[minsocal]

davidk, on Apr 24 2008, 01:46 PM, said:

This verse first requires they believe in the God of the scriptures, otherwise there would be no authority to require the DOING. That is something that has been avoided. Non believers are under no such compunction.

I do certainly agree. Non believers are under no such compunction.

Where does this verse even address the theoretical?

The Christian also refers to Matthew 22:37-40. This also presupposes belief in the GOD of the Scriptures and of the scriptural Jesus Christ, for both to have the authority to require action. Non believers are under no such compunction.

You did sorta leave the door open when you posted the 'yourmorals' website.

An essential element is determining if and why morals exist or not, and who's morals? Without true morals having a rational foundation the discussion really can't proceed.

It seems the dilemma between rational and irrational haunts us.
From post #1:
1 "...emotion... is intimately tied to human rationality... This is a core concept... ";
2 "...(intuition) is one of the four primary psychological functions defined by Jung and plays a key role in Kant's theory of rationality (which served as the foundation for Jung's theory).";
3 "Haidt believes that moral intuitions and moral emotion are intimately related. Jung had the same idea....";
4 "In general, emotion and intuition are non-rational... "
I'm not sure if you noticed, the 'core concept' of emotion being rational, ends up being irrational by the end of your post.
-

1. Belief in God. Of course. Why bring this up? I believe in God ... do you? Are you sneering at the fact that I have an non-inferenetial and non-rational awareness of God? I remind you of the fact that you rejected Point One of the Eight Points as non-Christiian on another thread.

2. "This verse does not address the theoretical." Read what I said. You do not seem to have any sensitivty to shades of gray at all. I said "empahasis". This does not reject the theoretical. Or are you too biased to make gradations of values? It's "all or none" for you?

3. If you have no knowledge of "feeling theory" and the relationship of emotion to the rational, excuse yourself from the dialogue. Your understanding of theory is too limited. To quote Whitehead, the rational and the irrational cannot be disjoined.

This post has been edited by minsocal: 24 April 2008 - 05:23 PM

[minsocal]

Edit post timeout again:

Here is the full text:

davidk, on Apr 24 2008, 01:46 PM, said:

This verse first requires they believe in the God of the scriptures, otherwise there would be no authority to require the DOING. That is something that has been avoided. Non believers are under no such compunction.

I do certainly agree. Non believers are under no such compunction.

Where does this verse even address the theoretical?

The Christian also refers to Matthew 22:37-40. This also presupposes belief in the GOD of the Scriptures and of the scriptural Jesus Christ, for both to have the authority to require action. Non believers are under no such compunction.

You did sorta leave the door open when you posted the 'yourmorals' website.

An essential element is determining if and why morals exist or not, and who's morals? Without true morals having a rational foundation the discussion really can't proceed.

It seems the dilemma between rational and irrational haunts us.
From post #1:
1 "...emotion... is intimately tied to human rationality... This is a core concept... ";
2 "...(intuition) is one of the four primary psychological functions defined by Jung and plays a key role in Kant's theory of rationality (which served as the foundation for Jung's theory).";
3 "Haidt believes that moral intuitions and moral emotion are intimately related. Jung had the same idea....";
4 "In general, emotion and intuition are non-rational... "
I'm not sure if you noticed, the 'core concept' of emotion being rational, ends up being irrational by the end of your post.
-

1. Belief in God. Of course. Why bring this up? I believe in God ... do you? Are you sneering at the fact that I have an non-inferenetial and non-rational awareness of God? I remind you of the fact that you rejected Point One of the Eight Points as non-Christiian on another thread. My belief in God is synonomous with my beliefs regarding the teachings of Jesus. How about you?

2. "This verse does not address the theoretical." Read what I said. You do not seem to have any sensitivty to shades of gray at all. I said "empahasis". This does not reject the theoretical. Or are you too biased to make gradations of values? It's "all or none" for you?

3. If you have no knowledge of "feeling theory" and the relationship of emotion to the rational, excuse yourself from the dialogue. Your understanding of theory is too limited. To quote Whitehead, the rational and the irrational cannot be disjoined.

We have no apparent common ground on which to proceed. Good luck to you on you spiritual journey.

This post has been edited by minsocal: 24 April 2008 - 05:55 PM

[October's Autumn]

minsocal: This is the point at which the child is sent to another classroom for a time out If they are going to continue disrupt and prevent everyone else from learning and not respond to the teacher then a line has to be drawn. When they choose to start behaving then they can return to the classroom. The equivalent of that on the forum is putting them on ignore, or simply ignoring anything posted!

[davidk]

-minsocal-
1 In another thread, a 'liberal' had proposed that 'it is not what you believe, it is what you do'. I simply wanted to emphasize that belief in God was, from the verse's first word, required. A belief in the God of the scriptures, otherwise there would be no acceptable 'doing' without the authority first requiring it. Non believers are under no such compunction.
--
My position on Point 1 of the 8, is for its disavowing Jesus for who He said He was in His teachings in the Bible.

2 "This verse does not address the theoretical."
This is precisely what I asked about, that the verse didn't mention it. You did. "The emphasis is on the action component over the theoretical."- monsocal
I only asked a question. I made no implications one way or another. May I ask, what did you mean by 'theoretical' in reference to this verse?

3 I made an observation that you began with the 'core concept' of emotion as being rational, and ending up with it being irrational by the end of the statement.

Whitehead's theory not withstanding, the irrational cannot exist anywhere but in theory. It may be argued for but cannot be sustained in real life.
-
You have "do justice" as a centerpeice for your morals, and I assume from this verse in Micah, it is a way for you to define them, morals, that is. I would not fail to add "to love kindness, and walk humbly with your God". So, I ask you, with your intuitions/emotions (I call them Moral motions) you know this is good, but, how do you know you know if this is good or evil?
How do you have an irrational intuition about 'doing justice'? How can your irrational intuition discern 'moral'? How about irrational emotion? When you read these words in Micah, are they rational?

[minsocal]

davidk, on Apr 24 2008, 09:56 PM, said:

-minsocal-
1 In another thread, a 'liberal' had proposed that 'it is not what you believe, it is what you do'. I simply wanted to emphasize that belief in God was, from the verse's first word, required. A belief in the God of the scriptures, otherwise there would be no acceptable 'doing' without the authority first requiring it. Non believers are under no such compunction.
--
My position on Point 1 of the 8, is for its disavowing Jesus for who He said He was in His teachings in the Bible.

2 "This verse does not address the theoretical."
This is precisely what I asked about, that the verse didn't mention it. You did. "The emphasis is on the action component over the theoretical."- monsocal
I only asked a question. I made no implications one way or another. May I ask, what did you mean by 'theoretical' in reference to this verse?

3 I made an observation that you began with the 'core concept' of emotion as being rational, and ending up with it being irrational by the end of the statement.

Whitehead's theory not withstanding, the irrational cannot exist anywhere but in theory. It may be argued for but cannot be sustained in real life.
-
You have "do justice" as a centerpeice for your morals, and I assume from this verse in Micah, it is a way for you to define them, morals, that is. I would not fail to add "to love kindness, and walk humbly with your God". So, I ask you, with your intuitions/emotions (I call them Moral motions) you know this is good, but, how do you know you know if this is good or evil?
How do you have an irrational intuition about 'doing justice'? How can your irrational intuition discern 'moral'? How about irrational emotion? When you read these words in Micah, are they rational?

Repeat ... We have no apparent common ground on which to proceed. Good luck to you on you spiritual journey.

[davidk]

minsocal, on Apr 25 2008, 01:55 AM, said:

We have no apparent common ground on which to proceed.

Now that is a rational statement. There is hope for you yet.
-
I pray as long as God continues to reveal His truth, you may see and listen and understand.

As our Lord Jesus Christ said to the centurian, "Go your way; let it be done to you as you have believed."