Your argument if I understood it is that the NT description of God is the true God and to the extent the OT God is incongruent with the NT God, it does not descibe God. Yours is therefore both an external critique and an internal critique. — Hanover
What does this mean? It means the sacred literature of the Jews and Christians describe an evolving God, which says nothing about God as much as it does the people conceptionalizing God. — Hanover
[One objection is that] the OT is seen as a stepping-stone progression... — Bob Ross
It isn't. — Michael
Not dour, just proper English. It doesn't seem to make sense that something can both meet needs and be useless.
You seem to use "use" in a way that excludes aesthetic use. This seems unhelpful to me, neither humans nor any other animal behave in ways that are useless, that don't meet needs or serve any purpose. If from the start you presume the behavior is useless it will be impossible to understand. How can you understand a useless, meaningless behavior? — hypericin
What I like about Wilde's aphorism is that it challenges this instinctive (I would say ideological) association of value with utility, reversing it to imply that the higher the value, the less intrumentally functional something becomes. — Jamal
We could think about the "pragmatic" as what is a means to an end, and art appreciation as an end in itself, but beyond that the two concepts will interpenetrate (and a schema which strongly divides means from ends will lack plausibility). — Leontiskos
The idea is that art's value is not contingent upon a measurable, definite, or clearly apparent outcome. — Jamal
And in general I think that actual innocent people being killed by civilians with guns is a bigger concern than some alarmist argument that a government could potentially turn tyrannical. — Michael
I don't really understand your request. It's a simple statement of fact: given that governments already have a "monopoly of coercion" even without stricter gun control — e.g. cruise missiles, tanks, attack helicopters, fully automatic weapons, etc. — arguing against stricter gun control on the grounds that it will give governments a monopoly of coercion is moot. — Michael
You want your cake and to eat it. — Banno
this seems to be a moot point — Michael
In an ideal world, I believe that guns should not be accessible to a civilian population that doesn't need them, they should be accessible to military personnel, hunters and top level security. — Samlw
I wouldn't say gatekeeping is "bad", and art is certainly a communal practice. But I don't think community vetting can ever be a reliable arbiter of what is and isn't art.
Take Stravinsky's Rite of Spring. To my knowledge, not only was this soundly rejected by the critical establishment, but its performance even resulted in a riot. Yet now it is treated as a masterpiece. If community vetting is the standard, then it wasn't art then, and is art now, which doesn't seem right at all. And it does not leave room for the community to be wrong. — hypericin
I think "art" is akin to "artifact" and "tool". An artifact is distinguished from an ordinary object by the fact it was created with intention by humans. A tool is distinguished from an ordinary artifact by the fact it was created with the intention to facilitate physical manipulation. Art is distinguished from an ordinary artifact by the fact it was created with the intention to be used aesthetically. None of these distinctions rest on some ethereal ontological essence latent in the object. Rather, they rest on the history of the object. — hypericin
I don't see this as an exception at all. Decor serves no pragmatic function, it is perfectly possible to live in an abode with no decor at all. Decor serves only to modulate the emotional state of the inhabitant; this is thoroughly, unproblematically art. — hypericin
Else, given what Bob Ross has said, I am not convinced he would find this persuasive. He would ask whether it is permissible to "kill" a demon for their future crimes, Minority Report-style. — Leontiskos
It's not a speculative preemptive strike, but one where we know what will happen if we relent because the warning was from God, not just some UN inspectors who might be wrong. — Hanover
That optimism is a major cause of our problems now. That's why I think that revolution is, of itself, a Bad Idea. Reform is more likely to succeed. — Ludwig V
Good question. Right now I am inclined to say that art is intentionally created as art by a creator. When the viewer misunderstands art as non-art, or non-art as art, that is a misfire. — hypericin
Why overlook? Museums, galleries, and critics function as gatekeepers of high art, and so yes, someone is doing the gatekeeping. But high art is hardly inclusive of all art. — hypericin
So, to your question: if there were a community of demons, some old, some young, and some cute as a button, all of whom you know for certain will perform horrible acts of violence, destruction, and mayhem because God himself told you they would, are you not obligated to nip that in the bud? — Hanover
Yes. I was using the term "democracy" loosely. That's why I referred to Communism as "an extreme form of representative Democracy" where the party symbolizes the populace. Most of the modern political systems have been attempts to work around the negative aspects of the ancient pyramidal social organization that came to be known as "Feudalism". That name refers to the fiefs or fees that vassals pay to their lords higher in the hierarchy. In some cases, all the political power was concentrated at the top : Absolute Dictators & Despots*1. But that never lasted long. So, some sort of spread-the-power compromise was always necessary to form a stable government. — Gnomon
So, some sort of spread-the-power compromise was always necessary to form a stable government. — Gnomon
In some cases, all the political power was concentrated at the top : Absolute Dictators & Despots*1. But that never lasted long. — Gnomon
This idea implies that those who control the flow of money have the ultimate ability to influence and potentially control those who control the "things" — Gnomon
and asked me about two such assertions: — Michael
"Art" is a way of interacting with an object — hypericin
As soon as you put it in a museum, it becomes an object to be appreciated, contemplated, and reacted to, rather than used. — hypericin
So, the political question here seems to be : are we, in the established democracies — Gnomon
Argument from Evil Cleansing
1. An extremely evil idea deeply rooted in a society, culturally, should be eradicated.
2. Eradicating such an extremely evil idea is infeasible without killing off most of the population.
3. Therefore, one should kill most of the population of a society that has a deeply rooted extremely evil idea.
Is this an argument you would endorse?
Briefly, I would say that this also is consequentialistic at heart. I don’t think it is permissible to do evil in order to eradicate evil. — Bob Ross
2. A person that has done nothing wrong themselves but is a part of a group that is guilty is thereby guilty (just the same). — Bob Ross
That’s fair, but aren’t you a Christian? I’m curious what you make of these difficult passages: does it affect your faith? — Bob Ross
I think my point was that if you are prepared to conscript soldiers, you have already abandoned ethical thinking beyond your own survival. Questions of adulthood or not have been set aside. — Ludwig V
They would simply not be “complete” or certain, though not thus “errors” or simply “predispositions”. They would still be rational, communal, and correct based on the individual criteria for each thing. — Antony Nickles
We appear to agree that the “local”/“absolute” framework needs to be set aside, — Antony Nickles
This is a strawman. I'm not claiming teleology doesn't exist. — Janus
I am claiming these things:
1. The assertions... — Michael
The prefix, however we phrase it - "I hereby assert that..." [...] does seem to iterate naturally.
... A sentence is already an assertion sign. [...] How does it end up needing reinforcement? — bongo fury
John believes that the cat is on the mat. Jane does not believe that the cat is on the mat.
John asserts "the cat is on the mat".
Jane asserts "I disagree".
Jane is not disagreeing with the implicit assertion "I [John] assert that the cat is on the mat" because Jane agrees that John is asserting that the cat is on the mat. Jane is disagreeing with the explicit assertion "the cat is on the mat". As such, we should not identify the explicit assertion with the implicit assertion. — Michael
Yes, it is, if you are thinking of volunteering. It's a life-and-death decision. Conscription is different. There's an ambivalence here between the soldiers as heroic defenders laying their lives on the line and soldiers as cannon-fodder. — Ludwig V
The analogical reasoning from one case to the other is not valid. — Janus
Let 'em vote. Adults are no more politically savvy than mid to late teenagers. 13 year olds can do well at debate club. Most adults can't. — fdrake
We see purpose or agency in the data collected by observing animal behavior. Are you claiming there is purpose or agency there in the inorganic even though we cannot detect it? — Janus
In this light, the familiar claim that the universe is meaningless begins to look suspicious. It isn’t so much a conclusion reached by science, but a background assumption—one built into the methodology from the outset. The exclusion of purpose was never, and in fact could never be, empirically demonstrated; it was simply excluded as a factor in the kind of explanations physics was intended to provide. Meaning was left behind for the sake of predictive accuracy and control in specific conditions.
That this bracketing was useful—indeed revolutionary—is not in doubt. But the further move, so often taken for granted in modern discourse, is the assertion that because physics finds no purpose, the universe therefore has none. — Wayfarer
The Catholic Church teaches that God Almighty came down from heaven to save us... from His own wrath... by allowing Himself to be tortured to death. — frank
Bob Ross - The reason these threads are tricky on TPF is because asking TPFers religious questions is like going into a bar and asking the patrons about quantum physics. They will have a lot to say, and none of it will be remotely accurate. Toss in the large number of anti-religious cynics like Frank and the quality dips even further. — Leontiskos
But just as "the cat is on the mat" doesn't mean "I am speaking English", it also doesn't mean "I assert that the cat is on the mat". — Michael
They mean different things and have different truth conditions.
(a) is true if and only if the cat is on the mat
(b) is true if and only if I assert that the cat is on the mat
(b) can be true even if (a) is false. — Michael
16 just sounds awfully young to vote or to serve in the military. — Hanover
Sure: knowing, understanding, thinking, seeing, being just, but they all have (specific) ways we judge them and philosophy is the way we talk about what is essential to us about them. There is no fact that ensures those discussions even will be resolved, but that doesn’t annihilate the ability or process to do so, nor make it a matter of individual “opinion” (or a sociological matter). — Antony Nickles
Yes, the last bastion is undefended, without justification or authority, without an arbiter of right. Thus why it is a claim for acceptance, that you accept my observations because you see them for yourself, that you have gathered on your own what evidence is necessary for you to concede. — Antony Nickles
Science is not trying to give an account of what the universe would be like were there no observers. It is trying to give an account of what the universe is like for any observer. — Banno
They are not seeking to remove perspective, but to give an account that works from as many perspectives as possible. — Banno
Sort of, but that would be immune to the strongest part of my argument; which involves the children. We could dispute plausbly either way if, for example, there were any healthy adults which could be held to be an Amalekite proper and I am willing to concede, given the seemingly identity relation between being an Amalekate and a part of the cult, that there weren't any. — Bob Ross
At the end of the day, I emphasize the children, although I understand you are setting that aspect of it aside for a second, because it is really implausible in my mind that there were no Amalekate children and it seems like they would be a part of the ban. — Bob Ross
1. The God of the OT commanded Saul to put the Amalekites under the ban
2. There were innocent children among the Amalekites
3. Therefore, the God of the OT commanded the killing of the innocent
4. The killing of the innocent is unjust
5. Therefore, the God of the OT is unjust — Leontiskos
If so, then how do you explain the fact that God punished Saul for sparing some animals? Doesn't that suggest that God was including everything that lived in the City itself? — Bob Ross
Talmud helps us apply Torah, but Torah is the holier, more primary text. — BitconnectCarlos
