I am baffled, please explain

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pallas_Athene
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lily_Bernans said:
No, I don’t mind you asking at all.
Click to expand...
Insert the forum equivalent of a pregnant pause here…

OK, so you don’t mind me asking. I would have assumed, in that case, you would have responded.

The question was: which information were you given on secular morality? Could you link to it if it’s available?
 
Bradski said:
Your existence is based on evidence which you have decided to accept. Unless you believe you exist without any evidence whatsoever? And I don’t care, as I have repeatedly said, the method by which you decide to accept or reject information. Thoughtful deliberation, instinct, authority, intuition…it doesn’t matter. You still make the call before you can believe.
Click to expand...
Most people never even consider the question because they take it for granted they exist. They would think you’re crazy if you asked them for evidence! I don’t know what you mean by “make the call” but whatever it is it is not a conscious decision. There is no method because it is as natural as breathing and doesn’t require any form of commitment. If you doubt this, Brad, say to people “Do you exist?” or even better "You don’t exist! 😉
 
tonyrey said:
There is no method because it is as natural as breathing and doesn’t require any form of commitment. If you doubt this, Brad, say to people “Do you exist?” or even better "You don’t exist! 😉
Click to expand...
As you said, they accept it as a given. It would be pretty difficulty to reject the evidence of one’s own existence. And having accepted it, they believe it.

Again, if you ask someone why they believe something, they will have a reason. Maybe they hadn’t given it a lot of thought. Maybe it’s the first time they would have thought about it. But there will be a reason.

Do you seriously want to suggest that people say they exist just because they CHOOSE to believe it? Abject nonsense.
 
Aloysium said:
God is Love.
You can’t see charity when it is right in front of you?
Your friend is doing God’s will. Faith is revealed in action.
Click to expand...
So since my client is doing God’s will, and he believes Sathiya Say Baba is God, we should believe that also. Is that what you are hinting at? People who do God’s will can’t be mistaken in their beliefs about God? Why not?
 
Bradski said:
Insert the forum equivalent of a pregnant pause here…

OK, so you don’t mind me asking. I would have assumed, in that case, you would have responded.

The question was: which information were you given on secular morality? Could you link to it if it’s available?
Click to expand...
I see you only copied and pasted a portion of my post. I DID respond. I DID give you the sources. I told you all theology students also had to take several courses in philosophy (both ancient and modern) and ethics.

No, I can’t link to the sources. LOL I go to a private Catholic college in New England. They don’t teach from Wikipedia! The sources are textbooks and in some cases the writings of various philosophers and ethicists themselves, which you can Google.

I can’t possibly tell all the information I was given on secular morality versus no secular morality. That’s an entire semester in itself.
 
PRmerger said:
What is this in reference to? The evidence that Hee-Zen, who was banned, re-upped and is now Pallas Athene?
Click to expand...
The number of quotes from both parties that have the same witty jargon that you and Peter Plato have posted.😃
 
Lily_Bernans said:
I see you only copied and pasted a portion of my post. I DID respond. I DID give you the sources. I told you all theology students also had to take several courses in philosophy (both ancient and modern) and ethics.

No, I can’t link to the sources. LOL I go to a private Catholic college in New England. They don’t teach from Wikipedia! The sources are textbooks and in some cases the writings of various philosophers and ethicists themselves, which you can Google.

I can’t possibly tell all the information I was given on secular morality versus no secular morality. That’s an entire semester in itself.
Click to expand...
Hey, what do you know, we used books for those courses as well!
 
oldcelt said:
But, do those qualities have to come from a deity?

John
Click to expand...
What constitutes love is an awareness, a connection that is compassionate, understanding, a oneness in spirit. where the other person’s well being is as important as one’s own.
It also imvolves a giving of oneself to achieve this, a surrender of one’s selfish interests to the other, a reliquishing of one’s speciofic point of view to take on that of the other.

In order for this to occur there must exist a relationship between a self and an other. Love is the most perfect of relationships.

We here exist in relation to the physical universe as a part of a pretty much infinitely larger whole.
We transform it into ourselves when we eat and when we breathe.
We are one with it in our perceptions and understanding.

We are also part of a larger psychosocial whole through which we relate to one another.
We give our minds over to our parents and society, thereby gaining in the knowledge that has been accumulated through the ages.

We also relate to that which is most real.
We all find reality difficult at times, and fantasy gets us through and able to function when things get overwhelming.
However, it is in the Truth that we find solace and the capacity to heal and move on.
It is not only possible, but in our very nature to seek and develop a relationship with Reality. Even among the confused, you will hear, “The only truth is that there is no truth.” We all seek Truth.

I am asserting that at the core of each unique and irreplaceable person who exists in relation to all else, lies the relationship with the Deity, which is the whereby we have life.
At the Foundation of everything, there exists not a thing, but Relationship that transcends, is within and encompasses all that is.
It is more real than we ourselves, more personal and more knowing. We are His creation.
Everything exists, brought into being by the supreme (There is nothing more real.), eternal (It is in all time and space; nothing is outside of its creative power.) Oneness (The unchangeable Father of all.) which is Love (perfect relationship).

It’s something like that. Pumpkin, this is in response to your questions as well.
 
Bradski said:
Who gives a damn? Accept it on authority if you like. I. Don’t. Care. But once accepted, you THEREFORE believe. Once rejected you THEREFORE don’t.
Click to expand...
This is my point, actually. You can “accept” things without necessarily believing them. Your cat example (below) is exactly that kind of thing.
Bradski said:
Then give me an example of what you believe to be true without having decided to accept or reject what you have been told about it. Simple question. Impossible to answer.
Click to expand...
You give a purrfect example of where it is possible to accept the existence of my cat called Henry without, necessarily, believing it. It is accepted on the basis of someone’s “say-so,” which means acceptance does not imply belief in the full-bodied sense of the word (i.e., think to be true.)

If acceptance and belief are not univocal, then it may be possible to accept something (i.e, giving assent to it) without believing it (i.e, having an understanding that it is so or thinking it is true.) That would depend entirely upon the will of the person to adhere to truth regarding what they choose to believe or not to believe.

A person may be fully committed to truth, in which case what they accept and what they believe could be one and the same. On the other hand, if truth isn’t valued to that extent a person may be willing to accept a host of things they don’t “believe” in the sense of “think to be true.” They merely accept them for other reasons, such as emotive ones. They have, in other words, emotional investment in accepting certain propositions even though they know the propositions are untrue or not necessarily true and, therefore, are not really “believed.”
Bradski said:
That would be, as you know full well, information that we have no way of personally determining whether it is objectively true or not. If you told me you had a cat called Harry then I would have no reasonable way of determining if that information was true. But I would have no reason to believe that you were lying (although I may be wrong) so I will ACCEPT the information and if someone asks me if I believe you have a cat called Harry, I will THEREFORE say Yes.
Click to expand...
That would be YOUR psychology in action. What you are claiming – but haven’t shown – is THAT is the way every human being functions. I am disputing THAT on the basis of insincerity and that people have been known to be duplicitous, even to themselves. Acceptance of things known not to be true is more common than you allow. Otherwise, people would always do what their consciences tell them, which, as Sartre and the Catholic sacrament of Reconciliation point out, isn’t the case – bad faith is possible.
Bradski said:
Then give me an example of what you believe to be true without having decided to accept or reject what you have been told about it. Simple question. Impossible to answer.
Click to expand...
A thief could very well believe that “Stealing is morally wrong” is true, but decides to act otherwise, thus deciding to leave the proposition in a kind of limbo with regard to his act of theft – he neither accepts nor rejects the hold that the known truth value of the proposition has on him or his actions, he just ignores it.
 
PRmerger said:
😃

Oh, thank goodness you have a normal name for your cat.

I don’t think I could be friends with you if you named your cat Li’l Mittens or Miss Whiskers or Puffy Kisses. 🙂
Click to expand...
Neither could I be friends with myself if I did such a thing. 😃
 
Wow… 70 pages and over 1000 posts. And no explanation was forthcoming. (But it was an interesting merry-go-round.)

It is possible to create a world where all the inhabitants have free will, and none of them will commit “immoral” acts (however you define “immoral”). The solution is the selective creation. Since God’s omniscience allows him to “preview” the potential person’s future, he could decide to create or not to create that particular person. And this “foreknowledge” has no effect of the person’s free will.

The question is still… why didn’t God do this? Since this thread will be closed eventually, due to the limit imposed on the number of posts, it might be interesting to revisit it sometime in the future.
 
Pallas_Athene said:
Wow… 70 pages and over 1000 posts. And no explanation was forthcoming. (But it was an interesting merry-go-round.)

It is possible to create a world where all the inhabitants have free will, and none of them will commit “immoral” acts (however you define “immoral”). The solution is the selective creation. Since God’s omniscience allows him to “preview” the potential person’s future, he could decide to create or not to create that particular person. And this “foreknowledge” has no effect of the person’s free will.

The question is still… why didn’t God do this? Since this thread will be closed eventually, due to the limit imposed on the number of posts, it might be interesting to revisit it sometime in the future.
Click to expand...
God did do this.

But the free will usurped His Original Plan.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top