Spirituality
02 Apr 13
07 Apr 13
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFOn this one, I'll stick with wicki; sumydid's more than capable of speaking for himself.
Would you also use the words "cowardice" and "cowardly" in the same unconventional way as sumydid does?
Gut Issues and Facts matter greatly; mindless speculations and raw opinions don't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowardice
08 Apr 13
3 edits
Originally posted by divegeesterSorry, I still don't understand what is the actual substance of your resolution of the dilemma.
Thank you for explaining the dilemma [yet] again that was so helpful especially when I struggle to cope with my lack of maturity. You seem baffled when someone doesn't submit to what you consider to be your unassailable logic and presents their reasons why; I would suggest this is indicative of a lack of humility on your part...
As I said in my last p emma you keep repeating is not really a dilemma, however please feel free to explain it again.
So, you're saying that the evidence for the idea that morality originates with God is scripture? Well, of course, that's merely question-begging to anyone who doesn't already hold the same stance as you. Anyway, I'm confused why you think this response addresses the dilemma. If you say that morality originates from God's commands that are contained in scripture, I'm still waiting for you to address the actual dilemma: either God had reasons in virtue of which He issued those commands; or not. Either way (pace again the dilemma), it doesn't seem we have any reason to think this is how morals can get established. You've done absolutely nothing to address this.
So, what's your evidence that morality can only originate from God? After all, this is what you stated you believe, not merely that morality did originate from God.
08 Apr 13
Originally posted by sumydidYikes.
I wouldn't paint my use of "cowardly" with such a broad brush. But yes, I do think that it is cowardly with regard to spirituality; to refuse to take a step in the direction of believing, unless you are completely convinced beyond doubt. Especially when it is virtually *impossible* to prove God to you in the first place. Am I right? Take a few minutes to ...[text shortened]... n. Instead they had to describe in full detail what they saw and that they did.
🙄🙄
08 Apr 13
Originally posted by LemonJelloI've re-read my responses to you and am satisfied that they are complete and satisfactory; I can't help your 'lack of understanding' which seems to be clouded by a stubborn academic arrogance.
Sorry, I still don't understand what is the actual substance of your resolution of the dilemma.
So, you're saying that the evidence for the idea that morality originates with God is scripture? Well, of course, that's merely question-begging to anyone who doesn't already hold the same stance as you. Anyway, I'm confused why you think this response add ...[text shortened]... this is what you stated you believe, not merely that morality did originate from God.
08 Apr 13
Originally posted by wolfgang59They have to wear their hair in a certain way to cover up their pointy heads. And then before you know it, they're copping a look at themselves and their hair in shop windows on the way to the campus.
Could you explain this seemingly oxymoronic phrase ["academic arrogance"]?
09 Apr 13
Originally posted by divegeesterYou sound like knightmeister, who loved to say that I "over-intellectualize" everything because I actually...gasp...ask for actual reasons and arguments in debates. You have none to offer here for your beliefs about the origins of morality or for your claims about atheism (some of which are self-contradictory, so attempts at justifying those through reasons/arguments would be useless anyway). I think we've established that.
I've re-read my responses to you and am satisfied that they are complete and satisfactory; I can't help your 'lack of understanding' which seems to be clouded by a stubborn academic arrogance.
10 Apr 13
2 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloIt may be that divegeester is advocating a different form of divine command theory than that which is so easily dispatched by the E. dilemma. For instance, his concept of "righteousness" seems to resemble aspects of virtue ethics; that God, rather than strictly declare, via fiat, what is right or wrong, instead provides the 'why' one ought to act morally, righteousness being an end in itself. God's commands, both positive and negative, map out the course of righteousness (in action). Righteousness being understood here as that state of being which is objectively (mind-independently) ideal for human beings, properly understood — i.e., in the context of human nature and God's nature, and the relationship between the two (assuming God knows best what is ideal for us). If we move toward, or achieve, righteousness, we are more likely to be the sort of people who act morally. We determine our moral choices. God chooses what constitutes righteousness by determining our nature and/or the world's nature.
You sound like knightmeister, who loved to say that I "over-intellectualize" everything because I actually...gasp...ask for actual reasons and arguments in debates. You have none to offer here for your beliefs about the origins of morality or for your claims about atheism (some of which are self-contradictory, so attempts at justifying those through reasons/arguments would be useless anyway). I think we've established that.
10 Apr 13
Originally posted by epiphinehasGod, rather than strictly declare, via fiat, what is right or wrong, instead provides the 'why' one ought to act morally, righteousness being an end in itself. God's commands, both positive and negative, map out the course of righteousness (in action).
It may be that divegeester is advocating a different form of divine command theory than that which is so easily dispatched by the E. dilemma. For instance, his concept of "righteousness" seems to resemble aspects of virtue ethics; that God, rather than strictly declare, via fiat, what is right or wrong, instead provides the 'why' one ought to act morally ...[text shortened]... ooses what constitutes righteousness by determining our nature and/or the world's nature.
Everything you say here is consistent with God's being utterly inessential to the actual constitutive nature of morals. It is consistent with the horn of the dilemma where moral standards exist independent of God. I mean, you could say the same about your parents' moral instruction (that they don't determine per se what is wrong; that they provide you with reasons why you ought to act morally; that their instructions map out right action; etc, etc); and yet, of course, you think your parents are ultimately inessential to the actual constitutive nature of morals.
At any rate, divegeester's god doesn't provide any 'why' one ought to act this way or that. The bible doesn't provide any justification for its prescriptions. But, regardless, even if it did, it would only bolster the horn of the dilemma that holds that God is inessential to the subject of morality. After all, if there is some set of reasons that provide the 'why' one ought to act morally, then there exists independent standards of morality (as the object of moral knowledge, for example).
Righteousness being understood here as that state of being which is objectively (mind-independently) ideal for human beings, properly understood — i.e., in the context of human nature and God's nature, and the relationship between the two (assuming God knows best what is ideal for us).
I do not know what you mean here.
At any rate, if you are saying that facts regarding righteousness are objective, as in mind-independent; then they certainly cannot depend constitutively on God. So, again, this seems all consistent with God's being completely irrelevant to the constitutive nature of morality.
God chooses what constitutes righteousness by determining our nature and/or the world's nature.
Now you seem to be contradicting yourself. If God chooses what constitutes righteousness, then it cannot be that facts regarding righteousness are mind-independent.
So, barring more clarification on how 'righteousness' is to be understood here, this all sounds incoherent to me.
10 Apr 13
Originally posted by LemonJelloIt seems plain that God is inessential to the constitutive nature of morals. One doesn't require God to decide what the moral choice is within any given situation. But why be moral? The answer from the Christian perspective seems to be in line with the fact that there are no rational reasons to act morally. At best we ought to act morally because it is in our self-interest. But truly moral acts are the by-product of a virtuous character rather than self-interest.
[b]God, rather than strictly declare, via fiat, what is right or wrong, instead provides the 'why' one ought to act morally, righteousness being an end in itself. God's commands, both positive and negative, map out the course of righteousness (in action).
Everything you say here is consistent with God's being utterly inessential to the actua ...[text shortened]... ow 'righteousness' is to be understood here, this all sounds incoherent to me.[/b]
God's all-surpassing love has the power to change a person's character, developing righteousness where there had been a heart/will partially, in most cases not completely, driven by self-serving desires. God as perfect righteousness is, of course, the preeminent role model for what it is to be righteous. He may not determine what moral choices are best, but he does, by his nature, determine what righteousness is: namely, all-surpassing love.
So, I guess God does much more than supply a reason to act morally. He does away with any need for reasons to act morally.