Below are 4 dialogues with "infidels" from The Internet Infidel's well-known discussion forums. Originally the the discussion started with a debate over morality, it then developed from there. Largly the debate focused on the morality of the federal heaship view of imputed guilt. That was "Lixma's" main focus. Then, a guy by the name of "Prof" asked for me to lay out my system, and asked how my system could avoid the is/ought fallacy. The last two with "aa5874 and "Von Zipper" covered some straw men, misrepresentations, and confusion regarding law or what the Bible teaches. I have put these: ****** to signal the end of someone's post. I also color coded each atheist poster, this signals the beginning of a new interlocuter. The below is taken from this thread. The thread is still going but I'm not involved anymore (my wife let me spend more time than normal on the computer for my birthday week!). So, there may be future rebuttals to what I've posted. At any rate, I thought it would be profitable for some to read the exchanges and since they're already done it made for an easy transfer over to T-blog. I also cleaned up the spelling errors committed by all sides as best I could. I called myself "John Calvin" on that forum. So, John Calvin = Paul Manata, just in the sense that I took his name!
****************
LIXMA DIALOGUE
_____________
Originally Posted by Lixma
We don't need objective standards for relative things like temperature, volume, beauty, happiness, pain....etc.
I don't need an "objective moral standard" to reliably declare that when God decided to drown every man, woman and infant on the planet (bar Noah's clan) then it was an act of genocide and morally repugnant.
A Christian is at liberty to disagree, obviously. Often on these boards you'll read justifications for God's atrocities against man based on the circular logic that since God is incapable of sin then no matter the scale of bloodshed He reaps on man, he was morally, perfectly and righteously justified in His actions.
I don't believe there are any morally sufficient reasons for drowning babies. If there are then I’d like to hear them. If there aren't then simply stating something along the lines of "well, we cannot know God's reasons....God has a perfect plan....etc..." just doesn't cut it. By this reasoning if the motives for Hitler's extermination of the Jews were unknown then we should not have condemned the holocaust.
If Christians want to claim they have an objective moral standard then they should apply it to their God.
***************
Hi Lixma,
By way of reply:
1) "Declaring" that God is morally repugnant isn't an argument. If it is, I "declare" otherwise.
2) "Genocide" isn't even the proper term.
3) You're thinking, "mass murder."
a) That begs the question, though.
b) On my view, these people are guilty criminals (indeed, all sinners are) worthy of the death penalty. God can exercise just punishment, unless you're against the just punishment of criminals.
c) You can say that "they're not criminals" but that begs the question against my worldview.
4) If you don't need an "objective standard" to say something is morally wrong, then what standard are you using? A subjective one? I don't understand that sentence.
5) You don't believe there are morally sufficient reasons for drowning babies?
a) Well even atheists in this thread have said they would molest little girls if that would save their life. I bet they would say that we can drown, say, 10 babies if that's what was required to save the rest of humanity. So, your argument would be against other atheists.
b) What you "believe" is rather irrelevant.
c) What if those babies are guilty of the death penalty? Make sure your answer doesn't beg the question.
d) Why do you believe the way you do?
6) We don't know God's reasons, but this is simply a psychological problem of evil. So what? Indeed, my 2 yr. old son didn't "know" my reasons for paying a man to stick needles in his face! (The man was a doctor and he was injecting pain killers so he could perform emergency surgery.)
7) You said,"By this reasoning if the motives for Hitler's extermination of the Jews were unknown then we should not have condemned the holocaust"Clearly this is a non-sequitur. It's also disanalogous. Furthermore, it's not that we don't know anything about God's reasons, we do know that God always has a morally sufficient reason for the evil he plans and allows.
cheers,
John Calvin
***************
Originally Posted by John Calvin
By way of reply:1) "Declaring" that God is morally repugnant isn't an argument. If it is, I "declare" otherwise.
It wasn't supposed to be an argument. I said "I don't need an objective....to declare..." any more than I need an objective standard to declare "it's cold outside" or "this food is too hot".
Quote:
b) On my view, these people are guilty criminals (indeed, all sinners
are) worthy of the death penalty. God can exercise just punishment, unless you're against the just punishment of criminals.
Babies are guilty of nothing.
Quote:
c) You can say that "they're not criminals" but that begs the question against my worldview.
Then your worldview needs to explain what 'crime' they have committed. Being born with 6 fingers or imputed sin...it is no different. Your worldview must demonstrate how they are responsible.
Quote:
4) If you don't need an "objective standard" to say something is morally wrong, then what standard are you using? A subjective one? I don't understand that sentence.
I'm using my own standard. Like I use for every other aspect of life. Presumably in your life comments like "this music is rubbish", "this car is fast", "she's beautiful"....etc don't exist?
Quote:
Well even atheists in this thread have said they would molest little girls if that would save their life. I bet they would say that we can drown, say, 10 babies if that's what was required to save the rest of humanity. So, your argument would be against other atheists.
Fine, I’m quite capable of making my own mind up.
Quote:
We don't know God's reasons, but this is simply a psychological problem of evil. So what? Indeed, my 2 yr. old son didn't "know" my reasons for paying a man to stick needles in his face! (The man was a doctor and he was injecting pain killers so he could perform emergency surgery.)
Your 2 year old son is a criminal and deserves to die - why even bother with emergency surgery? Why delay justice?
**********
Hi Lixma,
Let's see what we've learned:
1) You weren't arguing.
2) You make mere assertions that "babies aren't guilty."
3) You ask what "crime" they've committed: They were federally represented by Adam. They fell in Adam and are guilty of his crime. I would have expected you to anticipate this since I assumed people here knew what they rejected.
4) You're using your own standard. So? God uses his own, and I use mine. Hitler uses his, and Gandhi uses his. Basically, we've learned that according to your opinion God was a big meanie and it's wrong to, say, murder people.
5) You make non-sequiturs about my son. Furthermore, I'm not the judge, I can't take the law into my own hands. Do you think any crimes deserve the death penalty? Say, molesting and torturing and murdering 100 little girls? If so, what if the man on death row broke his leg 3 months before his scheduled execution? Would you be of the opinion that we should not provide medical attention? If not, then you refute your own illogical (technically, that is) argument.
Cheers,
John Calvin
***************
Originally Posted by John Calvin
You ask what "crime" they've committed: They were federally represented by Adam. They fell in Adam and are guilty of his crime.
How can anyone be guilty of someone else’s crime except by arbitrary decree ?If it is arbitrary decree (divine or otherwise) then it is not justice.
If you were arrested tomorrow charged with the murder of Abraham Lincoln how would you respond ? Would you cry "injustice!"? Or would you try and rationalize it away and call it "perfect"? It's a fairly safe bet you would opt for the former.
However, bring God into the equation and all bets are off.
Again, your worldview needs to demonstrate how people can be morally responsible for the actions of their ancestors. Asserting they were federally represented by Adam is not an answer, it just highlights the problem. Asserting they are guilty because God says so is not an answer either, it's simply a judgment.
Quote:
You're using your own standard. So? God uses his own, and I use mine. Hitler uses his, and Gandhi uses his. Basically, we've learned that according to your opinion God was a big meanie and it's wrong to, say, murder people.
And why should I use anyone else's standard ?
Furthermore why should I accept a standard that I find morally reprehensible ?
People judge and condemn Hitler because of his actions, whether his ultimate goal was honourable or not is moot. Similarly people judge and condemn God because of His actions, whether His goal is honourable or not.
Quote:
Do you think any crimes deserve the death penalty?
Deserve, yes. Should a penalty of death be on the statute books ? No.
***************
Hi Lixma,
I could be serious and interact with you, that's one approach.
Or, I could just mention that the second part of your post is in tension with the first.
If you're seriously going to hold to this "me and my standard" business, then here's my answer for how people can be accountable for what their representatives did: "That's just my standard and that's what I think. To say that people can't be held responsible is just morally reprehensible. Why should I accept your standard of what is morally reprehensible? After all, it's simply your unjustified opinion that federal representation is morally reprehensible."
In case you didn't notice, I used Lixma to refute Lixma!
cheers,
John Calvin
P.S. Lixma, just so you don't feel cheated, here's A SOURCE which has plenty of articles defending, expositing, and exegeting the concept of federal headship. This is not a foreign concept. If I decide to move, my family moves with me - i.e., they are affected by my decisions. If our president and cabinet go to war, we, as American citizens are at war. Thus the concept of federal representation is not an uncommon one and is prima facie justified, so I think you bear some burden here, i.e., the "how can that be" response isn't that convincing. Thus I've answered you on a two fold level: (1) says your complain against the "moral reprehensibility" of federal headship is simply an opinion and therefore can be rejected, and (2) says that the concept of federal headship is justified.
***************
I should add, Lixma. You wrote,
Quote:
People judge and condemn Hitler because of his actions, whether his ultimate goal was honourable or not is moot. Similarly people judge and condemn God because of His actions, whether His goal is honourable or not.
This is oversimplified and misleading.You're viewing the "actions" as bearers of meaning all by themselves. But this is obviously naive. Basically, let's say you saw a man shoot another man in the face. That's an action. Is it wrong? Well, here's two scenarios:
1) The man who was shot was an intruder who was trying to murder my neighbor's children and I killed him in self- (or, other-) defense.
2) The man who was shot was just minding his own business and I killed him in cold blood.
Now, if we judged "just on the actions" regardless of his "motives" or, reasons, then why is man (2) punished and man (1) called a hero? Therefore it is obvious that it is not simply one's "actions" that determine guilt.
So, you're still begging the question against my worldview. Here's two different scenarios:
1) God destroys millions because the have broken the law and justly deserve said penalty.
2) Hitler destroys millions because he doesn't like their race.Thus for the above reasons I think you can see how I found your answer a bit simplistic and misleading.
cheers,
John Calvin
***************
Hi Lixma,
One more thing, you wrote:
Quote:
If it is arbitrary decree (divine or otherwise) then it is not justice.
Well, if your ideas of what is the right way to deal with crimes is just, then they are not arbitrary. If they are not arbitrary then what is your non-arbitrary, objective standard of morality?
Webster’s has "objective" as (I'm using it in this discussion): 3 a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations And
Webster’s has "arbitrary" as: 3 a : based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something.
So(!), it appears that if you're not objective (as you say) than your moral positions are arbitrary and, hence, not just (again, according to your own words).But if you want "justice" then you need "objectivity."
But you denied you had an objective standard! Therefore you can't have justice, or you need to retract your previous statements and claim you have objectivity. Either way, something you said was either (1) wrong (e.g., you want objectivity) (2) or absurd (your ethical positions are not just). If you opt for (1) then I await your objective standard. If you opt for (2) then I await your retraction that federal headship is "morally reprehensible."
cheers,
John Calvin
***************
Originally Posted by John Calvin
If you're seriously going to hold to this "me and my standard" business, then here's my answer for how people can be accountable for what their representatives did: "That's just my standard and that's what I think. To say that people can't be held responsible is just morally reprehensible. Why should I accept your standard of what is morally reprehensible? Afterall, it's simply your unjustified opinion that federal representation is morally reprehensible."
In case you didn't notice, I used Lixma to refute Lixma!"
Great, then we agree it's a matter of personal opinion. My personal opinion actually matters to me and how I live.
I still see no reason why I should hold myself to someone else's(or something else's) standard. If it can be demonstrated to me (logically, reasonably, empirically, whatever) why I should abandon my moral standards in favour of those that I consider (rightly or wrongly) morally reprehensible then I would, I hope, consider it. But when I'm told (with a straight face) that e.g. drowning the entire world is an example of these "higher" standards then call me picky but serious alarm bells go off in my head. Being told it was done for a "morally sufficient" reason makes them ring louder. It's Orwellian.
Quote:
P.S. Lixma, just so you don't feel cheated, here's A SOURCE which has plenty of articles defending, expositing, and exegeting the concept of federal headship. This is not a foreign concept. If I decide to move, my family moves with me - i.e., they are affected by my decisions. If our president and cabinet go to war, we, as American citizens are at war. Thus the concept of federal representation is not an uncommon one and is prima facie justified, so I think you bear some burden here, i.e., the "how can that be" response isn't that convincing. Thus I've answered you on a two fold level: (1) says your complain against the "moral reprehensibility" of federal headship is simply an opinion and therefore can be rejected, and (2) says that the concept of federal headship is justified.best regards"
The analogies don't work.
Quote:
If I decide to move, my family moves with me - i.e., they are affected by my decisions.
Affected by the move, yes. Morally responsible, no.
Quote:
If our president and cabinet go to war, we, as American citizens are at war.
Affected by the war, yes. Morally responsible, no.
Obviously the examples are simplistic. I've assumed for the sake of argument that the both the families and citizens in the example have no choice whether to move or go to war respectively. Clearly life is not as simple as that.
In the first example if you decide to move onto, say, stolen land and the family with a free choice and full knowledge consent to follow then they can be held both morally responsible for any consequences of the move or subsequent problems.
In the second example, the citizens could be held morally responsible if they elected a leader on the basis that he would go to war and only then if it ever became a fact that the war was unjustified...etc...etc...ad middle eastium.
So, regarding this concept of "Federal Headship" I still see no demonstration of how anyone can reasonably be held responsible for the actions of someone they never met, never spoke to, lived thousands of years ago and had zero choice in their election as representative.
Thanks for the link btw....there's a lot of stuff there - could you point to any particular article that demonstrates this moral culpability without resorting to Divine Fiat?
***************
Hi Lixma,
1) Well, if you admit that it's not really morally reprehensible, then you're just saying that the federal view is not your cup of tea. That is, you're saying that it's not your subjective preference. But this is like someone saying that to like vanilla ice cream is "morally reprehensible." Indeed, I don't even know what kind of meaning can be given to your use of the term "morally reprehensible."
Now, we've already discussed the "drowning" of the whole world, yet you continue to construe the problem with question begging epithets. Fine. I've stated that it was just punishment for crimes. If you can't engage that, then why bother just telling us you disagree? We all knew that.
2) Are you implying that we're never responsible if someone acts as our representative? So it seems. But this is false. Tell that to the families of those who's, say, husbands hired hit men to kill their wife. How come the law punishes the one who didn't do the crime with the same punishment as the one who committed the murder.
Thus I've proven that in at least some cases it is just to punish people for what their representative did.Really, I think you have a tough road to toe here. I mean, it's a bit unimpressive to simply respond to all the work and arguments I give with, "Well, I'm unconvinced." If we're going to act that way, why bother with discussion boards?
cheers,
John Calvin
P.S. Sorry the above was so short, I'll fill in added detail if I need to, but I think your position has been shown to be arbitrary, and my position has been justified.
***************
Lixma Wrote:
Just a quick response to the two replies I missed.
Re: the Hitler reference.....
My point, poorly made, was Hitler was doing what he was doing for a reason. Not purely for the sake of it but with a much grander vision in mind. Thankfully, enough people disagreed and condemned his actions and stopped him.
In a similar vein people condemn God's slaughter, and incitement to slaughter. But here's the rub....this is supposedly the most loving, perfect being imaginable and yet despite these attributes he nevertheless sinks to the level of bloodshed of men, women and children to achieve his goals. So what if he has a higher purpose in mind (revealed or not)? If he wants to sink to 'our' level then he should be expected to be judged by these same "objective" standards he expects us to hold dear.
Re: arbitrary/objectivity etc...
Quote:
But if you want "justice" then you need "objectivity." But you denied you had an objective standard! Therefore you can't have justice, or you need to retract your previous statements and claim you have objectivity.
No we don't. Justice is not purely application of law. If the law declares all red-heads should be shot then even though we may have an objective basis in law for carrying out the shooting we are unlikely to call it just.
From what I’ve learned, briefly, from Googling "Federal Headship" it appears to be nothing more than a biblically arrived concept, a decree of imputed sin from Adam. I've yet to see anything that makes the case for it being a just one.
Originally Posted by John Calvin
Hi Lixma,
1) Well, if you admit that it's not really morally reprehensible, then you're just saying that the federal view is not your cup of tea. That is, you're saying that it's not your subjective preference. But this is like someone saying that to like vanilla ice cream is "morally reprehensible." Indeed, I don't even know what kind of meaning can be given to your use of the term "morally reprehensible."
It's morally reprehensible as far as I’m concerned. This is the point. I don't need a book of objective standards to tell me whether or not something sickens me any more than I need a book of objective standards to tell me there is too much salt on my food.
Quote:
Are you implying that we're never responsible if someone acts as our representative? So it seems. But this is false. Tell that to the families of those who's, say, husbands hired hit men to kill their wife. How come the law punishes the one who didn't do the crime with the same punishment as the one who committed the murder.
Your missing the point. I have never met Adam. I never elected Adam. I have never spoken or corresponded with Adam. I have no idea where he lived or when. I have no idea what he looks like or what his favourite animal was. I was never even asked whether I wanted Adam to represent me.Bearing these facts in mind, please demonstrate how I can be held morally responsible for anything Adam did, said or ate.
Quote:
Really, I think you have a tough road to toe here. I mean, it's a bit unimpressive to simply respond to all the work and arguments I give with, "Well, I'm unconvinced." If we're going to act that way, why bother with discussion boards?
What ?
***************
Hi Lixma,
Quote:
It's morally reprehensible as far as i'm concerned. This is the point. I don't need a book of objective standards to tell me whether or not something sickens me any more than I need a book of objective standards to tell me there is too much salt on my food.
Right, like I said, it's a subjective preference. So, your condemnation of God is like condemning someone for not liking the same flavor ice cream as you. Sorry if I'm unimpressed.
(p.s. the disanalogies between murder, rape, et al, and salt on your food are getting a bit old. But, if that's what you want to stick with, then you're saying that someone who rapes and tortures little girls just "likes more salt on his food than you do." Thus, your condemnation of God's judgments amount to saying that God likes more salt on his fries than you do. So much the worse for the so-called problem of evil!)
Quote:
Your missing the point. I have never met Adam. I never elected Adam. I have never spoken or corresponded with Adam. I have no idea where he lived or when. I have no idea what he looks like or what his favourite animal was. I was never even asked whether I wanted Adam to represent me.
No, I'm not "missing the point." Remember, Lixma, it is you who said that,
"Asserting they were federally represented by Adam is not an answer, it just highlights the problem."
Thus you were arguing that I couldn't show how one could be guilty for someone else’s crimes. I showed this with my hit man analogy.
Now, you have a new objection. So, you keep moving the goal posts. Fine. But don't act as if this is my fault for not properly answering you.
I deny the criteria you've laid out, and you need to argue for them, rather than assert. The federal view says that Adam was our just and fair representative. That's all that's required. Couple that with my proof that we can be held guilty for the actions of others, I think you had better start arguing here, rather than making assumptions and throwing out unargued bias.
So, you were fairly represented. God chose the best possible representative, i.e., no one would have done otherwise. So, your representative was chosen for you, by the one who could make a better choice (no, the perfect choice) than you. God's choice is infallible. We are fallible. We make mistakes. We could have chosen fallibly. We could have chosen a representative who was not the best. So God's choice is greater than yours.
Therefore, without some kind of counter argument I must assume that my case has been made while yours has not. I've proven that people can be held equally responsible for the actions of another. I've argued that all we need is just and fair representation for Adam to represent us. I've argued that God's choice was the best possible choice. I've seen no argument for the supposition that Lixma must "know" his representative. Does he know the Tony Blair? No. Is he represented by him? Yes. Unless Lixma has something substantive to offer I'll assume this case is closed.
Moving on....
Quote:
Re: the Hitler reference.....My point, poorly made, was Hitler was doing what he was doing for a reason. Not purely for the sake of it but with a much grander vision in mind. Thankfully, enough people disagreed and condemned his actions and stopped him.
But this isn't relevant at all. I never argued that God simply did something for "a reason." I never said God did things for " a grander vision." So your point still has no weight. An analogy is meant only to explain, not to prove. You tried to use your Hitler analogy to explain how what I said about God doesn't apply. The problem is that you've drawn a false analogy.
Quote:
In a similar vein people condemn God's slaughter, and incitement to slaughter.
Again with the question begging epithets. It's not similar if God is not "slaughtering" people. You're assuming what God did was unjust, you've not proven this. When you've tried to prove it you've argued from actions, but I've shown how this (arguing from actions) was naive and misleading.
Quote:
But here's the rub....this is supposedly the most loving, perfect being imaginable and yet despite these attributes he nevertheless sinks to the level of bloodshed of men, women and children to achieve his goals .
More question begging epithets. Also, note the emotive language. Really, if you must portray Christian theism, and God, in as bad a light as possible, just to try and score a point, what does that tell you about the confidence you have in your position?
He's also the most Holy and Just being imaginable. He always punishes sin. Why assume that for God to be God he must let criminals "get away with murder" (to use the phrase)? Therefore, God would not be God if your warped conception of a god was the god who existed. I mean, you paint a picture of a nice grandfatherly type of being, sitting enthroned in the sky and winking at his grandkids bad behavior, while slipping them candy at the end of the day. Basically, you're problem is with a made up version of Christianity! You have these ideas floating about in your head of what God is like and then you proceed to critique my God based on your bearded grandfather conception. But my God isn't a nice old grandpa. He's the King of kings. He deserves reverence. He commands respect. He tolerates no Tom foolery in His kingdom. He tolerates no law-breaking in His kingdom. That is, he enforces the lightest and weightiest portions of His law. He enforces them perfectly, and justly. He never let's the guilty go unpunished. That's my God.
I previously wrote:"But if you want "justice" then you need "objectivity." But you denied you had an objective standard! Therefore you can't have justice, or you need to retract your previous statements and claim you have objectivity."
Lixma responded,
Quote:
No we don't. Justice is not purely application of law. If the law declares all red-heads should be shot then even though we may have an objective basis in law for carrying out the shooting we are unlikely to call it just.
By way of response:
1) Yes we do.
2) I never said "law" and I sure didn't mean "man's law."
3) When I speak of "law" I usually mean "just" anyway. For example, murder is defined has the "unlawful taking of life" (e.g., see California penal code 187). Now, "lawful" here means "just." That is, "murder is the unjust taking of life."
4) So your counter was a complete straw man.
5) But yes we do, because you said that "if something is arbitrary then it's unjust." My response is that if something is not decided arbitrarily then it's decided by an objective standard.
6) I agree with you. The problem is you don't agree with you. Stated another way, you're arguing against yourself.
Quote:
From what I’ve learned, briefly, from Googling "Federal Headship" it appears to be nothing more than a biblically arrived concept, a decree of imputed sin from Adam. I've yet to see anything that makes the case for it being a just one.
By way of reply:
1) So you're debating about something you've not studied? Presuppositions in action?
2) I couldn't ever make the case to you that it's just, because there's no objective criteria of justness we agree upon! So all you're saying is that I can never convince you that it's better to put more salt on your baked potato! Hardly a proper request to make of me. :-)
cheers,
John Calvin
***************
Originally Posted by John Calvin
No, I'm not "missing the point." Remember, Lixma, it is you who said that,"Asserting they were federally represented by Adam is not an answer, it just highlights the problem."Thus you were arguing that I couldn't show how one could be guilty for someone else’s crimes. I showed this with my hit man analogy.Now, you have a new objection. So, you keep moving the goal posts. Fine. But don't act as if this is my fault for not properly answering you.
I was clearly making the point about Adam earlier, just as above, and also with the Abraham Lincoln reference. No goalpost shifting - it's the same point about the same person. Someone who I have had absolutely zero influence over has been chosen to represent me and by some inverse logic I am apparently culpable for his behaviour. The hit man analogy is a red herring - it's perfectly obvious that people can be justly held morally accountable for the actions of others. But when it comes to a long dead ancestor it takes some kind of weird ad hoc concept called "Federal Headship" to justify it.
Quote:
I deny the criteria you've laid out, and you need to argue for them, rather than assert. The federal view says that Adam was our just and fair representative. That's all that's required. Couple that with my proof that we can be held guilty for the actions of others, I think you had better start arguing here, rather than making assumptions and throwing out unargued bias.
Which criteria do you deny ? The part where I said I’d never met Adam (etc). Are you suggesting that these....
Quote:
I have never met Adam. I never elected Adam. I have never spoken or corresponded with Adam. I have no idea where he lived or when. I have no idea what he looks like or what his favourite animal was. I was never even asked whether I wanted Adam to represent me.
....are mere assertions and need justifying ?
Quote:
The federal view says that Adam was our just and fair representative. That's all that's required.
Bully for the federal view. Re-state it a million times if it helps make it sound any more just or reasonable. It's nothing more than a statement. A decree. There still remains no logical, ethical or reasonable case why Federal Headship is a just concept. If there is then let's hear it.
Quote:
So, you were fairly represented. God chose the best possible representative, i.e., no one would have done otherwise. So, your representative was chosen for you, by the one who could make a better choice (no, the perfect choice) than you. God's choice is infallible. We are fallible. We make mistakes. We could have chosen fallibly. We could have chosen a representative who was not the best. So God's choice is greater than yours.
I would think the best representative of me would actually be, er....me.
Quote:
Therefore, without some kind of counter argument I must assume that my case has been made while yours has not.
You haven't proven anything, you've just repeated the federal statement and claimed it as just and fair because it is just and fair. Brilliant! Not a shred of reasoning, just because it says so.
Quote:
I've argued that all we need is just and fair representation for Adam to represent us. I've argued that God's choice was the best possible choice. I've seen no argument for the supposition that Lixma must "know" his representative. Does he know the Tony Blair? No. Is he represented by him? Yes. Unless Lixma has something substantive to offer I'll assume this case is closed.
Again, a bad analogy. I have a choice in whether Tony Blair represents me. I can revoke my citizenship tomorrow....bing, problem solved. What options do I have to disassociate myself from Adam ?
In any other field of law, having the judge simultaneously play the prosecution's role whilst also selecting the defense counsel would rightly be seen as a sham. Even worse, the defense has never even met the people he's defending. Further, the vast majority of the people he is supposed to be representing don't even exist yet! How, by any stretch of the imagination is this a scene of justice in action? It's a mockery of the word. A sham. A joke.
Quote:
He's also the most Holy and Just being imaginable. He always punishes sin. Why assume that for God to be God he must let criminals "get away with murder" (to use the phrase)? Therefore, God would not be God if your warped conception of a god was the god who existed. I mean, you paint a picture of a nice grandfatherly type of being, sitting enthroned in the sky and winking at his grandkids bad behavior, while slipping them candy at the end of the day. Basically, you're problem is with a made up version of Christianity! You have these ideas floating about in your head of what God is like and then you proceed to critique my God based on your bearded grandfather conception. But my God isn't a nice old grandpa. He's the King of kings. He deserves reverence. He commands respect. He tolerates no Tom foolery in His kingdom. He tolerates no law-breaking in His kingdom. That is, he enforces the lightest and weightiest portions of His law. He enforces them perfectly, and justly. He never let's the guilty go unpunished. That's my God.
(note the emotive language)Show me where I painted a picture of God even remotely like the caricature you've saddled me with. Bearded Grandfather ?I call it as I see it. I see an entity who condemns people for the "crimes" of their ancestors. Having ancestors that committed crimes may well be in breach of the law - but then it goes against every notion of justice (and logic) that I can imagine.
Quote:
So you're debating about something you've not studied? Presuppositions in action?
Well the concept is easy enough to grasp but I've still to hear a reasonable argument justifying imputed sin beyond repetition of the concept and/or "because God says so" but no actual meat on the bones.
***************
Hi Lixma,
My reply:
1) So according to you "it's perfectly obvious that people can be justly held morally accountable for the actions of others" but when it comes to being held accountable for the actions of Adam (your "ancestor) you shouldn't be held morally accountable because "it takes some kind of weird ad hoc concept called "Federal Headship" to justify it."
Thus it's justifiable in some cases to hold people responsible for the crimes of others, but not in the Bible's case because you call it "Federal Headship." You must know that I find that objection laughable, right?
I gave my answer for how I could say babies were guilty of crime (there's yet another answer that we got into, I believe babies sin immediately anyway, but I'll still stick with Federal Headship since that's all I need and it's implications are far more reaching than individual sin). I gave the example of representation. As you admit, it is just to hold people accountable for the actions of others. Now, according to the Bible, Adam was the best representative imaginable. He was chosen infallibly, rather than fallibly. God placed him as our representative. Thus Adam perfectly represented Lixma. Given that, and the "obvious" fact that people can be held responsible for the actions of others, I've not seen one substantive argument from Lixma that this situation was "morally reprehensible."
Second, the Bible does not present an individualistic worldview. The notion of corporate solidarity, covenant relationship, is taught throughout. If the federal head of the family, the father, makes a bad decision, the whole family suffers. So, we live with the consequences of Adam's sin. Thus given the truth of the Christian worldview, there's no problem of injustice. Thus it appears to me that your objection looks like this: If we assume that the Bible is false, then federal headship looks unjust. That's uninteresting, though.
I've thus argued that your objection (1) fails to show that it is morally reprehensible and (2) assumes that biblical worldview is false in order to make the objection.
I'd furthermore add, Jesus Christ was the second Adam. He represented His people perfectly. If people don't want the effects of Adam, then they likewise don't get the effects of Christ's perfect life. Indeed, given Lixma's logic, "it is morally reprehensible" for God to credit the righteous life of Christ to my account! Thus it appears that salvation is "morally reprehensible" on Lixma's view!
2) Now Lixma asked which of his criteria I deny. Those were:
Quote:
I have never met Adam. I never elected Adam. I have never spoken or corresponded with Adam. I have no idea where he lived or when. I have no idea what he looks like or what his favourite animal was. I was never even asked whether I wanted Adam to represent me.
I deny all those criteria. And you've not even tried to argue for them. The above could be said for 1 year old children. They never "chose" Tony Blair to be their Prime Minister. They don't know him. And I doubt they know what his favorite animal was (hard to see how that's a necessary condition for fair representation!). Their parents chose him, though. Yet the 1 year old will suffer for the bad decisions Blair makes. "That's unfair!" Well, life's tough.
3) Regarding your claim that there, "still remains no logical, ethical or reasonable case why Federal Headship is a just concept" all I can say by way of reply is:
a) I've presented it and you've hardly interacted with it.
b) Above I laid it out and I have not seen you show how it is:
i) illogical
ii) unethical
iii) or, unreasonable
c) It appears to me that all your posts have amounted simply to this: Federal headship is immoral. Okay... but I'd like to see an actual argument thrown in there.
d) As far as it being unethical, well I've contended that you can't make that claim. You're a perspectivalist. So, you choose what is right or wrong from your perspective (never mind that we could ask if perspectivalism is moral or immoral and you'd be bound to say that, from your perspective, it is moral, which seems odd). But we want to find out whether a thing really is wrong or right. When we're trying to find out things like this, subjective feelings are usually left out.
4) I know you think you would be the best choice, but that's a fallible judgment. God chose Adam, infallibly and perfectly. I've seen no rebuttal here.
5) You claim that I "haven't proven anything, you've just repeated the federal statement and claimed it as just and fair because it is just and fair. Brilliant! Not a shred of reasoning, just because it says so."
By way of reply,
a) I hardly think that's a fair representation of the time I've spent laying out the position. But if that's the way you feel, fine.
b) I actually think that it is you who has not bothered to refute my position, show any problems with it, or even interact with it. I think I've documented this as well.
c) So it appears that you've argued that federal headship is unjust and unfair because it's unjust and unfair! Looks like a classic case of projection going on here.
6) You ask,
Quote:
In any other field of law, having the judge simultaneously play the prosecution's role whilst also selecting the defense counsel would rightly be seen as a sham. Even worse, the defense has never even met the people he's defending. Further, the vast majority of the people he is supposed to be representing don't even exist yet! How, by any stretch of the imagination is this a scene of justice in action? It's a mockery of the word. A sham. A joke.
Why would it be seen as a sham? Because humans are fallible. They do things with bad motives? They make mistakes? etc. With God, He is the most just judge, the best prosecutor, and can select the very best defense. He can see all of those who the defense is defending, and knows he's the best. So, in any legal system we had, I wouldn't mind if the judge who judged it was the most just judge in the land, and the prosecution was the very best (knowing all the facts, laws, etc) and my defense was the very best. That seems totally fair.
Furthermore, there are many disanalogies. Adam wasn't "our defense." God isn't bound by western courtroom concepts.
Lastly, on your view the above would not really be immoral, it would just be against your subjective preferences.
At the end of the day, you've nowhere shown my position to be in error, you've simply stipulated it. And you've also held an inconsistent position because my position isn't really immoral, it's just not what you'd subjectively choose. But you posts smuggle "objectivist" terms in there. When you reply, please be sure to state that it's only your unjustified opinion that federal headship is immoral.
cheers,
John Calvin
***************
Hi John,
Thanks for taking the time out for discussion. I'll try and be brief
Quote:
So according to you "it's perfectly obvious that people can be justly held morally accountable for the actions of others" but when it comes to being held accountable for the actions of Adam (your "ancestor) you shouldn't be held morally accountable because "it takes some kind of weird ad hoc concept called "Federal Headship" to justify it."
Note the word can. Obviously it depends on circumstance.
Quote:
Thus it's justifiable in some cases to hold people responsible for the crimes of others, but not in the Bible's case because you call it "Federal Headship." You must know that I find that objection laughable, right?
If that really was the basis of my objection then it would be laughable.
My position is this. It's perfectly possible that a law could be passed tomorrow whereby I could be charged and found guilty of crimes committed by, say, Stalin. There's not much chance of it happening but it is only a pen stroke away, theoretically.
Now, just as with Adam, I have neither met Stalin, communicated with Stalin, conspired with Stalin or have in any way had any influence over Stalin's choices or conduct at any time. On this basis I cannot be held in anyway morally responsible for anything Stalin did, said or planned to do. You are perfectly at liberty to "deny all those criteria" but they are nevertheless facts.
There's no question I can be arrested, convicted and punished for Stalin's crimes....these are practical, legal matters - but in no way, shape or form can I be held morally accountable for his behaviour. It is the lack of any causal or influential connection between myself and Stalin that demonstrates this. It is the reasoning behind this. It is the argument.
So, does the concept of Federal Headship help restore moral culpability by creating a causal link? No. Then by what mechanism (logical or otherwise) does Federal Headship impute moral culpability upon myself for the crimes of Stalin? There is no mechanism....there is only the decree itself. The only reason I am now deemed morally responsible for the crimes of Stalin is because a concept has been drafted for the sole purpose of establishing a moral link between us! That's it's sole reason for existence, it has no other function.
Unless I could demonstrate a causal link between yourself and the 9/11 attacks it would be unjust to hold you responsible and punish you for them. If I then decided to draught a law that declared Osama bin Laden as your representative then whilst you may instantly become guilty under this new fangled Federal Headship law, and may even suffer consequences stemming from Bin Ladin's actions you still could not be held morally responsible and it would remain an injustice.
Summary:a) Being held responsible for crimes committed by a long dead ancestor is morally reprehensible because there is no possible causal, or influential connection between the two.b) The concept of Federal Headship is ad-hoc law making and has no relation to any conception of justice commonly known. It's sole purpose is to gloss over the glaringly obvious injustice and illogicality of imputed guilt.
***************
Originally Posted by John Calvin
We hold person A responsible if person B acted as person A's representative.
You need to qualify that statement with an additional: "Person A consented to his representation by B" or it's just plain false.If I go and rob a bank tomorrow, get arrested and claim to represent you who is responsible for the robbery? You or Me?
Quote:
I deny the premise that person A needed to have influence on person B for A to be held responsible.
Great! So when the police arrive in a few hours and you're charged with robbing a bank 3000 miles away you won't even bother with the trial. Guilty as charged. Let's face it, you're denying the premise because you are tied to the doctrine of Federal Headship.
***************
Hi Lixma,
Originally Posted by Lixma
You need to qualify that statement with an additional: "Person A consented to his representation by B" or it's just plain false.If I go and rob a bank tomorrow, get arrested and claim to represent you who is responsible for the robbery? You or Me?Great! So when the police arrive in a few hours and you're charged with robbing a bank 3000 miles away you won't even bother with the trial. Guilty as charged. Let's face it, you're denying the premise because you are tied to the doctrine of Federal Headship.
1. I don't need to qualify that claim. This is just a re-statement of your unargued for assumption.
2) Your claim to represent me doesn't make it true that you represented me. The is the disanalogy. It is true that God set up Adam as our perfect representative. I deny that we must choose our representative. My criteria is that it must be fair representation, and the best possible representation. With that, plus the admission that we can be held accountable, I've seen no problems with my position. (Yeah, I get that you don't like my position, but your subjective desires have no bearing on the truth of the matter.
3) Let's face it, you're denying the premise because you are tied to the doctrine of A causing B.
Do you have anything better, Lixma? Or, is your next response going to just assert that federal headship is immoral (even though you mean by that, "it's not what you'd subjectively prefer) and that we need causal influence. Just asserting that my position is flawed isn't going to persuade me. Just giving false analogies isn't going to persuade me.
Adam was chosen by God. We suffer. We are not punished for his sin (as your wrongly asserted in your previous post). But we reap the consequences. I vote in, say, Bush. He invokes laws. My son may suffer for some. But he's not old enough to vote, you say! Doesn't matter. He was chosen for him. God chose for us. He made the best choice. His choice was infallible. His choice was perfect. Adam was the best representative we could have. He stood in for you. He was chosen to be your representative, just like, say, Duncan Hunter was chosen to be my son's representative, even though my son didn't vote. Really, if you are just going to assert again, I don’t see the reason for a future post from you on this matter.
cheers,
John Calvin
**********
Originally Posted by John Calvin
Adam was chosen by God. We suffer. We are not punished for his sin (as your wrongly asserted in your previous post). But we reap the consequences.
If we are not being punished for Adam's sin then where did this condition of sin/depravity that afflicts mankind come from ?Was it a logical or necessary outcome from Adam sinning, or was it a deliberate act of God to impute it onto mankind ? It was the latter; a deliberate act of God to ensure mankind fell, not merely an unfortunate consequence of one man's indiscretion.Analogy time, compare these two scenarios:
1. I have five kids. One day it's snowing and they all go out to play. I tell them to wear warm clothes and not to make an ice slide. One of my children dis-obeys me and leaves his coat at home. He catches a cold. I admonish him and stop his pocket money for a month. The next day, the other four kids catch the cold....it's a consequence of the first kid disobeying me.
2. I have five kids. One day it's snowing and they all go out to play. I tell them to wear warm clothes and not to make an ice slide. One of my children dis-obeys me and leaves his coat at home. He catches a cold. I admonish him and stop his pocket money for a month. The next day, the other four kids catch the cold and also have their pocket money stopped for a month....it's a consequence of the first kid disobeying me.
Which one is analogous to Adam's and mankind's situation? Which account, if any, demonstrates justice. Which account, if any, demonstrates an injustice?Imputed sin is a deliberate act on God's part and is neither a logical or necessary outcome of Adam's original sin. The concept of Federal Headship is a transparent attempt to justify this deliberate cursing of mankind.
***************
Hi Lixma,With regards to your first question, I'm a traducian.
With regards to the second, the "analogies" egregiously misrepresent the position. The analogy has only "Adam" (one of your sons) breaking God's laws while "the rest of humanity" (your other sons) keep God's laws. This is obviously a gross misrepresentation.
cheers,
John Calvin
***************
Originally Posted by John Calvin
And, Prof's right, at the end of the day, this is what God has established. it won't do you any good to complain about it. Ignorance or dislike of the law is no excuse.
It's not about ignorance or dislike. It's about justice. The notion of imputed sin (with a side dish of Federal Headship) goes against every commonly held notion of justice that we experience. Therefore to call it unjust is justified. (The fact it may be Law is irrelevant.)
***************
Lixma,
But I argued above [on T-Blog it appears below, in "Prof's" discussions] against this ad populum argument, and subjected it to serious reductios. So it looks, again, that you're simply ignoring my arguments and restating your objections. This is not a fruitful dialogue. Usually the one side actually interacts with other side's arguments.
cheers,
John Calvin
(p.s. I bet you'd gladly accept a million dollar inheritance from your grandfather, even though you did nothing to deserve the money, and you didn't choose him to be your grandfather. Same with Adam. We could have inherited the blessings and no one would have complained. But we inherit the sin, and we whine and moan. Thus it's us who are irrational (irrationality is a consequence of sin) and not my argument.)
***************
QUOTE
But I argued above against this ad populum argument, and subjected it to serious reductios. So it looks, again, that you're simply ignoring my arguments and restating your objections. This is not a fruitful dialogue. Usually the one side actually interacts with other side's arguments.
I don't think it's me ignoring your arguments, it seems you want to apply the word 'just' in a way that is so unfamiliar that you would be better off inventing a new word ("Vust" ?) to describe the actions of God. If you want to use the term 'just' in the uncommon way you are then you need to at the very least attempt to demonstrate via reasoning or logic (something we can all engage with) how imputed sin is a just concept without recourse to "God said it's just" or relying on a decree called "Federal Headship" that has no bearing whatsoever on whether something is just or not. There is nothing in either Federal Headship or "God did it" that in any way explains how or why imputed sin is just. Therefore using the word just to describe imputed sin is not justified.
Quote:
p.s. I bet you'd gladly accept a million dollar inheritance from your grandfather, even though you did nothing to deserve the money, and you didn't choose him to be your grandfather.
True, but then I couldn't possibly say that the award of the money was 'just' either. Regardless of what I inherit, good or bad, if it was not deserved then there's no way one can call it 'just'. Lucky, yes. Unfortunate, yes. Just, no. I might get away with calling it Vust, though.Thanks again for the discussions.Damn it, now I have to Google "traducianism(?)"
***************
Lixma,
My run ends starting tomorrow, really. Since I'm up, allow me to clear a couple things up for you, so you don't proceed based upon (more) misunderstandings.
Something is "just" if it is in accordance (perfect conformity) with a law or standard.
Thus it appears that for you to say Federal Headship is not just, you're just (again) begging the question.
I have the proper concept of justness. But, turning the tables, you have no concept of justice. You're the one who says that "morality is akin to one's preference for how much salt they have on their food." You're the one who denies "objective morality." Therefore, it (ironically) turns out that it is you who operates with a strange notion of justice. Indeed, if your theory were correct, there would be no such thing as "justice" normally conceived.
I have the "traditional" view of justice, then. You have the "unfamiliar use." Indeed, on your view you might as well refer to "Vustness" because you certainly can't account for "justice" on your non-realist view. Again, at the end of the day, here's what your position leads you to have to say:
"The doctrine of Federal Headship is not really morally reprehensible. It is just one guy's opinion against mine. Indeed, if someone doesn't like the concept of Federal Headship that's kind of like him not liking a lot of salt on his French fries (totally arbitrary and subjective). While someone who does like the concept is akin to someone who happens to like a lot of salt on his French fries (totally arbitrary and subjective).
Again, to summarize, my critique of you, Lixma, is: a) Lixma has not interacted with my position in a way which refutes my arguments. My view has remained firm and, assertions and dislikes aside, undefeated.
b) Lixma's problem with Federal Headship is a subjective one. According to him, it is not really morally reprehensible. It's simply like a guy who prefers chocolate ice cream to vanilla. Lixma doesn't spend hours debating the lovers of chocolate ice cream, yet he spends hours debating with what he admits is my subjective choice. This is prima facie absurd. People don't debate over subjective preferences. They are true, logically, by self-report. People debate over publicly accessible truths. Hence Lixma must presuppose his theory is wrong in order to debate with my and call his theory correct! Thus Lixma's position in this debate is self-referentially incoherent.So, when you say,
Quote:
There is nothing in either Federal Headship or "God did it" that in any way explains how or why imputed sin is just.
You're confusing people. I'm the one arguing, explaining, and defending my position. You're the one who has given us a lesson on how to write, "You're wrong, and I disagree" 75 different ways. For arguments for the justice of imputed sin, cf. my 30 (or so) earlier posts.
cheers and goodnight!
John Calvin
***************
Originally Posted by John Calvin
Lixma,My run ends starting tomorrow, really. Since I'm up, allow me to clear a couple things up for you, so you don't proceed based upon (more) misunderstandings.Something is "just" if it is in accordance (perfect conformity) with a law or standard.Thus it appears that for you to say Federal Headship is not just, you're just (again) begging the question.I have the proper concept of justness.
That's only one use of the term just. Here's a quite a few more....
1. guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness: We hope to be just in our understanding of such difficult situations.
2. done or made according to principle; equitable; proper: a just reply.
3. based on right; rightful; lawful: a just claim.
4. in keeping with truth or fact; true; correct: a just analysis.
5. given or awarded rightly; deserved, as a sentence, punishment, or reward: a just penalty.
6. in accordance with standards or requirements; proper or right: just proportions.
7. (esp. in Biblical use) righteous.
8. actual, real, or genuine.
9. within a brief preceding time; but a moment before: The sun just came out.
10. exactly or precisely: This is just what I mean.
11. by a narrow margin; barely: The arrow just missed the mark.
12. only or merely: He was just a clerk until he became ambitious.
13. actually; really; positively: The weather is just glorious.
It's been perfectly obvious which realms of just(ice) I’ve been referring too in this thread - the ones dealing with "matters of fairness, and reason, and of things being deserved." A very common use of the word.
Quote:
I have the "traditional" view of justice, then. You have the "unfamiliar use."
Take a moment to browse some online dictionaries for the word "just". Of the lists of possible meanings it turns out that my view of just makes the number one spot repeatedly....that's hardly a sign of its unfamiliarity. So I’d say it's your view that is less common. But the popularity of the word's multiple meanings is irrelevant anyway....it was perfectly clear the way in which I was using the word.
Quote:
I have the proper concept of justness
That's awfully bold considering there's thirteen up there for starters.It's obvious now that you have been deliberately un-willing to engage my objections on anything like common ground. I think it's been quite clear where I was coming from in this thread and which view of justice I was arguing with. You, on the other hand erected semantical barriers all the way.Anyway....P1 = God is just.P2 = Just is barely.C1 = God is barely.....awesome.
***************
Lixma,
Don't make me leave with a straw man hanging over my head! :-)
My definition agrees with 1-7 above (if you think about it). To even post 8-13 was silly, they shouldn't have even been included.
Anyway, if you always treat people in perfect accordance with a law or standard then you're being fair, not taking sides, etc. I can do the same with all other options.
Now, I almost fell off my seat in shock because you said in your last post that: (1) I (John Calvin) might as well be saying "vust" since I'm not using the proper term for "just" but now you note that I am(!), just not in your way (though my way does include fairness, rightness, etc). (2) That you were using it the way "almost everyone else does" and so on that understanding Federal Headship was unjust. So what you mean by this is:
"Well, only on your unfamiliar way of understanding justice is your Federal Headship just. But, if you took the familiar way, you'd see that it's not fair."
What! Is that the most egregious begging of the question we've possibly seen in this thread. You were saying, "It's obviously unfair." But, that's what we've been debating!
Quote:
It's obvious now that you have been deliberately un-willing to engage my objections on anything like common ground. I think it's been quite clear where I was coming from in this thread and which view of justice I was arguing with. You, on the other hand erected semantical barriers all the way.
I engaged all your objections using principles we all accept (hit men, choosing for our children, representatives, etc). I've engaged all your posts and points. I've subjected them to analysis. I've provided defeaters. I've offered defeater-defeaters. I have not got this in return, from you.
The above was underhanded. I've probably talked about the "fairness" aspect in 75% of my posts! But you say I ignored your meaning - fairness - while I've painstakingly taken my time to talk about fairness! It was I who said that my requirement was that the choice be "infallible," and the representative be "perfect," so that the situation is "fair." It was you who said there had to be a causal connection between the representative and the person represented (the problem is that there's no necessary connection between "fairness" and adding that "there must be a causal connection." You're just assuming your position all over the place). To this I offered a defeater that was never overcome. Based on your understanding, then, when I voted in Bush - who now represented by 2 year old - an "injustice" took place! Therefore, based on the above, even your idea of "justice" has faced a reductio ad absurdum.
Lastly, make sure you note that there is no "fairness" on your view of things. All that "fair" means is that you like "less salt on your fries" than someone else. So, since there's no objective standard you cannot be "fair" because absolute fairness pressupposes an objective standard by which all people are held accountable to. It can't be decided by arbitrary whim, or subjective opinion - those change. The standard must be invariant. God is "universal and invariant." My worldview has an answer for fairness, yours does not.
(Now please, though I know you'll respond, don't respond with a straw man. My wife will get upset with you. :-) )
cheers,
John Calvin
****************
Originally Posted by John Calvin
Lixma,Don't make me leave with a straw man hanging over my head! :-)
LOL
Quote:
Anyway, if you always treat people in perfect accordance with a law or standard then you're being fair, not taking sides, etc. I can do the same with all other options.
Not necessarily. You're being fair to people if you treat people fairly. Applying the law to the letter does not necessarily entail you are being fair to people. You may be applying a law fairly in respect to that law's dictates but it does not follow that people are being treated fairly under that law's strict application. A law is not fair because it is applied fairly. A law is fair in virtue of the subject it applies to. Laws don't operate in a vacuum. To make any sense at all they must take into account the human elements they are designed to govern. Therefore a law that said people who aren't over 20 feet tall will be executed cannot said to be fair. We can say this not because we have an objective standard of fairness to guide us, or because we have a watertight logical argument as to why sub-20 ft tall people should live, but because the law itself (no matter how rigidly and excellently applied) doesn't take into account the subject matter it is designed to operate with. As such, a law or decree that condemns the subjects it is designed to govern for simply existing cannot said to be fair.
And so it is with sin (imputed or original).God's doctrine of sin may well be perfectly and fairly applied - but it is unfair because it doesn't take into account its subject matter. God's doctrine of sin is unfair because it condemns people for merely existing.
***************
PROF DIALOGUE
_____________
Hi John!
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Calvin
Why is that the morally 'right' thing to do?
Here's the crux, isn't it?
I'm assuming (as implied by your questions/answers to Lixma) that you believe you are somehow on more firm ground, for making moral claims, than Lixma or for that matter atheists in general.
Is this correct?
If so, I'd like to investigate this.It's typical in these conversations for Christians to bring in examples like Hitler, and query to the atheist "How is it you can say Hitler was wrong?"
But let's take another simple example. Take Ed.
Ed intends to walk up to the first person he sees on the street and shoot them in the head with his gun.
Can you explain to Ed why he "ought" not do such a thing?
What I wish to explore is: What exactly do you claim about your system of morality? Is it somehow "better" than the atheist's morality? If so in what way? If you feel that your moral system puts you in a position superior to the atheist, in providing moral "oughts," I'd like to see how it works. For instance, do you merely assert that your moral claims are logically consistent? Or is there anything beyond that?
Answering the example of "Ed" should get us started.
Thank you,
Prof.
***************
Hi Prof,
1) I believe that my worldview justifies my moral claims. I believe my worldview has the ontological resources to explain moral facts, etc. But I don't think that atheists aren't moral. Or that I'm somehow a better human being that them.
2) Regarding Ed.
a) I'm assuming that you're not imagining a scenario in which the world is filled with zombies and Ed just decides to start taking zombies out and so shoots the first person he sees, right? :-) (Zombies could be persons on physicalist assumptions, cf. Chalmers!)
b) I'm assuming that Ed's murdering people?
c) Why should Ed not murder? It is against God's law. The universe is such that Ed, as a creature created in God's image, is accountable to God and is obligated by God to obey His law. That's the short answer.
3) I don't think there is an "atheist" system of morality. You may be a moral realist, Lixma was a perspectivalist.
4) I think my system provides authority and relevance. I also hold to a tri-perspectival view if ethics, in the sense that, for an act to be "good" you must have the proper (i) motive, (ii) goal, and (iii) standard. Thus, "helping an old lady cross the street" may be a good standard, but what if your "motive" was to save all the old ladies you could because you wanted to rape them next week. Would "helping her cross the street" be a "good" act?
So I recognize a normative, situational, and existential aspect to ethics. And, of course, I think my view of Christianity (which is the reformed view) provides this system. I think that to the extent that non-Christian systems provide relevance they lack authority. To the extent they provide authority they lack relevance. So though it may be fine and dandy to do "The Good" (cf. Plato), I think this lacks any relevance. And though a non-Christian can get real relevant, i.e., help old ladies, etc., I don't think they provide authority.
5) So, that's a rough sketch on how "it works" but I'm sure you understand that gallons of ink have been spilt over this issue, so I'm not going to write a tome.
hope that helped,
John Calvin
***************
John,
I believe you do raise valid philosophical questions in your responses. And in fact I don't always find that atheists produce cogent answers to the questions of presuppositionalists (I'm talking as individuals, not "atheism" as a whole, and I'm not pointing to any particular atheist in this thread). However....that said....
I'd like to first make a point about discussions in general. I have interacted with many Christians espousing Christian Presuppositionalism and have readrelevant text by Van Till, Frame, Bahnsen etc. I do realize there are some competing flavours of CP, but I get the "jist" of things overall. Yes I know CP wishes to emphasize "meta" arguments, and I've read the motivation behind such thinking (e.g. Van Till).
Often interacting with CPers is an exercise in head-banging, not because we are shown our world view is incoherent at every turn (as CPers believe they are showing us), but because the very nature of CP throws the "principle of charity" out the window. Rather than finding common ground, CP eschews common ground. (As Van Till points out, evidentialist apologetics, e.g. many Christian Creationists, made the mistake of presuming common ground with secularists and arguing on a common playing field, in which evidentialism tends to fail. Van Till, as I remember, even insists that such an approach is the road to atheism. Hence his "meta" approach and the move to transcendental arguments, which ensure that man is not put centrally, reasoning autonomously about God; rather God is shuffled into the front of the epistemological line, so any reasoning that smacks of an autonomous nature, which does not acknowledge God as necessary to reason, is disqualified).
So essentially CP authorizes it's adherents to question everything aboutthe opponent's world view. And no common ground is granted (hence the constant insistence on "internal critiques" as the only valid form of argument). And CPers often tend to take this as license to parse everystatement by an atheist to ask for justifications. Much like a first year philosophy student unleashed, drunk with the power of radical skepticism.
This is where the principle of charity tends to be tossed aside. Of course we know that, philosophically everything can be (and should be) challenged. (At some point). You and I can both demand justifications for every single word each of us writes, as almost all of them can be parsed for unstated assumptions. The problem? Conversations would grind to a halt. We'd never get anywhere if we didn't use the principle of charity to sort of grant some basic assumptions that we know what we are talking about, in order to discuss a specific point at hand.
So what I'd like to avoid is the typical whack-a-mole style of interaction that occurs with presuppositionalists. A an example of the type of problem I'm discussing is this:
The atheist and the Christian are discussing if there are any contradictions in the bible. The atheist (purportedly) points out a contradiction. The CPer, instead of untangling the contradiction (e.g. one that purportedly violates the logical "law" of non-contradiction)...instead excuses himself from having to do so by disappearing from one hole and appearing in another, by declaring "Well, before I even bother answering that I'd like to see how your world view accounts for the law of non-contradiction!"
And of course this isn't going to happen (from the CP perspective). It is a tenet of CP that the atheist's world view CAN NOT account for logical laws and other forms of reasoning, the CP takes this as an excuse to dismiss the purported contradiction, essentially on the grounds that it was pointed out by an atheist.
Understand, right now I'm not lobbing an accusation at you, at the moment...just trying to make a point based on past experience to avoid toomuch fruitless conversation. And because I can already see some of this style creeping into your discussions, in your tendency to point out un-argued for assumptions in what people have written, which takes the conversation in directions that derail the main point. Yes, it's fun to show we are epistemologically aware, I know. And I find you are pointing out valid areas of discussion. But given everything we write is buoyed upon assumptions, any of us could go wild in the same way, and the conversations wouldn't get anywhere unless we isolate ideas to discuss and practice some charity instead of following every epistemological rabbit-trail at once.
There must be a form of common ground for our views to remain corrigible. And if our views aren't corrigible at all, if we do not for instance presume certain shared principles of reason, then there is actually no use in conversation. It would amount no more than to our declaring a set of beliefs to brick walls. And when "meta" excuses are employed (e.g. "Why should I follow your logic, you have no meta-account for logic? So get back to me with these questions when you do.") then it becomes an exercise in plugging one's ears.
I hope it is clear what I'm getting at. It's born of many long rabbit-whole chases with Christian Presuppositionalists. And if I can know at the outset that someone is not going to practice any charity in these conversations, and not stay on topic it will save me time interacting with him. (e.g. if it's a moral question, stay with the subject, if it's epistemological, stay with the subject, an ontological argument, a particular meta-argument, or discussion of theories of justice, stay with the subject, vs always pointing out how each question has ramifications into all those domains. We know. But without isolating subjects, we can't get anywhere).
BTW, while the fact someone may have pieced together a coherent set of propositions is neato, I'm tend to be more interested in the questions of "Why should I believe as you do?" (And following from that, why should I agree with you on what we "ought" to do?).
Cheers,
Prof.
(Crap, I may have used up my time for an actual answer to your last post!)
***************
Hi Prof,
Some comments on the above:
1) I don't know of any presuppositionalist worth his salt (i.e., one who's bothered to read any of the literature) who would say that there's "no common ground."
2) The claim is that there is no neutral common ground. The first claim and the second are very different.
3) So, if you're saying that there should be neutral common ground, then I'd disagree. Why? God owns everything. Jesus said he who is not for Him is against Him. To assume that you can be "neutral," then, is to assume that Jesus is wrong, which, to state the obvious, is not neutral. Hence neutrality is contradictory.
4) So, Van Til pointed out that the neutralist approach leads to atheism (cf. (3) above. Neutrality implies Jesus is wrong. If God is wrong, he doesn't exist. If God doesn't exist, atheism is the rational alternative).
5) I have no problem granting certain assumptions. Indeed(!), this is the presuppositionalist method. Actually, all transcendental arguments grant what the skeptics want granted and then show that for it's intelligibility to be possible, the negation of the skeptics position must be.
6) To liken a CPer to a "first year college student drunk with the power of skepticism" is misleading. The CPer is not a skeptic. He believes there are answers, he just doubts you have them.
7) I never try to ignore contradictions and simply ask you to "account for logic." I have no problem harmonizing them for you (while we're at it, talking with the atheist is likewise an exercise in head banging. First, he'll throw 25 contradictions at me and expect me to spend hours untangling all of them - who has that time on a discussion forum? If I do untangle them, guess what, there's 25 new ones. No time is spent admitting that I shewed the fly out of the bottle. So, if you have supposed contradictions, offer them one at a time, please). But at the end of the day, that's not enough. I must ask how universal and invariant laws are possible within his worldview. If they are not, so much the worse for "contradictions." And, if my worldview can allow for such laws, he's presupposing the falsity of his, and the truth of mine, in order to show the falsity of mine!
8) We must also admit that the atheist is just as guilty as these CPers are. Look through this thread. I've had all sorts of rabbit trails to respond to.Now, we can discuss something back and forth. Eventually we'll end at a stand off. My worldview is internally consistent, yet you still disagree with it based on your worldview. I don't end with standoffs. At the standoff point, that's when I'll question all your presuppositions. Showing that your worldview is internally inconsistent, while mine is consistent. Showing that you have no account of logic, while I do.
So, if that method is a deal breaker, I appreciate the time.
cheers,
John Calvin
***************
Originally Posted by John Calvin
Hi Prof, 1) I believe that my worldview justifies my moral claims. I believe my worldview has the ontological resources to explain moral facts, etc. But I don't think that atheists aren't moral. Or that I'm somehow a better human being that them.
Yes, I understand it's not your claim to be morally "better" than atheists, automatically by the fact of your being a Christian. Rather, I understand you believe your world view can better "account" for morality than an atheistic world view (in both a descriptive and prescriptive sense).
Now, I read what you wrote concerning your claims for your system of morality. But the question lingers:
Can you tell Ed he is wrong to shoot an "innocent" person to death? (I'm not using the word "murder" simply because it's tautological, as it means "wrongful" killing anyway and assumes what the question wishes to ask).
I mean, certainly (presuming Ed to be real and accessible to you) you could literally tell Ed he would be wrong to shoot someone, from the point of view of your morality. Just as I could. But what reason can you give Ed to hold to your moral system?
To this point you've supplied a bunch of statements about your moral/belief system. That's fine and dandy. But I would like to see your bridge from your "is" statements about the properties of your moral system, and the properties of your God, to an "ought" that would compel Ed's actions.
Without that, it's just your stating your beliefs, and your opinion formed from your beliefs. Adding God to the equation simply adds another opinion (God's). But aside from that, where's the "ought?"
I'm sure you understand what I'm getting at. You have apparently already assented to the proposition that you "ought" to do as God wills. However, I'm curious to see why your moral system should be seen by others as providing "oughts" for their actions, and not merely your own.
(Can you show yourself to be doing more than simply whispering your
opinion in Ed's ear, while the atheist whisper's his opinion in Ed's other ear?).
Thanks,
Prof.
***************
Hi Prof,
I thought I did do that? Where does the authority of the absolute moral law come from? Where does the "ought" come from? What can impose absolute obligations upon people? In my worldview obligations, loyalties, and morals are covenantal in character.
Say I did a fine job installing granite counter tops in your wife's nice kitchen. Say you got the bill. You feel an obligation to pay it. Not just because I have 24 inch biceps from lifting granite all day long, but because I'm a person, like you. You have a sense that I deserve to be paid. Or, stated another way, you and I had an agreement that you'd pay me for what I did - i.e., we had a covenant. The promise creates an obligation.
With my son, I deserve his respect. Not because I'm a bigger human, but supposedly I have wisdom and greater experience, love for my children, and so I bear authority. My neighbor may be more wise than I, but the word of a parent to his son bears more authority than my neighbor, unless a higher moral authority is involved.
But your obligations to me - the granite counter top installer - and my children obligations to me - their parent - are not an absolute obligation. If my bill is 50 times higher than the estimate, then a higher moral arbiter would step in. If I tell my son to rape his girlfriend, a higher moral authority would step in, maybe even to his ultimate authority.
So, where does that come from? Where do absolute obligations come from? I'd say, given my reasoning above, an absolute person. All men are in a covenantal relationship with the Holy One of Israel. He demands and deserves their obedience. Not only that, but he is worthy of their obedience. All men are thus obligated before God. Since God is the ultimate authority, he has the right to tell his creatures what they must do. Since God’s authority is absolute, we shouldn’t doubt or question it. Furthermore, the absoluteness of God’s authority means that his lordship transcends all our other loyalties. And, to say that God’s authority is absolute means that it covers all areas of human life. Thus based on the above, Ed is morally obligated not to shoot "innocent" people. Thus he "ought" not do so. (The last paragraph is idebted to Frame, Apologetics To The Glory of God.)
cheers,
John Calvin
***************
Hi John,
Originally Posted by John Calvin
5) I have no problem granting certain assumptions. Indeed(!), this is the presuppositionalist method. Actually, all transcendental arguments grant what the skeptics want granted and then show that for it's intelligibility to be possible, the negation of the skeptics position must be.
That's great. It's just that it doesn't often work out that way in practice (I've found with other CPers).
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Calvin
6) To liken a CPer to a "first year college student drunk with the power of skepticism" is misleading. The CPer is not a skeptic. He believes there are answers, he just doubts you have them.
CPers typically use the common arguments for radical skepticism to pin on the atheist. (Hoping to pin the atheist into incoherence). I know you purport to have the answers too, but nonetheless encountering CPers can be like encountering someone who just hopped out of philosophy 101, drunk with the power of casting doubts on common assumptions. That's not an argument, of course. Just an impression. Strike it from the record if you wish. I didn't mean to poison the well.
And yes atheists can be guilty of what I had described as well. Especially when you come to a board like this, a pile-on is inevitable. (I've experienced quite a few on Christian apologetics boards). Fair enough.I'll also do my best to keep issues direct and uncluttered.
Gotta go for now. Prof.
(BTW, in your reply above I see you still haven't supplied the crucial point, bridging your "is" statements to "oughts." And as such I see no "ought" derivable from the description of your world view. More later...)
****************
Hi Prof,
Apropos your response to (5), no one is perfect, but since I haven't read those conversations, I can talk on them either way.
Apropos your response to (6). If you talked to, say, Peter Unger (the Unger of 1975, that is) would you say that he's a "first year college student drunk with the power of skepticism?"
If not, what's different about his arguments and a CPer's? If so... wow, I'd like you to say it to his face!
Quote:
(BTW, in your reply above I see you still haven't supplied the crucial point, bridging your "is" statements to "oughts." And as such I see no "ought" derivable from the description of your world view. More later...)
Well I think I did.
I didn't give a bunch of "descriptive" claims.
I'm honestly at a loss for words. You may disagree with my ethical position, but what I said was not based upon statements like "it is the case that some people like to molest children, therefore they ought to." That would be an instantiation of the is/ought problem. Either that, or you don't understand the is/ought problem, i.e., you're taking "is" statements the wrong way. For example, the claim that "murder is immoral" implies that we "ought" not murder, because we "ought" not do the immoral thing. So, just saying "is" does not necessarily commit one to the is/ought problem.
I've read where you've said that I've committed this error, I'll expect to see actual analysis of my posts in future responses. Maybe it's me and I'm being a bonehead and missing what you're saying. So, help me out.
cheers,
John Calvin
(btw, I saw another post of yours. You seem to be under the impression that I cannot generate an ought unless I show that Ed "desires" to uphold his covenantal obligations to God. I totally deny this assumption, thus the burden is on you to now prove it. An ethical obligation has nothing to do with whether we desire to do it. That's why it's an obligation or, an "ought." What makes an ought and ought is that it what we should do, regardless of whether we want to or not. When one is morally obligated by something, it is his duty to do it, regardless of whether he wants to do it or not. If you're obligated to do something, then you must. You're bound to do it. Therefore, based on those reasons I think your false assumption of why you think I've not supplied an "ought" has been refuted. I do await correction, though.)
***************
Couple comments:
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Calvin
2) We might be equivocating on moral responsibility. We are not punished for Adam's sin, we're not the actors there. But, we reap the consequences. The consequences are a "sinful nature."
But those "consequences" were a curse from God. "Sin" is not an independent creative force as far as I'm aware (in Christian theology). And then we are punished for having a "sinful nature." (And our "nature" was created by God, so why would be blamed for having a sinful nature?
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Calvin
3) I showed above how people can be reap the consequences for other's choices:"Adam was chosen by God. We suffer. We are not punished for his sin (as your wrongly asserted in your previous post). But we reap the consequences. I vote in, say, Bush. He invokes laws. My son may suffer for some. But he's not old enough to vote, you say! Doesn't matter. He was chosen for him. God chose for us. He made the best choice. His choice was infallible. His choice was perfect. Adam was the best representative we could have. He stood in for you. He was chosen to be your representative, just like, say, Duncan Hunter was chosen to be my son's representative, even though my son didn't vote."
Disanalogous. Bush was chosen, by the population, as a representative of the population. Tiny children can't vote as a practical matter, but it is understood they too will have a chance to choose their representative later on. A choice never given to humans by God in the case of Adam.
Unlike Bush being chosen by US, you have God choosing the representative. Which would be more analogous to Bush choosing a representative for the population, and then punishing the population for the actions of the representative. Which no one would stand for. (And to the degree that high-level politicians choose representatives to overlook areas of interest for the population, in a democracy it is understood those people will be tossed out if they are not representing the will of the population).
So, it appears to me your analogies are off, all around the clock.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Calvin
So, I've still seen no reason against the federalist view. Basically, it just appears that people don't like it and so there just must be something wrong with it.
People have been giving plenty of reasons, for instance that your notions of justice violate the broad notions of justice held by most civilized nations. That's a pretty damning I would say. (As well, it seems obvious that if the law prosecuted you in a truly analogous way to how you have God holding us responsible, you'd likely be hoping mad at the injustice).
Of course you can say "Well, it is what it is and you just don't like it," but then the same could be said right back to you. I would say that, at least, the notions of justice espoused by some of the atheists here (e.g. causal connection) are ones I and many other people would feel inclined to adopt, in that they are persuasive in appearing fair. Whereas the notion of justice you have espoused (i.e. the way God behaves toward people) appears more an apologetic. Christians may adopt those notions when reasoning about their God - after all it is a tenet of Christianity that the Christian can not be in judgment of her God - but those notions certainly don't translate into human affairs as conducted by modern, civilized nations.
In fact, modern civilized nations are often engaged in combating just the types of injustice represented in your argument.
Prof.
***************
Hi Prof,
1) Why are we punished for our sinful nature when God was the cause of it? That's begging the question against the federal view. God is the cause of everything, this doesn't make Him morally responsible.
2) Tiny children will have a choice to vote another representative. Bush was chosen for them, and they'll never be able to overturn the consequences (depending on what they are). This point of yours fails, then
.3) Yes, I have God choosing. His choice is infallible and perfect. Furthermore, I've already proven that people reap consequences for representatives that they didn't choose. My son reaps the consequences of loosing his friends when we have to move. I make his choices for him. I'm his federal head. I vote for those who I think are best for him and I. He reaps the consequences of my choices, yet he doesn't get to choose. I choose when he goes to bed, what he eats, and what he wears. he gets the benefits of eating vegetables - a healthy life. He suffers when I make poor choices - invest all my money in a fly-by-night operation. Now he doesn't get a huge Christmas. He doesn't get "designer" clothes. He suffers for my choices. He didn't choose me either. When he's older and I die and leave thousands of dollars worth of debt, I affect him. The law, in our "civilized modern age" allows people to go after my children if I die with a lot of debt. This is why insurance companies have a set up plan to pay off credit card bills, etc., if I die. But wait, they didn’t choose to run up a tab at Hooters!
Our "modern society" says that "one rotten apple spoils the whole bunch." A teacher might punish the entire class for the actions of one student. I played football for many years. If one player on our team screwed up, the entire team had to run late! This is because of the notion of corporate solidarity. The biblical worldview presents man as a covenantal creature. There's nothing "illogical" or "immoral" about the above.
Quote:
People have been giving plenty of reasons, for instance that your notions of justice violate the broad notions of justice held by most civilized nations. That's a pretty damning I would say. (As well, it seems obvious that if the law prosecuted you in a truly analogous way to how you have God holding us responsible, you'd likely be hoping mad at the injustice).
My reply:
1) The reason that I'm off is that it goes against people's notions of justice? That's not a reason, Prof. Here's my response: your notion of justice is off because it violates God's notion of justice. Since He's always right, you must be wrong. If yours worked, so did mine. Anyway, that's the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.
2) If the law prosecuted me in a truly analogous way I'd be mad? Well, forget the analogy. I already believe that I have been prosecuted in, not analogously, the same way, but I'm not "hopping mad." Now, I have no clue how it would be "truly analogous" since a fallible human would choose for me (my fallible choice is just as good as theirs) and the representative would represent me imperfectly, and he'd not do exactly what I would have done.
3) Honestly, they've not given me any good reasons. What's the problem?
a) That it's wrong to punish people for the crimes of others? We've already refuted that.
b) That people can't reap the consequences if they didn't vote in the representative themselves? We've already refuted that.
c) That someone else can't choose our representative for us? We've already refuted that.
Quote:
Of course you can say "Well, it is what it is and you just don't like it," but then the same could be said right back to you. I would say that, at least, the notions of justice espoused by some of the atheists here (e.g. causal connection) are ones I and many other people would feel inclined to adopt, in that they are persuasive in appearing fair. Whereas the notion of justice you have espoused (i.e. the way God behaves toward people) appears more an apologetic. Christians may adopt those notions when reasoning about their God - after all it is a tenet of Christianity that the Christian can not be in judgment of her God - but those notions certainly don't translate into human affairs as conducted by modern, civilized nations.In fact, modern civilized nations are often engaged in combating just the types of injustice represented in your argument.
1) I've refuted the causal connection premise. You can't keep reasserting a defeated premise. You must offer a defeater-defeater.
2) How is "the infallible choice of a man who represents you perfectly" not "fair?" And, "fair" is something "marked by impartiality and honesty: free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism." This was God's choice. Can you guarantee that your own choice would meet the above criteria? God can.
3) The most embarrassing point is that you're using modern human nations as the standard of justice! This suffers from serious reductios.
a) Why the arbitrary distinction of "modern civilized" nations?
b) Why are our conceptions assumed to be "just?" Why is, say, 10 years in jail for theft "just" and, say, restitution "unjust."
c) What if in 10,000 years, when we're more modern and civilized, society reinstates slavery. You'd be bound to say that was "just."
d) Our "modern and civilized" nations are punishing Iraq (and possible Iran and others) for something someone else did, without the "causal connection."
e) Since the majority of the voters vote against same sex unions, would you agree that it is "just" to not allow gays to marry?
f) If our society determines what is just, then how do you account for moral reformers (e.g., Martin Luther King).
g) What is it to be "modern" and "civilized?"
h) If modern civilization is not the "good reasons" for determining if something is just or not, then have you been refuted?
i) Either you must accept the reductios, or admit you were wrong.
4) So I reiterate, once again, you all may not like the notion of Federal Headship, but I've not seen any good arguments against it. No one has shown it to be "illogical." No one has shown it to be "morally reprehensible." Thus my original claim for how God can take the life of "children" has been defended and justified. There's been no internal inconsistency found. The only argument raised is this: "Federal Headship goes against my modern sensibilities, therefore it's immoral." hardly convincing.
5) And, Prof's right, at the end of the day, this is what God has established. it won't do you any good to complain about it. Ignorance or dislike of the law is no excuse.
cheers,
John Calvin
***************
aa5874 DIALOGUE
_____________
Originally Posted by John Calvin
And, of course, I think my view of Christianity (which is the reformed view) provides this system. I think that to the extent that non-Christian systems provide relevance they lack authority. To the extent they provide authority they lack relevance. So though it may be fine and dandy to do "The Good" (cf. Plato), I think this lacks any relevance. And though a non-Christian can get real relevant, i.e., help old ladies, etc., I don't think they provide authority.
John Calvin, I find your statement repulsive. If a system of morality is relevant to a society, what other authority are you claiming to have or know about to make that system irrelevant?
Your self-imposed authorized morality is counter-productive. What utter non-sense! To help an old lady across the street, one must be authorized by the reformed view of Christianity, lest they rape the old lady the following week. John, you are not making sense!
Using your authorized morality, I think you will also have to find out if the 'old lady' is a Christian with a reformed view, because she may not be 'an old lady' but a criminal with the intention of robbing you, now, not next week.
Your authorized reformed view of morality is irrelevant.
****************
Hi aa5874,
Being relevant doesn't make it objective. So it's nice to help old ladies, but who says? If you have no authoritative, objective standard by which you say that, then it's a suggestion and I can choose to ignore it.
I actually never said that "one must be authorized by the reformed view of Christianity, lest they rape the old lady the following week." I don't know where you got that. Indeed, I told Prof that I think a theist can be moral, and I'm not better than you guys. So, a little charity in reading what I write would be appreciated.
cheers,
John Calvin
***************
Originally Posted by John Calvin
All men are in a covenantal relationship with the Holy One of Israel. He demands and deserves their obedience. Not only that, but he is worthy of their obedience. All men are thus obligated before God. Since God is the ultimate authority, he has the right to tell his creatures what they must do. Since God’s authority is absolute, we shouldn’t doubt or question it. Furthermore, the absoluteness of God’s authority means that his lordship transcends all our other loyalties. And, to say that God’s authority is absolute means that it covers all areas of human life.
You appear to live in a dream world, you have never shown that your God is even real and now you tell me that all men must be loyal to the Holy One of Israel. There are many more Gods that others worship, you need to understand this. Making wild statements about your absolute God without any credible data is non-productive. There are billions of people with all sorts of belief, but I need to know what knowledge or information you have that can be verified to show that your God is real.
***************
Hi aa5874,
Apparently you've been sleeping during part of the conversation and so you must have missed what Prof asked me.
He never asked me to prove that my God exists. He asked how, according to my position (which, obviously, includes God's existence), I can show that "Ed" 'ought' not kill innocent people. I was under the assumption that he was letting the existence of God part be assumed in my answer.
So, this:
1) Prove that God exists and then after that show how men are morally obligated to do X.
is different that this:
2) Assuming your God exists, show how men are morally obligated to do X.
I was never asked to do (1) but rather (2).
Without that background I can understand why you said what you did. But, if you can do me a favor, I do not have all the time in the world and so if you could make it a point to read the entire discussion before commenting on something I've said (so you have the context) that would save me a great amount of time and I wouldn't have to take time to post responses to posts when the poster could have simply taken his time to read the entire conversation.
Thanks in advance,
John Calvin
***************
VON ZIPPER DIALOGUE
________________
This is from a couple of pages back. I hope its not a derail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lixma
The hit man analogy is a red herring - it's perfectly obvious that people can be justly held morally accountable for the actions of others.
No, the hit man analogy is pure bunk.
We don't charge the husband with the murder. We charge him with conspiracy to murder, which is a different crime.
Even if the hit man never commits the murder, or never even gets as far as planning the murder, the husband is still identically legally culpable. Far from it being the case that the husband is punished for the hit man’s crime, the husband's crime exists independently of whether the hit man commits his crime or not.
We don't hold person A responsible for person B's actions, except in as far as person A has some demonstrable influence upon person B in the case of the action concerned.
***************
Hi Von Zipper,
The above is obviously false (conspiracy can be an added charge). For example, here's the charge in one murder-for-hire case:"Prosecutors allege that Schwartz, 41, hired Bigger to kill Stidham after patients began gravitating toward the younger doctor's practice while Schwartz was in rehab. Bigger will be tried separately, though both men are charged with first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder." SOURCE HERE
We hold person A responsible if person B acted as person A's representative. I deny the premise that person A needed to have influence on person B for A to be held responsible. This premise has never been argued for in this thread. It has been assumed as a given.
cheers,
John Calvin
***************
Originally Posted by John Calvin
This is obviously false (conspiracy can be an added charge). For example...
Thanks for your response.You're right. My bad. You can be charged with murder even if you didn't physically commit the crime - but you are nevertheless legally culpable only through and on the basis of your own actions, which is the point I was aiming to address. No actions/negligence deemed as contributing to the crime = no responsibility for the crime.
Its a notion which I believe to be at the very heart of human moral instinct, but which your position forces you to reject.
An analogy which, from my perspective, better reflects the doctrine of "guilty" newborns is one where the hit man’s children are also held responsible for the murder, and handed down lengthy prison sentences, despite not having been born until after the crime was committed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Calvin
We hold person A responsible if person B acted as person A's representative. I deny the premise that person A needed to have influence on person B for A to be held responsible.
I'll take you at your word ; influence is not required.
Consider in this case then a person who has existed in a vegetative state since infancy. Let's say Clark is 56 years old today, and he's been vegetative since he was 9 months old.
Now, as personal influence and actions do not seem to be necessary components in your understanding of what constitutes moral responsibility, perhaps you can provide an example of how Clark may be justly held morally responsible for the actions of any person at any time from the 1950's onwards.
Moreover, in the spirit of the hit man analogy, could you possibly give me some commonplace example where "justice" demands we hold responsible and punish an individual for any wrongdoing which occurred before they were born?
***************
Hi Von Zipper,
1) The hit man analogy was, well, an analogy. It's purpose was to refute the claim (previously in this thread) that we cannot be held responsible for the actions of others. It serves it's purpose.
2) We might be equivocating on moral responsibility. We are not punished for Adam's sin, we're not the actors there. But, we reap the consequences. The consequences are a "sinful nature."
3) I showed above how people can be reap the consequences for other's choices:
"Adam was chosen by God. We suffer. We are not punished for his sin (as your wrongly asserted in your previous post). But we reap the consequences. I vote in, say, Bush. He invokes laws. My son may suffer for some. But he's not old enough to vote, you say! Doesn't matter. He was chosen for him. God chose for us. He made the best choice. His choice was infallible. His choice was perfect. Adam was the best representative we could have. He stood in for you. He was chosen to be your representative, just like, say, Duncan Hunter was chosen to be my son's representative, even though my son didn't vote."
4) The hit man didn't act as his children's representative, Adam did. That's the disanalogy.
5) But the children didn't choose Adam as the hit man was chosen. So, He was chosen by another. Your children reap the consequences (for good or ill) of your choices, but they didn't choose you for their parent.
6) Again, Adam represented all mankind. That is, God tested mankind in Adam. This was a fair representation in that Adam was infallibly chosen and perfectly represented us such that he was the best possible representative. If he did X, any of us would have done X.That we didn't choose him, or weren't born yet, does not mean that we can't suffer the consequences (we would have gladly accepted the blessings if he were to have had kept the covenant of works!). Our children, and children's children, will reap the consequences of our choices. We reap the benefits of America, the choices of our founding fathers. If we're going to be intellectually honest, why do we take the benefits while not wanting the consequences?
7) The consequences of Adam's sin is that all mankind are born in a state of sin and misery. We are thus affected by, and reap the consequences of, Adam's sin. This is no different than what happens in our world on a regular basis.
8) No one ever complains when it comes to salvation. In the Bible Jesus represents His people perfectly. His is the new Adam. He stands in for all His people (just as Adam stood in for all his). Christ's people reap the benefits of Christ's life. No one says that imputing righteousness is unfair, just unrighteousness.
So, I've still seen no reason against the federalist view. Basically, it just appears that people don't like it and so there just must be something wrong with it.
cheers,
John Calvin
***************
::Yawn!::
ReplyDeleteIs Ted bored of watching the intellectual demise of fellow non-Christians?
ReplyDeleteYes, Ted, it's got to get boring watching the same outcome day after day.
Ted's a fair weather fan, he only gets excited when his teams winning.
Thanks for letting us all know how you feeel, Ted.
I very much enjoyed that dialogue. Thanks for posting it.
ReplyDeleteCMA
On the issue of you taking your 2 year old to the Dr, and him not understanding that pain is good for him...
ReplyDeleteIt was necessary for you to do this to help him.
God needs not use pain to bring about good, nor evil, by definition.
Therefore, when we see evil, and pain, and you say, "God is doing that [for good reasons]," and then, "God is good," and then, "God is all-powerful," you are illogical.
If God is good, then God must do good to accomplish good, like giving your son a candy that has medicine inside it that heals his tooth -- no pain necessary.
Tonya,
ReplyDeleteWhy did you do it? You could have beaten Nancy with some good old-fashioned hard work. I mean, you were the first to do a quadruple lutz in a skating competition! Anyway, glad to see you're entering the battlefield of apologetics.......
"But if so, and if Paul's statements license us to conclude that individuals have a pretty reliable sense of right and wrong, it seems the burden of proof is on us, the Xians, to show them otherwise."
ReplyDeleteWell I did. So now it's up to *you* to show where I made an error.
Anyway, "metaphorical" for what?
Is it "morally okay" for God to send peopel to hell, but not for him to use agents to take their life on earth?
You clearly never did justify guilt assigned to parties that didnt commit the guilty action. Just because you posted links to federalism concepts doesnt make federalism correct.
ReplyDeleteYou also didnt give a good reason to follow Gods law. In the "shoot em in the head" example, you simply said that it would violate gods law and we have to obey him.
but that makes too many assumptions. Why do we need to follow Gods law? Because if not we will burn in Hell? Well then that moral system would be based on oneself, not on God, and would still be usable and applicable even if God didnt exist.
It would be like this: "dont hurt person X or entity Y will destroy you"
Thats a self-interest-based morality, not a god based morality.
Have you ever given a good reason to follow Gods law other than a silly "your ass will roast in hell" reason?
Hi Aaron,
ReplyDeleteI clearly did give a reason.
If you would have read what I wrote, you would hav eseen that. For example, you say that I never gave a good reason for how guilt could be assigned to a party that did not commit the guilty *act.*
So, take the hit man analogy. The man who hired the hit man is chared with committing the *act* of murder *and* charged with the *act* of conspiracy of murder.
Why?
Because the hit man represented him. The hit man did what he would have done. The hit man acted *for him.*
So, you've clearly been answered.
To the rest of your straw man, what should I say? I aid none of the silly things you attributed to me, none.
I gave reasons to follow God's law. You never quoted them, but quoted me saying "your ass will roast in hell" as the reason. But I *never said that!*
It's clear to me that you don;t want to dialogue but are angry about something and just care about winning so bad that you'll make things up tha I never said just to try and show up theism.
Sorry Aaron, I don;t want to play that game with you.
~Paul
The man who hired the hitman was guiltier than the hitman.
ReplyDeleteCrime does not pay.
The trouble with Aaron is that he does not dialogue. In this he is similar to many Christians. He has a prepared argument, and will deliver it no matter what. He will thus attribute words, arguments or thoughts in the belief that is what Christians actually believe.
ReplyDeleteThis is bad debating, but most people are guilty of this to a lesser or greater degree.
That said, it is better than Ted, who really does need to get to bed earlier. Or watch less television.