The Harm To Others

[davidk]

minsocal,

The interpretation to which I subscribe is that the Bible is God's revealed, propostional, and verbal truth to man. Therefore: "no".

---

JosephM,

Simply, a world of spiritual grey is dead.

Either God speaks to man in a manner which he can understand or he doesn't. There is no grey.

 

We (society) do not define right and wrong, God does. The spititual minded can discern this easily. Argue over the particulars is all we do.

---

McKenna,

There is certainly a sense of frustration in your recent posts. I'm sorry my efforts have failed to hit home to your questions.

 

"To argue that God could reveal His truth through Revelation and then to jump to the conclusion that therefore your Scripture is that Revelation is a logical fallacy." If left there, you would be absolutely correct. I thought it would have been understood that the Bible's own claims of revelation inspired by God are verified by what we actually know exists, since that is something other "scriptures" can't claim with any veracity.

---

For us to say science is not faithful to the creation story in Genesis may be a bit premature; for the Biblical creation story was never intended to be an exhaustive scientific text, but nonetheless true in its historical context. I do not know where it is that science has said God did NOT create the universe. But if the infinite-personal God did not create all else, what exists, couldn't. That He did is defendable; philosophically as well as scientifically. The Biblical account is accurate though not exhaustive.

 

There may be a difference between methodologies by which we gain knowledge; from what God tells us in the Bible and from scientific study, but this is not a dichotomy as to the facts. If both studies can be adequately pursued, there will be no final conflict. Science by its natural limitations cannot know all we know from God in the Bible; but in those cases where science can know, both sources of knowledge arrive at the same point, even if the knowledge is expressed in different terms. What the Bible teaches of history and the cosmos, and what science teaches where it touches the same areas do not stand in discontinuity.

 

As far as it is concerned with morality, the Bible explains how man first began to understand right from wrong, the birth of morality, in an historical setting, based on the brute fact that there was a time, a space-time historical moment, when man turned from his proper integration point by choice, and in doing so there was a moral discontinuity; man became abnormal.

 

Holding to a strong view of scripture or not holding to it is the watershed issue facing the evangelical world. Because, first, this is the only way to be faithful to what the Bible teaches about itself and to what Jesus teaches about Scripture. 2nd; there may be hard days ahead of us, spiritually and physically. And without a strong view of scripture we will lack hope and will not be ready for the hard days to come.

[JosephM]

(snip)

The interpretation to which I subscribe is that the Bible is God's revealed, propostional, and verbal truth to man.

(snip)

 

You have made that quite evident and in that assumption and subscription, you have effectively limited and biased your understanding to the programming of a book that has blinded you to truth that even the book testifies of.

 

JosephM,

Simply, a world of spiritual grey is dead.

Either God speaks to man in a manner which he can understand or he doesn't. There is no grey.

 

There are many colors in the spectrum. Even creation testifies to this. Perhaps, Black and White are limited colors for the spiritually blind.

 

We (society) do not define right and wrong, God does. The spititual minded can discern this easily. Argue over the particulars is all we do.

---

To be 'wrong' is a word created by man that if examined one will find means...

Not in conformity or unacceptable or undisireable to social convention. Or

Not fitting or suitable; inappropriate or improper:

Not in accord with established usage, method, or procedure.

 

You can insist all day that wrong is an absolute. And if applied to mathematics meaning incorrect you will receive no argument. Yet to insist that social convention does not define morals and 'right' and 'wrong' which indeed change with societies is to be ignorant of history. If they were absolute and unchanging terms, philosophers would have ceased debating this issue thousands of years ago. Right and wrong are always connected by subjective belief systems. Since you assign the Bible as the final word, then right and wrong to you are absolutes to your understanding of its writings. Yet that claim in no way makes it fact, just subjective.

 

(snip)

Holding to a strong view of scripture or not holding to it is the watershed issue facing the evangelical world. Because, first, this is the only way to be faithful to what the Bible teaches about itself and to what Jesus teaches about Scripture. 2nd; there may be hard days ahead of us, spiritually and physically. And without a strong view of scripture we will lack hope and will not be ready for the hard days to come.

 

Perhaps your hope is in the Scriptures and without it you only see lack. It seems to me that is another closed view of sight from within the box. Others who see it differently than you place their hope in something more intimate than a relationship with a book written by men and riddled with historical, geographical, and scientific error. However, it seems obvious that one who has decided to believe otherwise because ones belief in the book dictates that, provable fact can always be explained away.

 

Have a Happy New year David,

Joseph

[davidk]

Dear Joe,

 

You have remained silent to this question, "Does God speak to man in a manner which he can understand or doesn't he?" To that there is no grey.

---

It is not ignoring history when it is said that man has tried to judge right from wrong without God. Man has always felt that things are right or that things are wrong. I'm not talking about certain norms. All men have a sense of moral motions, but without there being an ultimate "right", all we can ever hope to attain is moral chaos.

 

In order to even begin to interpret rights from wrongs, we have to know "right and wrong" actually ultimately exist.

 

You're merely trying to hold off arriving at the place where you have to acknowledge that in your philosphy there is no basic meaning to the words "right" and "wrong" and without those final catagories of right and wrong, you can have relativism and situational ethics, but you cannot have morality. That is only you unable to accept that you are a man living in a universe where there is a standard that gives meaning to the words right and wrong. Otherwise, as you would have it, morals would disappear. We would just be the little against the big, where nothing has meaning in right and wrong. There would ultimately be no difference in connotation between right and wrong or good and evil.

---

Creation testifies to the infinite-personal God speaking to man in a way man understands, so there is no excuse; there is no grey.

---

You may insist that your position is the right one. But by your reasoning (not mine), you have no logical basis for that claim.

---

To teach man there is no ultimate distinction between right and wrong does a great moral disservice to man.

[minsocal]

minsocal,

The interpretation to which I subscribe is that the Bible is God's revealed, propostional, and verbal truth to man. Therefore: "no".

---

 

The simple fact is, davidk, your views DO HARM to others. You keep up your diatribe on "propositional" without any appeal to emotion. In this sense, you have missed the entire point of Whitehead, Jung, and feeling theory in general. You miss the entire point Hume raised, the entire point Spinoza raised, etc. Where, exactly, do your values come from? If you see a child abused, is it a matter of a "proposition"? If, like Jesus, you see people ostrasized from society with negative consequences, will you seek to bring them back with your "propositions". Your "propostions" are meaningless without concrete action. Your "propositions" are meaningless without emotional value. What is the propositional content of "care"? harm?" "compassion?" To be rational, your "propositions" cannot live in isolation. Go to a soup kitchen. Counsel drug addicts. Find out for yourself what is real, and then come back and talk about "propositions".

[JosephM]

Dear Joe,

 

You have remained silent to this question, "Does God speak to man in a manner which he can understand or doesn't he?" To that there is no grey.

 

Your question is a conundrum. It would not even be asked if you knew that God is Spirit and neither speaks nor requires words to communicate. Man which is flesh cannot understand God. Man's understanding is nothing more than his subjective experience limited in communication by his own created linguistics which could never describe or understand the indescribable that can only be known by virtue of being One with in Spirit.

 

It is not ignoring history when it is said that man has tried to judge right from wrong without God. Man has always felt that things are right or that things are wrong. I'm not talking about certain norms. All men have a sense of moral motions, but without there being an ultimate "right", all we can ever hope to attain is moral chaos.

In order to even begin to interpret rights from wrongs, we have to know "right and wrong" actually ultimately exist.

 

Perhaps, they ultimately exist only in your mind David.

 

You're merely trying to hold off arriving at the place where you have to acknowledge that in your philosphy there is no basic meaning to the words "right" and "wrong" and without those final catagories of right and wrong, you can have relativism and situational ethics, but you cannot have morality. That is only you unable to accept that you are a man living in a universe where there is a standard that gives meaning to the words right and wrong. Otherwise, as you would have it, morals would disappear. We would just be the little against the big, where nothing has meaning in right and wrong. There would ultimately be no difference in connotation between right and wrong or good and evil.

 

Based on the definition of philosophy as recorded:

1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.

2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.

3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.

4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.

 

By those definitions, It seems to me, it would be correct to assume that I have no philosophy and if it appears otherwise, it is a misunderstanding on the part of one of us. It seems to me, For the most part, the words right and wrong , good and evil remain subjective and do define man's morals so perhaps you need not fear that morals will disappear. Perhaps, they will change with time and societal norms but not disappear as long as man is present. Perhaps, as I mentioned earlier , your inability to see any other color except black and white is a possible source of your coming to conclusions that are simply not relevant to the statements I have made.

 

 

Creation testifies to the infinite-personal God speaking to man in a way man understands, so there is no excuse; there is no grey.

---

You may insist that your position is the right one. But by your reasoning (not mine), you have no logical basis for that claim.

---

To teach man there is no ultimate distinction between right and wrong does a great moral disservice to man.

 

It seems to me that if that were true and man understood, there would be no need for religion. Yet it seems he doesn't and there is that need. Perhaps, I have no position. It seems to me I have merely responded to your insistence that there is only one right position and there is no grey. I have submitted other conclusions for your consideration yet I claim no ownership, philosophy, theology or moral standard for man nor do I see my words as a service or disservice to man. They are just words to be taken lightly. If you do see them as a disservice as you have said, that is a problem only you can resolve.

 

Love Joseph

[davidk]

The simple fact is, davidk, your views DO HARM to others. You keep up your diatribe on "propositional" without any appeal to emotion. In this sense, you have missed the entire point of Whitehead, Jung, and feeling theory in general. You miss the entire point Hume raised, the entire point Spinoza raised, etc. Where, exactly, do your values come from? If you see a child abused, is it a matter of a "proposition"? If, like Jesus, you see people ostrasized from society with negative consequences, will you seek to bring them back with your "propositions". Your "propostions" are meaningless without concrete action. Your "propositions" are meaningless without emotional value. What is the propositional content of "care"? harm?" "compassion?" To be rational, your "propositions" cannot live in isolation. Go to a soup kitchen. Counsel drug addicts. Find out for yourself what is real, and then come back and talk about "propositions".

Minsocal,

Perhaps had I used the word "narration" instead, it may have been understood a little differently. Or even had I used "offering" or "proposal" or "objective statement" or "sentient argument" my purpose may have been more clearly interpreted. It is simply because "propositional" weaves all of these together that I felt it to be the more encompassing descriptive.

 

And with all of that said it seems my point still remained somewhat of a mystery to you, and for that I must be held partially to blame. For in being so baffled you have made a rather scathing accusation that appears to be born from a rather specious emotional response; and I don't think you generally behave that way. Premature, because they are not from an actual understanding of my proposal that: God actually propositionally communicated His truths to us in a manner we may understand, digest, discuss and teach to others.

 

By using "values" you imply meaning. And that comes from knowing there is ultimately an actual difference between right and wrong, that they truly exist and are not just some empty string of arbitray symbols we call letters. Knowing right and wrong exist is what gives emotions real meaning. Without a truly right and wrong in reality, any emotional response we may have could only be mechanical and finally have no real meaning.

 

When I see an abused child, like any civilzed man I feel a deep compassion for the wrongs the child has had to suffer. I am a foster parent to one and have permanent custody of another of two such children. Hopefully you may see how emotional judgements need a basis in propositional truth, FIRST; then the proper emotion will well-up inside you. They are properly understood as passion or compassion or anger or affection, and of course the list can go on. Any and all of those emotions are important to man, but if they are not supported by propositional truths, they can be easily misapplied.

 

As I have attempted to express on previous occasions, for man to know anything it must be spoken first. Knowledge must be articulated for it to be known, even to yourself. Your list of philosophers agree. If it cannot be spoken, it cannot be knowledge. If it is not knowledge it cannot be known nor discussed. Proper emotional response relies on the knowledge of meaning. If one can't explain why you have a certain emotional feeling, you'd better take another look at it to see if you are responding to the stimulus properly. That is a truth remembered in the old "look before you leap" metephor. Merely appealing to your emotions is what is foundational to scam artists; and that does not preclude some "pastors" or politicians.

 

We are communicators. And we are communicators because God was first for we are in His image. We can only know truth because the ultimate truth has been spoken by the ultimate speaker, God Himself, and has been spoken to man in a manner we can understand, so we may know.

---

Joe,

"... I have no philosophy and if it appears otherwise, it is a misunderstanding... I claim no ownership, philosophy, theology or moral standard... " -JosephM

Oh! That's right! Tsk. I forgot! You don't have a philosophy. Since by your own confession, it is just meaningless blather and it would therefore be unwarranted if you or anyone else were to take offense if I were to agree with you and say that your posts are total B.S.

I'm still praying the light will be seen by you. It is shining. Always has! All you gotta do is open your eyes.

 

Love, David

[minsocal]

Minsocal,

Perhaps had I used the word "narration" instead, it may have been understood a little differently. Or even had I used "offering" or "proposal" or "objective statement" or "sentient argument" my purpose may have been more clearly interpreted. It is simply because "propositional" weaves all of these together that I felt it to be the more encompassing descriptive.

 

And with all of that said it seems my point still remained somewhat of a mystery to you, and for that I must be held partially to blame. For in being so baffled you have made a rather scathing accusation that appears to be born from a rather specious emotional response; and I don't think you generally behave that way. Premature, because they are not from an actual understanding of my proposal that: God actually propositionally communicated His truths to us in a manner we may understand, digest, discuss and teach to others.

 

By using "values" you imply meaning. And that comes from knowing there is ultimately an actual difference between right and wrong, that they truly exist and are not just some empty string of arbitray symbols we call letters. Knowing right and wrong exist is what gives emotions real meaning. Without a truly right and wrong in reality, any emotional response we may have could only be mechanical and finally have no real meaning.

 

When I see an abused child, like any civilzed man I feel a deep compassion for the wrongs the child has had to suffer. I am a foster parent to one and have permanent custody of another of two such children. Hopefully you may see how emotional judgements need a basis in propositional truth, FIRST; then the proper emotion will well-up inside you. They are properly understood as passion or compassion or anger or affection, and of course the list can go on. Any and all of those emotions are important to man, but if they are not supported by propositional truths, they can be easily misapplied.

 

As I have attempted to express on previous occasions, for man to know anything it must be spoken first. Knowledge must be articulated for it to be known, even to yourself. Your list of philosophers agree. If it cannot be spoken, it cannot be knowledge. If it is not knowledge it cannot be known nor discussed. Proper emotional response relies on the knowledge of meaning. If one can't explain why you have a certain emotional feeling, you'd better take another look at it to see if you are responding to the stimulus properly. That is a truth remembered in the old "look before you leap" metephor. Merely appealing to your emotions is what is foundational to scam artists; and that does not preclude some "pastors" or politicians.

 

We are communicators. And we are communicators because God was first for we are in His image. We can only know truth because the ultimate truth has been spoken by the ultimate speaker, God Himself, and has been spoken to man in a manner we can understand, so we may know.

---

 

By value, I do not mean "meaning". I mean suffering. Pain. Agony. Joy. Sorrow. Awe. Depression. Anxiety. Pleasure. Life. Death. Gratitude. Empathy. Compassion. None of which require a "proposition" to be felt. The proposition is merely an epiphenomenon, used after the fact to explain what came first. The emotion gives the proposition relative value. I am aware that you give no credence to the real implications of evolution. But, emotion preceded "propositions" and language in human development. Emotions are the intrinsic intentionality of language itself.

[JosephM]

Minsocal,

Joe,

"... I have no philosophy and if it appears otherwise, it is a misunderstanding... I claim no ownership, philosophy, theology or moral standard... " -JosephM

Oh! That's right! Tsk. I forgot! You don't have a philosophy. Since by your own confession, it is just meaningless blather and it would therefore be unwarranted if you or anyone else were to take offense if I were to agree with you and say that your posts are total B.S.

I'm still praying the light will be seen by you. It is shining. Always has! All you gotta do is open your eyes.

 

Love, David

 

David,

 

I just love the way you use quotation marks on words to say what you will as if I wrote them that way.

 

Have a great day

 

Love Joseph

[davidk]

Joe,

 

I hope you saw the three little dots preceeding, interrupting and closing inside the quotes. They're typically used, and understood to mean, when addressing relevant statements to reflect that there were portions intentionally left blank rather than having to quote the entirety of the statement(s) and are careful to reflect the actual intention and meaning of the parts that were used.

 

However, since the quotes were accurate ( you have in the past repeatedly written that: you have no philosophy or world view, that rational thought doesn't exist and therefore has no influence on you, there is no such thing as objectivity, right and wrong are only figments of one's own mind, and words don't have any real meaning so your, or anyone else's for that matter, statements can't actually be taken seriously), I fail to see why you may have felt it necessary to comment.

---

minsocal,

 

"Value" is the term or expression that may replace a variable in a propositional statement or function so that the resultant is a true or false statement. Value denotes the worth of something. To have worth is to have meaning. "Value" and "meaning" are not synonyms. But to have value, something must have some meaning of significance.

 

"... suffering. Pain. Agony. Joy. Sorrow. Awe. Depression. Anxiety. Pleasure. Life. Death. Gratitude. Empathy. Compassion."

Emotion's importance is not diminished by being put into its proper order. For emotion to give any value to anything, the thing must come first.

 

How could compassion possibly exist before having something to be compassionate about?

 

The emotion is the verb but it must have a subject and an object to give it meaning. Quick examples: Compassion is considered an emotion brought on by the knowledge of such things as- a person's death. In that instance, for there to be a compassionate emotion, the person's death must come first.

 

Suppose you have a large tree in your yard and you are afraid of it. You would have to have some propositional knowledge of the subject tree to understand if your being afraid were the proper emotion for you to have about the tree or not. If a lumberjack was cutting it down and you were in the path of its fall, your emotion of being afraid of the tree would certainly be warranted. If it was simply healthy and standing there as it had for many years, then your being afraid of the tree would be unreasonable and is really not how man's emotions were intended.

[JosephM]

Joe,

 

I hope you saw the three little dots preceeding, interrupting and closing inside the quotes. They're typically used, and understood to mean, when addressing relevant statements to reflect that there were portions intentionally left blank rather than having to quote the entirety of the statement(s) and are careful to reflect the actual intention and meaning of the parts that were used.

 

However, since the quotes were accurate ( you have in the past repeatedly written that: you have no philosophy or world view, that rational thought doesn't exist and therefore has no influence on you, there is no such thing as objectivity, right and wrong are only figments of one's own mind, and words don't have any real meaning so your, or anyone else's for that matter, statements can't actually be taken seriously), I fail to see why you may have felt it necessary to comment.

 

David,

 

Your interpretation and rephrasing of my written statements as written above are your own conclusions slanted to your opinionated understanding of things that are still not properly comprehended after numerous clarifications I have given. You say "the quotes were accurate" as you have written, I think not. It seems to me you do not listen well and put people into your own labels of a very limited black and white understanding. Sorry but I find that most humorous.

 

Love Joseph

[davidk]

Joe,

If you have clarified these things, where might I find such? Please, provide where the evidence of your positions that are contrary to my claims. If I have falsely witnessed about you, then I deserve your ridicule.

 

 

Dk

[JosephM]

Joe,

If you have clarified these things, where might I find such? Please, provide where the evidence of your positions that are contrary to my claims. If I have falsely witnessed about you, then I deserve your ridicule.

Dk

 

Since you have said .... "that rational thought doesn't exist and therefore has no influence on you, there is no such thing as objectivity, right and wrong are only figments of one's own mind, and words don't have any real meaning so your, or anyone else's for that matter, statements can't actually be taken seriously)"

 

My posts stand in their own context and are free to examine yourself for clarification. You are the one who has made the claim of what I have said. You show me where I said there is no such thing as objectivity. You show me where I said rational thought doesn't exist and that words don't have any real meaning. Find those exact words rather than your supposed and slanted conclusions taken out of context.

 

'Right' and 'wrong' being subjective and conditioned judements of the mind or (figments as you say) is a fairly accurate statement of mine if taken in context. The rest are your own narrow conclusions.

 

Joseph

[JosephM]

"A mind that is so busy and quick to label rather than understand will invariably come to conclusions and judgements that have reality only in that mind."

JosephM

[davidk]

My posts stand in their own context and are free to examine yourself for clarification. You are the one who has made the claim of what I have said. You show me where I said there is no such thing as objectivity. You show me where I said rational thought doesn't exist and that words don't have any real meaning. Find those exact words rather than your supposed and slanted conclusions taken out of context.

 

'Right' and 'wrong' being subjective and conditioned judements of the mind or (figments as you say) is a fairly accurate statement of mine if taken in context. The rest are your own narrow conclusions.

 

Joseph

 

You have conveniently left out the "world view/philosphy" claim, so I supppose you admit that one by its absence, but I quoted you anyway.

"I have no philosophy or world view." Aug 13

"Because meanings of words are subjective to the so called rational and logical thought process which exists only in your mind." Aug 14

"The truth is David that this world indeed has no objective reality." Aug 21

 

Your turn.

[minsocal]

"Harm to others" is not an abstract term. It is concrete. People who are harmed do not offer themselves in sacrifice to an ideology, to a theology. They are harmed, physically and psychologically. They request nothing more simple than relief from dogma and oppression. Some would ask them to accept their "lot in the world". Those who argue from this position are those who "have" ... and are unwilling to give up what they "have". They create a world in which those who "have" deserve what they "get". Jesus did not think this way ... "the first shall be last". Hmmm ... Perhaps the "first" are "last"?

[JosephM]

You have conveniently left out the "world view/philosphy" claim, so I supppose you admit that one by its absence, but I quoted you anyway.

"I have no philosophy or world view." Aug 13

"Because meanings of words are subjective to the so called rational and logical thought process which exists only in your mind." Aug 14

"The truth is David that this world indeed has no objective reality." Aug 21

 

Your turn.

 

Ok David,

 

Perhaps you do not understand that when I said "Because meanings of words are subjective to the so called rational and logical thought process which exists only in your mind." Aug 14 There was obviously more said as that is an incomplete sentence.

 

And even that quote is not the same as your quote previously which says I said "there is no such thing as rational thought." That simply is not true. There IS such a thing as rational thought which you will find if you read the entire paragraph. I had merely explained that what is rational to one may not be rational to another. It is a conditioned and relative word and that which you considered rational existed only in your mind and it was different from mine. Hence, Rationality is a subjective term, not objective as you had seemed to suppose.

 

After all, its your mind that your thoughts come from and you consider rational yet many here would not agree to them being very rational as evidenced by comments you have received from others on this forum. Perhaps you consider others here irrational yet that might be a judgement that others may not agree with. So you see David, your quotes and conclusions remain within your narrow scope of labels and I do not wish to engage you to re-clarify each point.

 

In the future I would suggest you use etiquette to quote entire paragraphs of any public posts or reference those post numbers so as to be fair to others rather than trying to make what someone said into your own conclusions and post it as if they meant it the way you concluded. Any private posts should be kept private as the word implies in respect of others.

 

Love Joseph

[davidk]

Ok David,

 

Perhaps you do not understand that when I said "Because meanings of words are subjective to the so called rational and logical thought process which exists only in your mind." Aug 14 There was obviously more said as that is an incomplete sentence.

 

And even that quote is not the same as your quote previously which says I said "there is no such thing as rational thought." That simply is not true. There IS such a thing as rational thought which you will find if you read the entire paragraph. I had merely explained that what is rational to one may not be rational to another. It is a conditioned and relative word and that which you considered rational existed only in your mind and it was different from mine. Hence, Rationality is a subjective term, not objective as you had seemed to suppose.

 

After all, its your mind that your thoughts come from and you consider rational yet many here would not agree to them being very rational as evidenced by comments you have received from others on this forum. Perhaps you consider others here irrational yet that might be a judgement that others may not agree with. So you see David, your quotes and conclusions remain within your narrow scope of labels and I do not wish to engage you to re-clarify each point.

 

In the future I would suggest you use etiquette to quote entire paragraphs of any public posts or reference those post numbers so as to be fair to others rather than trying to make what someone said into your own conclusions and post it as if they meant it the way you concluded. Any private posts should be kept private as the word implies in respect of others.

 

Love Joseph

Joesph,

 

Again by the absence of comment on "objectivity" it can be added to what is already admitted to.

---

Perhaps if I had provided this instead, "Man is rational only in his own mind.", and "His so called 'rational thought' is both subjective and relative." Aug 18, which throws any claim you may now make of rationality's actual existence into doubt because it cannot be considered under those circumstances.

---

While adding "... and may not be in the mind of the other" to the original quote above may seem to exonerate you. However by saying that, you are then providing meaning for the individual. With your claim that we are all only one, with no such thing as individuality, there would therefore be no subjectivity. If rational thought is individually subjective and relative, but there is no room for individuality, you have eliminated the possiblity of man's rational thought.

---

"If creator and created are one, man and everything else lose individuality."- Dk

"Yes, You are correct David, Creator and created are One and you must die to self. Individuality per se (per se; by, of, or in itself.) no longer exists because you will be One with the Father who is All in All."-Aug 19 - parentheses added.

 

"Individuality and personality is an illusion of a false self identity which you believe to be you."- Aug 20

---

 

[JosephM]

Joesph,

 

Again by the absence of comment on "objectivity" it can be added to what is already admitted to.

 

Only in YOUR mind David.

Perhaps if I had provided this instead, "Man is rational only in his own mind.", and "His so called 'rational thought' is both subjective and relative." Aug 18, which throws any claim you may now make of rationality's actual existence into doubt because it cannot be considered under those circumstances.

---

 

Perhaps it cannot be considered in your mind. Personally i have no problem with it. When one continues to take pieces out of paragraphs and essays to fit ones own conclusions, how can understanding ever take place?

 

While adding "... and may not be in the mind of the other" to the original quote above may seem to exonerate you. However by saying that, you are then providing meaning for the individual. With your claim that we are all only one, with no such thing as individuality, there would therefore be no subjectivity. If rational thought is individually subjective and relative, but there is no room for individuality, you have eliminated the possiblity of man's rational thought.

---

 

Again David, There is individuality. never denied that. Spiritually speaking in our true nature, we are only one. Jesus is recorded praying that we should be one with the Father even as he was. (John) Perhaps you have difficulty separating the two. (flesh and spirit). Man's rational thought is not objective as you suppose. It exists as subjective. Man being a sentient being subjectively experiences life. His rational thought is a reflection of his subjective experience.

 

 

"If creator and created are one, man and everything else lose individuality."- Dk

"Yes, You are correct David, Creator and created are One and you must die to self. Individuality per se (per se; by, of, or in itself.) no longer exists because you will be One with the Father who is All in All."-Aug 19 - parentheses added.

 

"Individuality and personality is an illusion of a false self identity which you believe to be you."- Aug 20

---

 

Again you have taken pieces of messages that you quote that are a record a day apart and attempt to make it say what you conclude it to say without understanding what is being said. Perhaps if you drew less conclusions until you truly understood what the other was saying you wouldn't try to support your perceptions with pieces of quotes taken out of context.

 

Love Joseph

[minsocal]

This is why the Bible has gained a "reputation". Certain groups take "propositions" out of context and try to fit them into incoherent patterns. If ancient societies had no word for "homosexual" or heterosexual", it means they had no concept as such in their day. No concept ... no "proposition". You can invent a "proposition" at a later date, but you cannot name the intentions of Jesus "after the fact". You can only interpret the intentions of Jesus as laid out by Jesus, in the language of Jesus, in the time of Jesus. When you move those statements properly foreward, into modern language, they are very profound. If Jesus were a social behaviorist, he would have just "shut up" and accepted his lot "in the system". He would have had no concern for the poor. He would have paid no attention to the message of the prophets concerning social justice. And, we would know nothing about him today.

[davidk]

Joe,

 

Maybe we are routinely misunderstanding each other.

Let me ask this: If man's mind is where he reasons and understands, is this how you understand "rational in your own mind"? Or do you mean man only thinks he is rational when he really is not?

[davidk]

This is why the Bible has gained a "reputation". Certain groups take "propositions" out of context and try to fit them into incoherent patterns. If ancient societies had no word for "homosexual" or heterosexual", it means they had no concept as such in their day. No concept ... no "proposition". You can invent a "proposition" at a later date, but you cannot name the intentions of Jesus "after the fact". You can only interpret the intentions of Jesus as laid out by Jesus, in the language of Jesus, in the time of Jesus. When you move those statements properly foreward, into modern language, they are very profound. If Jesus were a social behaviorist, he would have just "shut up" and accepted his lot "in the system". He would have had no concern for the poor. He would have paid no attention to the message of the prophets concerning social justice. And, we would know nothing about him today.

They didn't call it "homosexuality" but such as; "a man lying with a man like he would lie with a woman". They may not have given the inclination a single name, but...

 

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

 

Jesus spoke of the sanctity of marraige for a man and a woman. This does not endorse any other unions. In fact, given the strong verbal endorsement of marraige by Jesus, if you are not so inclined to get married He left no options for engaging in any sexual activity outside of the man & woman marraige. This also requires the abstinence from homosexual bonds.

 

If you believe He did allow an alternative, something other than the Biblical text would necessarily have to be referred to.

[JosephM]

Joe,

 

Maybe we are routinely misunderstanding each other.

Let me ask this: If man's mind is where he reasons and understands, is this how you understand "rational in your own mind"? Or do you mean man only thinks he is rational when he really is not?

 

Yes, it is in man's mind that he reasons and THINKS he understands. In actuality he may or may not understand even though he thinks or reasons he does.

ra·tion·al (rsh-nl)

adj.

1. Having or exercising the ability to reason.

2. Of sound mind; sane.

3. Consistent with or based on reason; logical

 

Most all men have the ability to reason. Most all men consider themselves of sound mind. Most all men assume their thinking to be based on reason and consider their thinking logical. Yet rationality is relative and subject to the conditioning and experience of the individual thinking mind. Whether man is or is not of sound mind; sane , logical or rational is in reality merely a point of view.

 

Joseph

[minsocal]

They didn't call it "homosexuality" but such as; "a man lying with a man like he would lie with a woman". They may not have given the inclination a single name, but...

 

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

 

Jesus spoke of the sanctity of marraige for a man and a woman. This does not endorse any other unions. In fact, given the strong verbal endorsement of marraige by Jesus, if you are not so inclined to get married He left no options for engaging in any sexual activity outside of the man & woman marraige. This also requires the abstinence from homosexual bonds.

 

If you believe He did allow an alternative, something other than the Biblical text would necessarily have to be referred to.

 

Your interpretations have been refuted by Biblical scholars both Jewish and Christian. In the meantime, those who place compassion above legalism will continue to serve those in need knowing that God is not passive-aggressive and all are welcome. So ends our dialogue.

[davidk]

Joe,

 

Thanks for taking the time.

 

However, since I'm asking about mankind, let me try asking this another way.

 

Is man a rational creature? That is, does mankind have reason and understanding; a latent or active power to make logical inferences and draw conclusions of, relating to, or based upon reason, that enables one agreeable to reason, to understand the world around him and relate such knowledge, to the attainment of ends, often opposed to the emotional or animal; in application to policies, projects, or acts?

---

minsocal,

 

Please, don't get the impression I'm a legalist, far from it. Obeying God's law (or man's warped interpretations of them and which ones are which we can certainly argue about), does not save us. Legalism demands compliance with the law to be worthy, but God doesn't command that.

 

God's laws are there (not for strict obedience- since we can't obey them anyway) merely to reveal to man his need for (dependancy on) God and His assistance in our even trying to live up to them. Despite that, some of us still kick and scream over God's assistance, by His providing the solution. Ignoring the path He has hewn out of the wilderness for us, man still is inclined to do it his way. That form of thinking (humanism), along with legalism, is what is called rebellion. That is what God takes issue with.

 

I love you and I have compassion for you. I can only do that if I believe God has revealed to me not only how, but why. That is what we all can and need to know.

[JosephM]

Joe,

 

Thanks for taking the time.

 

However, since I'm asking about mankind, let me try asking this another way.

 

Is man a rational creature? That is, does mankind have reason and understanding; a latent or active power to make logical inferences and draw conclusions of, relating to, or based upon reason, that enables one agreeable to reason, to understand the world around him and relate such knowledge, to the attainment of ends, often opposed to the emotional or animal; in application to policies, projects, or acts?

---

 

Yes mankind has the ability to reason and understand WITHIN the limitations that have been accorded him/her. Mankind can make what appears to him logical inferences and draw conclusions based upon that ability to reason which from the individual or group point of view may appear to be perfectly logical and reasonable to those similarly influenced through a myriad of similar experiences, conditions and circumstances.

 

However, a limited perspective of the totality of all that is, limits mankind in both understanding and reasonableness so that he cannot know whether the conclusions reached are truly logical, reasonable or of sound judgement except in his own mind or by group consensus. Because of the limitations placed on mankind and all flesh, Mankind through reason and logic cannot ultimately understand the world around him because the world around him is a world of effects rather than causes. True understanding is available but beyond the limitations of the thinking mind.

 

Yes, man can relate his knowledge, to the attainment of ends, often opposed to the emotional or animal; in application to policies, projects, or acts. That his knowledge is indeed limited and changes with time goes without saying. Without understanding his limitations, it is his thinking that he is truly rational, logical and truly understands that does harm to himself and others.

 

Just an understanding to consider concerning your question.

 

Love Joseph