2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayThe hard thing about what you are suggesting is that there must
The hard thing about what you are suggesting is that there must
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 bel ...[text shortened]... standard, but there is a source for it
that is foundational for the universe's being.
Kelly
be an agreement of those that are going to be held to such a
standard, or it isn't a standard.
Like I've said multiple times already: the realist will simply reply that the moral facts are simply the moral facts, regardless of what anyone thinks about it. I think there are worthwhile arguments that can put forth against the moral realist's stance; but crying over and over that there "must be agreement" among observers over what constitutes something that the realist holds to be objective obviously isn't one of them.
Maybe you just mean that there must be some mutual agreement in and recognition of a standard for that standard to have some practical clout in regulating how we live and relate, or something like that. Yes, that's probably true. But I am not sure how it is relevant here. Again, my interest here is in the claim that it is permissible for God to treat persons He creates any way He sees fit. Is this claim true, or is it false? Or does it lack a truth value for some reason? What is going on with it?
Originally posted by LemonJelloI think the moral realist can say whatever s/he wants, they can make
[b]The hard thing about what you are suggesting is that there must
be an agreement of those that are going to be held to such a
standard, or it isn't a standard.
Like I've said multiple times already: the realist will simply reply that the moral facts are simply the moral facts, regardless of what anyone thinks about it. I think there are worthw ...[text shortened]... r is it false? Or does it lack a truth value for some reason? What is going on with it?[/b]
the claim "thus and so" is moral, and if they happen to be the only
one's who feel that way, what are you really telling me here? People
can make whatever claims they want about what is and isn't moral
and agreement does not matter? I don't see your argument as any
different than God can do with His own any way He wants, it is just
His to do whatever He wills, agreement isn't necessary.
Kelly
4 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay=============================
I think the moral realist can say whatever s/he wants, they can make
the claim "thus and so" is moral, and if they happen to be the only
one's who feel that way, what are you really telling me here? People
can make whatever claims they want about what is and isn't moral
and agreement does not matter? I don't see your argument as any
different than God ...[text shortened]... y way He wants, it is just
His to do whatever He wills, agreement isn't necessary.
Kelly
I don't see your argument as any
different than God can do with His own any way He wants, it is just
His to do whatever He wills, agreement isn't necessary.
==============================
As a younger believer I was still under the influence of a morally relative chaos which viewed rightness and wrongness as arbitrary. One day it was pointed out to me that God's judgment was "according to truth" . His judgment was based upon that which is ultimate truth.
"But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth upon those who practice such things." (Rom. 2:2)
An ultimate Governor with ultimate truth is a necessary being. God is one for whom there could be no greater and no truer. If there is a greater and truer than God than that must be God. By definition there can be no greater or truer than God.
Now what you should also notice is that this God has made provision for the forgiveness of any and all sins by one act of redemptive death for all.
So as absolute as His standard, so also is His provision that man not be helplessly ensared in his own guilty transgressions of divine law.
Provision for infringement has been made by Christ on His cross to extend total justification from sins through His substitutionary atonement. He has taken in the justice due the transgressors into Himself that God could look upon you as having never sinned.
"But God commends His own love for us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Much more then, having now been justified in His blood, we shall be saved through Him from the wrath." (Romans 5:8,9)
While I meditate on the absoluteness of His law and as to whether it is just or not, I also meditate on the great extent to which the Law Giver has gone to justify sinners so that they are no helplessly held guilty in their own infractions.
Originally posted by jaywillAlthough Edwards and his contemporaries believed thoroughly in grace and election, they never expressed it with the hollow and nearly empty sense here.
[b]=============================
I don't see your argument as any
different than God can do with His own any way He wants, it is just
His to do whatever He wills, agreement isn't necessary.
==============================
As a younger believer I was still under the influence of a morally relative chaos which viewed rightness and wron ...[text shortened]... ustify[/b] sinners so that they are no helplessly held guilty in their own infractions.[/b]
Rather, they looked inward for their sins and feared that though there were a handful of outward signs, they were still among the unredeemed.
Evangelical arrogance that has become so all pervasive today was never possible in Puritan New England. But, to be told that they are as spiders suspended over the fire, that was sensible and realistic. Church members repented!
2 edits
Originally posted by WulebgrI am not an expert on Jonathan Edward's sermons or on Puritanism.
Although Edwards and his contemporaries believed thoroughly in grace and election, they never expressed it with the hollow and nearly empty sense here.
Rather, they looked inward for their sins and feared that though there were a handful of outward signs, they were still among the unredeemed.
Evangelical arrogance that has become so all pervasi ...[text shortened]... re as spiders suspended over the fire, that was sensible and realistic. Church members repented!
The Holy Spirit can use an imperfectly preached Gospel message, either in the past or today.
The gospel message may be perculiar. The Holy Spirit can still use it to save sinners.
Thank God that we do not have to wait for the perfect Gospel message before we can receive the Savior into our hearts.
Originally posted by jaywillYour gospel is too easy; that's why you'll never be an expert concerning Edwards (or any other Puritan).
I am not an expert on Jonathan Edward's sermons or on Puritanism.
The Holy Spirit can use an imperfectly preached Gospel message, either in the past or today.
The gospel message may be perculiar. The Holy Spirit can still use it to save sinners.
Thank God that we do not have to wait for the perfect Gospel message before we can receive the Savior into our hearts.
Originally posted by KellyJayI think the moral realist can say whatever s/he wants, they can make
I think the moral realist can say whatever s/he wants, they can make
the claim "thus and so" is moral, and if they happen to be the only
one's who feel that way, what are you really telling me here? People
can make whatever claims they want about what is and isn't moral
and agreement does not matter? I don't see your argument as any
different than God ...[text shortened]... y way He wants, it is just
His to do whatever He wills, agreement isn't necessary.
Kelly
the claim "thus and so" is moral, and if they happen to be the only
one's who feel that way, what are you really telling me here? People
can make whatever claims they want about what is and isn't moral
and agreement does not matter?
Well, the moral realist thinks that "agreement does not matter" in the sense that observer attitudes (and the degrees to which attitudes in the community align or converge) don't have any actual bearing on the truth values of moral claims.
Of course, that has nothing to do with whether or not "agreement matters" in a practical sense, of which the moral realist has no general commitment as far as I know. The moral realist can hold that moral claims have objective truth values (or that "agreement does not matter" when it comes to whether or not a moral claim is true) and yet simultaneously hold that indeed "agreement matters" in a practical sense. For instance, if there's no agreement in the community about what is morally acceptable or valuable or etc; then presumably there will be much conflict that arises from different members of the community pursuing incompatible ends; and it would be difficult for the community to actually function cohesively if the members have disparate ideas about what it means to live well, etc. Also, if there is mutual agreement or longstanding agreement on some issue, that can tend to reinforce or fuel habits and actions. So one can hold that agreement matters in such ways, and yet deny that "agreement matters" when it comes to the facts of the matter regarding moral claims.
As an example, suppose you had a hypothetical community where a certain majority all agree and have agreed for a long time that it's okay for them to collectively beat up and pick on some other minority group. So they often beat up and pick on the minority group. One can hold that the agreement within the majority group matters in a practical sense, given that it fuels and reinforces the actions of the majority group and it creates conflict between the two groups. But one can also deny that the "agreement matters" when it comes to whether or not the actions of the majority group are actually permissible: one can hold that just because a majority agree that it's okay to beat up and pick on some group, that doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not it's actually the case that it's okay to do such things.
That's probably a silly example. But what is so hard to understand here about the distinction in principle between what is mutually agreed upon to be the case and what is actually the case? I mean, what's the problem here?
I don't see your argument as any
different than God can do with His own any way He wants, it is just
His to do whatever He wills, agreement isn't necessary.
Kelly
What part of "the moral facts are simply the moral facts, regardless of what anyone thinks about it" do you not understand? The realist can hold that the claim "it is permissible for God to treat persons he creates any way he wants" has an objective truth value -- meaning it is either true or false, and the truth value has absolutely nothing to do with observer attitudes at all, let alone considerations of agreement among observer attitudes. The realist stance isn't like saying "God may do whatever because agreement isn't necessary". The realist thinks that considerations of permissibility have nothing to do with considerations of agreement at all. If God were to do something morally relevant, the realist could hold that it's objectively the case that God is thereby in the right; or he could hold that it's objectively the case that God is thereby in the wrong.
I don't think you really even addressed my previous post:
"Maybe you just mean that there must be some mutual agreement in and recognition of a standard for that standard to have some practical clout in regulating how we live and relate, or something like that. Yes, that's probably true. But I am not sure how it is relevant here. Again, my interest here is in the claim that it is permissible for God to treat persons He creates any way He sees fit. Is this claim true, or is it false? Or does it lack a truth value for some reason? What is going on with it?"
Originally posted by LemonJelloWhat part of moral facts are simply moral facts don't I understand
[b]I think the moral realist can say whatever s/he wants, they can make
the claim "thus and so" is moral, and if they happen to be the only
one's who feel that way, what are you really telling me here? People
can make whatever claims they want about what is and isn't moral
and agreement does not matter?
Well, the moral realist thinks that "agre ...[text shortened]... truth value for some reason? What is going on with it?"[/b]
is that you are simply putting something forward as a truth that must
be seen and accepted, after all the realist see it! I tend to think the
only real 'realist' is God, after all a realist could say and believe true
or not anything they want, while God can say things like let there be
light, and there is light, that is 'real'.
In scripture it talks about how we see as were in a glass darkly, the
realist it seems has some clear vision in this life. I acutally believe
there is a true right and wrong too, but I believe in a source for it,
it isn't just a static set of rules. What is the 'real' objective
truth/morals that would bind even God's hands in your opinion,
because as I read scripture God is the only stand alone constant in
the universe?
Kelly
3 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat part of moral facts are simply moral facts don't I understand
What part of moral facts are simply moral facts don't I understand
is that you are simply putting something forward as a truth that must
be seen and accepted, after all the realist see it! I tend to think the
only real 'realist' is God, after all a realist could say and believe true
or not anything they want, while God can say things like let there be
cause as I read scripture God is the only stand alone constant in
the universe?
Kelly
is that you are simply putting something forward as a truth that must
be seen and accepted, after all the realist see it!
No, the realist doesn't have any general commitment concerning whether or not another "must" see or accept things as they do. Moral realism is basically just a meta-ethical thesis about the nature of moral statements and properties. Realists think that moral statements express propositions and basically purport to report objective facts. They think that whether or not a moral claim is true has essentially nothing to do with any observer attitudes or considerations of "agreement".
Seriously, now, even if you would disagree with the realist, what is so hard to understand about their thesis in principle? There are many areas of discourse where I would think this sort of realist mindset would be your default. For example, suppose that it's raining outside your house. Then that's just the fact of the matter. It wouldn't matter whether or not you think it's raining or whether or not there is general agreement in your household about the status of rain outside. The fact of the matter, regardless of what you think about it or what any set of people agree about it, is that it's raining outside your house. And statements regarding the status of rain are either objectively true or false, depending on whether or not they correspond to the facts of the matter. Why couldn't something similar hold for moral inquiry and discourse?
I acutally believe
there is a true right and wrong too, but I believe in a source for it,
it isn't just a static set of rules.
How about answering my question then. The claim in question is that it is permissible for God to treat persons he creates any way he sees fit. In your opinion, is this claim true, or is it false? In my opinion, it's false.
What is the 'real' objective
truth/morals that would bind even God's hands in your opinion,
because as I read scripture God is the only stand alone constant in
the universe?
In terms of what would bind God in particular, why wouldn't it be the same things that would bind any rational agent in general (supposing there are such things that bind)? For example, maybe all rational agents are bound ideally in their deliberations by practical reasons. I have already mentioned something along this lines (please refer back to page 8):
"If there are reasons that rationally constrain or bind one, why wouldn't the same sorts of reasons generally bind the other as well? There seem to be several reasons why you or I shouldn't go around killing other persons. For instance, it would mean extinguishing a sphere of consciousness that is just as real as our own (and it seems a failure of rationality to take your own basic interests as directly reason giving and yet not recognize the reason-giving force of those interests in another). It would mean extinguishing many meaningful projects and relationships (again a failure of rationality inasmuch as you take the projects and relationships enveloping your own life as reason-giving). It would bring about much pain and suffering. Basic deliverances of the virtuous traits of character (like compassion) constrain our reasons and considerations here. Etc. Plus there would also be prudential reasons: you would risk jail time and punishment and general ruin. Maybe God is too powerful to be bound by any such prudential reasons, but why should he be sheltered from the other deliverances of practical reason?"
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloI'm telling you I think the only true realist is God, there is no other
[b]What part of moral facts are simply moral facts don't I understand
is that you are simply putting something forward as a truth that must
be seen and accepted, after all the realist see it!
No, the realist doesn't have any general commitment concerning whether or not another "must" see or accept things as they do. Moral realism is basically ju y should he be sheltered from the other deliverances of practical reason?"[/b]
that sees all, holds all together, can speak things into reality thereby
molding reality and so on. You think anyone can get a cleaner
view of the ways things are and can make statements that depend
upon no one to accept or reject beyond Him? I think it impossible
to hold moral views without a value system that holds somethings
more important than others, otherwise there is nothing by which we
can use to make our judgments, with respect to the rain that is just
a fact while morals judge with value statements.
I believe God is just in how He treats us, and His every action towards
us is fit.
Kelly
Originally posted by LemonJello""If there are reasons that rationally constrain or bind one, why wouldn't the same sorts of reasons generally bind the other as well? "
[b]What part of moral facts are simply moral facts don't I understand
is that you are simply putting something forward as a truth that must
be seen and accepted, after all the realist see it!
No, the realist doesn't have any general commitment concerning whether or not another "must" see or accept things as they do. Moral realism is basically ju ...[text shortened]... y should he be sheltered from the other deliverances of practical reason?"[/b]
Depends, because there are exceptions to most. Killing for example
if one just goes about killing people that is one thing, while killing
to defend oneself and family is another.
Kelly
3 edits
Originally posted by Wulebgr============================================
Your gospel is too easy; that's why you'll never be an expert concerning Edwards (or any other Puritan).
Your gospel is too easy; that's why you'll never be an expert concerning Edwards (or any other Puritan).
===========================
It is not that difficult to be saved from eternal perdition. The hard part was done by Jesus. Our part is "too easy" in a sense. Yes.
Having said that I add, in writing Internet posts there is always the danger that a possible opponent will view your contribution as too simplistic.
The Gospel, according to the Apostle Paul, includes "the unsearchable riches of Christ".
Now I love to quote the Bible so let me give it to you:
"To me, less than the least of all saints, was this grace given to announce to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ as the gospel." (Ephesians 3:8)
Now my point here is that "the gospel" is not of one aspect only. The "gospel" that Paul, and I proclaim, as well as many others, is more than just the redemptive death of Christ. This gospel includes "the UNSEARCHABLE riches of Christ". It includes the unfathomable infinitely valued treasure of all that Christ has attained, obtained, is, consists of, has, and can dispense to man.
So when you say "your gospel is too easy" I must hasten to add that my gospel is of an unsearchably rich and varied Lord and Savior Jesus. It will take us to eternity to dive into all of His riches for they are "unsearchable"
Please, I can hardly contain myself - UNSEARCHABLE RICHESSSSS !!!
2 edits
Originally posted by Wulebgr====================================
Your gospel is too easy; that's why you'll never be an expert concerning Edwards (or any other Puritan).
Your gospel is too easy; that's why you'll never be an expert concerning Edwards (or any other Puritan).
=====================================
Christian history is a vast vast subject. The gospel has been announced for 2,000 years plus. I do not have time to master all this history.
It is OK with me if you revere the Puritans. I suppose worse things could happen. Now they also could be rather harsh in their treatment of women they suspected of witchcraft.
So, I think your revere for the Puritans is a advancement from previous posts I have read from you. I hope that you'll see things in historical context too.
I lived in Mass. for a bit and visited the muesem of the Salem Witch Trials. These represented to me hysteria among the Puritan Pilgrims and I don't think they were bright spots in church history.