Derf
Well-known member
I've learned something nough! Who knough? (sorry, have to go back to school on several points, ty).
I've learned something nough! Who knough? (sorry, have to go back to school on several points, ty).
Right, that's what I said.No! NO! NO!
Where is this even coming from?
Where is the payoff for you to water this down?
The reason He knew was because of the outcry,
Which I didn't say, and therefore I don't understand why you are arguing against it to me.not because He knows everything there is to know!
So, how does He confirm something He didn't witness and is not available for Him to ever know again (events that happened in the past)? He CAN'T do it by going down to Sodom. There's no security camera system down there for Him to view. All He can do at this point (on His way down to Sodom) is to see if they do it again when a similar situation arises. Thus, the angels are going to spend the night in the public square to see if the men of Sodom are as evil as reported.Not only that, but He doesn't take the testimony of those He's heard from as proof but it going down Himself to confirm what He's been told which also makes no sense at all if He already knew it!
Yes, but in what way did it never enter His mind? If you say that it never entered His mind that ANYONE could do such a thing, then you're arguing against yourself in a previous post. If you say it never entered His mind that the Israelites could do such a thing, you're arguing against Leviticus, where He considered whether they would and told them not to.The premise isn't invalid. Your baseless objection to it is what's invalid.
Nonsense. The bible is that which comes right out and says that it never entered His mind.
I'll do so. In the garden of Eden, there was one, single evil thing that the new couple could do or not do--eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. That was the most evil thing in the world, at the time. Did God even think that they would try to eat of it? Of course He did, because He told them not to, and then He told them the penalty for doing so. Now, if God never imagined they would eat of the tree, why would He tell them not to, and why would He tell them the penalty for doing so? There was obviously no need--at least as far as God is concerned, because He isn't imagining that a sin in that arena is possible (kind of reviewing the idea about "doing otherwise"...if God can't imagining them "doing otherwise", then there's no reason to tell them NOT to do otherwise). This sin, eating of that tree, is more grievous than the sin in Jer 19:4-5, because the one in Jer 19 proceeded from that sin in the Garden, after sin (starting with that sin in the Garden) had entered the world by "one man", Adam.God's own words talking about the state of His own mind. You can't get more solid than that.
What's the difference? Are you seriously going to sit there and try to convince me that the righteous God and creator of every good thing in existence came up with the idea of child molestation before some evil pervert did?
Please, by all means, explain that one to me.
But that's not what "entered my mind" means, unless you add the words "for you to do". And that's what I'm arguing the passage means...that it never entered God's mind to tell the Israelites to do that kind of thing.The fact that the same sin is mentioned by God prior to the Jeremiah 18 passage is not relevant. The reason the command was given was because God has seen other evil pagans doing such things, not because He thought of it first and was trying to be proactive in His prohibition.
It was immoral before He told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, too, yet "it entered God's mind" to tell Abraham TO sacrifice His child, though not to Baal.There wasn't even any NEED for Him to have made such a command in the first place because He had already commanded "Thou shalt not murder.", which was immoral before He gave the commandment!
I appreciate that you are recognizing a problem with that.Look, I don't mean to get so angry.
Notice how your wording (bolding added) is now in line with what I was saying. That's all I'm looking for. Without that, the point is lost, based on the Leviticus passage. With that, the point is rock-solid.I just cannot fathom why anyone would feel the need to minimize or contradict the fact that it never entered God's mind to ever command anyone to murder their children as a sacrifice to Him!
Commanding such a thing? That is indeed intuitively obvious. That they would do such a thing without a command from Him? Not intuitively obvious. Because pagans, as you said yourself, had already thought of doing it, and the Israelites had already shown a propensity for doing what the pagans did. So God, in His infinite wisdom, had thought that they might do that thing, and had commanded them not to (in Leviticus). Thus, because God thought they might do that sin, it had already "entered His mind". He thought about it in some way. Not to command them to do it, but to command them NOT to do it. And since it had entered into His mind to command them NOT to do it, the passage in Jeremiah, in order to be truthful, has to include the caveat (at least implicitly, but as I'll show, it was explicit) that what had never entered God's mind was to tell them to sacrifice their children.How is it not just intuitively obvious that God would never think of doing such a thing?
You've now reverted back to your original argument, that God had to think of the act itself, rather of commanding them to do the act. I hope you can see how those two things are different.Where is the need to believe that God has to be the first one to think up every vile act of evil? It just makes no sense at all to the point that it drives me crazy.
So, how does He confirm something He didn't witness and is not available for Him to ever know again (events that happened in the past)? He CAN'T do it by going down to Sodom. There's no security camera system down there for Him to view. All He can do at this point (on His way down to Sodom) is to see if they do it again when a similar situation arises. Thus, the angels are going to spend the night in the public square to see if the men of Sodom are as evil as reported.
A future act cannot confirm a past act. If a man robs a bank today, that does not mean he was the one that robbed the same bank last week. He might have, but you can't tell it was him because of the second robbery. So God cannot confirm a sin (or a multitude of sins) that occurred in the past by seeing if they sin in the future. The most you can get from that is that the same kind of thing might happen again, and if so, then it helps confirm that the previous reports might be true.
Yes, to a degree.Forensic science is a valid way of determining what happened in the past.
Yes, but not necessarily what a man will do, as per Abraham's almost sacrifice of Isaac.God can know what is in the heart of a man. He knows man's thoughts.
Only if you reject some of the evidences for open theism.These two things completely destroy your claims here.
Two, and even three, witnesses can lie, as per much of what is going on in the J6 trials, the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot, the Jeffrey Epstein suicide, the clot shot push, etc.Two or three witnesses shall establish a matter.
Yes, and He can see whatever He wants to see, I get it. But what do you think is in those books that are pulled out on judgement day?To add a potentially relevant third thing: God can be wherever He wants to be.
No argument on that from me. But there's a possibility of repentance.Someone who has the tendency to do certain wrong things is more likely to have done that thing than someone who does not have the tendency to do it.
Someone who has done that wrong thing will usually act and/or think in a manner of someone who is guilty (guilty conscience), because that's part of how God designed man.
Yes, but He's also interested in something else--repentance, as per the same prophet Jeremiah, which is the standard by which He judges finally. He is not willing that any should perish...God is capable of a much more thorough investigation of something than men are.
I suppose from a certain perspective that a concept's necessary conditions could be considered part of that things definition but only by implication and your insistence on making them explicit it is making this discussion almost impossible because you refuse to acknowledge the distinction between the will and love as if the two things have an identical definition and are perfect synonyms. Love is a willful act, yes but so is murder. The way you are reacting to my insisting that love is an act of the will is the equivalent of insisting that because the color red is a form of light that all light is the color red.Not ignoring but I do think I missed it. Do you embrace 'an ability to do otherwise' as necessary for love (and/or relationship), will, ability, to exist (if you don't, my bad).
Yes, but that doesn't mean the the will and love are synonyms! "The ability to do otherwise." is the definition of what it means to have a will, not the definition of what it means to love. To love is to exercise that will in a manner that is in someone's best interest.A few Open Theists who have made that requirement, such will necessitates at least an encyclopedia paragraph, if not a dictionary redefinition of love, ability, will. On this, I've been fairly bombarded by Open Theists so if misattributing to you, forgive the slight. I thought I'd seen you state 'ability to do otherwise' as necessary for one or more of these to exist.
You have?At this venture, forgive what you don't embrace and please, more clarification if at all you embrace any sort of 'to do otherwise' in a definition of will, ability, or love. I've argued 'to do otherwise' belongs to none of the three in definition.
No we don't, Lon.Logically, if something is necessary for it to exist, we include such in definitions.
Well look, I understand that these discussions get rather complex and lengthy and there isn't the time nor the inclination for every point to be responded to. I get that and it doesn't bother me at all. What bothers me is when I make a very short post with only one major point or maybe two at the most and then you go on as if I had not said it or even as if I had stated the opposite!I've stated in this and other threads I'm very interested we define terms for agreement. I'd love to see you take a few Open Theists on in conversation over the matter. If you are frustrated, I'm confused and at times I'm sure it gets frustrating because the rest of us learning from/about Open Theism, are left frustrating the other half of who we are talking to. It is not my intention to throw the blame or any angst at other Open Theists, just an attempt to assuage/mete out a bit of your frustration. I 'think' I get it. I've had a few of these lately with an abortion discussion where the other insists a zygote is not human. It is a terrible argument and frustrates me greatly.
I believe you.Not my intent. Apologies.
Do you believe that having a commitment to another's highest good has any moral value if the person didn't choose to have such a commitment?I've read one of your definitions before as something similar to mine: Committed to another's highest good. In thread, I've read one a bit different than that. My endeavor at this point is simply to deal with anybody saying "Love cannot exist without an ability to do otherwise" no matter who said it.
There can be no doubt. All moral actions are willful actions. There is no such thing as accidental morality nor can morality be forced.They are insisting, but the insistence, that 'to do otherwise' is necessary for definition at that point, whether they realize it or not. It is logically what they are insisting: If I cannot love without 'ability to do otherwise' then necessarily it is what they mean by defining love in the first place. One necessarily follows by the insistence, if not in definition, at least in Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia.
I'm happy to continue, if you are.Thank you. You've been phenomenal and I appreciate patience (and long suffering as it goes).
I've learned something nough! Who knough? (sorry, have to go back to school on several points, ty).
Do you believe that having a commitment to another's highest good has any moral value if the person didn't choose to have such a commitment?
Yes, 'to do' not 'do otherwise,' implicit in the need of definition (these two proofs you asked for): 1)supra, because the tree indicates 'to do otherwise' and not before and the proof being Adam and Eve loved without 'to do otherwise.' It is only after the Fall they have this 'do otherwise' and it cannot be seen as a 'good' thing because it contains evil in the package. In that sense, today, as fallen creatures, we have this dichotomy, but as a result of the Fall.Doesn't the term "commitment" presuppose an ongoing series of choices?
I think I'm following (please have patience with me): Moral is intent, thus the action is identified by intent as moral. On this, I've long wrestled with a need to protect (and thank you more than I can express, again, in this short sentence). We have to do an evil, to a greater moral good. It isn't the doing of the evil (harmful act), but the reason behind it. I think for it to be seen as moral, I have to have acted with moral intent. That said, if you force another to do good, it may not be 'their' morality, but wouldn't it be considered yours as the one forcing? Wasn't it the intent of the Law to do just that? I.E. train a child in the way they should go and when they are old, they will not depart.There can be no doubt. All moral actions are willful actions. There is no such thing as accidental morality nor can morality be forced.
I'm uncertain I'm on page with her, though have read a bit of her as you've mentioned her in passing a few times. She's a brilliant writer, has an incredibly descriptive prose, but she doesn't, on point, prove what she is saying here.Ayn Rand, a brilliant atheist, got it right when she said....
“Man has been called a rational being, but rationality is a matter of choice—and the alternative his nature offers him is: rational being or suicidal animal.
Her next line: "Man has to be man by choice." "Uhm, Ayn dear Ayn..." "He(she) has to hold his(her) life as a value." "Or??"Man has to be man—by choice;
he has to hold his life as a value—by choice; he has to learn to sustain it—by choice
Ayn (I've discovered) was brought up under Communism and she is an advocate against it in every sense that it stripped her of her identity. It seems to be (from my brief reading of her to date) the impetus for most of her writing. She is ever talking about her independence and individualism because of the damage the communists had foisted upon her, and as such, morality for them was 'what is good for for all of us' and she contrast that such isn't morality (because it wasn't, just what those in control of the communists believed). The State morality was 'what is good for the fatherland and all of us' and they had no choice but the brainwashing and propaganda. She thereof had to discover as she says 'by choice' but I don't think it is choice she means here. She is rather talking about her need as a liberated Westerner to come to own values, not being brain-washed, but having to do so with new-found freedoms. She has to adopt them as her own, by her volition, but this is rather 'adopting' morality, than morality itself by identification.he has to discover the values it requires and practice his virtues—by choice. A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality.”
God is real, therefore God is rational, therefore God is moral!
andIs all rational and logic moral?
I think he read:Who determines what is logical and reasonable?
I believe he took it as a proof set. It was harder to follow the 'moral' thread through the first post so I believe I see why he asked the two questions.Proposition 1:God is real,2: God is rational, therefore (.: ) God is moral!
Ayn's 'sin' as an atheist and orphan of the State was anything against communist ideals. She is saying here, in context, that "I can't sin against the state if I don't know what the state expects! It is not a sin!" in effect, if I'm reading her correctly and grasp the full of her plight. She wrote a lot about the ills of communism, brainwashing, and group think, and it affects how I grasp her use of terms differently than you and I would, as free Westerners."Morality pertains only to the sphere of man’s free will—only to those actions which are open to his choice.""A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality. If man is evil by birth, he has no will, no power to change it; if he has no will, he can be neither good nor evil; a robot is amoral. To hold, as man’s sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality."
Could I posit that is is 'awareness' rather?Rand speaks of sin in that last quote but the reasoning follows just as well on the other side of the coin. To hold, as man's virtue, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality, and to be more specific, to credit a man's commitment to another's best interest as virtuous love when he cannot have committed himself otherwise or not at all, is a mockery of both virtue and love.
Thanks, as time allows. Be blessed today. I have endeavored, however profitable or lacking, to further your thoughts in thread and have done quite a bit of reading in the attempt and to serve. It may not at all, but such was my lovingly rendered effort and prompt (without doing otherwise on purpose).I'm happy to continue, if you are.
Wait as second.Forensic science is a valid way of determining what happened in the past.
God can know what is in the heart of a man. He knows man's thoughts.
These two things completely destroy your claims here.
Which claim (or did I miss it)? I wholly appreciate two Open Theists talking about what has also troubled me, on logical points. I've similar questions so appreciate the dialogueWho's writing the books? And why wouldnt God have access to them prior to judgment day, like maybe before judgment day of a city?
So, how does He confirm something He didn't witness and is not available for Him to ever know again (events that happened in the past)? All He can do at this point is to see if they do it again when a similar situation arises. Thus, the angels are going to spend the night in the public square to see if the men of Sodom are as evil as reported.
A future act cannot confirm a past act.
Well, of course, he is 'going down to see' so I'd think that He 'can.' There is an importance for the rest of us, as you and other Open Theists wrestle over the details because we see other things as answers readily, like 'these were angels as emissaries, they may not know what is going on so it doesn't have to mean anything about God's omniscience or lack thereof' (not putting in the mix, just saying having an in-house discussion is nothing like an OV/traditional discussion about the topic!! and why I'd asked for it).To add a potentially relevant third thing: God can be wherever He wants to be.
Not sure if this was all for my benefit in asking for inhouse discussion, but if at all applicable, thanks JR and Derf.Someone who has the tendency to do certain wrong things is more likely to have done that thing than someone who does not have the tendency to do it.
Someone who has done that wrong thing will usually act and/or think in a manner of someone who is guilty (guilty conscience), because that's part of how God designed man.
God is capable of a much more thorough investigation of something than men are.
The identity principle is the foundation of all knowledge. What is, is. A is A. It's more than a principle it is a law of reason. ALL intelligible communication has it as a core presupposition. It has two corollaries which together make up the three laws of reason...Yes, by identity principle. Simply stated, a thing is what it is (even if it cannot be countered/contradicted).
Love is equal to 'committed' in that both are states of being.
Lon, by this reasoning, Adam and Eve were amoral prior to sinning! We know that's wrong because God Himself stated that everything, including Adam and Eve were created "very good".My proof (one you asked for with another to follow regarding love without 'to do otherwise'): Adam and Eve loved in the Garden prior to any knowledge of 'to do otherwise' because the tree itself contained the knowledge of it.
This is just so incredibly obviously false that I can hardly believe you typed it! Adam had all kinds of ability to do or to do otherwise before eating of that Tree! Two obvious examples come immediately to mind...They didn't and couldn't have knowledge of 'to do otherwise' 'until.'
You're contradicting yourself!Yes, 'to do' not 'do otherwise,' implicit in the need of definition
If this is so then they could not have done otherwise than to eat of the Tree because that decision was made prior to their eating of it. Thus eating of the Tree was an amoral act.(these two proofs you asked for): 1)supra, because the tree indicates 'to do otherwise' and not before and the proof being Adam and Eve loved without 'to do otherwise.' It is only after the Fall they have this 'do otherwise' and it cannot be seen as a 'good' thing because it contains evil in the package. In that sense, today, as fallen creatures, we have this dichotomy, but as a result of the Fall.
You're wrong, at least in regards to any moral action. There can be no such thing as an accidental moral act - by definition!Then 2) because we 'can' conceive of a commitment without distraction. A dedication is reflexively understood without an need to consider the lack of value in not being committed. I posit that I can decide 'to do one thing' without an impetus to do another.
Category error. Your personal preference for a particular flavor is not a moral action.Example of the proof: I choose vanilla every time. There is never a need for 'chocolate' to grasp vanilla as a concept. Why? Because it is how I was made. There is no need to 'chocolate mess it up.' The choice does nothing because I've no inclination to choose b. Did chocolate make a choice for me? Yes. Is chocolate necessary? (no) Only in the sense that another is 'interfering' with my choice. I prefer vanilla. There is no meaning in 'to do otherwise' and it is completely superfluous and problematic in the law of middle. Given a lack of 'vanilla' I can choose something else, but it will logically follow my preference down the line. The deviation 'chocolate' is unnecessary because 'vanilla' by itself is self-identified as preferable (chocolate described as 'the exact opposite' not in flavor, but in choice here). Vanilla has no need of a backboard for it to exist or my choosing it. A child will resist another flavor until usually made to 'try it.' Similarly, Adam and Eve were led by the serpent who was most crafty and subtle.
First of all, saying it doesn't make it so.Hence, in the same way we grasp what vanilla is, without chocolate in contrast, we can also grasp what love and commitment are, without bringing up the opposite.
That's because vanilla is a flavor. Likewise, you can't know what light is without opening your eyes. You can't understand truth without thinking.By example, you can only know what vanilla is, by smelling and eating it, not in fact, by 'not eating it.'
NO!I think I'm following (please have patience with me): Moral is intent, thus the action is identified by intent as moral.
NOPE!On this, I've long wrestled with a need to protect (and thank you more than I can express, again, in this short sentence). We have to do an evil, to a greater moral good.
No, Lon. Your intentions have nothing to do with it.'I think for it to be seen as moral, I have to have acted with moral intent.
Exactly, the moral credit (or culpability) belongs to the one who forced it.That said, if you force another to do good, it may not be 'their' morality, but wouldn't it be considered yours as the one forcing?
Your clock can do no such thing. You can feed your cat using a mechanical clock but that clock can't do anything that someone's mind didn't cause it to do and even then so long as it is has power (i.e. a battery or a spring or other some such power source).A clock can feed my cat mechanically, but when I do it, it is because of a loving and moral value.
It does not need to be a thing's opposite.That said, I don't see 'ability to do otherwise' as the meaningful but rather what you are talking about is the value of doing a thing, not its counterpoint or lack thereof, which at present, is how I see 'ability to do otherwise' as unnecessary for meaning or even concept of love and commitment.
She didn't make an argument but simply made self-evidently true observations. Regardless, you will not refute one single syllable of it, no matter how hard you try.I'm uncertain I'm on page with her, though have read a bit of her as you've mentioned her in passing a few times. She's a brilliant writer, has an incredibly descriptive prose, but she doesn't, on point, prove what she is saying here.
As apposed to not doing so, right?Rationality is not the equivalence of choice, but the state of acting in a consistent manner, by intent.
This made no sense to me at all.Rather isn't 'intent' impetus and determination? Choice to me, is that law of middle that proposes a thing not alike (love, morality, rationality) with a third thing irrelevant 'choice.' Entertain with me for a moment her 'other by choice' "a suicidal animal." To me, an oxymoron: "Don't be a suicidal animal!" You can almost hear with me "Was it even a choice? I wasn't aware it was even on the table! By what manner of magic is this even possible??? Are there animals that just go offing themselves? Is that the way of the dodo? Which animal are you speaking of, I know it not?"
Don't be a sexist. The masculine pronoun is how you correctly state a non-gender specific statement in the English language.Her next line: "Man has to be man by choice." "Uhm, Ayn dear Ayn..." "He(she) has to hold his(her) life as a value." "Or??"
Lon, do yourself a favor and stay in your own lane on this issue. You couldn't be more wrong if Satan himself had put these words into your mouth and if there is one person who has PROVEN it, it's Ayn Rand. In short, individuals exist, the state does not except by the fiat of whomever happens to be in power. Your rights as an individual emanate from the fact that you are alive, your "rights" under the state are assigned to you arbitrarily by those (i.e. the INDIVIDUALS) who happen to be in power.Ayn (I've discovered) was brought up under Communism and she is an advocate against it in every sense that it stripped her of her identity. It seems to be (from my brief reading of her to date) the impetus for most of her writing. She is ever talking about her independence and individualism because of the damage the communists had foisted upon her, and as such, morality for them was 'what is good for for all of us' and she contrast that such isn't morality (because it wasn't, just what those in control of the communists believed). The State morality was 'what is good for the fatherland and all of us' and they had no choice but the brainwashing and propaganda. She thereof had to discover as she says 'by choice' but I don't think it is choice she means here. She is rather talking about her need as a liberated Westerner to come to own values, not being brain-washed, but having to do so with new-found freedoms. She has to adopt them as her own, by her volition, but this is rather 'adopting' morality, than morality itself by identification.
Not even you can conceive of love without the ability to do otherwise. It is a contradiction and does not - cannot - exist.I think this a crux point: If I can conceive of love, without 'ability to do otherwise' then either my definition is limited or the other's is convoluted unnecessarily.
I just cannot fathom were the difficulty is.And here is where the frustration likely comes and may be unnecessary: I have in my mind a necessity to understand terms being used in thread BUT my need to limitation is likely the very thing that is maddening with one trying to broaden the scope. I'm just trying to see what the rest of you are seeing: "an ability to do otherwise" as necessary for my grasp of the thread topic and morality, because my entrance into these often starts with 'what are the definitions?' As such, it may no longer serve, other than specifically you serving me, on the segue (have naught or little to do with the thread premise). I came in trying to understand the premise of the thread. In a nutshell? Thanks -Lon
Not if the people having the discussion know what they are talking about!When talking about morality, most often it carries a connotation of 'collective value' for 'what is right.'
Do you really believe that morality is a matter of popular opinion? I can tell you that you didn't learn that from the scriptures!Because Ayn is finally an individual, she is talking about making choices, but that isn't morality she is talking about, it is 'embracing' morality as her own she is talking about. You and she thinks that 'is' the definition of morality but it is why I'd not thought of God as 'moral' previously. It carries an idea of a vote, and the ideals of a people group.
She never believed that morality was a group-think of what is mutually beneficial.For Ayn, she came to find out that in communism, morality was the will of the people, and how it abused individuals that weren't on page, that she had to rework what was actually moral. Because she was an atheist, she never did come to appreciate that morality isn't just a group-think of what is mutually beneficial, but is more directly tied to the goodness of God.
This is a tautology, Lon!Therefore
*If you ignore everything but this, what I believe is very important to posterity of your thread:
Morality isn't defined by choices (I don't believe at this venture and by posit), but by what is good.
False!Choice is simply the verb, the result of morality hence 'a moral decision.' You use moral to define decision. We would seldom use 'decision' to define morality because morality isn't decision, it is the impetus behind 'decision.'
Logic and reason is just the conforming of your mind to the limitations of reality. There can be no meaning to anything, no communication, no relationship, no nothing that pertains to the issues of right and wrong if reason doesn't work or if you permit your mind to accept the contradictory as truth.Bradley D asked a rather good question on your opening thread about logic/reason.
and
I think he read:
I believe he took it as a proof set. It was harder to follow the 'moral' thread through the first post so I believe I see why he asked the two questions.
So, at this point, I'm simply trying to grasp what has been a bit up in the air and difficult to follow.
One is how logic ties in with morality, and Two whether choice as 'ability to do otherwise' is necessary to grasp your points on morality in the first place. Perhaps most of the rest of us have been on a wild-tangent and haven't really, to date, picked up all you are throwing down.
The 2 questions and my assertion that 'choice' convolutes rather (in my mind) helps, may be of no value but if it gets us off the huge rabbit or alleviates any frustration, take two and call me in the morning.
She was not discussing politics in those quotes, Lon. She was making an argument against the doctrine of Original Sin, not Communism. And her argument works, by the way! If the doctrine of Original Sin (as traditionally taught and understood - primarily by Catholicism) is true, God is unjust - by definition!Ayn's 'sin' as an atheist and orphan of the State was anything against communist ideals. She is saying here, in context, that "I can't sin against the state if I don't know what the state expects! It is not a sin!" in effect, if I'm reading her correctly and grasp the full of her plight. She wrote a lot about the ills of communism, brainwashing, and group think, and it affects how I grasp her use of terms differently than you and I would, as free Westerners.
NO! You cannot! If one cannot do otherwise, no matter how well he treats another, that treatment is amoral and therefore not love. You might desire to say that your clock loves you because it faithfully tells you the time but, as I am fond of reminding people, saying it doesn't make it so.Could I posit that is is 'awareness' rather?
I suggest not reading about Ayn Rand unless you read it from the Objectivist website. It would be better if you just read her own words. Go get the audio book version of Atlas Shrugged and listen through it. (If you decide to do that be sure to get the older version with Christopher Hurt doing the reading.) Not that doing so is needed for this discussion but only that most everyone despised the woman and they almost universally cast her statements in most negative possible light and/or flagrantly mischaracterize what she said.Thanks, as time allows. Be blessed today. I have endeavored, however profitable or lacking, to further your thoughts in thread and have done quite a bit of reading in the attempt and to serve. It may not at all, but such was my lovingly rendered effort and prompt (without doing otherwise on purpose).
"Highest" good? Doesn't that mean there's a "lesser" good, or even a "not good at all" alternative? Are you unable to define love without appealing to alternatives? Hmmm.Well and good, but none of that includes a need for a choice, which is the point (I'll come back to it, but this is all I have left for time tonight). We are rather discussing if "a different and more specifically 'opposing' decision/choice' is necessary 'for choice." We are getting into cloudy, and I believe this 'uncloudies' the water:
Do I need choice? My greatest inclination makes 'decision/choice' rather unnecessary if you bring me a bowl of vanilla ice cream, I'll eat it (trying to keep 'choice' simple for grasp and ease of discussion), and if you bring me a bowl of chocolate, I won't eat it.
It 'seems' that the choice is already made and certainly 'otherwise' looks off the table to me.
Morality needs a shared definition. Love is simply identity without the contrast, it is being dedicated to another's highest good. Again, I believe you are arguing the 'expression' (dedication/action) of love, not love itself by will and choice. It may well be you agree and we've knocked one point off our list in agreement.
Are you really sitting there trying to convince me that you'd have no power, no ability, no way at all of refusing a bowl of vanilla ice cream, that it's utterly outside your decision making ability and that you will eat that bowl of ice cream, without any doubt whatsoever and without any chance at all that you could possibly do otherwise?Well and good, but none of that includes a need for a choice, which is the point (I'll come back to it, but this is all I have left for time tonight). We are rather discussing if "a different and more specifically 'opposing' decision/choice' is necessary 'for choice." We are getting into cloudy, and I believe this 'uncloudies' the water:
Do I need choice? My greatest inclination makes 'decision/choice' rather unnecessary if you bring me a bowl of vanilla ice cream, I'll eat it (trying to keep 'choice' simple for grasp and ease of discussion), and if you bring me a bowl of chocolate, I won't eat it.
There is simply no way that's true and if it is, then it bares no resemblance at all to love because it would be an amoral act, no different than when you clock reads 1:00pm or when a robotic arm at the Ford Motor Company welds two pieces of steal together. It's a mindless act that is outside the purview of choice and therefore outside the purview of morality.It 'seems' that the choice is already made and certainly 'otherwise' looks off the table to me.
No, it is CHOOSING to be dedicated to another's highest good.Morality needs a shared definition. Love is simply identity without the contrast, it is being dedicated to another's highest good.
No, there is exactly zero chance that I agree with you.Again, I believe you are arguing the 'expression' (dedication/action) of love, not love itself by will and choice. It may well be you agree and we've knocked one point off our list in agreement.
God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge at which point they both then had an option to either obey or not. By your theory, they would have had no ability to NOT eat of the tree because, according to you, they had no ability to do otherwise until AFTER they ate it!(these two proofs you asked for): 1)supra, because the tree indicates 'to do otherwise' and not before and the proof being Adam and Eve loved without 'to do otherwise.' It is only after the Fall they have this 'do otherwise' and it cannot be seen as a 'good' thing because it contains evil in the package. In that sense, today, as fallen creatures, we have this dichotomy, but as a result of the Fall.
I just cannot fathom were the difficulty is.And here is where the frustration likely comes and may be unnecessary: I have in my mind a necessity to understand terms being used in thread BUT my need to limitation is likely the very thing that is maddening with one trying to broaden the scope. I'm just trying to see what the rest of you are seeing: "an ability to do otherwise" as necessary for my grasp of the thread topic and morality, because my entrance into these often starts with 'what are the definitions?' As such, it may no longer serve, other than specifically you serving me, on the segue (have naught or little to do with the thread premise). I came in trying to understand the premise of the thread. In a nutshell? Thanks -Lon
This is a tautology, Lon!Therefore
*If you ignore everything but this, what I believe is very important to posterity of your thread:
Morality isn't defined by choices (I don't believe at this venture and by posit), but by what is good.
False!Choice is simply the verb, the result of morality hence 'a moral decision.' You use moral to define decision. We would seldom use 'decision' to define morality because morality isn't decision, it is the impetus behind 'decision.'
Yes, this is probably tangent to the main point of the thread.Wait as second.
Which claim (or did I miss it)? I wholly appreciate two Open Theists talking about what has also troubled me, on logical points. I've similar questions so appreciate the dialogue
Well, of course, he is 'going down to see' so I'd think that He 'can.' There is an importance for the rest of us, as you and other Open Theists wrestle over the details because we see other things as answers readily, like 'these were angels as emissaries, they may not know what is going on so it doesn't have to mean anything about God's omniscience or lack thereof' (not putting in the mix, just saying having an in-house discussion is nothing like an OV/traditional discussion about the topic!! and why I'd asked for it).
Not sure if this was all for my benefit in asking for inhouse discussion, but if at all applicable, thanks JR and Derf.
This is from the first page. I think Frank Turek is wrong. He implies they are. He says that murder is wrong because God said is wrong. I cannot get on board with that idea.Are you implying that these concepts are arbitrary?
"Word" is flatly an incorrect English translation of "Logos"- period.About logic in the opening post....Ray Comfort in his street interviews argues the same point without mentioning John 1. He asks if they really believe that nothing created everything. It's complete stupidity or a pathological liar to say yes, that nothing created everything. I think it's absolutely appropriate to not say "Word" and say "Logic".
The problem is that the text explicitly states otherwise and the translation of the passage is a good one, by the way. It absolutely says....The passage is speaking of judgment. The Lord is not coming down to see what's going on, but coming to judge.
Right. He had to see something. It wasn't something that happened in the past. It could only be to see something that might or might not happen in the future. What happened in the future, with respect to God's conversation with Abraham? The episode with the angels in Sodom. God didn't gain any past knowledge about previous sins, only confirmation that they were as evil as reports said they were. He was judging their present state (repentant or not), to know whether to judge them (bring judgment) by fire.The problem is that the text explicitly states otherwise and the translation of the passage is a good one, by the way. It absolutely says....
"I will go down now and see"..."and if not, I will know".
I know of no translation that renders it differently.
There certainly is nothing in the text to indicate that it is what would be a quite unusual figure of speech, where the passage means the opposite of what it actually says.
I couldn't follow this except for the last two sentences but even God gaining confirmation of their current state is enough to explode absolute omniscience and omnipresence.Right. He had to see something. It wasn't something that happened in the past. It could only be to see something that might or might not happen in the future. What happened in the future, with respect to God's conversation with Abraham? The episode with the angels in Sodom. God didn't gain any past knowledge about previous sins, only confirmation that they were as evil as reports said they were. He was judging their present state (repentant or not), to know whether to judge them (bring judgment) by fire.
I agree, at least in part.I couldn't follow this except for the last two sentences but even God gaining confirmation of their current state is enough to explode absolute omniscience and omnipresence.
Well, this doesn't seem to follow to me. Not everything that happens is worked by God for the good of anyone, except perhaps in a very broad, long term, big picture sense. I mean, babies are murdered every 30 seconds in this country alone. I can't see any evidence of God working gang activity for the good of anyone much less their seemingly constant victims. God doesn't seem to be working things out for the benefit of the citizens of North Korea under their lunatic ruler.I agree, at least in part.
I am very hesitant to say that God doesn't even know a lot of stuff about the past and present. If there are evil acts He doesn't want to pay attention to, that suggests that there are victims, possibly innocent or children, of those actions that are being hurt without His knowledge. How would He know, unless He at least checks out what's going on? How can He work all things together for good for those little ones, the like which make up the kingdom of heaven? To suggest He turns a blind eye toward children sounds heinous to me, rather than moral.
You should avoid doing such things as much as possible, especially when dealing with doctrines that we know have pagan origins such as the Omni-doctrines. Interpreting a passage to preserve God's righteous character is one thing because if God isn't righteous then biblical doctrine is a moot subject but doing so to preserve most any other sort of doctrine is called eisegesis and is a mistake.So my point was to suggest a way to read the text that allows for past and present omniscience--those things which are necessary to understand in order to guide the future as He sees fit (like bringing judgment on mankind with the flood at the right time).
I don't deny that there were children there but that isn't the reason God wanted them preached to. God expected them to repent in response to Jonah's message. Even Jonah expected it which he didn't want to happen and why he had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do the preaching!Nineveh is a prime example. Assuming Jonah's words were true (which we both believe they were), God had already planned for judgment, but was allowing for repentance.
Here's the first command to Jonah:
[Jon 1:2 KJV] Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it; for their wickedness is come up before me.
And the second, after the fish episode:
[Jon 3:2 KJV] Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and preach unto it the preaching that I bid thee.
God knew that they were wicked, but He wanted Jonah to preach to them first. Why? Because of the many little children that were there:
[Jon 4:11 KJV] And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and [also] much cattle?
So, it had "come up before" God that they were wicked, similar to Sodom. But God had already counted the number of children in the city?
Whether He knew or not isn't the point. The point is that Abraham talked with God in a manner that is completely incompatible with there being any notion in his head about God being omniscient in the way that Christians normally believe. God, in the mind of Abraham could be negotiated with and His mind could be changed.Back to Sodom...Abraham pleaded with God not to destroy the city if there were as few as 10 righteous people there. Did God already know there were fewer than 10? I don't know, but if He had already counted the children of Nineveh, why not the righteous (and children) in Sodom, which was probably a much smaller city than Nineveh. Here was God's answer to Abraham's pleading:
[Gen 18:26...32b KJV] And the LORD said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes....
And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake.
Well, first of all God can definitely tell when someone is lying and so this argument wouldn't hold water in any case but that's almost beside the point. As I was saying before, God is not a mere human and would not need to rely on third party testimony. The guilty know that they are guilty and God can know what they know. You can't keep a secret from God and there is no right to remain silent before God.I think you made the statement earlier (or someone did) that God doesn't know anything about the past that He doesn't want to know, especially evil acts. But all of judgment relies on the knowledge of the judge about the evil acts of the past. A less-than-perfect judge would have to rely on his witnesses to provide true facts about the crimes/sins, but God is not a less-than-perfect judge. He even has angels that are less than perfect, and subject to falling...and lying (John 8:44). Humans are known for their propensity to lie (Num 23:19). Who else is trustworthy to provide God testimony about evil human activities, if He doesn't witness it Himself?
This an unanswerable question. Are you suggesting that God would be incapable of devising such a method of reliable record keeping. For all we know, our own minds might be where such things are recorded.So, as I pointed out before, if there is a record of all the evil acts that every person ever did, especially of the unrighteous, who wrote that record? How does God know it's a true record?
Well, again, we don't know, right? Perhaps there is some aspect to the natural world that we have no idea about. One way or another, God has some means, perhaps multiple means, to find out whatever it is he needs to know.Back to Sodom again...
God already knew they were wicked, because they had committed evil acts "before the Lord".
[Gen 13:13 KJV] But the men of Sodom [were] wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly.
So why does God then seek other testimony about their sins later on?
[Gen 18:20 KJV] And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
I think it is similar to the murder of Abel, where God said:
[Gen 4:10 KJV] And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.
The cry wasn't necessarily from people, but from Abel's "blood" that was spilled on the ground. Do you think the blood was actually making noise God could hear? I don't know, but I expect it is merely a euphemism, and the same could be true about the cry from Sodom.