Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Topic Date User

OT: Rebelious reopening of locked topic 2-Sep-2010 At 2:07:20 AM dave h.

Message

On 31/08/2010 Sarah Gara wrote:

>Can I first clarify. that that was not my view it was mearly a suggestion
>that may be why Xians can't get around the gay issue.

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that it was the view you personally held, just that it was an idea you were proposing. It's not the reason for my position (& I think my Christian mates would agree with me on this).

>
>from your statement above if Gay people were allowed to marry than you
>wouldn't have an issue with them having sex. ??? I somehow don't think
>that is what you mean. If so then why can't they get married and the world
>would be ok,

No, I didn't mean to suggest that.

>Dave H - can I ask what you do?
I'm a 5th year uni student :)

>or what your actual branch of xianity is
Well I go to an Anglican church (but Anglican in Sydney is sometimes different to Anglican in Melbourne). We're "low church" - low church and high church are different streams of Anglicanism, and I can't really tell you what the difference is - you're more likely to get robed ministers, etc at a high church service.

My church is also evangelical, in that we hold the Bible's teaching to be authoritative. While this probably sounds whacky it doesn't entail believing in a young Earth, rejecting evolution, etc. (Some US social commentators sometimes use "Evangelical Christians" as code for "the Christian Right/far-Right" - it's a misuse of the word.)

So if you had to label me, I'm an evangelical.

>
> - your arguments are thoughtful and to keep up with you I'd either have
>to do some reading or some serious remembering.
You're very kind. Thanks :)

>if we ever meet I'd be interested for a short time to discuss. particularly
>I'd be interested to hear about your view on why there is still evil in
>the world if there is a God? -those arguments always intrigued me.

Yeah it's a tricky one. I may be at Buffalo in November with friends if you want a chat :)

Maybe suffering is a tangent too far even for this thread? :P

Briefly though - I'd emphasise different things depending on whether you were asking because you see suffering as an intellectual problem (i.e. [:P] how can an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God allow natural disasters which kill innocent people), or whether it was something more personal (i.e. you just lost a parent or close friend, and the universe seems like a cold harsh place right now).

Sorry to palm you off (for the moment at least) on something which is of particular interest to you. Quite tired right now, need to sleep. I quite like this guy's response
to the problem of suffering. Not that he answers all objections that people have, but he makes a couple of really good points quite well.

>
>I wonder about the
>civialiation in 2000 years finding the hary potter books or similar and
>thinking that we were all wizards...

lol.

Stop!
> pedant time

They say it takes a pedant to catch a pedant... I do mean i.e.

Egosan wrote:

>Not the nice part of the story where the earnest man sacrificed himself
>for all of us. The part of the story where people in christo's words, deserve
>hell.

>I am wondering if you as a believer can put yourself in to my shoes and
>look at this as an atheist, as a humanist. Grim.

Well I'll give it a shot. I imagine there are a couple of things you might consider grim.

Are we talking about the ideas of hell & divine judgment? If so, I imagine it'd go something like this:

"What gives God the right to judge us? Just who does He think He is?
How can God, having given humans free will (to whatever extent you accept free will), and having left no definitive objective proof of His existence or not, presume to punish people - for eternity, no less! - who fail to come to the correct conclusion regarding His identity and the manner in which He wants people to respond to Him?
How is it fair or just for God to eternally punish people who live decent lives (~not harming others, paying their taxes, etc) for the mere 'sin' of failing to accept Jesus as Lord?
And if you accept the Biblical premise that God "knit each of us together" before birth, IE 'made' us, how is it fair that He saves some and condemns others? Presumably both groups of people are only acting in accordance with the way they've been made."

Or am I meant to be reacting as an atheist/humanist to the idea that atonement & reconciliation with God comes through the 'human sacrifice' of Jesus on the cross?

"What kind of petty god needs humans to do things for him in order to forgive them their transgressions? Any omnipotent God worth His salt should surely be able to forgive wrongdoing at His absolute discretion.
What kind of a God is it that is so perturbed by human wrongdoing that He reacts to it in such an extreme way?
And then what kind of revolting god allows an innocent person to be punished for the crimes of others? This is certainly fundamentally unjust and unfair.
And what kind of person would I be to accept the sacrifice of an innocent person in my own place?"

Or is the grim thing simply the idea that ~4-5 billion people are going to hell because they're not "good enough for God"?

How'd I go?

Re the sociopath.

My view of his conduct is irrelevant to what circle of hell he ends up in (to borrow an unbiblical image from Dante).

You're right, our sociopath probably wouldn't accept such a morality. The point, as I understand it, is not that a morality which is built upon the foundation of God will be accepted by everyone, but that it is logically defensible as applicable to everyone even if they reject it.

Re Leff
I am referring to Leff's article, Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural Law. If you want to read it I'll email you a copy. The Wikipedia page does not *begin* to summarise the arguments he makes there. The quote you have given us is a remark he makes in critiquing Posner's work, which posits a normative morality and assumes atheism. Leff's comment about "slipping things in early" is a reference to Posner's insertion of the premise "economic behaviour is to be preferred to all other behaviour" into his theory. Your view, that Leff's quote condemns the law of the Old Testament is misconceived - Leff's view is that the power of Old Testament law is that it is of divine origin.

In Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural Law, one thing Leff attempts to show (you decide if he succeeds) is that accepting the morality of an "ultimate rule-maker"/divine law-giver as binding (i.e. normative) does not involve inserting an 'early' premise along the lines of 'divine laws should be obeyed.' (as Posner does with his economic premise).

>There is no rigorous proof to be made. No way to deduce moral action.
Yes, as Hume says, you can't infer an "ought" from an "is".

Your solution is to reject the need for 'moral authority' (I assume you mean God), and, as a substitute, accept:

> Folkways and mores evolving naturally in cultures. Mores like the
>Golden Rule. Institutions codifying them. Most of us agreeing
>implicitly to play nicely with this set of customs. Not as neat
> and tidy as obeying the Word. I like it this way much dirtier,
>much more interesting and much more human.

This is not an answer to the problem at all!

While your answer allows you to get a "positive morality" (a set of moral beliefs, in this case those accepted by society), it does not get you a *critical morality*, which is the "general moral principles used in the criticism of actual social institutions including positive morality."

Leff (@p1233 of Duke Law Journal 1979 (6)):
"Thus, once it is accepted that
(a) all normative statements are evaluations of actions and other states of the world;
(b) an evaluation entails an evaluator; and
(c) in the presumed absence of God, the only