The Philosophical Policeman

Free discussion of anything human or divine ~ Philosophy, Religion and Spirituality

Moderators: Xar, Fist and Faith

User avatar
rusmeister
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 3210
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:01 pm
Location: Russia

Post by rusmeister »

Fist and Faith wrote:It's all a matter of perspective. You think bad things have come to pass, and more will. I think good things have come to pass, and the bad ones will not.
I'd say first of all that I think both good and bad things can come to pass. The particular topic of discussion is definitely a bad thing. But that's why such sentences are meaningless between us, if your "good" is my "bad" and vice-versa.
As an oversimplification, I'd say history supports what you describe my position to be and certainly not yours. It is certain that bad things will continue to come to pass, and the optimism that H.G.Wells and his ilk had before the first world war that wars had come to an end the thing proven wrong. To think that negative scenarios will not come to pass is an extreme and highly unwarranted optimism. To think that this world is going from good to better is simply subscription to what C.S.Lewis described as "the myth of evolutionism" (note: NOT evolution - see the "ism"). I call it "the myth of Star Trek. Same thing.
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one." Bill Hingest ("That Hideous Strength" by C.S. Lewis)

"These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own." G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
rusmeister
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 3210
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:01 pm
Location: Russia

Post by rusmeister »

Exnihilo2 wrote:Vraith, I share the same cultural aesthetic that would prevent females from marrying before 16 or so (or, I guess, 'civil-unioning'), but this is an aesthetic valuation rather than the recognition of an inherent truth. There are many examples of cultures where adulthood begins around age 13 for both males and females. The point is, the slippery slope that RR is lamenting is somewhat arbitrary anyway.
Hi ex!
The point that some of us are making is that any "cultural aesthetic" (?) that you happen to share may well happen to not be shared by your children, and you would have no moral basis for rebuking them if morality is merely arbitrary. In order to hold that your view is right and that some things are absolutely and nor arbitrarily wrong, you have to have a philosophical basis higher than merely the authority of your own word. In an important sense, it comes down to "because Vraith/Exnihilo/whoever says so.", and the only thing that can prevent the things you really think absolutely wrong from not being successfully defended by someone else is "because God said so." (note that I say "in a sense", because I do think there is such a thing as valid - that is true - argument, but without a rock-solid basis for morality anything at all can be justified.) in short, our children can use the very arguments used to defend an abomination of the past to defend an abomination of the present as a normal and natural thing to do and be in the future.
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one." Bill Hingest ("That Hideous Strength" by C.S. Lewis)

"These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own." G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
[Syl]
Unfettered One
Posts: 13020
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2002 12:36 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by [Syl] »

Lysander Spooner in [i]Vices Are Not Crimes[/i], Chapter VIII wrote:In the midst of this endless variety of opinion, what man, or what body of men, has the right to
say, in regard to any particular action, or course of action, "we have tried this experiment, and
determined every question involved in it? We have determined it, not only for ourselves, but for
all others? And, as to all those who are weaker than we, we will coerce them to act in obedience
to our conclusions? We will suffer no further experiment or inquiry by any one, and,
consequently, no further acquisition of knowledge by anybody?"

Who are the men who have the right to say this? Certainly there are none such. The men who
really do say it are either shameless impostors and tyrants, who would stop the progress of
knowledge, and usurp absolute control over the minds and bodies of their fellow men; and are
therefore to be resisted instantly, and to the last extent; or they are themselves too ignorant of
their own weaknesses, and of their true relations to other men, to be entitled to any other
consideration then sheer pity or contempt.

We know, however, that there are such men as these in the world. Some of them attempt to
exercise their power only within a small sphere, to wit, upon their children, their neighbors, their
townsmen, and their countrymen. Others attempt to exercise it on a larger scale. For example, an
old man at Rome, aided by a few subordinates, attempts to decide all questions of virtue and
vice; that is, of truth or falsehood, especially in matters of religion. He claims to know and teach
what religious ideas and practices are conducive, or fatal, to a man's happiness, not only in this
world, but in that which is to come. He claims to be miraculously inspired for the performance of
this work; thus virtually acknowledging, like a sensible man, that nothing short of miraculous
inspiration would qualify him for it. This miraculous inspiration, however, has been ineffectual
to enable him to settle more than a very few questions. The most important to which common
mortals can attain, is an implicit belief in his (the pope's) infallibility! and, secondly, that the
blackest vices of which they can be guilty are to believe and declare that he is only a man like the
rest of them!

It required some fifteen or eighteen hundred years to enable him to reach definite conclusions on
these two vital points. Yet it would seem that the first of these must necessarily be preliminary to
his settlement of any other questions; because, until his own infallibility is determined, he can
authoritatively decide nothing else. He has, however, heretofore attempted or pretended to settle
a few others. And he may, perhaps, attempt or pretend to settle a few more in the future, if he
shall continue to find anybody to listen to him. But his success, thus far, certainly does not
encourage the belief that he will be able to settle all questions of virtue and vice, even in his
peculiar department of religion, in time to meet the necessities of mankind. He, or his successors,
will undoubtedly be compelled, at no distant day, to acknowledge that he has undertaken a task
to which all his miraculous inspiration was inadequate; and that, of necessity, each human being
must be left to settle all questions of this kind for himself. And it is not unreasonable to expect
that all other popes, in other and lesser spheres, will some time have cause to come to the same
conclusion. No one, certainly, not claiming supernatural inspiration, should undertake a task to
which obviously nothing less than such inspiration is adequate. And, clearly, no one should
surrender his own judgement to the teachings of others, unless he be first convinced that these
others have something more than ordinary human knowledge on this subject.

If those persons, who fancy themselves gifted with both the power and the right to define and
punish other men's vices, would but turn their thoughts inwardly, they would probably find that
they have a great work to do at home; and that, when that shall have been completed, they will
be little disposed to do more towards correcting the vices of others, than simply to give to others
the results of their experience and observation. In this sphere their labors may possibly be useful;
but, in the sphere of infallibility and coercion, they will probably, for well-known reasons, meet
with even less success in the future than such men have met with in the past.
Chapter XIV wrote:Finally, on this point of individual liberty: Every man must necessarily judge and determine for
himself as to what is conducive and necessary to, and what is destructive of, his own well-being;
because, if he omits to perform this task for himself, nobody else can perform it for him. And
nobody else will even attempt to perform it for him, except in very few cases. Popes, and priests,
and kings will assume to perform it for him, in certain cases, if permitted to do so. But they will,
in general, perform it only in so far as they can minister to their own vices and crimes, by doing
it. They will, in general, perform it only in so far as they can make him their fool and their slave.
Parents, with better motives, no doubt, than the others, too often attempt the same work. But in
so far as they practise coercion, or restrain a child from anything not really and seriously
dangerous to himself, they do him a harm, rather than a good. It is a law of Nature that to get
knowledge, and to incorporate that knowledge into his own being, each individual must get it for
himself. Nobody, not even his parents, can tell him the nature of fire, so that he will really know
it. He must himself experiment with it, and be burnt by it, before he can know it.

Nature knows, a thousand times better than any parent, what she designs each individual for,
what knowledge he requires, and how he must get it. She knows that her own processes for
communicating that knowledge are not only the best, but the only ones that can be effectual.

The attempts of parents to make their children virtuous are generally little else than attempts to
keep them in ignorance of vice. They are little else than attempts to teach their children to know
and prefer truth, by keeping them in ignorance of falsehood. They are little else than attempts to
make them seek and appreciate health, by keeping them in ignorance of disease, and of
everything that will cause disease. They are little else than attempts to make their children love
the light, by keeping them in ignorance of darkness. In short, they are little else than attempts to
make their children happy, by keeping them in ignorance of everything that causes them
unhappiness.

In so far as parents can really aid their children in the latter's search after happiness, by simply
giving them the results of their (the parents') own reason and experience, it is all very well, and is
a natural and appropriate duty. But to practise coercion in matters of which the children are
reasonably competent to judge for themselves, is only an attempt to keep them in ignorance. And
this is as much a tyranny, and as much a violation of the children's right to acquire knowledge for
themselves, and such knowledge as they desire, as is the same coercion when practised upon
older persons. Such coercion, practised upon children, is a denial of their right to develop the
faculties that Nature has given them, and to be what Nature designs them to be. It is a denial of
their right to themselves, and to the use of their own powers. It is a denial of their right to acquire
the most valuable of all knowledge, to wit, the knowledge that Nature, the great teacher, stands
ready to impart to them.

The results of such coercion are not to make the children wise or virtuous, but to make them
ignorant, and consequently weak and vicious; and to perpetuate through them, from age to age,
the ignorance, the superstitions, the vices, and the crimes of the parents. This is proved by every
page of the world's history.

Those who hold opinions opposite to these, are those whose false and vicious theologies, or
whose own vicious general ideas, have taught them that the human race are naturally given to
evil, rather than good; to the false, rather than the true; that mankind do not naturally turn their
eyes to the light; that they love darkness, rather than light; and that they find their happiness only
in those things that tend to their misery.
Full text
"It is not the literal past that rules us, save, possibly, in a biological sense. It is images of the past. Each new historical era mirrors itself in the picture and active mythology of its past or of a past borrowed from other cultures. It tests its sense of identity, of regress or new achievement against that past.”
-George Steiner
User avatar
Prebe
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 7926
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 7:19 pm
Location: People's Republic of Denmark

Post by Prebe »

Rus wrote:As to forgetting, I do not forget at all. I deny that the claimed hurt (the mere denial of legitimacy of homosexual relations - as something separate from crimes committed against people who suffer from same-sex attraction, which I condemn along with the rest of you) is actual hurt.
In your own words:

I don't debate with deniers. Certainly not deniers who, in spite of all the OT-exegesis that the holy men of his specific denomination have done, has a book on his nightstand that claims:
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.
And
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
I'd call that being pretty seriously hurt.

It is also a sign of great moral decay that women are now allowed to speak publically and can marry whomever they chose. I can certainly follow you on that downward moral spiral.

I'm saying this to you, and to any other cristian/jewish/islamic denominations out there: If you don't really mean the outdated tripe in your books, save the time in telling people how "parabolar" it all is, and get some new books.
"I would have gone to the thesaurus for a more erudite word."
-Hashi Lebwohl
User avatar
deer of the dawn
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 6758
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:48 pm
Location: Jos, Nigeria
Contact:

Post by deer of the dawn »

Prebe, you aren't being fair to the spirit of Rus's statement, and I think you know it. He wasn't talking about homosexuals being executed.

We discussed here why some of the OT is no longer in force (for now) and some of it is. Only the Tribe of Israel was given the mandate to enact the death penalty for moral issues. The followers of Jesus were given a different approach, vis a vis the woman caught in adultery. (Note that after Jesus says, he who is without sin can cast the first stone, they all left, "the oldest first".)

People do love darkness, rather than light. Otherwise, the world would be in good shape. But it isn't.
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle. -Philo of Alexandria

ahhhh... if only all our creativity in wickedness could be fixed by "Corrupt a Wish." - Linna Heartlistener
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23708
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 33 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

People don't love light? Hmmm...

So I really don't know - Does the New Testament condemn homosexuality? If the OT is no longer in force, and the NT doesn't say it's a problem, then those who follow the Bible's teachings shouldn't say it's a problem.
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
Orlion
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 6666
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 12:30 am
Location: Getting there...
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by Orlion »

Fist and Faith wrote:People don't love light? Hmmm...

So I really don't know - Does the New Testament condemn homosexuality? If the OT is no longer in force, and the NT doesn't say it's a problem, then those who follow the Bible's teachings shouldn't say it's a problem.
Paul condemns it in a couple of his epistles.
'Tis dream to think that Reason can
Govern the reasoning creature, man.
- Herman Melville

I am Lazarus, come from the dead,
Come back to tell you all, I shall tell you all!

"All creation is a huge, ornate, imaginary, and unintended fiction; if it could be deciphered it would yield a single shocking word."
-John Crowley
Cybrweez
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 4804
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 1:26 pm
Location: Jamesburg, NJ

Post by Cybrweez »

And Jesus reiterates marriage b/w man and woman. And NT is also clear sex outside marriage is sin.
--Andy

"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.

I believe in the One who says there is life after this.
Now tell me how much more open can my mind be?
User avatar
Prebe
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 7926
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 7:19 pm
Location: People's Republic of Denmark

Post by Prebe »

Fair to Rus? I did say:
If you don't really mean the outdated tripe in your books, save the time in telling people how "parabolar" it all is, and get some new books.
I merely quoted one of the more sinister packages to emphasize the danger of rigidly hanging on to morality of ancient scripture.

I'm venturing that you merely think that the morality you are hanging on to is static. Go back in christian history and observe how interpretations of moral has shifted over time and from denomination to denomination. The Big Christian Lie is that there is one christian thing to do in every situation. And that christian actions somehow confer a worldwide community.

At least that's a trap that Rus does not fall into. He knows that christianity (and at the very least all the other abramic religions) has been reinterpreted countless times, and he choses to adhere strictly to one of those interpretation without claiming any community with other christians, other than the belief in the resurection and the immaculate conception.
DoD wrote:We discussed here why some of the OT is no longer in force (for now) and some of it is
Then remove the parts you don't like, as I said, before you hit people over the head with it. Or perhaps you think you'll need them again some day?

And indeed homosexuality IS frowned rather massively upon in the NT as well.

Edit: You are not the hitter in this case. I was using the inclusive "you".
"I would have gone to the thesaurus for a more erudite word."
-Hashi Lebwohl
User avatar
deer of the dawn
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 6758
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:48 pm
Location: Jos, Nigeria
Contact:

Post by deer of the dawn »

Then remove the parts you don't like, as I said, before you hit people over the head with it. Or perhaps you think you'll need them again some day?
No, no, no, the whole misconception is that the Church is a democracy who decide what God thinks is right or wrong.

(As for the "need them again" part, see again the discussion I linked to. We won't ever "need" them. God will bring them back for His own mysterious purpose.)

A foundational principle of hermeneutics is "let Scripture interpret Scripture". Reading and understanding what the Bible teaches is humbling. It's the farthest thing from picking what we want to accept and scrapping the rest.
he choses to adhere strictly to one of those interpretation without claiming any community with other christians,
Community is necessary, but imho Christians should adhere to the Bible in preference to any community's interpretation. That was the mistake the Pharisees made.
Jesus wrote:He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
"'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.' {6,7 Isaiah 29:13}
You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men." Mark 7:6-8
Is the Church guilty of hypocrisy? Sure, but so am I, so I'm not throwing the first stone.
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle. -Philo of Alexandria

ahhhh... if only all our creativity in wickedness could be fixed by "Corrupt a Wish." - Linna Heartlistener
User avatar
Prebe
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 7926
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 7:19 pm
Location: People's Republic of Denmark

Post by Prebe »

DoD wrote:Community is necessary, but imho Christians should adhere to the Bible in preference to any community's interpretation.

And the bible clearly says:
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
Not taking it literally or temporarily ignoring it is interpretation.

"Let scripture interpret scripture" is a catchphrase with absolutely no meaning imo. Either you use a systematic unambiguous code or you use your brain, which will by default take your environment and context into account when you interpret anything. So it is either a set code or your mind that delivers the interpretation. Do you buy that premise?

If you do, think that the scripture in itself can't be your mind, I'm sure you'll agree on that score. So, if "Let scripture interpret scripture" must make sense it has to be an UNAMBIGUOUS code. The only interpreation I see comming even remotely close to that is the Jewish kaballah.
Last edited by Prebe on Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
"I would have gone to the thesaurus for a more erudite word."
-Hashi Lebwohl
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 61765
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Post by Avatar »

Sola scriptura huh?

--A
User avatar
Prebe
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 7926
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 7:19 pm
Location: People's Republic of Denmark

Post by Prebe »

That seems to be the implication, yes. Odd how a movement that was initially a protest against incarnated theocracy, that was originally If not BY the people then at least FOR the people, can become a punchline for fanaticism 500 years later.

Edit: I have edited my post above to clarify why I think that "let scripture interpret scripture" makes little sense in my view.
"I would have gone to the thesaurus for a more erudite word."
-Hashi Lebwohl
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 61765
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Post by Avatar »

Never been particularly in favour of letting the social mores and needs 1,000's of years ago dictate people's behaviour today.

--A
User avatar
lucimay
Lord
Posts: 15044
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 5:17 pm
Location: Mott Wood, Genebakis
Contact:

Post by lucimay »

Avatar wrote:Never been particularly in favour of letting the social mores and needs 1,000's of years ago dictate people's behaviour today.

--A
same.
you're more advanced than a cockroach,
have you ever tried explaining yourself
to one of them?
~ alan bates, the mothman prophecies



i've had this with actors before, on the set,
where they get upset about the [size of my]
trailer, and i'm always like...take my trailer,
cause... i'm from Kentucky
and that's not what we brag about.
~ george clooney, inside the actor's studio



a straight edge for legends at
the fold - searching for our
lost cities of gold. burnt tar,
gravel pits. sixteen gears switch.
Haphazard Lucy strolls by.
~ dennis r wood ~
User avatar
Prebe
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 7926
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 7:19 pm
Location: People's Republic of Denmark

Post by Prebe »

Av wrote:Never been particularly in favour of letting the social mores and needs 1,000's of years ago dictate people's behaviour today.
That's NOT what it is *stamps little feet in ground* it's the word of God!

Not the part about the homos and the polygamy and all that nasty stuff that any soundly thinking individual would KNOW was no longer valid, except for those who still think so of course.
"I would have gone to the thesaurus for a more erudite word."
-Hashi Lebwohl
User avatar
Obi-Wan Nihilo
Still Not Buying It
Posts: 5944
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 3:37 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by Obi-Wan Nihilo »

Prebe wrote:
DoD wrote:Community is necessary, but imho Christians should adhere to the Bible in preference to any community's interpretation.

And the bible clearly says:
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
Not taking it literally or temporarily ignoring it is interpretation.

"Let scripture interpret scripture" is a catchphrase with absolutely no meaning imo. Either you use a systematic unambiguous code or you use your brain, which will by default take your environment and context into account when you interpret anything. So it is either a set code or your mind that delivers the interpretation. Do you buy that premise?

If you do, think that the scripture in itself can't be your mind, I'm sure you'll agree on that score. So, if "Let scripture interpret scripture" must make sense it has to be an UNAMBIGUOUS code. The only interpreation I see comming even remotely close to that is the Jewish kaballah.
Although I agree with your point in general, I wish you'd used a better (non-fallacious) example. Christians do not believe the OT is controlling precedent, it was included in the bible for (quasi-) historical and prophetic context; they believe the ministry of Christ introduced a "New Testament" that replaces the old rules. You can find examples in the NT that you might find unsavory, but of course there is no endorsement by Christ of killing anyone, and that is not interprative.
Image
User avatar
DukkhaWaynhim
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 9195
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: Deep in thought

Post by DukkhaWaynhim »

Exnihilo2 wrote:Christians do not believe the OT is controlling precedent, it was included in the bible for (quasi-) historical and prophetic context; they believe the ministry of Christ introduced a "New Testament" that replaces the old rules. You can find examples in the NT that you might find unsavory, but of course there is no endorsement by Christ of killing anyone, and that is not interprative.
I'm pretty sure there are many people who count themselves as Christians that would wholeheartedly and fervently disagree with you on that first statement.

dw
"God is real, unless declared integer." - Unknown
Image
User avatar
Obi-Wan Nihilo
Still Not Buying It
Posts: 5944
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 3:37 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by Obi-Wan Nihilo »

Image

No one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle. Do you understand? Even... And I want to make this absolutely clear... Even if they do say "Jehovah".

LOB Jehovah Skit
Image
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23708
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 33 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

Avatar wrote:Never been particularly in favour of letting the social mores and needs 1,000's of years ago dictate people's behaviour today.
Especially the mores that I find offensive and unacceptable.
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
Post Reply

Return to “The Close”