17 Oct 09
Originally posted by SwissGambit"No explanation as to why the BEFORE part is in there?"
So you quoted a verse that you admittedly don't understand in support of your position?
I don't know why the explanation had a before part in there. You want
to know why God did or didn't something, I'd say you have to talk to
God about that.
Kelly
17 Oct 09
Originally posted by SwissGambitWhat the Bible is quite clear on is that God cares about life, He also
I haven't stated my position on abortion.
My point is that the Bible [judging from the verses quoted so far] is silent on when life [from a rights perspective] begins. I haven't given my position on when life begins.
The story from Luke is probably apocryphal.
is the first cause of it, He is also the one that credits Himself with
blessing us with children, He is also the one that credits Himself with
forming us in our mother's womb, He tells us He has plans for us,
He owns/in charge of all things He has created. He tells us that there
are boundaries for ending life, just and unjust ways, and He tells us
we are to protect the powerless. Where life begins we may not know
exactly to the point we can prove it, so why do you feel okay with
suggesting it is permissible to end life at any stage of development?
If you do not know, you do risk ending life when God views it as
valid which is far more important than when we place value upon it.
Kelly
17 Oct 09
Originally posted by LemonJelloI've given you more than a few reasons why, it really does not matter
[b]We are talking about God are we not. Your claims of unjustness in
your life or the lives of any other against God are going to be brought
up before whom that could hold God's feet to the fire so to speak?
No one. If God is all-powerful, then presumably there is no one who will be able to "hold God's feet to the fire". God will still be able ...[text shortened]... unds like you suffer from this same exact problem that you like to lash out against.[/b]
one wit how reasonable my reasons are, all you have to say is you
don't think it worthy of note or it doesn't matter, because you value
what you value. The rights and justice of God as King of the universe
is simply that, He is Lord of all, the King of Kings, the creator, the
One who holds it all together by the power of His world. With God the
term divine right really does take on a more perfect meaning than
the right of kings among the human race. If you wish to reject His right
to rule over you and the rest of the universe it is simply part of the
rebellion against Him playing out.
Kelly
17 Oct 09
Originally posted by KellyJayThanks for the sermon. I don't really understand how any of this addresses the subject at issue, which concerns permissibility as it regards God's treatment of persons he creates. Just because one is really powerful and creates some persons and then presumes to lord over them; it doesn't follow that it is permissible for him to treat them just any old way he pleases. There is such a thing as tyranny.
I've given you more than a few reasons why, it really does not matter
one wit how reasonable my reasons are, all you have to say is you
don't think it worthy of note or it doesn't matter, because you value
what you value. The rights and justice of God as King of the universe
is simply that, He is Lord of all, the King of Kings, the creator, the
One who ...[text shortened]... the rest of the universe it is simply part of the
rebellion against Him playing out.
Kelly
18 Oct 09
Originally posted by LemonJelloLike I said, "Divine Right"...basically boils it down the ruler by right,
Thanks for the sermon. I don't really understand how any of this addresses the subject at issue, which concerns permissibility as it regards God's treatment of persons he creates. Just because one is really powerful and creates some persons and then presumes to lord over them; it doesn't follow that it is permissible for him to treat them just any old way he pleases. There is such a thing as tyranny.
and God is just that. I'm not sure what you'd think to hope for outside
of God being just! You want think the God who created everything is
some how going to be subject to the creation by a standard of rules
the creation wants to apply over God, or do you think God is bound by
some rules that applied to Him beyond His making? Where is the
standard by which you'd lay at God's feet that He must abide by
coming from, the creation, something outside of the creation,
something other than God Himself and all He made?
Kelly
18 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayI really don't understand what you're asking. Have you ever considered that maybe moral claims have objective truth values -- meaning that they don't depend constitutively on any observer attitudes. For example, maybe the moral facts are just the moral facts, regardless of what anyone, including God, thinks about it. For example, maybe it's just objectively the case that one ought not go around turning persons into pillars of salt. In that case, if God were to go around turning persons into pillars of salt, then it would simply objectively be the case that he is in the wrong. That he is in wrong in these instances would just simply be a fact; and it wouldn't somehow change this if there happened to be no entity that could actually "hold God's feet to the fire" for his crimes against humanity: it would still be the case that God was in the wrong.
Like I said, "Divine Right"...basically boils it down the ruler by right,
and God is just that. I'm not sure what you'd think to hope for outside
of God being just! You want think the God who created everything is
some how going to be subject to the creation by a standard of rules
the creation wants to apply over God, or do you think God is bound by thing outside of the creation,
something other than God Himself and all He made?
Kelly
I'm not saying this is my position, but it would presumably be something like the position of a moral realist, who thinks there exist objective values and moral facts.
Your position, I can't figure out what it is. You think there are moral standards of God's creation, but that God himself is not subject to them? So there are moral standards that govern how we are to live, but nothing that governs how God is to live? It's permissible for God to just do whatever he wants in virtue of ...... what, exactly?
18 Oct 09
Originally posted by LemonJelloSo where would this set of object rules come from, who gets to say
I really don't understand what you're asking. Have you ever considered that maybe moral claims have objective truth values -- meaning that they don't depend constitutively on any observer attitudes. For example, maybe the moral facts are just the moral facts, regardless of what anyone, including God, thinks about it. For example, maybe it's just object ...[text shortened]... permissible for God to just do whatever he wants in virtue of ...... what, exactly?
what is and isn't right? Do we need a committee, do we need to vote,
do we need a seer, do we need set of rules written in stone, where
is the plumb line of objectivity coming from, how is it found? At some
point, some where lines are going to be drawn, unless you want to
go down the path of objectivity is in the eye of the beholder at all
times and everyone sets up the universal right and wrong as they
see fit?
Kelly
18 Oct 09
Originally posted by LemonJello"It's permissible for God to just do whatever he wants in virtue of ...... what, exactly?"
I really don't understand what you're asking. Have you ever considered that maybe moral claims have objective truth values -- meaning that they don't depend constitutively on any observer attitudes. For example, maybe the moral facts are just the moral facts, regardless of what anyone, including God, thinks about it. For example, maybe it's just object ...[text shortened]... permissible for God to just do whatever he wants in virtue of ...... what, exactly?
I'm not going to answer the same question from you again.
Kelly
18 Oct 09
Originally posted by KellyJayLike I said: in this view, the moral facts are simply the moral facts, regardless of what anyone thinks about it.
So where would this set of object rules come from, who gets to say
what is and isn't right? Do we need a committee, do we need to vote,
do we need a seer, do we need set of rules written in stone, where
is the plumb line of objectivity coming from, how is it found? At some
point, some where lines are going to be drawn, unless you want to
go down the pa ...[text shortened]... older at all
times and everyone sets up the universal right and wrong as they
see fit?
Kelly
18 Oct 09
Originally posted by LemonJelloSo they are nothing? I don't get what your suggesting, how do we
Like I said: in this view, the moral facts are simply the moral facts, regardless of what anyone thinks about it.
know they are real if we cannot grab them in some manner and
look at them? You suggest they are real, but give me nothing on
which to say they are here and we are bound by them. Bound by
what? Come one, give me something here to work with! If we are
not bound by them, what are they just wishful thinking?
Kelly
18 Oct 09
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat is so hard in principle to understand about the moral realist's stance? The moral realist thinks that moral claims are in the business of reporting facts, and that at least some moral claims are true.
So they are nothing? I don't get what your suggesting, how do we
know they are real if we cannot grab them in some manner and
look at them? You suggest they are real, but give me nothing on
which to say they are here and we are bound by them. Bound by
what? Come one, give me something here to work with! If we are
not bound by them, what are they just wishful thinking?
Kelly
If I told you that I own a goldfish, that claim would be in the business of reporting a fact -- the fact that LemonJello owns a goldfish. If that is actually a fact about the world, then I have said something true; if not, then I'm either lying or confused or mistaken or whatever. In either case, the facts of the matter are still just the facts of the matter, regardless of what anyone thinks about it. If in fact I do own a goldfish, it wouldn't matter if the entire rest of the world got together and decided that I don't own a goldfish. They would all just be mistaken, right? It wouldn't matter if God himself believed I don't own a goldfish, he'd just be mistaken too, right? Observer attitudes wouldn't have any bearing on the truth value of my claim. The moral realist basically thinks a similar type of thing holds for moral discourse, too, in that there are objective moral facts.
I really don't understand why you're mad that you cannot grab moral facts and hold them in your hand. Of course, you can hold a goldfish in your hand, but you cannot hold the fact that I own a goldfish in your hand. Yet, I don't hear you complaining about such things in normal discourse.
Do you think there exist no moral facts? If so, what would make a moral claim true? Do you think it is a true claim that you should not chop your children's heads off tonight while they sleep? If so, what makes it true?
18 Oct 09
Originally posted by LemonJelloThe hard thing about what you are suggesting is that there must
What is so hard in principle to understand about the moral realist's stance? The moral realist thinks that moral claims are in the business of reporting facts, and that at least some moral claims are true.
If I told you that I own a goldfish, that claim would be in the business of reporting a fact -- the fact that LemonJello owns a goldfish. If that ...[text shortened]... chop your children's heads off tonight while they sleep? If so, what makes it true?
be an agreement of those that are going to be held to such a
standard, or it isn't a standard. If you tell me that everyone should
be treated equally, I could agree or not, what if I and those with me
view X as 2nd class, what if I view x as such a low life that given
power or status I believe that X will ruin all I hold near and dear?
Your reality and mine would both be as real as reporting facts to our
own way of thinking, it does not mean that we are going to agree at
all what our ways of thinking value or not. Even in business an
international company will have to abide by several different sets of
rules and laws on how they report thier earnings, and track thier
business, I think you seem to want to suggest that there is some
type of standard everyone agrees upon.
I actually think there is such a standard, but there is a source for it
that is foundational for the universe's being.
Kelly