User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 100

  1. #31
    desert pelican Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nyx View Post
    I'm try to respond to all your questions.

    As humans our mental powers are limited because of our state as being a fusion of the material and immaterial. We don't freely follow principles of beneficence and maleficence because we inherently are self serving and have a tendency to be ungrateful for the awesome gifts of God. This is the human condition and part of the theology of the Fall. All evil is, is the this tendency to Self serve, going against the Will of God which is to GIVE. God did the ultimate giving... you could say God IS giving. God IS one of the many elements of his Creation is pure giving. We have this godly nature in us, but also temptations because of our existential condition. By overcoming the obsession with temporal pleasures (though not inherently bad, but made bad through our intentions) we become worthy of God. This is a loaded statement... is anyone worthy of God? No, but that does not matter to God, it is all about recognizing the gift of Creation. To answer your first question, the answer is kind of both. Because we are made in the image of God and because of our condition we are very likely to fall into the trap of thinking WE are Gods, that WE alone can arrive at ultimate Truth, that WE can take the place of God. To combat this we see the story of Satan, and how that is mirrored in the human condition so much. No one is battling God, but He used the outcome of Free Will in this case to chart the destiny of humanity. In other words, we are like God because of our intellect, but we cannot be God because we would not exist if we were God. Christianity is based of the idea of reciprocal relationships because that is the relationship God has with his Creation. When we realize this and strive to be like Christ (the God-man) we attain salvation because we are being like Christ who is God. We have chosen very little in the way of our existence... we did not CHOOSE to be born. No one chooses to be born, we are given the gift of Life, and that is why there is male and female... to mirror the relationship between God and His creation.
    Why, because of our condition, are we very likely to fall into this trap? What is it about our condition that causes us to fall into this trap?

    Is it our finiteness? If we fell into this trap because of our finiteness, because we simply weren't smart enough to know the truth, then how would it be just of God to hold us accountable for knowing a truth that is beyond our finite, cognitive ability to know? In other words, how is our unbelief morally culpable if our finite minds couldn't generate the belief we were being held responsible for believing even if we were using that finite mind in the attempt to discover the truth, i.e., we couldn't know the truth even if we wanted to know the truth, because the truth is beyond our finite minds' ability to discover truth? Worse, it seems on this schema our finite minds could generate false beliefs in the pursuit of truth.

    Is it because of the fall? Even if it were, then how did our first parents fall such that we could inherit original sin. (And then, if you can answer that, can you explain how we inherit original sin?)

  2. #32
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beat View Post
    If God is good then why does he allow innocent suffering and natural evils?
    Well you see Beat, the great thing about faith is that it circumvents the need for logical explanation. You can explain away literally anything you can imagine with, "Have more faith! God is great and we can't understand his divine reasons for creating things like Down's Syndrome because we're just lowly humans--but they're benevolent, trust me!"

    Quote Originally Posted by Beat View Post
    If God is all knowing and cannot intervene he is not all powerful. If he is all powerful and all knowing, and does not intervene then he is not all good.
    The explanation here is typically that he's actually doing something good by failing to intervene, and that we humans are just too stupid to understand the real reason and see why innocent suffering is somehow actually good, so we should just go with it on faith.

    It's all part of GOD'S PLAN, doncha know?

    Quote Originally Posted by Beat View Post
    If there's a God, then he's obviously indifferent or a bit of a sadist.
    Thoughts?
    Again you're supposed to just assume that your perception of these evils as evil is mistaken and that it's somehow actually a good thing because it's part of God's Great Plan that you as a human are incapable of understanding. Trust me.

    "Why did God let [x bad thing] happen to innocent people?"

    "Well, I'm sure he has his reasons. I don't have a clue what they are, but I'm sure he does, so I'm just going to assume this was a good thing."

    Again faith circumvents the need for logical explanation.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  3. #33
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nyx View Post
    This type of philosophy is self-destructive. If you assert this you should take no confidence that any of your observations or thoughts on this matter are true... along with anything else. Thus is the destructive belief in purely relativism.
    Conservative relativism works alright: support what is current simply for solidarity of culture, not because its any sort of "truth". Its much easier to argue this than whatever fundamentalist derived religious rules (because then you dont have to "prove" your religious values).

    How very true this is, and self evident throughout history. Many of the worst governments in history subscribed to the philosophy of the determinist and the relativist... and people still wonder about the state of affairs in the world. This is why indoctrinating and propagating this mind set by governments has been successful in destroying freedom and enslaving the planet... evident from proponents of Communism right up to the "Century of the Self" and the culture of "Me" and the arrogance of the individual and Self worship. It is sheer propaganda and the world bought right into it, in doing so surrendering their freedom: the ability of their rational minds.
    Secular and Religious governments seem to be irrelevant to all of this, because you cant legislate cultural change...the governments values cannot be legislated into the people's culture (though the government can enforce its values on the people).

    Secondly, please dont do the "atheist governments were evil solely because they were atheist". You used the words "determinist" and "relativist", but we both know thats not what you meant. Depending on your philosophy, determinism may not even limit free will. And what government is really relativist? Its much more likely that you are mad at governments build on utilitarianism, rather than pure relativism. Back to the "atheist government" issue: Hitler was religious and into various occult ideas, while the Chinese Communists were firmly not. The correlation just doesnt hold for irreligious being the sole factor of immorality. A religious government doesn't inherently guarantee freedom and a non-religious one doesn't inherently deny it.

    The general materialistic culture probably has more roots in religion and Christianity:
    --america's protestant work ethic and material success
    --prosperity theology among protestants
    (its obviously a lot more complicated than these two ideas)

  4. #34
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    I find that relativism is only "destructive" to people who are very deeply emotionally attached to the idea that their conceptions of morality are somehow objective and can't handle suggestions to the contrary.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  5. #35
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    I find that relativism is only "destructive" to people who are very deeply emotionally attached to the idea that their conceptions of morality are somehow objective and can't handle suggestions to the contrary.
    one of the great things about kant: metaphysical a priori will pretty much only be true "for you"... I would guess that most things that are "objectively" moral fall under a priori synthetic. So this would mean that people who want "objective morality" can have it...but they wont ever be able to "prove" it to someone else.
    I think those who still wish to prove metaphysical a priori to others are those you speak of...

  6. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    444

    Default

    I am well aware of Hitler's occult interest... and by definition asserts gnosis, or becoming God.

    I would continue to answer objections here, but I will stop because doing so would take countless volumes and I simply do not have the time to do so. Also, I do not think anything I will say we be taken with any consideration and will be rejected immediately, consciously or subconsciously.

    Unfortunately, some people will never see the light and live their lives in a vain attempt at affirming their personal truth as the answer, but what they do not realize is their logic is self-destructive. They are living in limbo, trying to reconcile their innate desire for Truth with their personal fatalistic beliefs.

    EDIT: No, those people are not trying to "prove" metaphysical a priori. Proof is a product of human arrogance in regards to that... Proof is only useful and applicable in fields of empiric knowledge.

  7. #37
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post
    one of the great things about kant: metaphysical a priori will pretty much only be true "for you"... I would guess that most things that are "objectively" moral fall under a priori synthetic. So this would mean that people who want "objective morality" can have it...but they wont ever be able to "prove" it to someone else.
    I think those who still wish to prove metaphysical a priori to others are those you speak of...
    Well in that case, it's by definition not objective, if it can't be proven or shown objectively to anyone else.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  8. #38
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nyx View Post
    Unfortunately, some people will never see the light and live their lives in a vain attempt at affirming their personal truth as the answer
    Well God forbid anybody do that!
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  9. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    444

    Default

    Objectively is claimed of Truth because it comes from God... who is truly the only intellect that exists that is objective.

  10. #40
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nyx View Post
    Objectively is claimed of Truth because it comes from God... who is truly the only intellect that exists that is objective.
    Okay, now show me objectively that your idea of God actually reflects reality.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

Similar Threads

  1. The Nature of Ne -- a metaphorical visual
    By spirilis in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 03-20-2009, 01:55 AM
  2. The Nature of Values
    By Kiddo in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 06-22-2008, 02:42 PM
  3. The Nature of Fi -- a metaphorical visual
    By arcticangel02 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-13-2008, 07:12 PM
  4. The nature of certainty...
    By Kiddo in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 02-24-2008, 08:58 PM
  5. The Nature of Generosity
    By Mycroft in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 10-08-2007, 05:53 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO