive proof. An afterlife has no definitive proof. Therefore, justifying killing children while keeping in mind any of these things is not something that should be done."
You are not to be blamed for spouting the company line; it's all you know. You are to be blamed when you fail to investigate the obvious inconsistencies within said company line as you are made aware of the same.
- Joined
- 30 Dec 07
- Moves
- 9905
26 Feb 08
Originally posted by David CI know~ how about, 'if you eliminate all bibles, and forgot about god for a few seconds, would you define genocide as just?'
At the risk of putting words in anyone's mouth, I'd think FKBH's use of the word "just", in this context, may mean something different than one might normally consider. Perhaps he will offer "God did it thusly, according to scripture...and God is Perfectly Just, again, according to scripture...and therefore anything undertaken by God is Just. Since we are me ...[text shortened]... God's actions". Or something like that.
Is there a way out of that particular circle?
That eliminates the possibilities of that argument, and makes saying yes look atrocious, and saying no the only possibility.
26 Feb 08
Thanks, v, for never letting me off the hook. Nothing cheap and easy around you, to be certain!
For the sake of argument, I think it nearly impossible to adequately or accurately describe aspects of God's character in terms of diluted meanings. Working backwards from pooled water always winds up in the same spot.
Putting aside (for the moment) this particular aspect of God's character, it may be more illuminative to consider another descriptive concept familiar to man, but clearly dependent upon God for it's meaning: perfect. With pi being what it is and no other illustrative norm in the known universe for man to consider in comparison, whence cometh the concept of perfection?
I think this exercise works neatly with all such decriptors: truth, love, fair, right, good, beauty, etc. I know that I haven't answered the question directly, but I am not purposely avoiding the same. I am saying there is more to the equation than perhaps meets the eye.
26 Feb 08
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWell, I’ve sent a couple of opportunistic shots your way recently—but the issue goes beyond this particular concept. BdN has some discussion going on in his “Wittgenstein and Ethics” thread. On that thread, I targeted one of my own concepts and attendant terminology: the Whole.
Thanks, v, for never letting me off the hook. Nothing cheap and easy around you, to be certain!
For the sake of argument, I think it nearly impossible to adequately or accurately describe aspects of God's character in terms of diluted meanings. Working backwards from pooled water always winds up in the same spot.
Putting aside (for the moment) this ...[text shortened]... ly avoiding the same. I am saying there is more to the equation than perhaps meets the eye.
Wittgenstein’s issue (and mine) is the extent to which we may bewitch ourselves by our own language/thought-terms into believing that we understand what we’re talking/thinking about—when in fact we don’t. (W’s arguments were generally aimed at philosophy as well as religion.)
Take “perfection”: What conceptual content do you mean when you ask “whence cometh the concept of perfection”?
To be biblical for just a moment: the Hebrew and Greek words translated as “perfect” tend to have the sense of wholeness, ripeness, maturity. Those seem to me to be organic notions.
On the other hand (and I’m doing this without retreat to a dictionary), we seem to have in mind a somewhat different notion if we speak of something like a perfectly straight line, a perfect circle, a perfectly executed movement. Then we seem to mean something like without flaw or error or deviation. I suspect that such notions are best expressed in terms of a mathematical limit—a limit which may never be reached in actuality, but to which we conceptually extrapolate. (Unfortunately, I have almost perfectly forgotten all my calculus.)
If someone uses a phrase like “perfectly just” (which DavidC introduced) one needs to understand what both those words mean. Perhaps, in this case, “perfectly” is used more in the sense of a limit, toward which a theologian might say that we approach, but only God reaches. But we still need to know what is being approached. Otherwise, we literally do not know what we’re talking about.
When I define a term, R, I am at the same time (at least implicitly) defining what is ~R. Some terms of course may be completely relative: something may become longer or shorter; but I have no idea what “perfectly long” could mean. On the other hand, I may have a reasonable idea of what “perfectly round” would mean, even though it’s a limit. On the other other hand, if you show me a drawing of a rectangle and say something like: “This is round; it’s just not as round as a circle”—well, then, I’m wondering what the concept “not-round” could possibly mean.
If you say to me, “G is round”, then I need to have a concept of what the sign “r-o-u-n-d” means: the signifier stands in need of a signified, or it is simply vacuous. So, you either draw me a picture, or you describe to me the geometric conditions of “round”. In so doing, you implicitly describe to me the negative: the conditions of not-round.
So, I ask: “Well, what is G then?”. You show me a drawing of a triangle. Now I’m confused. You show me a rectangle. Then, say, an octagon. Then an ellipse. Then a circle.
I ask: “Which one is G?”
“All of them are G,” you reply.
“But—which ones are round and which not-round? Or, at what point does ‘round’ become ‘not-round’?”
“G is always round.”
Now I feel like I’m in SwissGambit’s bizarro-world.
In the Tractratus, Wittgenstein said, “What can be said at all can be said clearly”, and “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must keep silent”. He later rejected the first notion as erroneous, in his investigations of the complexities of language games. I’m not sure that he rejected the second one. In one place he said that, if one changes the starting positions and the rules of movement of chess pieces, one does not subsequently play chess badly or wrongly: one is now playing another game altogether. But there still need to be rules in order to have a game. The same is true for discourse, for communicating any conceptual understanding whatsoever.
If I do not know what the rules of “round” are, then I can have no idea what it means to say that “G is round.”
26 Feb 08
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI am saying there is more to the equation than perhaps meets the eye.
Thanks, v, for never letting me off the hook. Nothing cheap and easy around you, to be certain!
For the sake of argument, I think it nearly impossible to adequately or accurately describe aspects of God's character in terms of diluted meanings. Working backwards from pooled water always winds up in the same spot.
Putting aside (for the moment) this ...[text shortened]... ly avoiding the same. I am saying there is more to the equation than perhaps meets the eye.
I think there is too. But I think it has to do with nondescriptive and non-propositional use of language.
01 Mar 08
Originally posted by vistesdMy point was directed at both wholeness and without deviation and/or error. Although distinct, they have relation and impact upon one another. For instance, one cannot have wholeness in the face of a position to the right or left of the norm (deviation). Conversely, one cannot refrain from deviation or error without also losing wholeness. That being said...
Well, I’ve sent a couple of opportunistic shots your way recently—but the issue goes beyond this particular concept. BdN has some discussion going on in his “Wittgenstein and Ethics” thread. On that thread, I targeted one of my own concepts and attendant terminology: the Whole.
Wittgenstein’s issue (and mine) is the extent to which we may bewitc ...[text shortened]... w what the rules of “round” are, then I can have no idea what it means to say that “G is round.”
This exercise all goes toward the same end-result: there must exist a standard that not only resists deviation, but one which cannot deviate--- however that standard may be described. There exists not just beauty, but the beauty, the just, the truth.
07 Mar 08
I didn't realize that this got answered.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Absolutely.
Well, there you go. You worship a god of infanticide. You don't believe in any absolute
morality at all! You just believe that 'god's' most recent choices about good and evil are
the right ones, until 'god' changes its mind.
All things considered, no better options were available.
Well, since I came up with a better solution and I'm only partially omnipotent and partially
omniscient, then your 'god' must really be limited.
Let me ask you this: can God's plan survive all doubt?
I don't believe God has a plan. If I believed that, I would also have to believe that God is
a monstrous bastard.
Nemesio
09 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioWell, there you go. You worship a god of infanticide. You don't believe in any absolute morality at all!
I didn't realize that this got answered.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Absolutely.
Well, there you go. You worship a god of infanticide. You don't believe in any absolute
morality at all! You just believe that 'god's' most recent choices about good and evil are
the right ones, until 'god' changes its mind.
All things conside ved that, I would also have to believe that God is
a monstrous bastard.
Nemesio
I contend that it is you who cannot accurately describe said morality, absolutely or otherwise.
You just believe that 'god's' most recent choices about good and evil are the right ones, until 'god' changes its mind.
With your typical superficial comprehension of Scripture, this makes sense. In light of the reality that comes to bear from a full understanding of Scripture, this blasphemous blather isn't worthy of any comment further than rebuke.
Well, since I came up with a better solution and I'm only partially omnipotent and partially
omniscient, then your 'god' must really be limited.
As usual, you overestimate your abilities and have failed to consider the totality of the situation. There was more at stake than the lives of a few so-called innocents.
10 Mar 08
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I contend that it is you who cannot accurately describe said morality, absolutely or otherwise.
Sure I can't describe it! Your 'god' says -- no, commands -- its people
not to murder, and later encourages the slaughter of infants. This
'morality' defies description, except to make the statement 'whatever
god says is right.'
With your typical superficial comprehension of Scripture, this makes sense.
Is there really a reason to be so unChristian and attack me personally?
In light of the reality that comes to bear from a full understanding of Scripture, this blasphemous blather isn't worthy of any comment further than rebuke.
Ah. You can't explain it either. That's what I thought.
As usual, you overestimate your abilities and have failed to consider the totality of the situation. There was more at stake than the lives of a few so-called innocents.
Are you suggesting that the infants were somehow not innocent? Surely
not. Are you suggesting that a truly benevolent God had no choice
but to command the slaugher of the same? Surely not. Are you suggesting
that a truly omnipotent God couldn't have found another means which
included preserving the lives of these infants? Surely not.
So what exactly are you contending?
Nemesio
10 Mar 08
Originally posted by NemesioHe is contending:
Are you suggesting that the infants were somehow not innocent? Surely
not. Are you suggesting that a truly benevolent God had no choice
but to command the slaugher of the same? Surely not. Are you suggesting
that a truly omnipotent God couldn't have found another means which
included preserving the lives of these infants? Surely not.
So what exactly are you contending?
Nemesio
1. If its in the Bible, it must be true. If God did it, it must have been right.
2. If you cannot understand it, yet it is right, then you must therefore lack the capacity to understand it.
What he is trying to avoid admitting, is that his own lack of understanding implies the same.
10 Mar 08
Originally posted by NemesioSure I can't describe it!
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I contend that it is you who cannot accurately describe said morality, absolutely or otherwise.
Sure I can't describe it! Your 'god' says -- no, commands -- its people
not to murder, and later encourages the slaughter of infants. This
'morality' defies description, except to make the statement 'whatever
go ...[text shortened]... ives of these infants? Surely not.
So what exactly are you contending?
Nemesio[/b]
You are using the term, surely you ought to know what you mean by the word 'morality.' I challenge that you cannot accurately describe the very term you are using to denounce the actions and commands of God. If I am wrong, it should take very little effort to show as much.
Is there really a reason to be so unChristian and attack me personally?
Attack you personally? Hardly. I am attacking the superficial use of Scripture. In order for my attack on your blasphemy to be unChristian, one would necessarily have to omit whole aspects of Jesus' own character. It was Him, after all, who so nicely threw the moneychangers out of the temple, right?
Ah. You can't explain it either. That's what I thought.
Asked and answered several times over in the last two years. Deaf ears every time, for some reason.
Are you suggesting that the infants were somehow not innocent?
All have turned aside,
they have together become corrupt;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.
Psalm 14:3
Are you suggesting that a truly benevolent God had no choice
but to command the slaugher of the same?
Again: asked and answered but the mouth which asks turns a deaf ear to the response.
10 Mar 08
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou keep repeating this, as if it was true. If you had actually answered these questions to anyone's but your own satisfaction, maybe you wouldn't feel the need to continue to respond in this fashion. Fact is, you haven't ever "answered" any of these questions, other than to defer a response from a merciless totalitarian dictator via his vague and dubiously authored "scripture".
Again: asked and answered
Oh, and smugness is not becoming. A little humility goes a long way...unless that's a "sin" where you come from.
11 Mar 08
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSince on previous occasions when scripture has been quoted as an answer I have then been accused of misinterpreting it due to my not owning the correct decoder ring, please clarify that you are claiming that at that time everyone, including one day old infants were so corrupt that they deserved death.
Are you suggesting that the infants were somehow not innocent?
All have turned aside,
they have together become corrupt;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.
Psalm 14:3
11 Mar 08
Originally posted by David CThat almost sounds like you're trying to say something... right?
You keep repeating this, as if it was true. If you had actually answered these questions to anyone's but your own satisfaction, maybe you wouldn't feel the need to continue to respond in this fashion. Fact is, you haven't ever "answered" any of these questions, other than to defer a response from a merciless totalitarian dictator via his vague and dubiously ...[text shortened]... coming. A little humility goes a long way...unless that's a "sin" where you come from.
You wouldn't know humility if it slapped you in the face, so you ought not attempt to instruct me on its merits.