Jesus Camp closed

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]There are a couple of ambiguous (equivocal?) terms here. For instance, what does "substandard" mean? If you mean something like "not the best of all possible results", then I'd agree because it isn't simply in God's hands -- humans have their role to play as well and, if they do not cooperate with the right use
towards those who commit the sin of adultery.

Nemesio[/b]

Substandard means less than ideal: a person who gets slaughtered for adultery is a substandard system to a system that entails both justice and forgiveness. Jesus realized this, He imparted
this, and He dismissed the older, inferior system.

Except He didn't. He explicitly did so in many cases (e.g. Sabbath, divorce) but didn't in this case. Do you not see a difference between a "Moses gave you this law because of your hardness of hearts etc." response and the one He gave in this instance?

A person being executed for adultery is certainly not ideal; but if it is the only way to ensure that a just and forgiving system is lasting, then it still is the best possible option.


Did we both have free wills? Of course. Why did I decide to return all of it whereas the mystery person took the money? Different dispositions. These differences are do not remove free
will, they form compelling and constraining influences upon the expression of free will.

Sorry, don't buy it. The two of you made different decisions to the same temptation. There may be an element of disposition involved, but if you're saying that one of you was a born nice guy whereas the other was a born thief, then sorry -- I don't agree. Even taking the different circumstances of your respective lives into account, the difference would still be in the decisions made. I can buy that there may be some degree of habit in terms of past moral decisions that may make it easier or harder for the current one -- but I don't agree that the two of you started off (morally speaking) at different levels of difficulty.

This is the 'God' you worship? And it took Him 1000 years to provide clarification on the application of mercy (and, consequently, to learn how to ignore His explicit command)?

It took Him 1000 years to hammer in the concept of justice before He could start with mercy. I don't find that order trivial. Jesus didn't forgive every sinner who crossed His path -- he forgave the repentant ones, the ones who accepted the guilt and gravity of their sins and were prepared to face the requirements of justice. You cannot forgive if you don't think the act being forgiven for was wrong in the first place. And I believe the Israelites (and humanity) needed harsh laws to habituate the gravity of sins before they (and we) could be ready to truly forgive and show mercy -- otherwise forgiveness is a sham.

Yes, this is the God I worship. Maybe some of those thousands of adulterers executed under the Old Covenant repented before their deaths -- they're no worse off than the best of saints. Maybe some didn't -- they're no worse off than the worst of sinners either.

Well, if He's omnipotent, then, yes He could wave His magic wand.

I've argued elsewhere (in the GAFE II thread and elsewhere) that God doesn't have a "magic wand" for all possible situations; that there are possible (and plausible) situations that God cannot effect by Himself; and that situations involving free will are among these.

Could God have given a less barbaric command that would have achieved the same goals while minimizing the suffering that took place? The answer is a most definite yes, for God sent Jesus to proclaim just that

Except, in this case, Jesus did not proclaim "just that". You keep ignoring what He actually said to the question put to Him and pretending He gave a long-winded lecture on the unjustness and barbarity of the law or something. He didn't. He didn't challenge the justice of the law; He didn't let the adulteress walk off thinking she'd done nothing wrong and didn't deserve the punishment she would've got without His intervention.

To suggest that the delay of about a thousand years between Levitical Law and Jesus was salvifically ideal is to maintain that to have sent Jesus a day sooner would have been less ideal.

Once again there's the same equivocation as with "substandard" in my previous post. To have sent Jesus a day sooner under the very same circumstances would have been less ideal, yes I maintain that; under different circumstances (i.e. under different decisions made by us humans), it could've been more ideal.

You're essentially making the same conflation of local and universal maxima that bbarr did in his own GAFE. You're both working under definitions of omnipotence that are logically untenable (i.e. can be shown to be self-contradictory in much the same way as "Can God create a stone so heavy He cannot lift it?" ).

Originally posted by lucifershammer

You're essentially making the same conflation of local and universal maxima that bbarr did in his own GAFE. You're both working under definitions of omnipotence that are logically untenable (i.e. can be shown to be self-contradictory in much the same way as "Can God create a stone so heavy He cannot lift it?" ).

Uh, no I'm not. The notion of omnipotence I employ utilizes maximally specific states of affairs, and hence no contradictions arise.

Originally posted by bbarr
Uh, no I'm not. The notion of omnipotence I employ utilizes maximally specific states of affairs, and hence no contradictions arise.

Your notion of omnipotence is not compatible with non-deterministic conceptions of free will -- which is a given in the discussion between Nemesio and myself.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Your notion of omnipotence is not compatible with non-deterministic conceptions of free will -- which is a given in the discussion between Nemesio and myself.

Sure it is, it's just not compatible with incoherent libertarian notions of free will. But that is a different problem. Anyway, your claim above is false. My definition of omnipotence is not self-contradictory, it only entails a contradiction when you add the supposition that libertarian notions of freedom of the will are coherent. That is, the conjunction of my definition of omnipotence with your notion of free will entails a contradiction. If you two want to presuppose libertarianism, then go right ahead, but please don't claim that because my view is incompatible with some bizarre notion of freedom it is thereby self-contradictory.

Originally posted by bbarr
Sure it is, it's just not compatible with incoherent libertarian notions of free will. But that is a different problem. Anyway, your claim above is false. My definition of omnipotence is not self-contradictory, it only entails a contradiction when you add the supposition that libertarian notions of freedom of the will are coherent. That is, the conjunct ...[text shortened]... s incompatible with some bizarre notion of freedom it is thereby [i]self-contradictory.[/i]

Fine. I stand corrected.

Although it's quite rich for someone to call non-deterministic free will "bizarre" -- what can be more bizarre than "free will" that's not free?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Fine. I stand corrected.

Although it's quite rich for someone to call non-deterministic free will "bizarre" -- what can be more bizarre than "free will" that's not free?

Compatibilist free will is, indeed, free, just not in a libertarian sense. You can't merely assume that the concept 'free' analytically entails libertarianism. Not only is that false, it is question-begging.

Originally posted by bbarr
Compatibilist free will is, indeed, free, just not in a libertarian sense. You can't merely assume that the concept 'free' analytically entails libertarianism. Not only is that false, it is question-begging.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free

Defns 5 and 6 are the ones relevant to a discussion on free will -- and they do analytically entail non-determinism.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free

Defns 5 and 6 are the ones relevant to a discussion on free will -- and they do analytically entail non-determinism.

Um, no they don't. You can be free from external (not internal) constraints, free to choose according to your will, unrestricted, etc. on compatibilist accounts. Your definitions only entail non-determinism if you manhandle the definition by trying to make it fit your libertarian sympathies.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Except He didn't. He explicitly did so in many cases (e.g. Sabbath, divorce) but didn't in this case. Do you not see a difference between a "Moses gave you this law because of your hardness of hearts etc." response and the one He gave in this instance?

A person being executed for adultery is certainly not ideal; but if it is the only way to ensure that a just and forgiving system is lasting, then it still is the best possible option.

Well, here it is, then. If fear of retribution is the only way to ensure the longevity of a just and
forgiving system, then so be it!

Well, I think that system sucks. And I think Jesus would think such an interpretation is perverse
beyond measure. It's no different than spreading the Gospel by the sword. If the Pope agrees with
you (and frankly, I don't think he does), then he has no business chastising Islamofascists; after all,
they are just trying to ensure that the most people get into heaven...to make an omelette, you gotta
break a few eggs.

Bah.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Well, here it is, then. If fear of retribution is the only way to ensure the longevity of a just and
forgiving system, then so be it!

Well, I think that system sucks. And I think Jesus would think such an interpretation is perverse
beyond measure. It's no different than spreading the Gospel by the sword. If the Pope agrees with
you (and frankly, I people get into heaven...to make an omelette, you gotta
break a few eggs.

Bah.

Nemesio

Just to be clear -- I never said that fear of retribution was meant to be permanent. If that's the way you're interpreting it then you're simply misreading me.

Since you're not basing your argument on what Jesus would think on what he actually said or did in this (or any other) situation, it's hard for me to refute it. It's not the Pope's business to agree or disagree with me; but I don't see how your argument stands up. Even if the Pope agreed with me that harsh Levitical Laws were a necessary evil in the past due to human sin, it doesn't follow that he would be hypocritical in chastising "Islamofascists" because it is no longer necessary.

EDIT: "Bah" indeed. It's funny, but I was just reading about the Emotivist school of ethics where ethical statements such as "You're morally wrong about this" essentially simply translates to something like "I just don't like what you're saying" or even more simply "Boo!"

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Just to be clear -- I never said that fear of retribution was meant to be permanent. If that's the way you're interpreting it then you're simply misreading me.

You are agreeing that it is permissible to use fear as an instrument of compelling people to
be moral. Whether it's long-term or something that can be repealed and reinstated as necessary
is immaterial. That God let it last for a thousand years is perfectly okay with you, and that God
might reinstate such a policy (out of 'need'😉 would necessarily have to be okay with you as well.

I think everything Jesus said opposes such a stance. I think the Pope is right on this matter;
you cannot impose morality, you can only encourage it (by teaching and by example). To compel
people with earthly fear (of death, for example) is contrary to the vast majority of Jesus' teaching;
He was about mercy, forgiveness, and repentance -- that is, a person's coming to know right and
wrong in their hearts, not by force.

The Islamofascists think that today is a time to compel people by fear. As long as you permit
such a stance (and you do), you cannot argue with them simply because you opine that they are
wrong. If Jews and Christians can do it when they think it is right, certainly Moslems can do it when
they think it is right, too.

And, I said 'Bah' because I think that the idea that God would ever compel people to behave
according to His will by force is utter bunk. It undermines any idea of free will; as Bbarr observed,
it isn't a 'free choice' to be given the option 'Give me your wallet or I shoot you.' And, no, I don't
like what you are saying, because it is incoherent with Jesus' principal teachings.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Just to be clear -- I never said that fear of retribution was meant to be permanent. If that's the way you're interpreting it then you're simply misreading me.

You are agreeing that it is permissible to use fear as an instrument of compelling people to
be moral. Whether it's long-term or somethin re saying, because it is incoherent with Jesus' principal teachings.

Nemesio[/b]

You are agreeing that it is permissible to use fear as an instrument of compelling people to be moral. Whether it's long-term or something that can be repealed and reinstated as necessary
is immaterial.

No, I'm agreeing that it is permissible to use fear as a means of helping people learn morality. Duration is not immaterial here; one doesn't need a teaching aid once the pupil has learnt the material. And, once learnt, you cannot un-learn it.

I think everything Jesus said opposes such a stance... To compel
people with earthly fear (of death, for example) is contrary to the vast majority of Jesus' teaching; He was about mercy, forgiveness, and repentance -- that is, a person's coming to know right and wrong in their hearts, not by force.

Once again, you're ignoring what Jesus actually said and did in the entirety of this concrete situation. Besides, are we talking about the same guy who said that Korazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum would have a fate worse than Sodom (Mt 11:20ff)? The guy who repeatedly spoke of Gehenna and unquenchable fires?

And, I said 'Bah' because I think that the idea that God would ever compel people to behave according to His will by force is utter bunk. It undermines any idea of free will; as Bbarr observed, it isn't a 'free choice' to be given the option 'Give me your wallet or I shoot you.'

Eh? If that is true, then how do any of our laws respect free will? "Do not kill, or you will be executed", "Do not steal, or you will be thrown in jail", "Pay your taxes, or you will face a heavy fine and/or prison time" etc. How is that not compulsion by the same token?

EDIT: It's all fine and dandy to say it's not compatible with Jesus's "principal teachings", but so far you've only been referring to vague notions of what Jesus said and taught without referring to anything concrete, specific sayings etc.

One more time, here's the question the Pharisees asked Jesus:

"Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?"

Compare this to the question on divorce (Mt 19):

"Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?" ""Why then, did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

Do you see a difference in his response to the two questions?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
No, I'm agreeing that it is permissible to use fear as a means of helping people learn morality. Duration is not immaterial here; one doesn't need a teaching aid once the pupil has learnt the material. And, once learnt, you cannot un-learn it.

Once you agree that it is permissible to use fear -- even temporarily (though 1000 years is
hardly 'temporary' -- as a means to teach people -- reasoning adults especially -- morality,
then you (and the Pope) can have no beef with radical Islamofascists who beat women who
do not conform to what they think is Divine Morality.

While 'once learnt, always known' may be true, it doesn't require fear. Indeed, fear is
a way to force someone to behave 'morally' without learning; 'If you dare to
do X, I will beat you for it.' This is not learning but conditioning. A bunch of mindless
slaves whose behavior conforms to moral standards are hardly moral for they were conditioned
out of the choice to be immoral.

So fear is not so much a learning tool at all, but a coercive tool. And, in the process of that
coercion which you believe (not me!) is ordained by God, there are sanctioned, permissible
killings of individuals who committed adultery. Don't you think that sounds a lot like the very
same Islamofascism that the Pope is condemning -- you know, the use of force to compel
people (by fear) to what they contend is moral behavior?

Nemesio

P.S., I don't have anything to debate with you regarding the other Scriptural passages you
cited. It is true that Jesus didn't explicitly repeal the 'killing adulterers law' in the way that
He repealed the 'divorce law.' So what? That He didn't explicitly repeal it doesn't
mean that He didn't want it repealed; after all, He encouraged people to directly disobey an
imperative given in God's Law. If that's not opposition to a principal, then what is?

Originally posted by Nemesio
Once you agree that it is permissible to use fear -- even temporarily (though 1000 years is
hardly 'temporary' -- as a means to teach people -- reasoning adults especially -- morality,
then you (and the Pope) can have no beef with radical Islamofascists who beat women who
do not conform to what they think is Divine Morality.

While 'once learnt, always ...[text shortened]... given in God's Law. If that's not opposition to a principal, then what is?

All of our laws use fear (the fear of imprisonment, or monetary fines etc.) to "coerce" behaviour. Are you advocating a society without laws entirely?

If not, then how can you have any beef with the Islamofascists yourself?