If you are not able to acknowledge the false dichotomy either because you do not understand that it is...or because you lack the ethical wherewithal to make the acknowledgement...let's not bother. — Frank Apisa

Ending your claim that my argument is a false dichotomy by presenting one yourself doesn't bode well for your case.

EITHER I don't understand that it is OR I'm unethical? How unimaginative, Thank you for the laugh.

But I will happily let this conversation drop seeing you don't appear interested in actually responding with more than a repeated counter claim absent reasoning behind it.

By your logic, I can only conclude that's because you EITHER don't understand the argument presented...OR because you lack the ethical wherewithal to make the acknowledgement.

I suppose one place to start would be in the broadest terms:
1] Evil, in terms of human actions, may be thought of as a violation of a standard of behavior.

From there it gets very messy.

my argument is that a person choosing to "do" such and such a thing doesn't make it "right" for them. — IvoryBlackBishop

So is your question about ethical relativsm vs. objectivism? In other words, are some actions inherently wrong, regardless of an individual's persuasion, and how can that concept be defined? Just trying to understand.

Notice how Jesus in the gospels used the word church, despite there being no Christian buildings around... — Anonymous112

I did not suggest he was referring to a building. Exactly the opposite in fact, if you go back and re-read my post. In the absence of some compelling reason to think he was using the word in a unique or abnormal way, though, it is critically sound to assume he meant the normal meaning of the word: an assembly or called out group of people.

For instance, take note of how the early Christians behaved. Read Acts 2 and Acts 4... — Anonymous112

I'm familiar with the passages. What about that speaks to the issue at hand: church attendance? Except that it does record they met daily at the Temple which would be reasonable since at that point Christianity was little more than a "Jewish sect". Of course, that would seem a counter point your assertion that they didn't go somewhere to meet together. Oh well.

There was no church they went to because they were the church. So then from whom and when did this idea of meeting in a religious building come from? — Anonymous112

I never said there was such a thing as a church building at that time nor that that is what is meant by "the church". I said, quite clearly, the word refers to the people. And it is clear that the people assembled together regularly. Most likely in private homes originally until much later when specific buildings began to be built for that purpose. "Attending church", then, is to say regularly assembling together as a body. Where that is to be done is never dictated.

...maybe you don't know what Jesus taught. Take a read of Matthew 6, Luke 12, Luke 14 as a start. Please share your thoughts after that. — Anonymous112

Well, my first thought is you're awfully smug. But after that, I think...

Matthew 6 - discusses hypocrisy (doing "good works" for show) and working to keep your focus on God and the eternal as opposed to worldly goods and the temporal.

Luke 6 - similar to the passage in Matthew with the added teaching of living so as to be prepared for the end, whatever that may be (the Lord's return, your death, etc)

Luke 14 - again, primarily a passage on hypocrisy with the added teaching that one ought consider their dedication to what is being asked of them should they follow Jesus.

What is your point from these passages, as it relates to church attendance? Or are they meant as a veiled insult...an accusation that I am somehow a hypocrite?

Not forsaking the assembly simply means not ceasing to live together, as practised by Jesus with his disciples, and as practised by the early Christians with the apostles. It was only later in Christianity that people stopped living together, and invented a new system to replace it. — Anonymous112

Other than your opinion, can you offer any proof? Acts speaks of the disciples "coming together" for teaching and breaking of bread. How were they not already together if they lived as one big group. I Cor also says, "when you come together...". Again, were they not already together? And lets not forget what Peter said to Ananias ans Saphira before they were struck dead for their lie of having held back some of the money they sold their land for.

Acts 5:4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power?

Peter affirmed their right to retain what was theirs because it was never a universal commandment to sell everything you own and give it to the church. Acts is a historical record. It records both some explicit teaching and some of what people simply did apart from a command to do so. It's called descriptive as opposed to prescriptive. If all descriptive history is meant to be prescriptive teaching you've got a real problem on your hands.

I would add many others never sold all they owned and were never condemned as somehow failing to achieve the call of Christianity. Some were even wealthy enough to have servants. But AGAIN, what does any of that have to do with the question at hand...church attendance?

Government is one aspect of democracy. Being well educated is another aspect of democracy. — Athena

I'd have to disagree. Democracy, as a form of government, is solely for the administration of it purpose. While a well educated electorate probably makes for a "better" democracy, i don't know that I'd call it a necessary component. Additionally, I would not equate education/educated with search for truth.

I will repeat the US is a republic — Athena

Semantics...we are a democratic republic. Republican in our philosophy of states rights and inalienable individual rights within a federal system. Democratic in our ability to elect our representatives (which I understand has evolved over time) and grant that it is a spectrum and we have been more to one side or the other from time to time.

But, if democracy is a spectrum (degrees of enfranchisement) I do not see where you have shown Christianity rejects it outright. Surely, there was (and still is) debate on the appropriate extent of enfranchisement...but you seem to suggest that these individuals pledged their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" in pursuit of an endeavor whose ends they found entirely abhorrent. Further, you assert their abhorrence of any degree of enfranchisement was BECAUSE OF their Christian beliefs. Even Adams' argument for limited enfranchisement is based on his reading of historic democracies and views of individual independence of will, not something whispered to him by God. Your argument is the correlation - causation fallacy.

They saw themselves as fit to rule, but not the other guy. — Athena

Point? Republicans think Democrats are not fit to rule and vice versa. Libertarians think both are unfit. Socialists want the capitalists thrown out on their ear. One faction disagreeing with another and working to see there own philosophy advanced (at the expense of another) is not antithetical to democracy...it is democracy (so long as it is done through some system of election and political action).

Democracy is about human excellence, not about sinners who need to be saved.

What makes you think that? It doesn't appear to be about either. It is about the rights of individuals to have a say in the administration of their political world. In other words, it it not about human excellence or salvation...it is about human freedom; freedom which may just as well lead to all sorts of not excellent outcomes as the reverse.

Then came the problem of earth not being the center of the universe. And evolution...That is precisely why Christianity is not compatible with democracy. If there ever was a defining conflict that is it. — Athena

So now, one's views on cosmological and historical science assertions renders them incompatible with a political system...with holding that some amount of enfranchisement should exist on matters important to the public? The two are not necessarily connected and smacks of an anti-democratic opinion. It comes across as one must agree with you (at least on the things you deem important) or they are not fit for democracy...their views are incompatible. Again, that is democracy. You have your views and attempt to convince as much of the electorate as you can to agree with you. Another holds the opposite view and does the same. So long as both of you are willing to work within a system of some amount of enfranchisement neither of you appear to hold views incompatible with democracy.

Ultimately, though, you failed to show what in Christianity is incompatible with the notion that some amount of the citizenry should be enfranchised to have a say in the administration of their political system. .

Granted, the task is difficult until an adequate definition of "Christianity" is agreed upon. But that alone would be an entire thread in itself...and likely lead to nowhere.

I respectfully suggest a false dichotomy. — Frank Apisa

Suggest it if you like, but one does not exist. What other option exists? Our senses either provide us reliable perceptions of the world around us (at least to some reasonable degree)...or they do not.

...even if the false dichotomy did not exist...I would disagree with the premise.

For instance, can you truly "trust your senses" with regard to whether or not the sun, moon, and stars circle the Earth...or must other non-sensory factors be brought into play? — Frank Apisa

My statement said nothing about the interaction of non-sensory factors such as whether reason can further inform sensory perceptions or not. The qualifier "at least to some reasonable degree" leaves open the possibility for optical illusions and examples such as the relative motion of heavenly bodies. However, I would suggest, generally speaking, prior to invoking non-sensory factors, one must first have perceived (observed with their senses) something with some reasonable amount of accuracy - like there is movement of heavenly bodies. Additionally, isn't further invocation of non-sensory factors initiated by perceiving (observing with our senses) another phenomena that calls into question one's current understanding of the prior observation (such as Galileo's observations of the phases of Venus or Bessel's observation of parallax). Adding non-sensory factors to the mix doesn't negate the necessity of sense-perception being a reliable source of information (at least to some reasonable degree) in the affair from start to finish. It either is or it isn't. If it is, we're probably on the right track when it comes to our understanding of the movement of heavenly bodies. If we can't know if it is, then really we can't say with any degree of certainty that we understand the movement of heavenly bodies at all...if they even move...if they're even there.

To push my faux-cynicism just a little further regarding your example...one might say it was NOT the senses (observations/perceptions) of early humans that was in error. It was the non-sensory factors in actuality that lead early peoples to conclude the earth was still and only other heavenly bodies moved. What they saw (perceived/observed) is no different than what you and I see now. It is the understanding that is the different. But that line of thought leads into my 3rd question and I don't want to get ahead...

Disclaimer: please read this post in the lighthearted manner in which it was posted.

That's just the way it is with the question of whether at least one god exists or not. One or the other is the REALITY...and humans are simply not capable of knowing which it is. So they have to guess. — Frank Apisa

Either at least one god exists...or no gods exist.

You've got a fifty-fifty chance of getting it right...so...? — Frank Apisa

That's an awfully reductive approach to a metaphysical question. Is it reasonable to apply that approach to the entirety of axiomatic beliefs?

- Either you can trust your senses (to at least some reasonable degree) and understand the world around you...or all perception is falsehood.

50-50?

- Either you can accept that other people actually exist...or you're the only consciousness in existence and this is all in your head.

50-50?

- Either logic & reason are efficient tools for uncovering truth...or they're a placebo to make us feel better about our beliefs...or at least make you feel better about yours since you may be the only consciousness in existence.

50-50?

The importance of metaphysics is that the conclusions one arrives at snowball into the rest of their beliefs/knowledge. If you've only got a 50-50 chance of being right about not being the only consciousnesses in existence, how in the world do you feel confident enough to offer ideas on anything else at all? Isn't it just as likely you're a fool (the only fool) arguing with yourself?

Frankly, that sort of skepticism seems a strong argument for the existence of "something" (call it God, god, higher power, grand-puba, what have you). Else we could have no starting point from which to even begin discussing anything. ie. - either something knows the answers to these things and that knowledge is available to us...or we are wandering in the dark with no ability to find anything AND THERE'S NO POINT IN DISCUSSING ANYTHING.

Every thread on this board should dispense with reasoning and argument.

...i am talking about isolating yourself from culture delusion. — handalf

Which delusions? What is the process for identifying the delusional parts of a culture? Are you not reasoning with your culturally deluded mind to answer these questions? How would you know, then, that your conclusions are not just remnants of your cultural delusions...shadows of what you're trying to rid yourself of? Or is everything in "culture" a delusion? Is the intent to rid the mind of everything and begin again as a blank slate? How would this work, assuming it could be done? Having removed everything, with what, and on what would one be able to begin rebuilding this hypothetically "free mind"?

I would first question the assumption that this notion of "going to church" is actually authorised and grounded in the Bible or in Jesus' teachings, the founder of Christianity! — Anonymous112

Certainly it is authorized (?) in the Bible.

Heb 10
[24] And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
[25] Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is...

...and Paul speaks repeatedly of coming together as a church in 1 Cor. Additionally, Acts is rife with examples of the early disciples meeting regularly for teaching and "breaking of bread" (Communion).

And Jesus' rules for excommunication [further assented to by Paul] seem to strongly imply an assembling together. Else, from what is one being excommunicated? Can someone be denied entry to a group with whom they do not associate/assemble?

Matt 18:17
If he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen... [Jesus]

Who says life is supposed to be easy? — Merkwurdichliebe

No one...I think. Not even Jesus, since we're discussing Christianity.

John 16:33
"...In this world ye shall have tribulation..."

But that doesn't answer my question. In what way does "choosing faith" (assuming that's even possible) make life harder? You brought up the idea of easier vs. harder. Not me.

Jesus didn't advocate Christianity...Jesus didn't found Christianty, his followers did. And their followers founded the church. — Merkwurdichliebe

I suppose that depends on what you mean. If church is a building then no, Jesus didn't found any of those. If church is a group of individuals assembling together for a common purpose (doctrinal and vocational - which is truer to the word "church" - ekklesia: assembly or group of called out pepole), then the argument seems in favor of him having founded it.

Matt 16:18
"...upon this rock I will build my church..."

Matt 18:17
"if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen..."

And he certainly "advocated" the spreading of his teaching...which is the basis of Christianity. If I grant you that his followers founded anything, if they did so in response to a command to do so, how does that remove Jesus from the equation?

Luke Ch. 10
[1] "After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.
[2] Therefore said he unto them...
[9] ...heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.
[16] He that heareth you heareth me..."

Matt 28
[19] "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them...
[20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you"

...nor was he a Christian. — Merkwurdichliebe

Of course he wasn't. Christian means a follower of Christ. He would have to be a follower of himself. How would that work?

Is it possible that women may think fundamentally different from men... — Athena

I think it not only possible but actual. As is the converse. Certainly, through the constant, close interaction between the sexes there is an adaptation of "male thinking" that is somehow less masculine and an adaptation of "female thinking" that is somehow less feminine.

...and that that difference is important to humanity? — Athena

It is of the utmost importance. I would likely not care to live in a world/society that displayed only the one type of thinking.

What if it is our potential to be more like bonobo (female domination) and less like chimpanzees (male domination)? — Athena

This is where my curiosity rises. Potential...what is meant by this? Better? Possible? Preferred? Imaginable? For instance, the pile of 2x4's and nails in my barn has the "potential" to be all sorts of things: a dog house, an addition to my living room, a bike ramp for the kids, a fence, etc etc. But what it becomes will be a function of my preference. Did I deny the lumber's potential by building a dog house instead of adding on to my living room? It becomes all the more interesting a question when coupled with "domination". Potential for domination... I'm interested to hear more about that.

Democracy is built on a search for truth... — Athena

How so? Democracy is a political system for the administration of daily life. In what way does a "search for truth" form the foundation? Can a political system be both democratic and disinterested in romantic notions of searching for truth?

Democracy and Christianity are not compatible... — Athena

Strange, then, that so many of this country's founders were Christians. Mind you, I am NOT proposing the argument that this is/was/should be a "Christian nation". I merely suggest that if the two systems are incompatible, it strains credulity that many adherents of the one were the founders of the other in this country. Do you suggest they actively worked in contradiction to another of their own deeply held beliefs?

One is based on superstition ... the other ...on contemplating philosophical questions... — Athena

Is this a suggestion that your (or democracy's) philosophical answers are not only correct but also possess a rock solid basis? What are those philosophical underpinnings that are both complete and consistent? This is to say, are you sure there aren't philosophical notions required for your truth loving democracy that, when you get right down to brass tacks, aren't built on little more than you really, really wanting them to be true?

Christians are opposed to science. — Athena

All Christians? Since...always? Or do you think this is a more recent phenomena? And opposed to ALL science? Or specific scientific notions? Again, the plethora of Christian scientists, both dead and living, seems to suggest otherwise. But perhaps you mean your broad sweeping statement more narrowly than it reads.

“In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

(Richard Dawkins - River Out of Eden)

if you can't prove the supernatural is real, why choose faith and make life harder on yourself. — Gregory

In what way does it make life harder?

The alternative to believing in something supernatural is materialism...which, if we're honest, is nihilism. How is nihilism easier?

"An essentially mechanical world would be an essentially meaningless world."
(Neitze - The Gay Science)

Or, better yet, in a purely materialistic universe, who's "choosing" faith? That isn't really an option, is it?

"It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion.”
(Hawking - The Grand Design)

That is indeed the heart of markets :smile: . — schopenhauer1

No doubt. Better said, an invisible heart moves the market more than some decapitated hand. At the risk of waxing religious...I think the book of Jeremiah hits the nail on the head.

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"
Jer. 17:9

The logic, however, indicates both Christians AND non-Christians attend church (both return true on a truth table). It is reasonable, then, to say going to church does not make one a Christian.

For the argument P > Q, the converse need not necessarily be true.

If you are a living human being (P) then you have a human head (Q) [True]
If you have a human head (Q) then you are a living human being (P) [False]
- lots of dead humans beings have human heads

This holds true for the argument at hand.

If you are a Christian (P) then you attend church (Q). That may be true while the converse is false.

A simple truth table bears out the possiblities P > Q

P Q P > Q
T T T If you are a Christian, you attend church (true)
T F F If you are a Christian, you do not attend church (false)
F T T If you are a not a Christian, you attend church (true)
F F T If you are not a Christian, you do not attend church (true)

Disclaimer: there is, of course, a not insignificant amount of vagueness in the argument. Does desiring to go to church but being unable to go count for going? Etc.

Your mind is always, already, and forever coloured. — Banno

My point exactly.

Equilibrium (roughly speaking)
-> A distorting event (shocks, booms, crises, , etc)
-->Disequilibrium (relative scarcities of goods, including money, change)
--->Mankind's insatiable desire sees an opportunity for "more" (eg. prices changes)
* working under the model that more money chasing the same number of goods means
consumers will be willing to part with more money for said goods
---->New equilibrium established

If you're driving at individuals see the chance to acquire (or preserve, as the case may be) more for themselves and that leads to adjustments in price levels...then we have no argument. I think it is as simple as that. As a whole, mankind is greedy, and takes advantage of disequilibriums.

As to why government spending and federal reserve actions which increase the money supply cause price inflation...they have the ability to cause larger disequilibiums in shorter periods of time than "the market" acting as a whole. For example, whereas the market can increase the money supply by making loans, they cannot achieve the levels the federal reserve can with their "printing press". It is similar for government spending.

A hypothetical, average, business then will anticipate the increase in demand ("new" money chasing after the same amount of goods) and adjust prices as they can. They want more...no less than you and I.

Those who do not, for whatever reason, will quickly find their shelves empty (being the cheapest game in town). And if the supply-demand curve tells us anything its that empty shelves mean prices could have been higher...demand exceeded supply. Somewhere between being unable to move any product and having bare shelves is a price point that "maximizes" return on investment. Bare shelves mean the business owner fell far short of that maximization...and human nature finds that discontenting.

Point of clarification.

I said:

...we (as a species) are never satisfied and always desire "more". — Aussie

You asked:

Is it ALWAYS the case that someone will want to raise their prices... — schopenhauer1

I was speaking of the aggregate. As a whole, yes, markets show a very strong tendency toward that so I believe we may say "we (as a species)...always desire more." This is why supply-demand curves do a fair job of describing what we actually see.

You were asking about individuals and in that case, certainly, there is room for variation from the aggregate.

I think, the trick lies in not allowing any philosophical tradition to colour one's mind...why should I let that colour my thoughts? Why should I let that produce in me a bias? Am I not then a slave to tradition? — Zeus

So, as a "blank slate", then, how do you determine your FIRST TRUTH on which to base your second...and third...and...

Is there such a thing as an uncolored mind?

I originally called it greed, and was chastised for it. — schopenhauer1

You ought not have been chastised. Let's call a spade a spade. If by "greed" we mean an insatiable desire for more then that seems a fair description.

But can there be owners who don't actually raise their prices? Is it ALWAYS the case that someone will want to raise their prices when they see an increase in demand? Is that an inevitability? — schopenhauer1

But can there be owners who don't actually raise their prices? — schopenhauer1

Certainly. Markets are made up of thousands/millions of INDIVIDUALS making choices. There is absolutely room for differing choices. However, taken as a whole, markets show a strong tendency toward price increase in the presence of relative inflation...again, as a whole.

Is it ALWAYS the case that someone will want to raise their prices when they see an increase in demand? Is that an inevitability? — schopenhauer1

I would say, no, ALWAYS is too strong a word in this instance. There can, of course, be those who choose a different approach. Tools such as the supply-demand curve describe markets in aggregate. They show us a picture of things similar to seeing someone in the shower through shower glass. You can discern a great deal about them (they're naked, they probably male/female, they have short/long hair, they're facing this or that direction, etc etc) but there are plenty of details the glass distorts.

Yeah, I hear you. Technical definitions and what the folks on main street see can certainly be different. I'll attempt to clarify.

The first question requires an answer about human nature. If mankind is naturally or nurturally (forgive the abuse of grammar) selfish/discontent ... or altruistic/content... that is what will be borne out in experience and data such as is seen in supply-demand curves.

I think Machiavelli is spot on with regard to human nature:
"human appetites are insatiable, for since from nature they have the ability and the wish to desire all things and from fortune the ability to achieve few of them, there continually results from this a discontent in human minds..."

Interpreted, we (as a species) are never satisfied and always desire "more". I find that a fair assessment. And, being the case, when, for whatever reason, an average individual discovers an opportunity to achieve "more" they take it. Money is a good, for purposes of this argument, like others. It too has a price. We just identify that price in terms of groceries, electronics, vacations, stocks, etc. When there is relatively more of it, it falls in value compared to other goods (such as those noted) meaning we are less willing to give up those goods for what we would have before. The rarer (relatively speaking) a good is compared to other goods, the more we demand in return for trading it. When the supply of money doubles or triples, the goods previously mentioned become rarer, relatively speaking. This answer certainly leaves out allot, but it approaches a response.

The second question (about SHOULD) is meaningless until the first question is answered. Should it be the case that we always desire more? Is there a point at which we should be content? How are we to discover an answer to that? How are we to know we've discovered the right answer? Is there a "right" answer? It's attempts to answer the second question that has led to the plethora of political/economic philosophies. But even then, the answer to the first question, in my opinion, has remained unchanged. Across political and economic systems, mankind has continued to desire "more". It's why the supply-demand curve has done a reasonably good job explaining what we actually see...regardless of where and when we look (broadly speaking).

If you give people $1200 and they spend it... — schopenhauer1

...you have inflation. — schopenhauer1

Yes (all other things being equal), because inflation is, by definition, a relative increase in the money supply. The $1,200 "given to" various individuals, in this scenario, did not exist before it was given. It is new... an increase. Where that is felt is what remains to be seen. During the previous explosion of the money supply (QE1,2,3) most things did not experience a corresponding increase in price. That phenomena is reserved for where the money goes. The price of a burger at McD's didn't go up 300%...but equity markets did.

So, does the question/argument being proposed mean...

1] WHY does inflation lead to price increases?

or

2] SHOULD inflation lead to price increases?

One is "simply" a function of the supply-demand curve. The other is a matter of ethics/morality and thus, beyond consensus.