[minsocal]

davidk, on Jan 28 2009, 01:22 PM, said:

[color=#000080So ask yourselves, where do we find the objective source?

If you have now read my prior posts ... the answer is ... THE BIBLE!!!!!!!! Who knew? How could it be? Huh?

[minsocal]

davidk, on Jan 28 2009, 01:22 PM, said:

[color=#000080So ask yourselves, where do we find the objective source?

I hope you are following me on this with my previous posts, beause I'm just getting strarted ... be patient. There is a whole lot more to come!

[minsocal]

davidk, on Jan 28 2009, 01:22 PM, said:

[color=#000080So ask yourselves, where do we find the objective source?

Your mistake is in accepting subject-object dualism. The notion is absurd. Why? God is "one" and God is "many", and perhaps more than "one" and more than "many". One and many is "our" reality, not God's. God created us in Her image, and we need not return the favor. There is nothing profound in the fact that I am a person with my mind-body existing in a world of other mind-bodies. Each is real, oh so real. Huh? We share what we "know" with each other and sometimes agree. That is it. We do NOT claim to be God and "know" everything. BUT, some of us will put down others who we regard as "ignorant" of that which could not be certain.

This post has been edited by minsocal: 31 January 2009 - 04:17 AM

[davidk]

minsocal, on Jan 27 2009, 01:04 PM, said:

You have claimed elsewhere that the Bible contains no false propositions.

Minsocal,

This proposition is true while your other proposition was not: ( "...the position davidk makes that 'propositional content' is always factual"). I have agreed with your propositional assessment of that position being false from the first time you said it was! It is just not me that posited it.

minsocal, on Jan 27 2009, 01:04 PM, said:

I read what you have just said as an admission that you are capable of generating false propositions based on your own appraisals of the Bible and it's content. In that sense, I thank you for your apology.

Your welcome (?)

minsocal, on Jan 27 2009, 01:04 PM, said:

Now back to a basic principle. "Knowing how" is not a proposition. "Knowing how" can only be expressed as a series of propositions, but the "knowing" can (and often does) precede the generation of the proposition(s). This is also called "intrinsic intentionalty" where emotion and intuition play their crucial roles. They work both from "the bottom up" to preselect what we attend to, and then from "the top down" to test our judgements. This is where Kant failed. This is where reliance on propositions fails. Religion is not the world of sterile propositions abstracted (distanced from) emotion. This is the key to understanding the progressive viewpoint. It begins with the prophets and "a passion for justice". You seem to prefer a "legalistic" approach, devoid of this passion?

For us to know anything, knowledge must have continuity. While we can have other things inside our heads besides language, it must always be linked to language. We communicate not just with ourseves but with others in some form of language. The way we think inside our own heads is in language. So, whether we are talking about inward thought or outward communication, man is a verbalizer.
---

minsocal, on Jan 28 2009, 01:22 PM, said:

Your audacity astounds me. Remember, you quoted Leviticus to deny homosexuals even the right to have feelings for each other?

In reference to that I had added, "Perhaps I'm being too literal with your quote, so if you wouldn't mind, could you provide me with a reference." I was simply trying to research this a little and since you put 'we must feed the poor' into quotation marks, I was just looking for some help.

You have also misconstrued something I have said to mean that people don't have any right to have feelings for each other.
---

minsocal, on Jan 30 2009, 06:30 PM, said:

Well, what do you think?

I hope all you had to do was cut 'n' paste!
I hope you didn't think I couldn't find 'poor' in a concordance.
The reason I even wanted to speak about this is because of what you had left us with; "Desires, such as to feed the poor, are not propositions subject to truth conditions." Which I find quite a remarkable statement to make.

I would simply agree that it is only by way of God's objective, propositional truths, presented to us in the Bible, that can give us the proper reasons to desire to feed the poor to begin with.

[minsocal]

davidk, on Feb 1 2009, 11:57 AM, said:

Minsocal,

This proposition is true while your other proposition was not: ( "...the position davidk makes that 'propositional content' is always factual"). I have agreed with your propositional assessment of that position being false from the first time you said it was! It is just not me that posited it.
Your welcome (?)
For us to know anything, knowledge must have continuity. While we can have other things inside our heads besides language, it must always be linked to language. We communicate not just with ourseves but with others in some form of language. The way we think inside our own heads is in language. So, whether we are talking about inward thought or outward communication, man is a verbalizer.
---

In reference to that I had added, "Perhaps I'm being too literal with your quote, so if you wouldn't mind, could you provide me with a reference." I was simply trying to research this a little and since you put 'we must feed the poor' into quotation marks, I was just looking for some help.

You have also misconstrued something I have said to mean that people don't have any right to have feelings for each other.
---

I hope all you had to do was cut 'n' paste!
I hope you didn't think I couldn't find 'poor' in a concordance.
The reason I even wanted to speak about this is because of what you had left us with; "Desires, such as to feed the poor, are not propositions subject to truth conditions." Which I find quite a remarkable statement to make.

I would simply agree that it is only by way of God's objective, propositional truths, presented to us in the Bible, that can give us the proper reasons to desire to feed the poor to begin with.

A desire has no truth conditions. It is fulfilled or it is not. The poor are fed, or they are not. When the poor are fed, the desire is satisfied. You seem to have missed out on the one of the basic concepts of philosophy and the teachings of Jesus. Do some research on what "satisfaction" means. Then rejoin the dialogue.

This post has been edited by minsocal: 01 February 2009 - 03:33 PM

[minsocal]

davidk, on Feb 1 2009, 11:57 AM, said:

I would simply agree that it is only by way of God's objective, propositional truths, presented to us in the Bible, that can give us the proper reasons to desire to feed the poor to begin with.

God is not passive-agressive, meaning that the word "only" would be passive-aggressive.

Humanists feed the poor in my neighborhood. Agnostics feed the poor in my neighborhood. Athiests feed the poor in my neighborhood. Islamics feed the poor in my neighborhood. Hindus feed the poor in my neighborhood. Buhhdists feed the poor in my neighborhood. Where do you live?

This post has been edited by minsocal: 01 February 2009 - 04:37 PM

[minsocal]

Rationality must have an aim (a desire) that an agent is free to choose from. If a belief or desire is sufficient for action, then there is no free will. Rationality demands that beliefs or desires are NOT sufficient for action. WE must choose ...

[minsocal]

davidk, on Feb 1 2009, 11:57 AM, said:

Minsocal,

This proposition is true while your other proposition was not: ( "...the position davidk makes that 'propositional content' is always factual"). I have agreed with your propositional assessment of that position being false from the first time you said it was! It is just not me that posited it.
Your welcome (?)
For us to know anything, knowledge must have continuity. While we can have other things inside our heads besides language, it must always be linked to language. We communicate not just with ourseves but with others in some form of language. The way we think inside our own heads is in language. So, whether we are talking about inward thought or outward communication, man is a verbalizer.
---

In reference to that I had added, "Perhaps I'm being too literal with your quote, so if you wouldn't mind, could you provide me with a reference." I was simply trying to research this a little and since you put 'we must feed the poor' into quotation marks, I was just looking for some help.

You have also misconstrued something I have said to mean that people don't have any right to have feelings for each other.
---

I hope all you had to do was cut 'n' paste!
I hope you didn't think I couldn't find 'poor' in a concordance.
The reason I even wanted to speak about this is because of what you had left us with; "Desires, such as to feed the poor, are not propositions subject to truth conditions." Which I find quite a remarkable statement to make.

I would simply agree that it is only by way of God's objective, propositional truths, presented to us in the Bible, that can give us the proper reasons to desire to feed the poor to begin with.

You are a person who can take a grand total of 9 disjointed "propositions" from the Bible about homosexualty and draw grand conclusions, while ignoring more than 168 "propositions" about the poor. AND refer to the poor as "the dreggs of society". This is not rational in any sense of the word. You fail to even listen to the evidence that God gave us moral emotions, moral intuitions which are expressed as propositions after the fact.

[minsocal]

davidk, on Feb 1 2009, 11:57 AM, said:

Minsocal,

This proposition is true while your other proposition was not: ( "...the position davidk makes that 'propositional content' is always factual"). I have agreed with your propositional assessment of that position being false from the first time you said it was! It is just not me that posited it.
Your welcome (?)
For us to know anything, knowledge must have continuity. While we can have other things inside our heads besides language, it must always be linked to language. We communicate not just with ourseves but with others in some form of language. The way we think inside our own heads is in language. So, whether we are talking about inward thought or outward communication, man is a verbalizer.
---

In reference to that I had added, "Perhaps I'm being too literal with your quote, so if you wouldn't mind, could you provide me with a reference." I was simply trying to research this a little and since you put 'we must feed the poor' into quotation marks, I was just looking for some help.

You have also misconstrued something I have said to mean that people don't have any right to have feelings for each other.
---

I hope all you had to do was cut 'n' paste!
I hope you didn't think I couldn't find 'poor' in a concordance.
The reason I even wanted to speak about this is because of what you had left us with; "Desires, such as to feed the poor, are not propositions subject to truth conditions." Which I find quite a remarkable statement to make.

I would simply agree that it is only by way of God's objective, propositional truths, presented to us in the Bible, that can give us the proper reasons to desire to feed the poor to begin with.

You are a person who can take a grand total of 9 disjointed "propositions" from the Bible about homosexualty and draw grand conclusions, while ignoring more than 168 "propositions" about the poor. AND refer to the poor as "the dreggs of society". This is not rational in any sense of the word. You fail to even listen to the evidence that God gave us moral emotions, moral intuitions which are expressed as propositions after the fact. If you actuallly read the Bible, you would not have any problem with what I have posted. What I gave you was a continuous theme from the earliest accounts in the Bible through the time of Jesus. I doubt whether you actually read what I posted, I doubt whether you have actually read the Bible. It would be IMPOSSIBLE to read the Bible and miss it's main message!

[davidk]

minsocal, on Feb 1 2009, 03:22 PM, said:

A desire has no truth conditions.
---
Humanists... Agnostics... Athiests... Islamics... Hindus... Buhhdists(sic) feed the poor in my neighborhood. Where do you live?
---

Dear minsocal,

Philosophies and religions ask the same questions even though they may use different terms; that is- about what exists, morals, and how man knows.

There are two meanings to the word philosophy.
First: this is what we usually think of as philosophy: a highly technical academic study few people persue. In this sense, there are few philosophers.
Second: this we cannot miss in order to understand the problem. Philosophy also means man's world view (the sum of a man's personal ideas, convictions, and attitudes.) In this sense, all men are philosophers.

It is true that for either definition, philosophy is a quest for truth. It is a natural function of the human mind.
---
If there were only one Biblical reference for how to treat the needy it would be of no less importance.

Personally, I believe the Biblical intent on both subjects is unequivocal.
---
I don't know why with such seemingly purposeful intent you are taking the phrase "dregs of society" out of its intended context, and attempting to demonize me by accusation for some assumed personal prejudice you think I may have about homosexuals or the afflicted or the needy.
You have no evidence of any weight to judge my charity, nor my neighbors, to the "dregs of society" or homosexuals, or any one else for that matter.
---
It seems you believe that I have have implied only Christians are charitable. I did not. I do claim it is only Christianity that sufficently explains the reason 'why' we should be. It is why I have stated that men act as if Christianity is true.
As man, we all have moral motions. All men have felt that things are right or that things are wrong. But it is only a personal, infinite God that provides the absolute from which we can draw an accurate meaning.
Humanists, et al, no doubt can have moral motions to be charitable, but given their philosophies they have no explanation for why it is right. Without the personal, infinite, Christian God they have no explanation. This is the great gap in their belief systems.
---
The main message of the Bible is personal for each man. That is; Salvation is through the Lord Jesus' work of grace. Charity is one obedient evidence of our love for Him.
---
I don't follow your comment on rationality.

[minsocal]

davidk, on Feb 16 2009, 09:58 AM, said:

Dear minsocal,

Philosophies and religions ask the same questions even though they may use different terms; that is- about what exists, morals, and how man knows.

There are two meanings to the word philosophy.
First: this is what we usually think of as philosophy: a highly technical academic study few people persue. In this sense, there are few philosophers.
Second: this we cannot miss in order to understand the problem. Philosophy also means man's world view (the sum of a man's personal ideas, convictions, and attitudes.) In this sense, all men are philosophers.

It is true that for either definition, philosophy is a quest for truth. It is a natural function of the human mind.
---
If there were only one Biblical reference for how to treat the needy it would be of no less importance.

Personally, I believe the Biblical intent on both subjects is unequivocal.
---
I don't know why with such seemingly purposeful intent you are taking the phrase "dregs of society" out of its intended context, and attempting to demonize me by accusation for some assumed personal prejudice you think I may have about homosexuals or the afflicted or the needy.
You have no evidence of any weight to judge my charity, nor my neighbors, to the "dregs of society" or homosexuals, or any one else for that matter.
---
It seems you believe that I have have implied only Christians are charitable. I did not. I do claim it is only Christianity that sufficently explains the reason 'why' we should be. It is why I have stated that men act as if Christianity is true.
As man, we all have moral motions. All men have felt that things are right or that things are wrong. But it is only a personal, infinite God that provides the absolute from which we can draw an accurate meaning.
Humanists, et al, no doubt can have moral motions to be charitable, but given their philosophies they have no explanation for why it is right. Without the personal, infinite, Christian God they have no explanation. This is the great gap in their belief systems.
---
The main message of the Bible is personal for each man. That is; Salvation is through the Lord Jesus' work of grace. Charity is one obedient evidence of our love for Him.
---
I don't follow your comment on rationality.

Many humanists that I know have read the Bible and respect the common ground they share with some (not all) Christians. They are able to give a perfectly rational explanation for their behavior. The capacity for rationality is universal.

This post has been edited by minsocal: 16 February 2009 - 06:01 PM

[davidk]

minsocal, on Feb 16 2009, 05:58 PM, said:

Many humanists that I know have read the Bible and respect the common ground they share with some (not all) Christians. They are able to give a perfectly rational explanation for their behavior. The capacity for rationality is universal.

Humanists can be very charitable and have some common ground with Christianity. After all, I had mentioned men act as if Christianity were true. But to say they have a rational explanation, aside from the Christian one, is doubtful.
All philosophy is a quest for truth. It is a natural function of the human mind.

[minsocal]

davidk, on Feb 17 2009, 07:35 AM, said:

Humanists can be very charitable and have some common ground with Christianity. After all, I had mentioned men act as if Christianity were true. But to say they have a rational explanation, aside from the Christian one, is doubtful.
All philosophy is a quest for truth. It is a natural function of the human mind.

You appear to contradict yourself. Rationality is, as you say, a natural function of the human mind. This is an argument from humanism and some forms of Christianity, as well as other religions. Science has developed rational explanations for altruism that do not involve Christianity. The Dalai Lama is fully capable of delivering a sermon on Christianity to a Christian audience. He has in fact done so, and a book has been written about it. The difference is simply between those who seek to explore our common ground versus those who seek to create and maintain differences.

Personally, I have a great deal of difficulting with your claim that a rational explanation must be a Christian explanation followed by the claim that rationality is a natural function of the mind. This technique, whether deliberate or not, creates a false division, a false dichotomy between Christians and others, a division I do not share. The irony is that my Christian upbringing taught me about the danger of false dichotomies in the first place. This was later supplemented by my understanding of Buddhism.

[davidk]

minsocal, on Feb 17 2009, 02:32 PM, said:

You appear to contradict yourself. Rationality is, as you say, a natural function of the human mind. This is an argument from humanism and some forms of Christianity, as well as other religions. Science has developed rational explanations for altruism that do not involve Christianity. The Dalai Lama is fully capable of delivering a sermon on Christianity to a Christian audience. He has in fact done so, and a book has been written about it. The difference is simply between those who seek to explore our common ground versus those who seek to create and maintain differences.

Personally, I have a great deal of difficulting with your claim that a rational explanation must be a Christian explanation followed by the claim that rationality is a natural function of the mind. This technique, whether deliberate or not, creates a false division, a false dichotomy between Christians and others, a division I do not share. The irony is that my Christian upbringing taught me about the danger of false dichotomies in the first place. This was later supplemented by my understanding of Buddhism.

That there is diversity as well as unity in creation is of no surprise to the Christian, it is quite expected. That man is rational is also of no surprise to the Christian. It is a recognition of what is there. Why these things are there is fully explained only by having been created by an infinite and personal God.
Man's philosophy, his quest for truth, is the natural function of man's rational mind. The rational mind is man's created attribute to reason the truth from what was created to be there, so we have no excuse for not seeing God's divine character. The Biblical evidence is quite clear in these matters.

Science does find what exists and sometimes how. But what it falls short in is finding out why, without invoking an infinite, personal, intelligent, creator God.

[minsocal]

davidk, on Feb 17 2009, 01:05 PM, said:

That there is diversity as well as unity in creation is of no surprise to the Christian, it is quite expected. That man is rational is also of no surprise to the Christian. It is a recognition of what is there. Why these things are there is fully explained only by having been created by an infinite and personal God.
Man's philosophy, his quest for truth, is the natural function of man's rational mind. The rational mind is man's created attribute to reason the truth from what was created to be there, so we have no excuse for not seeing God's divine character. The Biblical evidence is quite clear in these matters.

Science does find what exists and sometimes how. But what it falls short in is finding out why, without invoking an infinite, personal, intelligent, creator God.

That man is rational is no surprise to a humanist. "Why" is subjective and individual. The ethical and moral consideration is whether or not to leave "why" in the domain of the subjective and individual where, I think it belongs.

This post has been edited by minsocal: 17 February 2009 - 04:47 PM

[davidk]

minsocal, on Feb 17 2009, 04:37 PM, said:

That man is rational is no surprise to a humanist. "Why" is subjective and individual. The ethical and moral consideration is whether or not to leave "why" in the domain of the subjective and individual where, I think it belongs.

If 'why' is only subjective, it robs 'feed the poor' of any meaning; moral, ethical or otherwise considered. And one cannot honestly be disparaging of others when they argue about meaning and choose to not feed them.

[minsocal]

davidk, on Feb 18 2009, 11:10 AM, said:

If 'why' is only subjective, it robs 'feed the poor' of any meaning; moral, ethical or otherwise considered. And one cannot honestly be disparaging of others when they argue about meaning and choose to not feed them.

The subjective "why" is empathy, the precursor of compassion.

[davidk]

minsocal, on Feb 18 2009, 05:46 PM, said:

The subjective "why" is empathy, the precursor of compassion.

We're on the right track. Let's follow it up.

Why does empathy have any meaning? What is it that gives meaning to empathy?

[minsocal]

davidk, on Feb 19 2009, 12:29 PM, said:

We're on the right track. Let's follow it up.

Why does empathy have any meaning? What is it that gives meaning to empathy?

Innate emotions. Innate intuitions. Intrinsic intentionality. FEELINGS! Love, pain, joy, sorrow ... "com" (with) "passion" (the old word for emotion). With ... Passion.

This post has been edited by minsocal: 19 February 2009 - 05:00 PM

[davidk]

minsocal, on Feb 19 2009, 04:58 PM, said:

Innate emotions. Innate intuitions. Intrinsic intentionality. FEELINGS! Love, pain, joy, sorrow ... "com" (with) "passion" (the old word for emotion). With ... Passion.

Good, and ...!

(just picking one of the feelings) Why does love have any meaning? What is it that gives real meaning to love?