- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (kerwin @ July 24 2011,23:06) I accept you do not understand why God allows evil things to provide an example of when human leaders did so in the hope of good results.
I have no lack of understanding. The Problem of Evil is a byproduct that came about when humans invented celestial conspiracy theories of Imaginary Friends, supernatural beings that were imbued with the properties of omniscience (or at least some kind of agency) and benevolence. No god, no Problem of Evil, because there is no possibility of intent, say for example in natural disasters.As it is, there is nothing at all about the universe that should give any intelligent person cause to think this conspiracy theory is true. Indeed it is wicked to even hope that it could be true. Believing that 24/7 supervision by a deity that commands compulsory love is a nightmare for any decent human being.
Those who wake up can defeat that nightmare easily. How anyone could be so affected by it that it appears to him desirable is a tragedy for humanity.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ July 24 2011,20:18) Quote (kerwin @ July 24 2011,23:06) I accept you do not understand why God allows evil things to provide an example of when human leaders did so in the hope of good results.
I have no lack of understanding. The Problem of Evil is a byproduct that came about when humans invented celestial conspiracy theories of Imaginary Friends, supernatural beings that were imbued with the properties of omniscience (or at least some kind of agency) and benevolence. No god, no Problem of Evil, because there is no possibility of intent, say for example in natural disasters.As it is, there is nothing at all about the universe that should give any intelligent person cause to think this conspiracy theory is true. Indeed it is wicked to even hope that it could be true. Believing that 24/7 supervision by a deity that commands compulsory love is a nightmare for any decent human being.
Those who wake up can defeat that nightmare easily. How anyone could be so affected by it that it appears to him desirable is a tragedy for humanity.
Stuart
Stu.I see you made an frusted responce to my post.
I was not actually discussing the existence of God but rather pointing why those who chose to believe in him should believe that when things look bad God has a plan and thus there is no reason to be frustrated.
I do not know how to encourage those who choose not to believe that are in a similar circumstance.
Quote (kerwin @ July 26 2011,16:13) Quote (Stu @ July 24 2011,20:18) Quote (kerwin @ July 24 2011,23:06) I accept you do not understand why God allows evil things to provide an example of when human leaders did so in the hope of good results.
I have no lack of understanding. The Problem of Evil is a byproduct that came about when humans invented celestial conspiracy theories of Imaginary Friends, supernatural beings that were imbued with the properties of omniscience (or at least some kind of agency) and benevolence. No god, no Problem of Evil, because there is no possibility of intent, say for example in natural disasters.As it is, there is nothing at all about the universe that should give any intelligent person cause to think this conspiracy theory is true. Indeed it is wicked to even hope that it could be true. Believing that 24/7 supervision by a deity that commands compulsory love is a nightmare for any decent human being.
Those who wake up can defeat that nightmare easily. How anyone could be so affected by it that it appears to him desirable is a tragedy for humanity.
Stuart
Stu.I see you made an frusted responce to my post.
I was not actually discussing the existence of God but rather pointing why those who chose to believe in him should believe that when things look bad God has a plan and thus there is no reason to be frustrated.
I do not know how to encourage those who choose not to believe that are in a similar circumstance.
You said that I did not understand why god allows evil.I replied to that incorrect assertion, by which I would have had to acknowledge the existence of your Imaginary Friend. So you were discussing the existence of your god with me, for sure.
Your statement is an example of the logical fallacy known as begging the question, in which a question contains an implication that assumes the truth of the argument it is trying to make.
Stuart
Stu,
So you believe that if you admit you understand why God allows evil then you would also imply you believe in God. I can see what you mean though I did not mean it that way.
I therefore am going to assume I misunderstood your earlier point which I was addressing.
Quote (kerwin @ July 27 2011,10:28) Stu, So you believe that if you admit you understand why God allows evil then you would also imply you believe in God. I can see what you mean though I did not mean it that way.
I therefore am going to assume I misunderstood your earlier point which I was addressing.
I am interested in the justification given by people for what they believe to be moral deeds. For example, theodorej was arguing that moral deeds are to be achieved by following laws, but in the end acknowledged that if a greater principle was at risk then breaking the law would be justified, which is essentially what you are saying too.I don't know if you are familiar with Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development which are usually considered to go from 1 to 6, but the idea that we must follow laws otherwise society would break down is a stage 4 argument, and the suggestion that you should break an unjust law is a stage 5 argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki….lopment
Many adults end up at stage 3 (what would a good person do?) or stage 4 (laws are essential…). Fundamentalist christians, perhaps you call them evangelicals, often give the wrong impression of being at stage 4 (follow god's laws) or even stage 5 (you should break the law if it means you will have to go against the principles of god's law) when actually when questioned further they will be really using stage 2 arguments (I better do what I am told if I want to get into heaven / be saved / whatever reward).
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ July 27 2011,12:28) Quote (kerwin @ July 27 2011,10:28) Stu, So you believe that if you admit you understand why God allows evil then you would also imply you believe in God. I can see what you mean though I did not mean it that way.
I therefore am going to assume I misunderstood your earlier point which I was addressing.
I am interested in the justification given by people for what they believe to be moral deeds. For example, theodorej was arguing that moral deeds are to be achieved by following laws, but in the end acknowledged that if a greater principle was at risk then breaking the law would be justified, which is essentially what you are saying too.I don't know if you are familiar with Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development which are usually considered to go from 1 to 6, but the idea that we must follow laws otherwise society would break down is a stage 4 argument, and the suggestion that you should break an unjust law is a stage 5 argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki….lopment
Many adults end up at stage 3 (what would a good person do?) or stage 4 (laws are essential…). Fundamentalist christians, perhaps you call them evangelicals, often give the wrong impression of being at stage 4 (follow god's laws) or even stage 5 (you should break the law if it means you will have to go against the principles of god's law) when actually when questioned further they will be really using stage 2 arguments (I better do what I am told if I want to get into heaven / be saved / whatever reward).
Stuart
Stuart,I believe moral deeds are intrinsically right. My knowledge of what is right is limited which puts me in moral conundrums more often than I like. My self-control is also limited so it seems frequently is more of what I should do than what I do.
I have heard some of various hypotheses of states of Moral Development and the one you describe as Kohlberg’s seems to one of them.
I do not know much about the moral development of most fundamental Christians though from my observations there is some truth to your assessment.
I hope to do right because doing wrong is harmful to myself and/or others in the long run though it may appear beneficial is the short term. I often frame that harm in terms of innate rights and hold that laws should be designed to secure those rights. As that is the purpose for laws they should be respected unless there is an immediate and critical need to break them to protect high priority innate rights. I have no idea where all that would put me on Kohlberg's chart.
I hope that helps to fill your interest.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
