For sonship: On Childishness

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Whatever happened to Freaky, the soul-stinger?! I'm so disappointed.

Looks like LJ's got you covered on refutation of your 'points', such as they may be.

What are you, the pimply-faced side-kick?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
What are you, the pimply-faced side-kick?

I'm the heckler in the crowd, of course.

I mean, look, the thread is going to go the same way it always does when you debate LJ. He will hand you your ass; you will deny it is yours. He will then hand you your ass again in a completely different way, and you will still deny it is yours. This will repeat until one of you gets sick of the thread.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I'm the heckler in the crowd, of course.

I mean, look, the thread is going to go the same way it always does when you debate LJ. He will hand you your ass; you will deny it is yours. He will then hand you your ass again in a completely different way, and you will still deny it is yours. This will repeat until one of you gets sick of the thread.

"The fool is one of the leading themes in the Book of Proverbs."

Proverbs 12:23, “A prudent man conceals knowledge, but the heart of fools proclaims folly.” Conceals” means, “to cover or conceal... not to reveal / gossip about other people’s sins, secrets or even your own anger. The word “knowledge”, is contrasted with folly. So the prudent man conceals what he knows about sin and folly in general and that of other people. He does not gossip, malign, slander or lie, and does not reveal the temptations of sin in his own soul. He keeps them all to himself. The prudent man conceals this evil knowledge because he is not driven neurotically by pride to parade his knowledge around in front of others, nor does he allow his rage and anger to escape and wreak harm. He has the self-control to wait for the right situation and the prudence to know when to speak up,

Prov 11:13, “He who goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets, but he who is trustworthy conceals a matter.” As such, he maintains inscrutability where he has control over his situation. Eccl 3:7, “A time to tear apart and a time to sew together; a time to be silent and a time to speak.” (Spirituality Quotations page 18)

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]"The fool is one of the leading themes in the Book of Proverbs."

Proverbs 12:23, “A prudent man conceals knowledge, but the heart of fools proclaims folly.” Conceals” means, “to cover or conceal... not to reveal / gossip about other people’s sins, secrets or even your own anger. The word “knowledge”, is contrasted with folly. So the prudent ma ...[text shortened]... ime to sew together; a time to be silent and a time to speak.” (Spirituality Quotations page 18)[/b]

And those passages are germane to this conversation in what way...?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
And those passages are germane to this conversation in what way...?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I'm the heckler in the crowd, of course.

I mean, look, the thread is going to go the same way it always does when you debate LJ. He will hand you your ass; you will deny it is yours. He will then hand you your ass again in a completely different way, and you will still deny it is yours. This will repeat until one of you gets sick of the thread.
________________________________________________

"So the prudent man conceals what he knows about sin and folly in general and that of other people. He does not gossip, malign, slander or lie, and does not reveal the temptations of sin in his own soul. He keeps them all to himself. The prudent man conceals this evil knowledge because he is not driven neurotically by pride to parade his knowledge around in front of others, nor does he allow his rage and anger to escape and wreak harm. He has the self-control to wait for the right situation and the prudence to know when to speak up..." (Spiritual Quotations page 18)
___________________________________

Originally posted by SwissGambit
And those passages are germane to this conversation in what way...?

Thread 157928 = an exhaustive, academically disciplined treatise regarding another site member and his beliefs: "For sonship: On Childishness". Your "He will hand you your ass; you will deny it is yours. He will then hand you your ass again" and "He will then hand you your ass again in a completely different way." seemed off topic and neurotically driven.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Originally posted by SwissGambit
I'm the heckler in the crowd, of course.

I mean, look, the thread is going to go the same way it always does when you debate LJ. [b]He will hand you your ass; you will deny it is yours. He will then hand you your ass again in a completely different way, and you will still deny it is yours. This will repeat ...[text shortened]... you your ass again in a completely different way."[/i] seemed off topic and neurotically driven.[/b]

The thread is part of a public forum; the members decide what the content will be. Just because you think it should be 100% academic does not mean that it must be.

"Neurotic" implies excessive anxiousness at best and a mental disorder at worst. I'd think, in a 'disciplined' thread (if that is in fact what you want it to be), you would do better at choosing your words.

I have already told you that this kind of generic / non-applicable bible quoting is a cheap tactic. Posts like this only confirm it.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
The thread is part of a public forum; the members decide what the content will be. Just because you think it should be 100% academic does not mean that it must be.

"Neurotic" implies excessive anxiousness at best and a mental disorder at worst. I'd think, in a 'disciplined' thread (if that is in fact what you want it to be), you would do better at cho ...[text shortened]... nd of generic / non-applicable bible quoting is a cheap tactic. Posts like this only confirm it.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
The thread is part of a public forum; the members decide what the content will be. Just because you think it should be 100% academic does not mean that it must be."

LemonJello set the academic tone within the original post's format sans consultation. My preference: casual conversation.

"Neurotic" implies excessive anxiousness at best and a mental disorder at worst. I'd think, in a 'disciplined' thread (if that is in fact what you want it to be), you would do better at choosing your words."

As stated, your words and coarse tone of meaning seemed to be beneath the dignity of the topic and ensuing discussion.

"I have already told you that this kind of generic / non-applicable bible quoting is a cheap tactic. Posts like this only confirm it.

And I respect your privilege as a site member in good standing to express your points of view without regard to mine.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I'm the heckler in the crowd, of course.

I mean, look, the thread is going to go the same way it always does when you debate LJ. He will hand you your ass; you will deny it is yours. He will then hand you your ass again in a completely different way, and you will still deny it is yours. This will repeat until one of you gets sick of the thread.

I don't know what is more sad: the fact that you can't add anything substantive to the conversation and are content (in a sense) to watch the grown-ups talk, or that you really think that LJ's position here actually stands in light of the conversation thus far.

Either way, your heckling sounds more like bleating and has essentially the same amount of sting: offensive to the ears on the basis of its volume and precious little else.

Keep firing them zany one-liners, though!

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
As stated, your words and coarse tone of meaning seemed to be beneath the dignity of the topic and ensuing discussion.

You could have just started with this and we would have gotten to the point much more quickly. No need for cut-and-pastes.

Sometimes politeness and nicety make us lose our edge. Although it leaves a sour social taste in the mouth at times, I prefer to call things as I see them rather than dance around with niceties that obscure the heart of the matter.

I would have been happy to stick to the core of this issue, but Freaky produced perhaps the most ridiculous piece of arrogant nonsense that I have read in 10 years on this forum. There was simply no way I could ignore it. If you want to find the source of derailment from the issue at hand, look there.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
This planet is replete with rocks--- nearly 75% of it's surface is made up of the stuff.
Where does the light come from?
Anywhere on the planet?

Light comes from OUTSIDE of the planet.
When we replicate light, we are imitating the sun.
Your analogy is pathetic, since the thing you use is something that is already a part of the landscape.

The dist ...[text shortened]...
That's funny.
Probably because you have such a firm grasp on how scientific description works.

Are you honestly this ignorant on the subject of light? Please produce for me one credible scientific source that would support your daft notion that earthly sources of light (such as a candle) are called "light" because, ipso facto, they resemble the sun. There's nothing special about the sun in this regard. Our sun is just one of any number of light sources within our universe. Now, in your hypothetical, you have stipulated that the sun is the only star in our universe. So what? It still doesn't follow that a natural source of light, such as a candle, qualifes as light because ipso facto it looks like the sun. What nonsense. There's absolutely no information in the hypothetical that would even remotely serve to justify such a statement. And, like I said, the real world does not work that way either. Your hypothetical shows nothing; excepting, as I already said, that you seem to know virtually nothing about light and scientific description thereof. It's honestly one of the daftest arguments I have seen put forth in this forum in quite a while; I recommend you desist and move on.

Again, do you have any other arguments that you think would support your view that God is definitive of gooodness.

Originally posted by LemonJello

The point is that on a view like sonship's (where God is simply definitive of good), there can be no such reasons (mysterious or otherwise) in the first place: again, that would be at pain of contradicting that God is explanatorily prior to goodness, indeed definitional of goodness. A much more mature, adult view would hold that some (presumably non-mysterious) account of goodness is conceptually prior to any account of what makes for a moral exemplar.

Would you explain your more adult view, non-mysterious view of why we human beings sense moral duties and obligations ? Ie. What is your explanation as to why we feel torturing babies for fun is evil?

Your job now is not to find this and that to complain about in my Christian faith or the Scriptures. The request for you is to explain the source of our sense of moral obligation.

Take a few posts to lay out your alternative to my childish belief that the highest goodness flows out of God's being just according to what He is, and that we have sense of moral obligations and moral duties because He created us in His image, and is in fact our ultimate Governor and Judge.


Your more grown up, more adult explanation of our moral conscience and consciousness is ..... ?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Are you honestly this ignorant on the subject of light? Please produce for me one credible scientific source that would support your daft notion that earthly sources of light (such as a candle) are called "light" because, ipso facto, they resemble the sun. There's nothing special about the sun in this regard. Our sun is just one of any number of ...[text shortened]... any other arguments that you think would support your view that God is definitive of gooodness.

You're kidding, right?

...your daft notion that earthly sources of light (such as a candle) are called "light" because, ipso facto, they resemble the sun.
You absolutely know that is not the intention of what I said, nor what I meant.

Now, in your hypothetical, you have stipulated that the sun is the only star in our universe. So what?
Oh: so you did read it.

It still doesn't follow that a natural source of light, such as a candle, qualifes as light because ipso facto it looks like the sun.
Oh: maybe you didn't.

There's absolutely no information in the hypothetical that would even remotely serve to justify such a statement.
Good thing I didn't say the thing that you did, huh.

What I did say, however, is that there is nothing on the planet that emits light naturally and of its own power like the sun.
That anything that emits light on the planet is a recreation of what occurs--- in some fashion or another--- on the sun.
That if man was not around to create it, this planet would be dark half the time, saving the occasional fire or strike of lightning.

You're doing a commendable job of dodge ball, so I guess the main point is making you think perhaps more than you desired.
That's not a bad thing: a guy like you really should stretch your thinking every so often so as not to get so God damn stiff.

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] The point is that on a view like sonship's (where God is simply definitive of good), there can be no such reasons (mysterious or otherwise) in the first place: again, that would be at pain of contradicting that God is explanatorily prior to goodness, indeed definitional of goodness. A much more mature, adult view would hold that some (presumably non ...[text shortened]... Your more grown up, more adult explanation of our moral conscience and consciousness is ..... ?

There are a whole bunch of views that are much more adultlike and more reasonable than yours. No I would not mind fleshing these out somewhat for you. However, first, you seem to be conflating a couple of different things. So, before beginning, I would want to clarify those points.

You are now asking me to provide explanation for "the source of our sense of moral obligation". That's fine and relatively straightforward; but that is just an anthropologic matter. That just concerns explanation regarding the etiology of the human moral faculty. My answers there would just have to do with our evolutionary past.

But on the other hand, there are bigger meta-ethical questions, such as what sort of moral facts are there; what sort of truth conditions are there for moral claims; what constitutes goodness; what would be the source of goodness, etc. These are not merely anthropologic questions; these are meta-ethical questions. These questions are in some sense harder, and my answers there would have to do with norms of rationality and with objective facts concerning what rational creatures such as us are ideally disposed toward caring about.

You can see how these are two very different subjects. Obviously they are two different subjects because sensing in this context is not factive: you could falsely sense you have some moral obligation. That is, one could have a "sense of moral obligation" where, in fact, no such obligation exists (or where the moral obligation has, in fact, no referent). So, we need on one hand an etiological explanation for why we have a moral faculty; we need on the other hand some meta-ethical view that makes sense of the idea that our moral faculties actually pick out real facts, that there is something actual to which potentially our moral sensibilities point.

So, upon which of these two are you asking me to elaborate? I think your views are childish on both counts, so I do not mind discussing either in the current context. Which question do you think is more pressing?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You're kidding, right?

[b]...your daft notion that earthly sources of light (such as a candle) are called "light" because, ipso facto, they resemble the sun.
You absolutely know that is not the intention of what I said, nor what I meant.

Now, in your hypothetical, you have stipulated that the sun is the only star in our universe. So what? [/ ...[text shortened]... like you really should stretch your thinking every so often so as not to get so God damn stiff.

Let's just take a second to recap what has happened here. You responded to my points with a hypothetical that basically goes something like this: you start by stipulating that the sun is the only light in your hypothetical universe; and then go on to explain that other things in this hypothetical universe constitute light but only in virtue of standing in some particular relation to the sun. Sorry, but that is simply blatantly self-contradictory. If you want to be taken seriously, maybe try to avoid putting forth hypotheticals that are obviously contradictory? Would you like to revise your hypothetical and resubmit?

What I did say, however, is that there is nothing on the planet that emits light naturally and of its own power like the sun.

Even a snot-nosed kid with elementary background in earth science could tell you that there are lots of things on the planet that emit light naturally and of their own power, so this is a real howler of a claim on your part. But your scientific ignorance on these points is not the issue. Let's suppose that you can coherently reformulate your hypothetical such that the sun is the only ultimate source of light in your hypothetical universe; and such that every thing else in this hypothetical universe that emits light derives its power to do so from the sun (this is close to what I think you intend, sans the incoherent and contradictory nonsense; but correct me if I am wrong). Let's suppose for a second that all this is fully granted for the sake of your argument. The fact would remain that nothing interesting follows from this. It certainly does not follow from this that what emits from those earthly things constitutes light only insofar as they bear similarity to the sun. Again, that is just arbitrary nonsense. What exactly would justify your metaphysically privileging the sun in this way, such that what emits from the sun constitutes light simpliciter whereas what emits from the other sources constitutes light only in virtue of some external relation? And, anyway, that's simply not how scientific description regarding light functions. What emits from those things would constitute light because those emissions have certain properties (like being electromagnetic radiation within a specific range of wavelengths), not because of the incidental fact that it shares these properties with the sun. Your statements otherwise are completely unwarranted. Have you found even one credible scientific source that would substantiate your statements yet? How's that search panning out for you?

Honestly, your hypothetical shows nothing of interest. And, just like description of light source proceeds through considerations of a body's emission itself (and has nothing constitutively to do with how it relates in property sharing to some particular external source of light); perhaps so too does goodness description proceed through objective considerations (and not through subjective relation of property sharing with some particular source of moral agency). Again, do you have any other arguments that you think would show otherwise?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Let's just take a second to recap what has happened here. You responded to my points with a hypothetical that basically goes something like this: you start by stipulating that the sun is the only light in your hypothetical universe; and then go on to explain that other things in this hypothetical universe constitute light but only in virtue of standing i ...[text shortened]... e of moral agency). Again, do you have any other arguments that you think would show otherwise?

Even a snot-nosed kid with elementary background in earth science could tell you that there are lots of things on the planet that emit light naturally and of their own power, so this is a real howler of a claim on your part.
Well, you seem to be one of those snot-nosed kids in possession of an elementary background, so it shouldn't be too difficult for you to tell me even one of those "lots of things on the planet that emit light naturally" other than the exceptions I offered already.
I am going to bet you can't--- and please: don't try to offer the glow of phosphorus as being in the same category as light.

The point is, with the sun being the only naturally-occurring light available to man (all others being manufactured), the sun becomes the model of light.
I don't consider the difference between combustion and nuclear reaction to exclude the similar results.
In other words, no matter what the pathway used, the results of man-made efforts work (produce light) on the basis of their similarity or agreement with the only source of light known to man, namely, the sun.

The sun is the standard of light.