Christianity

[henry quirk]

Although I agree with you about living and handling life now, rather than assigning value and balancing to an afterlife, your ass-whippin' philosophy could destroy the world real fast.

Depends on how it's implemented. Self-defense, defense of other, seekin' redress for injury, these are personal. They involve few. The world ain't involved. Now, when we step away from self-defense, defense of other, seekin' redress, we've left justice behind. We've become offenders. Then the world is involved.

Well, imagine you've got a whole lot of half-witted people and misunderstandings. How does the ass-whippin' scenario play out?

Half-wits & fools can't be the measure. And when such goofi (plural of goofus) overstep -- choose to offend -- hold 'em accountable.

For example: age decides to come over to my house at 3am, break in, and take my toothpicks. Age is probably dead. That he/she/it is half-witted and foolish is no defense.

[Immanuel Can]

One might trust one's subjective feelings over the Supreme Being who created and grounds the very concept of "justice," and who gave you the power to feel things in the first place?

I just don't trust him, IC, what can I say?

That's the issue, H.

Incidentally, you've just raised the issue of what the word "faith" really means. It means willingness to trust that what God says is true, or is going to be true. A person who doesn't do that doesn't "have faith in God," in the Biblical meaning of the term.

But if you don't trust God as to what "justice" is, then it means that the word "justice" has no objective referent. It doesn't mean anything BUT the odd feeling one has inside oneself.

[Harry Baird]

It is a fascinating demonstration, is it not, of how people can create gods in their own demented image?

Ouch to Immanuel Can, if in his demented image he really wishes to burn the rest of us in hell for eternity. It wouldn't be too surprising though. He's willing to endorse that concept on behalf of the doublespeak Biblical God in whom he believes.

[Nick_A]

No one has argued against "might makes right" as the ultimate definition of justice. It is a man made construct. It requires a change of mind from the usual discursive mindset to understand why. But who thinks in a new way?

As usual: you've lost me, Nick.

My mind just ain't supple or deep enough.

You are just not used to thinking in a new way but surely capable of it. Think of how those like IC consider justice as an external quality which God or society defines. But what if it is an internal quality we can experience as conscience or just the soul being normal? Anyone who realize this ponders what denies the experience of conscience. Justice is just the desire of the soul to do its duty according to its nature.

https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Anci/Anci ... the%20body.

Plato realises that all theories propounded by Cephalus, Thrasymachus and Glaucon, contained one common element. That one common element was that all the them treated justice as something external "an accomplishment, an importation, or a convention, they have, none of them carried it into the soul or considered it in the place of its habitation." Plato prove that justice does not depend upon a chance, convention or upon external force. It is the right condition of the human soul by the very nature of man when seen in the fullness of his environment. It is in this way that Plato condemned the position taken by Glaucon that justice is something which is external. According to Plato, it is internal as it resides in the human soul. "It is now regarded as an inward grace and its understanding is shown to involve a study of the inner man." It is, therefore, natural and not artificial. It is therefore, not born of fear of the weak but of the longing of the human soul to do a duty according to its nature.

[henry quirk]

But what if it is an internal quality we can experience as conscience or just the soul being normal?

Well, didn't I -- in my own way -- say this?

So: when thy neighbor offends, beat his ass today, cuz there may be no tomorrow.

Although I agree with you about living and handling life now, rather than assigning value and balancing to an afterlife, your ass-whippin' philosophy could destroy the world real fast.

Depends on how it's implemented. Self-defense, defense of other, seekin' redress for injury, these are personal. They involve few. The world ain't involved. Now, when we step away from self-defense, defense of other, seekin' redress, we've left justice behind. We've become offenders. Then the world is involved.

Don't you go beating up on donkeys, henry quirk. Animal abuse => ticket to Valhalla cancelled.

*I'll beat that (or any) ass if it deserves it. I ain't waitin' on God. And if He has a problem with it: He can take it up with me now cuz there doesn't seem to be a later.




*This, it seems to me, is as it should be. We have this clear-cut sense of when we're wronged. We ought act on it now rather than leave it to other, supposedly wiser, men to deliberate on. And The Creator, I think, wants no part of scale-balancin', not directly. Justice -- to go gunnin' for the man who stole your water -- is for today, as you can and will.

[Harbal]

Incidentally, you've just raised the issue of what the word "faith" really means. It means willingness to trust that what God says is true, or is going to be true. A person who doesn't do that doesn't "have faith in God," in the Biblical meaning of the term.

Yes, that's it; I don't have any faith in God. Between you and me, I don't think he's got our best interests at heart. I suspect all that omnipotence has gone to his head.

But if you don't trust God as to what "justice" is, then it means that the word "justice" has no objective referent. It doesn't mean anything BUT the odd feeling one has inside oneself.

But God's justice is only his own subjective view, and just as dependent on the "odd feeling" he has inside himself. Actually, I'm seriously considering proposing a vote of no confidence in God.

[Immanuel Can]

Think of how those like IC consider justice as an external quality which God or society defines.

I don't just "think of it" that way, Nick. If it's NOT that, it's nothing but a feeling.

Plato prove that justice does not depend upon a chance, convention or upon external force. It is the right condition of the human soul by the very nature of man when seen in the fullness of his environment.

That doesn't work. All it does is substitute the phrase "right condition" for the word "justice." And it justifies neither.

[Immanuel Can]

Incidentally, you've just raised the issue of what the word "faith" really means. It means willingness to trust that what God says is true, or is going to be true. A person who doesn't do that doesn't "have faith in God," in the Biblical meaning of the term.

Yes, that's it; I don't have any faith in God. Between you and me, I don't think he's got our best interests at heart.

Nothing here is "between you and me." I'm reliably informed others are always around.

Well, if we have no interest in God, then we have no "best interests." For the very "interests" for which we were created depend on our relationship to God.

But if you don't trust God as to what "justice" is, then it means that the word "justice" has no objective referent. It doesn't mean anything BUT the odd feeling one has inside oneself.

But God's justice is only his own subjective view,

Except that God doesn't have "a subjective view." His view is always objective. What he "believes" (if we can use that word: we should say "knows") is the truth, IS the truth.

[henry quirk]

I don't think he's got our best interests at heart.

I think He does. I also think He understands they are our best interests, not His.

The lesson here: don't build free wills if you expect them to act like meat machines.

Perhaps that's why He is gone, has left us to our own devices: so that we may fully be free wills, with all of the possible and actual atrocity that entails. Conquerin' the summit means little if there's no possibility of fallin'.

[Harry Baird]

But God's justice is only his own subjective view

This casual(?!) response is so on point. By what means is the view of a subjectively experiencing God translated into "objective truth"?

[Immanuel Can]

But God's justice is only his own subjective view

This casual(?!) response is so on point. By what means is the view of a subjectively experiencing God translated into "objective truth"?

He doesn't "subjectively experience."

"Experience" is something that "happens to" one; nothing ever "happens to" God. There are no "haps" (i.e. chances) in the equation. And God is the ground of objectivity. So He has no "subjective" experiences; if He "experiences" it, it's real. He is always objectively right.

[Nick_A]

Think of how those like IC consider justice as an external quality which God or society defines.

I don't just "think of it" that way, Nick. If it's NOT that, it's nothing but a feeling.

Plato prove that justice does not depend upon a chance, convention or upon external force. It is the right condition of the human soul by the very nature of man when seen in the fullness of his environment.

That doesn't work. All it does is substitute the phrase "right condition" for the word "justice." And it justifies neither.

It is deeper than that IC. When a person can experience the world as it is, with a balanced soul, he can also experience objective conscience. God doesn't tell anyone what to do. Conscience is just the normal emotional experience of the duty of the soul which serves God's or universal purpose. It requires the help of grace which we block preferring the darkness of imagination providing imaginary self justification.

[Harbal]

Well, if we have no interest in God, then we have no "best interests." For the very "interests" for which we were created depend on our relationship to God.

Not any more. I've decided to go it alone.

Except that God doesn't have "a subjective view." His view is always objective.

In that case, it can't be his own view, can it? Any personal view is a subjective view, even if you are God.

What he "believes" (if we can use that word: we should say "knows") is the truth, IS the truth.

Well he's not going to admit to pulling the wool over our eyes, is he?

Anyway, I've had enough of God; it's time to make a stand for what I don't believe in.

[Dontaskme]

One might trust one's subjective feelings over the Supreme Being who created and grounds the very concept of "justice," and who gave you the power to feel things in the first place?

There is absolutely nothing that can be known to exist outside or beyond that of what can only be described as human awareness. There is nothing higher than human awareness that could ever be known or be available to access. Everything human awareness knows right now is of the human brain. You have no access to anything outside of your immediate brain functioning. So any 'supreme being' is just a product of the brain, it's purely a mental contruction of the brain, it's a thought.

And when the human brain starts to decline as does every other living organism eventually sucumbs to ever increasing entropy where an irreversible process means death will be the ultimate disorder until the state of maximum entropy is reached and all your imagined thought up 'supreme beings' are destined for the same place, namely death.

You cannot know the human brain was created, sorry but you can't, the brain is just a biological machine, and a machine can never know it's creator.


It's hard knowing you cannot know, but there is nothing that can change this unknowing known, no matter how much wishful magical thinking you place upon a creator, you cannot just magic one up out of thin air, except as an idea, that has absolutely no substance or makes any normal sense whatsoever.



.

[Immanuel Can]

When a person can experience the world as it is, with a balanced soul, he can also experience objective conscience.

If that were so, what would he experience?

Only the truth, which is grounded in God.