davidk

Ada, Nice post. Very open to the tensions involved in free will. Confessing the existance of your own internal contradictions is inherent to an honest effort in evaluating the existent circumstances. It will undoubtedly yield good results searching for Truth. God's grace to you, Davidk

In closing: To whom it may concern, There has been some interest expressed by a couple of members to have me answer a question proposed by another member concerning a bill before the Ugandan parliament. The question, as proffered, concerning a "kill the gays" bill in Uganda, is unanswerable. For such a bill, proposed or otherwise, that "would execute gay people simply for being gay" does not exist. There is an existing bill that, according to David Bahati, the Ugandan sponsor of the bill, is concerned with saving lives by restricting dangerous homosexual practices, including pedophilia, child rape, and the deliberate spreading of the AIDS virus. The controversial death penalty provision is for these types of crimes of aggravated homosexuality. This is the bill that has been purposefully mischaracterized as the "kill the gays" bill. There were evangelical leaders from the West that were counseled with. There is and has been no effort or bill from anyone advising Uganda's President or parlaiment to consider that would command them to kill any gays simply for being gay. The language in Levitcus would not support any such advice if they had. God's grace to y'all, Davidk P.S. The Judeo-Christian, infinite-personal God is the final absolute that gives all else meaning. He is the only sufficient answer.

Dutch, No need to apologize. It was intended to humorously answer for Neon's faulty grammar. It apparently fell short of my intent. As has unfortunately become common, Neon offers us a faulty premise of a Ugandan Bill "that would execute gay people simply for being gay". Until he decides to get his facts straight I have no reason to respond in any different fashion. --- Neon, Deity is personal. We're back to the three possibilities. --- AITNOP, Welcome to the fray. I believe Christianity began with Jesus, who then promised to send the Holy Spirit to counsel us after He departed. But that is not really at issue. We're speaking of the beginning for everything. I would have to say morality is knowing that there is right and there is wrong. What gives them meaning is the question. Davidk

Dear Neon, If your premise about Uganda is as some of your other premises have been, I don't need to respond. The 'if' has no relevance to the 'why'. But, if you need an answer: I don't understand the question. Besides, I would never have thought Christians would seek to execute anyone who believed in the book of Leviticus, or that a literal belief of Leviticus would cause someone to be gay. - I don't have the knowledge or authority to say whether any person will finally be more moral than anyone else. It is that all men have a sense of moral behavior. But you know that having a compelling reason doesn't necessarily result in obedience. People may or may not have thoughtout their beliefs consistently, and that could be true of either/both subjects in your question. Do you know of anyone who hasn't done things they knew they shouldn't. At one time or another, haven't men had answers staring them in the face, and yet, defy them anyway. These exemplify some of man's dilemma. The universal "why" is not going to be universally accepted by everyone on all sides of the religious spectrum. I have made no claim otherwise. It is desirable, but not reasonably expected. Man does exersize the freedom to accept the answer or not. --- Mike and Dutch, The concept of the universal seems to be a source of some confusion. Without the universal "why's" (final absolutes or final catagories), there's no significant meaning for anything. note: The disciplines of science are always trying to boil down everything into as few universals (the 'why's') as possible that can explain as many particulars (parts and functions) of the material universe as possible (i.e.; gravity, magnetism,...), trying to remove dichotomies from all catagories. In that way, science can effectively move toward the explanations of how our existence exists. All of the world's philosophies and religions seek similarly. There are only three possible choices for a beginning. 1- all came from nothing. 2- all came from an impersonal . 3- all came from a personal. No. 1 is unsustainable. No. 2; If everything is nature only, all is equally impersonal, everything is finally mass or energy particles, including man, and must be explained only in terms of that impersonal plus time plus chance. There are no other factors. There are no basic philosophic differences which impersonal you begin with, and everything is finally understood by reducing it to the original, impersonal factor(s). If everything can be reduced to only an impersonal factor, it does not give anything, including man, any significance? Everything is just an accident of chance. If everything is nature only, the latest step in the process of natural selection, then there is nothing in man's behavior that is not the continued results of that natural selection. There are no other factors. By what authority do we make efforts to alter the natural development of man behaving normally? Do you wish to make man behave abnormally? No. 3 A personal beginning answers existence and what man needs to have any personal significance. With anything less than personality, it must be reduced to the impersonal. -- If it cannot be recognized that man exists as different from non-man, then it is of no wonder that no difference can be seen between the personal and the impersonal. This is either a refusal to believe what actually exists (i.e.; the personality of man), or some have just now become aware. Any observation of Christianity is without understanding if it is said that Christianity has no final absolute for morality. Davidk

Hey y'all, Dutch, you got it backwards: Existence with its complexity is the evidence of a personal beginning. Man is the evidence of a personal beginning. Man being personal is the evidence of a personal beginning. Relationships are the evidence of a personal beginning. Man's aspirations are the evidence of a personal beginning. Man's individuality is the evidence of a personal beginning. Morality is the evidence of a personal beginning. Freedom is the evidence of a personal beginning. Knowledge is the evidence of a personal beginning. Absolutes are the evidence of a personal beginning. Real meaning for the particulars that now exist is the evidence of a personal beginning. --- Challenge all he will, but Neon has made false premise after false premise and not of any matter that I can recall ever having professed; i.e.; ... only "true Christians" have a meaningful morality; etc. etc. How do I answer for his delusions? What I have said is: Man knows morality has meaning. Otherwise, he would know he could not rightfully argue over right and wrong. I have said without a personal beginning, man can't know "why" morality exists at all. Let me add: Once we consider a personal beginning, we have another choice to make, God or gods. The Judeo-Christian God being one such choice. There are other religions/philosophies that have chosen a god or "gods". Reality conforms to which? Davidk

Dear Neon, Good, you've given dozens of evidences of man arguing over right and wrong. Why does he? The personal beginning answers for final absolutes and final catagories which give meaning to the particulars concerning right and wrong. Do you believe by the evidence to the contrary, that the personal doesn't? With an impersonal beginning, the universe provides only silence concerning morals. Do you believe by the evidence to the contrary? Christianity argues for the personal beginning. Do you believe by the evidence that Christianity does not argue for a personal beginning? It's not whether man, Christian or not, will argue over the particulars, for certainly he will. But by what evidence is there that this personal beginning is not the answer or that Christianity holds that it is? The existance of morality does not depend on Christianity. Christianity rests, in part, on a belief that morality exists and depends on there being a reason for morality's meaningfulness, which is sufficiently explained by there being a personal-infinite God. David

Dear Neon, Christianity is a rational philosophic, as well as religious, belief in a personal-infinte God. This personal beginning gives final absolutes and final catagories concerning right and wrong. If you begin with the impersonal, the universe is totally silent concerning any such word as morals. If you have any evidence to prove the contrary, now would be a good time to present it. Thanks for the question. Davidk

Dear Dutch, Genesis 1:1 Always start at the beginning. That provides all you need to understand what follows. Thanks for the debate and dialogue. In Jesus name, David

S-T, Oh? Then man's aspirations and sense of morality has only come by chance. Whereby, Man has developed a feeling of moral motions where everything is only relative- that is: sociological, statistical, situational or the standard of averages. In such a setting, to be right is just as meaningless as to be wrong. Being left with just metaphysics we are left where morals disappear. We are just the little against the big. No religious language can overcome the strain because they essentially have no more real meaning thatn the naturalistc, psychological reduction of morals to conditioning and reflexes. The Marquis de Sade said it better than anyone when he stated, "What is, is right." This is what you get when you begin with anything other than the personal. If your argument is "cause and effect' ( "... what happened next and next and next . . ." ), you have to have an original cause. Without it, begin again with the first paragraph. A

Your silver-tonguedness, The world (the universe and man) exists. It had a beginning. If you still want to begin with neither a personal nor an impersonal beginning, you still have yet to say what we can begin with. Since you consider man having no intrinsic knowledge on whether good and evil exist, where did man get this knowledge to share? You mentioned the 10 Commandments. If Westminister Larger explains your position, how do you reconcile this with your having said the spiritual cannot be spoken of? The Larger Confession begins with the personal, and argues the 10 Commandments were God's direct propositional communique to man. Also mentioned is Walter Goldschmidt, who's in bed deeply with the impersonal. You've provided two opposing views. Is this a clue as to why you believe it is neither? If we begin with anything but the personal, man's morality would be out of sync with what is there, and morals would have no standard. There'd be no place for morals as morals. If you see meaning as man made, then you'd be right that any meaning would be- meaningless. Finite Man can not be a sufficient reference point for himself. Meaning ; the thing that is meant or intended; significance. You also had mentioned man needs meaning when facing death. Even if I disagreed, that would be a difficult premise to argue against, all men face death. Always, Your Astuteness

To whom it may concern, I can not overstate the appreciation I have for the members, who have posted here, for their honest and no less than courteous responses, not only to me, but, as well as to others. That I and others disagree on some critical issues should be no less than obvious. What surprises me is that thinking of an afterlife where all will end in total unity is not seen as a repudiation of any meaning for freedom and morality, for everything is finally equal. With that last salvo, it looks as if this thread may have run its course. God's grace to you all, Davidk

Dutch, There's no way that just because two people agree on something, that it necessarily makes it true. I am reminded of my brother-in-law who drives a long haul truck. On one occasion, he and his co-driver were approaching an over pass. They both agreed the truck would fit under it. I need go no further, but the medical bills were substantial. - "... but a religious truth that can be spoken of... is unobtainable..." If the Spiritual cannot be rationally spoken of, then I must say, that any optimism one could have is irrational. One would simply have no reason to be optimistic that man is any more than just a machine. These mysticisms are simply nothing more than semantic, dealing only in words (i.e.; unobtainable) that have nothing to do with anything being there. If you do not see either a personal or impersonal beginning, it would interest me to know what it was that began everything. That is if you can consider there was a beginning. If man intrinsically knows no good or evil, how can you conceivably explain man learning good and evil from other men? Or the world for goodness sake, which you have already said cannot speak of spiritual things. If we cannot speak of spiritual things in an "earthly" language, like: "hitting babies is cruel", which I suppose by your definition isn't really involving true spiritual meaning, how then do we expect to learn right from wrong, etc, etc. You can't have it both ways. On your last, complimentary, note (thank you very much) I'm afraid I can't verify the veracity of your compliment as any more astute than your other observations. David

Neon, Christianity, recognizes the depravity (cruelness) in man, as well as his goodness. Christianity sees this dilemma realizing man is not intrinsically cruel. By his own rebellion, man has become abnormal to what he intrinsicaly was. Christianity offers the hope of being normal again. If man were normal now, in his depravity (cruelty), what hope would there be to become something other than what we intrinsically are? Davidk

Dear Derek, I was under the impression that in order to understand each others answers, certain specific terms should be defined. I provided an illustration to provide you, as well as anyone else reading, with what I considered faith to be. By having defined it, I considered the answer to the questions to be very nearly obvious, or at least not requiring a lot of mental gymnastics to decifer. In any case, 'faith' had to be defined before ascribing it. note: Faith without any certainty is a leap from reason. This does not describe Christianity. The role of faith is how man sees the results of the choices. In regard to the "two choices": of all the choices involving the eternal, the afterlife, or anything else really; all ultimately boils down to being only a choice between one or the other of two. If to the subject there is no reason to choose either object, freedom becomes an irrelevant term and any relevance or meaning ascribed would be by leap of faith. As far as Mike's question on freedom is concerned: I gave an example of what I had premised (curtain number one...). Mike had, I assume unwittingly, but nonetheless, misconstrued what I premised gives freedom its meaning. (Neon has a tendency to miscontrue premises as well) Knowing there's real differentiation in the consequences in the subjects choice of object gives meaning to the choice, which gives meaning to freedom. My premise is unspecific to which choices, because it is true regardless of the choices menu, even the Christian choice. If Mike wishes to say he has not much of a choice in either of the results in God's question for Man, Heaven or Hell, Mike either 1) doesn't believe there is any difference, or 2) doesn't believe either exist (which is essentially believing both have the same result). He may be able to tack on others, but I tend to think they'd just be variations of the 2. By this, Mike seems reluctant to choose to believe God has provided the way to be with Him; choosing rather to believe only man creates the way to God. What role do you think faith has in his choice? David

Derek, Brevity is not always clarity, but I'll try to be brief and clear, nontheless. We've spoken before about terms needing to be defined in order to understand what the heck we're saying to each other. I wish others would own up to that. Faith can have two completely opposite meanings. I'll tell a story to explain: High in the Alps two daring mountain climbers, Tariki and Davidk had made there way very high on the bare rock, still looking up to the promise of even more spectacular adventure. Suddenly, from over the peaks, the clouds are rushing over, soon covering the two in heavy fog and ice. Tariki, a guide of some reknown, recognizes the desperate situation they are in and tells Davidk, "If we can't soon find a way out of this, we'll die." The fog contiues to thicken, visibility is nill. Ice covers the ground, footing is nill. Just moving to even keep warm, is incredibly dicey. They had moved out on the shoulder to search for some escape, but now blind, they were trapped, lost in the fog and ice, not having any idea where they were. They had to admit, that exposed as they were, there was no way to hope to survive till morning. Davidk said to Tariki, the intrepid guide, "Suppose I were to drop from this shoulder and hit a ledge only just a few feet below. What would happen then?" Tariki turned toward his companion, trying not to look amused, but said, "We might be able to survive til morning in its shelter." So, suddenly, with absolutely no knowledge or any reason to think a ledge actually existed, Davidk hangs from the shoulder and drops into the fog. That is one kind of faith, a leap of faith. One with no assurance. Now suppose the story went like this: ... They had to admit, that exposed as they were, there was no way to hope to survive till morning. Suddenly from out of the fog- a voice. A voice Tariki recognized. It was his friend, Jacques Montagne, whose family were 60 year long residents and climbers of this mountain. The voice said, "Tariki, I heard your voice, and I know exactly where you are. There's a ledge just a few feet below you. You can find shelter and you can make it through the night." They determined that it was actually Tariki's friend, Jacques. They spoke longer with him and knew that Jacques did in fact know exactly where they were. Convinced by his answers, they would drop. This is the Christian faith. It is not a "leap of faith". Obviously, it has no relationship to the first example. So distant is the relationship between the two, one should not even be designated by the same word. --- Freedom is fully defined and demonstrated to have meaning with as little as two alternatives. You don't need any more than that. Suppose you had to choose what's behind curtain number one or curtain number two(?) You could say you are free to choose either, but with no reasons for the choice, that freedom becomes meaningless. So it is with Buddhism and it's undetermined/undefined/inexplicable beginnings, endings, or self; and so, unable to offer man any meaning. The logical result of this explains why, in Buddhism, man's life meaning is always in its suffering, and the hopes for anything different are left inexplicable, undeterminable, and undefinable. With no certainty for anything, Man is truly in despair. Christianity begins with observing that things really exist. Through this basic truth we can reason with certainty that man has a real and defined answer for hope. It is Christianity that developes that answer. --- Personal: rational and self-conscious; exclusively an individual; of or relating to a particular person; originating in or proceeding from one person to another; carried on between individuals directly; relating to an individual, his character, attributes, conduct, motive; relating to or characteristic of human beings as distinct from things. impersonal ; not predicated of a personor determinate subject; denoting the action of an unspecified agent and hence used with no expressed subject; having an indeterminate subject; havbing no personal reference or connection; not referring or belonging to many particular person; not engaging the human personality; not representative of or existing as a person; not having personality; not primarily affecting or involving the emotions of the the person who has it. I've tried not be vague anywhere, but... David

Dutch,I understand your point, though I don't entirely agree. I would think those with different understandings would be coming together certainly to first understand each other, but always in order to seek and share the truth. I would tend to think that truth is the ultimate goal of any religious system worth their salt, in any encounter. I'll summarize it this way. We have metaphysical and moral necessities, of 'being' and of good and evil. The basic question from which to consider a rational answer is that something is there rather than something is not. It is the search for a rational explaination for what actually is. Man intrinsically knows he has meaning, and that he needs meaning. So, what exists that can truly provide it? He can't find it beginning only with himself. Man knows there is good and evil. What exists that can explain the meaning behind this differentiation? In final summary, it is only a personal beginning that can provide man's metaphysical or moral needs. It is that the impersonal can't provide the answers for the things we know exist. That includes a true and rational meaning for man and his aspirations and personality. I hope that helps. Davidk

Neon, Given your premise, that is the only alternative you have left non "conservative" Christians with; be a "conservative" Christian or be punished. It is by your determination alone that they should. I don't intend to present any. God, being personal, is hurt by disobedience. Being all powerful does not eliminate being hurt with disappointment. If God says so, it is so. Did He say so? God's grace, David

Mike, Since your captive of a sick bed, I'll try to be sympathetic with brevity to your post. The operative word is 'try'. --- If it were that nothing existed, I think you may have an argument. We recognize that something is there as opposed to nothing is there. In this, there are only two choices for any beginning: an impersonal or a personal. There simply are no other choices. In short, the problem arises when the existence of the "mannishness" of man ( language, aspirations, and personality) is recognized as it exists. And it needs an answer. Without a personal beginning, there simply doesn't exist an answer. Buddhism does not consider a personal beginning, nor any beginning really. This is, by sheer default, impersonal. Further, I haven't intended for there to be any implication that universals don't exist or that man doesn't know they exist, or that they aren't or can't be looked for by anyone. They do exist. That existence doesn't rely on who does the looking. That's part of my entire point. Man needs to see that the universe does exist in its present form. But, if we only have the impersonal as a foundation, that is only time, mass, energy, or motion (all equally impersonal), then there is no reason for significance in variance. If the beginning is nothing other than the impersonal plus time plus chance, then there is no answer for the needed complexity of the universe, nothing has any meaning as a particular. Since the universe does exist in its present form, the personal beginning offers sufficient knowledge with the answers for the needed complexities (particulars). Again, I never implied different religions and societies don't come up different solutions by observing reality. Obviously they do. But the choice toward which we must reason should be in the one which has the sufficient answer for what is there. -- Well I didn't spend a lot of time looking for the old Trinity posts, so I'll be brief. Paul's book to the Romans says God's attributes are clearly seen in what God has made (1:20). That the evidence will demonstrate the truth. Our universe is made up of 3 things: time, space, and matter. Each if these are described by three characteristics. (i.e. matter= mass, motion, and energy; space= it's in terms of height, width, and depth. Time= past, present, and future). -- Man is no island because he is dependant. I wholeheartedly agree with you that no one can find meaning from only himself. In Christianity, unity is not at the expense of diversity, or vice-versa. Because a personal God has given man the freedom to choose by telling us what we need to know about the ramifications of our choice, that's what gives that freedom its meaning. Christianity does not approach any consideration to conclude everyone will choose to be with God, whether you call it Catholic, Orthodox, or Pauline doctrine. It hopes they would choose to return to normal, but they know the mind of fallen man. Personally, I would say the purpose of man is to choose his "eternal abode", wisely. Without a choice in his ultimate destination, man's purpose would lack any significance. Man alone cannot make himself have any meaning, he must depend on what God provides to get anything done rightly. That includes the way to Heaven. Once one is in the company of God, that makes it pretty great. He loves you as an individual. It's not because you belong to a group, but that in your faith you believed Him and in Him. You do not get to Heaven by being perfect at anything. It is likely with the available evidence that a group could have decided in favor of the same belief. "It could only be a hoax if we were somehow expected to believe in something that really wasn't there." Since that is precisely what I said, we must therefore be in agreement on this point. -- All of what I've said leads to a personal infinite God who created all else. It is this personal beginning that ultimately gives meaning to man. It is that a personal beginning gives meaning to the variances we know exist. If it were that all is essentially just part of a oneness (and always have been), which is the only result of impersonal origins, then any variance would be essentially meaningless. This answers for unity, but fails miserably when explaining the observed differentiations in existence. No differentiation, no freedom, no morality, no personality, no man. -- The Christian personal-infinite God has given us a choice to make which will color all of the other choices we make. On the other hand Buddhism gives us no choice, because ultimately it tells us we all simply begin and end at the same place. I think that's what is meant by "not much of a choice". Man has no significance if ultimately his decisions don't make any difference in the consequences. If they make no difference, then there's no real choices to be made, and no real purpose for any decision. Man cannot be considered to have free will if he doesn't know what the consequences of his choices will be. If man has no free will in his decisions, he has no signficance, he may as well be a carrot or a water molecule. God made each of us significant by allowing us to choose between known consequences. i.e;.Spend all your money and you'll be broke. Your decision means something on that level and it means something on the ultimate level as well. Believe that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life and no one comes to the Father but by Him. It's your decision in what to believe. Get to feeling better. God's grace to you, David

Neon, I will posit the premise this way for you: If, "conservative" Christianity is true when it says: only "conservative" Christians are not punishable by God. Then: not being a "conservative" Christian would be punishable. That would be, as I have come to agree with Mike on, logical! However, I don't know of anyone making claim to the premise. -- Dutch, Surely you jest. David

Dear Neon: If Christianity were not true, then there could be no harm. Do you not think anyone unrepentant of evil deserves punishment? If Christianity is true, then unrepentant sin will be dealt with in the manner God says it will be, rightly; and being aware of the stated consequences, we become personally accountable. -- Dutch, (one addict to another) I don't agree with you. So it seems, based on the citeria you have established for yourself, much of your post can be regarded as- not true. --- Mike, I'm out of time for a proper response today. I'll have to "hitcha back"? Davidk

Neon, I can only assume you are addressing me by your using a quote from one my posts in preface to your post. Therefore, for you to come and imply that any position I've taken has in any way declared that the "meaning of (anyones) existence is dependent on the torture of everyone else" is patently absurd. Likewise, it is equally absurd to say good and evil behavior have no differentiation in their consequences, for then God would be a liar. Man has meaning, whether you believe in God or not. But if it were true that the personal infinite God did not exist, then there would be no real explanation for a meaningful existence. It would all just be some cruel hoax. Davidk

Mike, Logic: I stand corrected. Logic depends upon its premise. It is the process of reasoning from the premise, regardless of whether the premise is true or not. If the premise it true, logic will reveal more truth, but not necessarily exhaustive truth. While it is true that mathematics is a discipline which depends on logic, philosophy and religion also depend on such critical thinking. If the premise is that all started with a personal beginning, then we logically have an adequate and reasonable explanation for the source and meaning of human personality, my personality, and the individual personality of others. If all started with an impersonal beginning, then personality is no more than an illusion, unless we make an illogical mystical jump to have personality come from impersonality. If we have an impersonal beginning, then logic would end up with only mechanics and the particulars, no universals. The evidence of God is all around us, so we can know God truly, just not exhaustively. The Trinity can be understood by observing what is there, including man. A full discussion on this would be more applicable to another thread. If you check back on the debate/dialogue section you may find my answer on a previous thread involving the Trinity. I'll try to find it and forward the posts. --- Dereck, Thanks. --- Joseph, I believe asking where I was wrong (or where we differ) demonstrates an openness you have not seen fit to acknowledge. I would appreciate more diligence is assessing the situation before making an accusation. Any talk of censure was only intended as good humor. God's grace to you all, Davidk

Derek, After you gave the Lewis quote you vowed to avoid further thread involvement. I don't wish to unnecessarily draw you back. But would you please provide from what writing the Lewis quote is from? Why do you ask questions on the way out the door??? It seems we've both recognized the real need to define words and terms before discussing them, for the very reasons you have pointed out. Without some mutual coherence in language, communication can easily be strained. I've found resistance in even the effort to define words and terms not to mention the concepts that rely on them. You would think that with the obvious trait of man as a verbalizer, there would at least be an effort toward a rational consensus, even if futile, to understand each others "language" in order to know what the several writers are wanting to say. I understand the need of man for a destination, even in Buddhist philosophy. That is why the concept of the endless path toward perfection of right behavior need be redefined as a "destination", even though the designated destination of Buddhism is Nirvana; which is undefinable seemingly in order for the philosophy to be consistent with no defined beginnings. If I'm not mistaken, Buddhism says we all ultimately end up in oneness with the Absolute (Nirvana), since all things, in Noble Wisdom, is already in Nirvana from the beginning? This essentially eliminates the meaning or need for any individual to exist. I'm asking you only supply the Lewis quote reference, please. - Davidk

deleted

deleted