minsocal Posted February 1, 2009 Author Share Posted February 1, 2009 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted February 1, 2009 Author Share Posted February 1, 2009 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 ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted February 2, 2009 Author Share Posted February 2, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted February 2, 2009 Author Share Posted February 2, 2009 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidk Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted February 16, 2009 Author Share Posted February 16, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidk Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted February 17, 2009 Author Share Posted February 17, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidk Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted February 17, 2009 Author Share Posted February 17, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidk Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted February 18, 2009 Author Share Posted February 18, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidk Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted February 19, 2009 Author Share Posted February 19, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidk Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted February 20, 2009 Author Share Posted February 20, 2009 Good, and ...! (just picking one of the feelings) Why does love have any meaning? What is it that gives real meaning to love? My position should be pretty clear. Love is a complex emotion with primary and secondary qualities. For many, it is based on the innate capacitities of empathy and attachment. There is the original love of the child, and then the adult version that develops later. Call them Level 1 love and Level 2 love. There is also the element of trust and mutuality, both of which have different forms at Level 1 and Level 2. In the sense that I use the term "love", it is neither rational nor moral (Whitehead, 1929). I would also add that Carl Rogers offered the definition of love as "unconditional positive regard". Searle (1998) adds that love has a bi-directional direction of fit. In other words to "know love" requires the capacity to love and be loved, as with empathy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidk Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 My position should be pretty clear. Love is a complex emotion with primary and secondary qualities. For many, it is based on the innate capacitities of empathy and attachment. There is the original love of the child, and then the adult version that develops later. Call them Level 1 love and Level 2 love. There is also the element of trust and mutuality, both of which have different forms at Level 1 and Level 2. In the sense that I use the term "love", it is neither rational nor moral (Whitehead, 1929). I would also add that Carl Rogers offered the definition of love as "unconditional positive regard". Searle (1998) adds that love has a bi-directional direction of fit. In other words to "know love" requires the capacity to love and be loved, as with empathy. "(Love) is neither rational nor moral." Up until this point, you had not indicated that you considered love to be rather empty of any meaning. I suspect you don't really believe it is. This is not necessarily an easy question. We know love exists and can get some handle on a definition of what it is, but, why does love have any meaning? What is it that gives real meaning to love? Why should we know love? Don't rush an answer. This one takes some thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted February 21, 2009 Author Share Posted February 21, 2009 "(Love) is neither rational nor moral." Up until this point, you had not indicated that you considered love to be rather empty of any meaning. I suspect you don't really believe it is. This is not necessarily an easy question. We know love exists and can get some handle on a definition of what it is, but, why does love have any meaning? What is it that gives real meaning to love? Why should we know love? Don't rush an answer. This one takes some thought. I gave you my answer. Give it some thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidk Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 I gave you my answer. Give it some thought. Love is that selfless,"unconditional positive regard"; and described other ways. The only thing that gives love any meaning is the personal-infinite God being the ultimate cause. He loved first, he made us in His image with the capacity to love and told us what love is. He is why love has meaning. He is what gives real meaning to love. There is no other source that can give any real meaning to love. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted February 21, 2009 Author Share Posted February 21, 2009 Love is that selfless,"unconditional positive regard"; and described other ways. The only thing that gives love any meaning is the personal-infinite God being the ultimate cause. He loved first, he made us in His image with the capacity to love and told us what love is. He is why love has meaning. He is what gives real meaning to love. There is no other source that can give any real meaning to love. If love is an innate capacity it, like all capacities, is a means by which we acquire knowledge of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidk Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 If love is an innate capacity it, like all capacities, is a means by which we acquire knowledge of the world. The personal-infinite God is the ultimate cause. He loved first. Making man in His image, He spoke to man telling him what love is. The personal-infinite Christian God is the only answer to give real meaning to love. There is no knowledge of the world that can be the ultimate cause of love, to give it meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted February 21, 2009 Author Share Posted February 21, 2009 The personal-infinite God is the ultimate cause.He loved first. Making man in His image, He spoke to man telling him what love is. The personal-infinite Christian God is the only answer to give real meaning to love. There is no knowledge of the world that can be the ultimate cause of love, to give it meaning. "Making man in His image, He spoke to man telling him what love is." There is your metaphor. Just don't take the second phrase too literally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidk Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 "Making man in His image, He spoke to man telling him what love is." There is your metaphor. Just don't take the second phrase too literally. For some reason you are still not able to consider God actually communicating with man in a way man can understand. There is no use having a silent God. We would not know anything about Him. He has spoken and told us what He is and that He existed before all else, and so we have the answer to the existence of what is. That is the reason we know. Man beginning with himself, can define the philosphical problem of existence, be he cannot generate from himself the answer to the problem, which is the infinite-personal, triune God is there, and the the infinite-personal, triune God is not silent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted February 23, 2009 Author Share Posted February 23, 2009 For some reason you are still not able to consider God actually communicating with man in a way man can understand. There is no use having a silent God. We would not know anything about Him. He has spoken and told us what He is and that He existed before all else, and so we have the answer to the existence of what is. That is the reason we know.Man beginning with himself, can define the philosphical problem of existence, be he cannot generate from himself the answer to the problem, which is the infinite-personal, triune God is there, and the the infinite-personal, triune God is not silent. You might read my posts. I wear a pin everday that represents the idea that "God Is Still Speaking". I mentioned this on another thread. The idea came from an old Gracie Allen line, "never put a period where God put a coma". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidk Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 You might read my posts. I wear a pin everday that represents the idea that "God Is Still Speaking". I mentioned this on another thread. The idea came from an old Gracie Allen line, "never put a period where God put a coma". It is that you had just previously asked I not take the phrase about God speaking to man about what love is "too literally." This appeared to be your saying that you believe He did not. Did I misinterpret you? Is you pin your metaphor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.