Why not? — Heister Eggcart

Would God assign you to do evil? Do you think God has prepared thorns for you?

I don't know, do you know the mind of God?

I don't know, do you know the mind of God? — Heister Eggcart

If he orders you to do evil, would he be God? Would God be God if he were evil? Isn't Goodness part of what makes God God?

Why can't God be evil? Who defines God?

I actually agree with you here :P (*goes off to write the event in the calendar*)

Why can't God be evil? Who defines God? — Heister Eggcart

Because God is deserving of worshipping. God is deserving that you angle your whole life towards Him. If He were evil, instead of good, would he be as deserving? What makes God deserving of worship? Is it his might and power? Or is it his love and goodness?

Because God is deserving of worshipping. God is deserving that you angle your whole life towards Him. If He were evil, instead of good, would he be as deserving? What makes God deserving of worship? Is it his might and power? Or is it his love and goodness? — Agustino

Who says all this is God?

Who says all this is God? — Heister Eggcart

If this isn't God, would God be worth worshipping?

If God were some cruel and evil demon, who enjoyed torturing his creation for no purpose at all - would God be worth worshipping? Is a tyrant, the dictator of North Korea for example, worthy of worship? If no, then why not?

If this isn't God, would God be worth worshipping? — Agustino

Why worship at all? And I still am not sure how you've come to know precisely what God is and is not.

Ah, so we must worship that which has created the very thing that demands we worship it! Golly gee...

Why worship at all? And I still am not sure how you've come to know precisely what God is and is not. — Heister Eggcart

God cannot be evil by definition. That's simply part of what we mean by God. If God were evil, then that would be no different than there being no God at all. Literarily it would be indistinguishable from the scenario where there is no God, but there is an all-powerful and cruel evil demon as in Descartes' dreams. Power itself isn't sufficient to count as what we mean by God.

God cannot be evil by definition. — Agustino

Ah, so you define God, not God, whatever God is.

Ah, so you define God, not God, whatever God is. — Heister Eggcart

I'm saying that I simply wouldn't consider that whatever to be God if He is not Good. If God, whatever God is appeared in front of me, and God wasn't good, then I wouldn't consider Him God.

So God can be nothing else but the Good? Why call Good God, then?

So God can be nothing else but the Good? Why call Good God, then? — Heister Eggcart

Because I am drawn to Goodness. Goodness is the end in-itself, that for which we do all things. Reason is directed towards goodness - we do things because we think them to be good. Even the criminal does things because he thinks them to be good. He's not a criminal in-so-far as he does things which he thinks good (he's actually a saint in-so-far as he does that), he's a criminal only in-so-far as he's mistaken about what actually is good - it's a mistake of judgement, not one of reason in other words. Because reason functions in this manner all by itself, we only have being in-so-far as we seek goodness; and we lack being in-so-far as we're mistaken in our judgements. But it's important to note that we can't ever be fully mistaken so long as we're still rational. So long as we're rational, we'll pursue the good - whatever we identify the good to be. So in-so-far as we do that, we always have some being. It's all about clarifying judgement, and therefore realising what the good most fully is. If someone thinks the good is killing people, then he's making a mistake in judgement, and he will reap the rewards of what he has seeded - suffering and pain - failing to find his fulfilment.

Because God is Good, God has Being.

Because I am drawn to Goodness. — Agustino

Yes, because goodness is telling people they worship at the altar of pussy and using the word "fuck" a lot. No one is falling for your bullshit, Agustino. All you've done in this discussion is distract from a potentially sensible debate with Question and I'm not going to let you continue to get away with that.

I'm not surprised. I am defending the identity of the celibate and sexually restrained. Alas, you do not extend the same curtesy when I point out your naturalistic fallacies about human sexual behaviour.

In logical terms, I fear your agreement is a bit of a marriage of convenience: a pragmatic assertion because it opposes a discourse claims prominent sexually is a necessary human trait, rather than respect for avoiding the equivocation of human behaviour and ethics with status.

But then pretty much par of the course when discussing human sexually. In discussion and debates about human sexuality, most of it is directed towards "justifying" behaviour and status, rather than understanding sex itself and its relationship to ethics. The liberals come our with nonsense like "it's only physical pleasure" or "people should do whatever why want" or "prostitution is always a wonderful service for everyone." On the other side, people like yourself ignore the interests and actions of some people, to entrench an image and status to a particular way of life (e.g. life-long relationships, sexual exclusivity, etc.,etc.) disconnected from people's sexual behaviour and relationships.

Because I am drawn to Goodness. — Agustino

>:O

So drawn to "Goodness" that you'd rather please your penis than live a still life among monks, >:O

Goodness is the end in-itself, that for which we do all things. — Agustino

All things? Nope.

Reason is directed towards goodness - we do things because we think them to be good. — Agustino

Just how you think having children is good.

Even the criminal does things because he thinks them to be good. He's not a criminal in-so-far as he does things which he thinks good (he's actually a saint in-so-far as he does that), he's a criminal only in-so-far as he's mistaken about what actually is good - it's a mistake of judgement, not one of reason in other words. — Agustino

So who judges his judgement to be wrong? You? If so, who judges your judgement of his judgement?

Because reason functions in this manner all by itself, we only have being in-so-far as we seek goodness; and we lack being in-so-far as we're mistaken in our judgements. — Agustino

This doesn't follow at all.

But it's important to note that we can't ever be fully mistaken so long as we're still rational. — Agustino

How'd you figure this out?

So long as we're rational, we'll pursue the good - whatever we identify the good to be. — Agustino

One cannot pursue that which he is not pursuing. I've never intended to wreck my car, but if I do, such does not mean that I pursued such an end merely because it happened.

If someone thinks the good is killing people, then he's making a mistake in judgement, and he will reap the rewards of what he has seeded - suffering and pain. — Agustino

I can say the same of your own judgement, that marital sex in fact propagates suffering and pain. According to your wonky logic, my judgement is as right as yours.

Because God is Good — Agustino

Good is Good, but what is God?

God has Being.

Has? So God's supposed Being is as much a quality as our own being...interesting......

I'm not going to let you continue to get away with that. — Baden

Given your avatar, I'm getting some Guy Fawkes vibes here, >:O

Yes, because goodness is telling people they worship at the altar of pussy and using the word "fuck" a lot. No one is falling for your bullshit, Agustino. — Baden

Yeah too bad that my argument wasn't even about that. It was about the direction of rationality itself, which is always aimed at the good. Even if goodness isn't using the word fuck a lot, that has nothing to do with the argument I was actually making there. I am directed towards goodness even when I do bad, because I do the said action thinking it is good. It's a mistake in judgement that makes the difference, as I said.

All you've done in this discussion is distract from a potentially sensible debate with Question and I'm not going to let you continue to get away with that. — Baden

How about you or BC or Hanover actually even start addressing any of my arguments?

Get thee to a monastery ASAP -- any one that will have you.

How about you or BC or Hanover actually even start addressing any of my arguments? — Agustino

We tried and within a couple of posts you descended into a potty-mouthed rant. I guess you need a few more trips to Mount Athos before you can figure out why that's a bad thing.

I don't have time right now, but i will soon quote you lengthy arguments that none of you have even bothered to address

Yes, because goodness is telling people they worship at the altar of pussy and using the word "fuck" a lot. No one is falling for your bullshit, Agustino. All you've done in this discussion is distract from a potentially sensible debate with Question and I'm not going to let you continue to get away with that. — Baden

Well, for the most part, I have found what Agustino has said to be pretty agreeable. I don't think he has said anything outrageous, like the sort you might see coming from a religious zealot about going to hell for masturbating, which is another matter altogether.

All in all, this has been a wholesome and good debate in my opinion.

Glad you're happy. Anyway, that's enough meta for now. Let's get back to the matter at hand.

Why would you have drawn a distinction between need and desire had I said desire and not need? This response makes no sense.

I've set you to ignore. If it helps your ego to think it's because you're too wise and irrefutable do that.

Fair game, I'll readdress your post.

Suppose you're terribly wrong here and that the need for sex and the satisfaction of that need is a more mature response than a person who has successfully repressed that need. Suppose your premise is utter nonsense, that elimination of or simply lacking sexual urge is unrelated entirely to virtue, morality, maturity or any superior power? That does seem to be your underlying unsupportable premise.

It strikes me that those who go without are either (1) misled religiously, (2) asexually constructed, or (3) socially incapable. Advocating chastity therefore arises because you either (1) wish to convert others to your religion, (2) are incapable of understanding sexuality due to your own asexuality, or (3) are trying to justify your own social limitations. — Hanover

What my readings in philosophy have taught me, meaning where I'm coming from, is that unfulfilled wants and desires cause suffering and anguish, which in turn lead to other undesirable emotions. I don't think there's much controversy over that.

As a constantly aspiring Stoic, I feel compelled to listen to my brethren Christians and not indulge in the pleasurable aspects of life. Please understand that I have nothing against people who indulge in pleasures and such matters. However, I hold people who can master their desires and wants in higher regard to those who do not... and the history of philosophy and religion would stand with me in that value of self-mastery.

I hope to have clarified where my position is coming from, rather from some neuroticism or other psychobabble some might assume.

Please understand that I have nothing against people who indulge in pleasures and such matters. However, I hold people who can master their desires and wants in higher regard to those who do not... — Question

And that is a perfectly reasonable position to take. You are entitled to hold in high regard people who master their desires, if you so wish. I too think it a good idea for people to be on top of their desires, rather than the other way around. I admire people who have been very faithful and devoted to their good political causes, even though they were pretty much lost from the get go. They may have been fools, but... so be it.

neuroticism or other psychobabble — Question

Well, the dividing line between good psycho-social theory and practice and psychobabble has always been kind of fuzzy. I think there is such a thing as good psycho-social theory, and I've heard plenty of psychobabble too.