Thoughts

A Very interesting Game at an interesting Philosophy site. These were my results. Unfortunately for them, I see some logical fallacies in their statements (and some "she" quotes about God).

 

Direct Hit 1
You answered "True" to questions 2 and 3, and "False" to Question 12.
These answers generated the following response:
You've just taken a direct hit! You claimed earlier that there is no basis for morality if God does not exist. But now you say that if God does exist, she cannot make what is sinful good and vice-versa. But if this is true, it means that God cannot be the basis of morality. If God were the basis of morality, then she could decide what is good and what is bad. The fact that you think that God cannot do this shows that things must be right or wrong independently of what God decides. In other words, God chooses what is right because it is right; things are not right just because God chooses them.
Direct Hit 2
You answered "True" to questions 10 and 14.
These answers generated the following response:
You've just taken a direct hit! Earlier you agreed that it is rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist if there is an absence of strong evidence or argument that it does. No strong evidence or argument was required to show that the monster does not exist - absence of evidence or argument was enough. But now you claim that the atheist needs to be able to provide strong arguments or evidence if their belief in the non-existence of God is to be rational rather than a matter of faith.
The contradiction is that on the first ocassion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to rationally justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.
****************Direct Hit 3
You answered "True" to questions 3 and 5, and "False" to Question 16.
These answers generated the following response:
You've just taken a direct hit! You say that God does not have the freedom and power to do impossible things such as create square circles, but in an earlier answer you said that any being which it is right to call God must be free and have the power to do anything. So, on your view, God is not free and does not have the power to do what is impossible. This requires that you accept - in common with most theologians, but contrary to your earlier answer - that God's freedom and power are not unbounded. He does not have the freedom and power to do literally anything.
****************

    According to the New York Times, it seems that another judge has decided to create legislation per se.  He argued that internet pornography was a protected right by the First amendment, making me wonder if this sort of thing was ever in the minds of those who started this nation.  The judge stated "Despite my personal regret at having to set aside yet another attempt to protect our children from harmful material, [Judge Reed wrote, he was blocking the law out of concern that] . . . perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection.”  I hate to have to be the one to break the news to him, but children are not covered under the First amendment.  This is obvious by the amount of times their "rights" are violated by "restrictive" parents who refuse o let them drive their car to the store.  Also by those same evil parents who do not allow their parents to play on the freeway.  Those poor children are being hampered by the parents inability to handle their creative drives.  Makes me laugh and cry.  Also the ACLU had a very revealing point to make regarding this decision... "If this law had gone into effect, it would have resulted into dumbing down of the Internet, all Internet would have had to be brought down to a level that is acceptable to a 6-year-old and that would have had a devastating effect on the kind of interactions that take place on the Internet."  So what sort of interactions are taking place?  Those that are innapropriate for children, let alone adults.  Pornography is basic prostitution.  Those who "act" in these are getting paid for the use of their bodies which, if I recall, is what prostitution is.  Why must we be free to pollute and destroy?!

Well, I guess this explains why we survived and the Neanderthals didn't.  They decided to stay where it was cold (sea temp. averaged around 46 degrees Fahrenheit), instead of visiting their cousins in Africa (where "homo sapiens" come from supposedly).  I mean, if you ask me, that sounds almost chilly.  They must have been miserable.  Oh, and by the way, they are now a little closer on the time line than before."It looks pretty severe and also quite short," Professor Finlayson told BBC News. "Things like olive trees and oak trees that are still with us today managed to ride it out. But a very fragmented, stressed population of Neanderthals - and perhaps other elements of the fauna - did not."  So it must have lasted...  a year?  These people have not lived very far north have they?  Trees can last for some time without leaves (deciduous) but will not last long as they begin to dry out and die.  And the Neanderthals were idiots enough to just run around without coats right?  where were their mothers?  And of all things my favorite part...  ready for this?  "Neanderthal bones have also been excavated from these sediment units, including a male skull fragment which could potentially be very recent [italics mine]."  Wow.  Sometimes I have a hard time telling between a guy and a girl from the back of their head... when they are living.  What gave it away?  The lack of makeup?  Or was the nose plastic?

 - Chris

I was thinking the other day.  I know, dangerous thing to do, but here it is.  We know that God is sovereign, and immanent/transcendent, etc. right?  With such a concept as this from the dawn of creation, where did the idea of "the gods" come from?  This made me start thinking.  We know that the idea of "gods" is a devolution from the concept of the Creator God.  The world started to see forces in nature and life that they could not directly explain, and left the concept of God and went on to gods.  In OT times Baal and Ashtorah were popular" gods, if you can label them as such.  But time passes on and the Greeks had a multitude of gods.  From Zeus to Hades to Diana and so on.  The romans even had a God of drunkenness.  So where did they all come from?  well, a basic answer would be to say that if you don't like the standards of the Creator, then pick the ones (plural) that carry your ethos/pathos.  This was fairly easy to find in the Greek and Roman days.

So what were they?   If, as 1 Cor. 10:19-20 implies, that the "gods" are fallen angels [vis. demons] then "the gods" would be comprised of angels.  Now in theory (speaking as someone who has very little knowledge of anthropology) it would be possible to slide in thinking from God to "the little gods [angels]" fairly easily.  You can find that in some churches today even.  Some revere angels almost, if not as much as, they revere Christ.  So you have a continuing battle that Satan tries to wage against God.  However, I tend to think that Satan is not using this tactic quite as much today.  As C.S. Lewis says, "the pagan man is the eminently convertible man."  I wonder if Satan has realized it is better to keep man's mind off the supernatural and on the material.  Thus Atheism.
 - C

This is actually more of a poll than anything.  I want as many thoughts or comments as possible, and to do such I am planning on cross-posting this elsewhere.

Question 1:
    Do "criminals" deserve punishment?  If so, why?  If so, what is too much punishment?

Question 2:
    What is "Justice?"

Question 3:
    Do "criminals" need cured from criminal activity?  If so, why?  If so, how could they be cured?


I would appreciate all responses, or if you think the question could be worded better, I would greatly appreciate that too!  Fire away!

Chris

Santa Claus is clearly what Jesus would be if he was real. Nobody would ever consider nailing this omnibenevolent deity to anything, would they? Nor does he hold anything against you longer than a year.
  - Steve James

This caught my eye this morning as I was checking my mail.  You can look at it in several different ways:

If Santa was Real:
    It would read "Santa Claus is clearly what Jesus would be if he [Santa Claus] was real. Nobody would ever consider nailing this omnibenevolent deity to anything, would they? Nor does he [Santa Claus] hold anything against you longer than a year."

    So basically the idea as I see it would be that Santa, if he were real, surely would show how Jesus is.  He argues that if Jesus is this way he never would be nailed to the cross.  And that he doesn't hold anything against you for longer than one year (implying that Steve James believes the real Jesus to be nice to all, and only benevolent, thereby labeling much of Christian teaching that Christ was more than just kind, that he was hard as well.  The Jesus that he seems to be guarding against is rather vindictive and judgmental).  All Jesus must want is to be nice to all (omnibenevolent - which, by the way, my spell-checker hates).

If Jesus was Real:
    It would read "Santa Claus is clearly what Jesus would be if he [Jesus] was real. Nobody would ever consider nailing this omnibenevolent deity to anything, would they? Nor does he [Santa Claus] hold anything against you longer than a year."

    This is more of a comparison.  The author would be stating that The cross is historically inaccurate, as God (Jesus) if there was a God (Jesus), would be like Santa.  Forgetful year by year and omnibenevolent.  Only wanting to do good to people.  And who would crucify Santa?  He is jolly and plump and smokes a pipe?  Besides the fact that he brings toys to every little boy and girl.  Here I will make a correction.  Is Santa truly omnibenevolent?  It seems to me that Santa has been said to bring coal to bad little boys and girls.  However as a note, society seems to be running headlong from the idea that there are bad boys and girls.  So if Santa does give out coal his omnibenevolence would seem to cease.  I never liked waking up to coal instead of toys.

However lets turn this argument around.  You may have heard of C.S. Lewis's Trilemma.  Lets look at Santa through it.
Our Statement:

        Santa gives coal to children who are "bad" and is "omnibenevolent"
                                / \
                               /   \
                              /     \
                   False  /        \ True
                                          / \
                                         /   \
                                        /     \
                                       /       \
                     Either Giving         OR Santa is not benevolent.
                     gifts of Coal
                     Is Benevolent

This would lead to a discussion of punishment and its effects and its morals.  Punishment is moral and right.  how else would we learn.  But back to our track.  Can Jesus be like the Santa that Steve seems to be advocating?  Would he be benevolent if he did not punish or was not hard on those who were wrong?  Could he truly be good and not punish sin?  I am sure some of those kids who woke up to coal on Christmas morning would be quite willing to nail Santa to a cross.  But then it would be their own fault wouldn't it?  So in order to try and justify their own action they nail the one who showed them their true condition to a rough and bloody Cross.

On A Broken Leg

    There once was a man with a broken leg named Chris (see figure 1).  His lack of punctuation, for even the most trivial of events was horrid.  So in order to fix irregularities, he went to visit a doctor.  The doctor mentioned that his problem at the time (see figure 2) was that of a lack of support, thus causing his inability to take a stand on anything.  Said doctor mentioned that with proper support he could once again stand firm of foot, in fact he would surpass the cutting edge of said issues and re-emerge as a new man!  This sounded very well and good to Chris.  So the process began.  First the doctor procured said support, then masterfully, raising the support for Chris, fused the divisive obstacles into firm unity (see Figures 2 and 3)!  He then wisely secured the support that was raised in such a way that it would not be lost again.  He then warned Chris against the danger of pushing his newfound support into the ground.  Then a month later Chris went to said doctor once again.  The doctor pronounced that his support was strong!  With Such strong support beneath him, Chris felt as if he could run for president!  However after several hobbles, his delusions of grandeur faded.  However his support sang on!  Onward!  Upward!  Through the stairs!  Down the elevator!  Across the campus!  He was supported firmly again!

And other assorted essays...

    Well...  I tried...  ;)

 - Chris

Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments of the eyes are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye; and he who remembers this when he sees any one whose vision is perplexed and weak, will not be too ready to laugh; he will first ask whether that soul of man has come out of the brighter light, and is unable to see because unaccustomed to the dark, or having turned from darkness to the day is dazzled by excess of light.  Plato, The Republic

Interesting Quote by Plato.  How often is that true of people?WE may stumble if we head down the path rejecting the light, or we may stumble as overwhelmed by much light, but rarely does one stumble who walks his usual path.  How true (to an extent) to Christianity.  One may be saved and make mistakes, not knowing or recognizing all the light that is being given to him.  One may decide to ignore and turn from some light that one has been given and in turn begin a dark and treacherous path.  How often do we just laugh when someone makes a mistake?  How often do we really reach out and try to help?  Someone reached out and helped us when we were stumbling, but how often do we forget those days?  Why do we find humorous that which destroys our brother and sister?  Why do we look for ways to create wrong or sorrow, while turning our back on our own sorrow or wrong?  Rightly Christ warned to remove the plank before the splinter.  Anyway, interesting thoughts stemming from an ancient greek philosopher.

Chris

What Role would you say God plays in History? The Deist's might say that he started it rolling and then walked off somewhere to see what would happen from a distance. Kinda like installing Windows on a new computer, you start it and hope it works alright (as in none of the 4k possible things that could go wrong do). The Nihilist would say that God is dead, therefore he could have nothing to do with the course of History.

    Lets take a different tack.  Lets say that God is  involved in human History.  That leaves us with three positions (with variances in each).  The first would be a position that God has his hand in each and every item of business that comes our way.  If we sneeze, then God was tickling something, if we break our leg, for example, God was right there lining everything up so that the leg would snap at the exact time and place.  So basically, we would say that in this view everything is set, almost the idea of fate.  The second position, on the other extreme (besides deism/or other views.  we are dealing with an "intervening God" view) would be that God works in certain special situation only.  Examples of where this would lead would be His working Christ into the picture, or His creation of the world.  It would cover just important events in history.  The third position is more of a central position between the two.  And to be honest I hold a bias towards this one as I believe this myself.  Here is the idea: God intervenes on History's behalf at all points, while allowing each individual person the freedom of a choice regarding events.  He has, quite literally, all the time in the world in which to judge outcomes and what would be best, but he allows us to use our choices to affect good or bad into history.

    So now, lets run down that rabbit trail.  I have taken us to the third position, a middle position if you will.  Some say, why would God allow us to choose if he knew that we would choose bad?  The illustration of Adam and Eve is often used.  If God knew that they would choose the wrong, why bother making them?  Well, lets think of what God's goals may have been.  Was he looking for something that he could start in his spare time and something he didn't care about?  I think not.  When people start something in their spare time, something that they don't care about, is it usually good quality?  Lets say a programmer (an interesting metaphor for God...) decides to build a program in his spare time.  He is not concerned with whether the outcome makes sense, just with seeing if he can get it to do something interesting.  That is not the same attitude we see with God in the creation account.  We see him making them "in His own image."  Ever try to do a self-portrait?  Try it.  He took great care in his work.  Think about it.  He designed every part and cell and nucleus of the human body, then made them start and work together.  He cared about the result.  I say all this to show that he made humanity, with that free choice of right or wrong for a purpose.  He didn't want a machine.  He wanted a dynamic creature that could choose to love Him.  So he gave us that first choice.  In case you are wondering he gave us many other choices.  Did you just get a drink?  Did you just click on this link?  Have you ever walked out into a rainstorm wearing a raincoat?  You chose to stay dry.  You may have thought "I could go out in the rain without a coat.  This may result in getting sick.  In order not to get sick, I will wear a coat."  That was a series of thoughts and decisions  that you made with your God-given (not God-controlled) intelligence.  So you may say "I know that I make my own choices, how does that affect how God affects history?"  God may work behind the scenes of different events.  History is full of tyrants and dictators who were destroyed due to a simple mistake that a child could have seen.  The Bible even speaks of a Pharaoh who kept choosing not to let the Israelites go.  Then, there is a crucial switch.  The text starts to read, "then God hardened Pharaoh's heart..."  The man had made the choice so much, hat he had completely hardened his heart so God stepped in and continued the process in order to set his people free and to show his Glory to the people.  So then we could see other leaders.  Take Napoleon.  HE was told 30 minutes before the battle of Waterloo, "man proposes, and God disposes."  Napoleon, swelled in pride and stated "no sir.  Napoleon proposes, and Napoleon proposes!"  We see Hitler, who had been waging a successful war (while carrying atrocities around Europe), then suffered a series of losses that could have been defended against if he allowed his troops to think on the field and not wait for his every order (D-Day, The Battle of the Bulge).

    Throughout all of History, I believe that we can see God's guidance, not force, and Man's choice.

    Play with me.  The whole point of the game is to find the fact and avoid the farce, thus the name.  I am going to tell you a story, you will tell me whether it is fact or farce.

Story 1:
    Stan gets up in the morning, and generally takes a shower, combs his hair, and eats a bowl of generic Honeycomb for breakfast.  However, this morning, Stan gets up to find that his hair is not bugging his eyes.  He finds that his shower has ceased to work, and that he actually has no appetite for generic Honeycomb.  This has him slightly puzzled, and he stumbles out to his driveway to drive his car to work.  Unfortunately, he realizes at this point that his house is up for sale.  He did not put it up for sale, or plan on moving, but there it is.  For sale.  He then wanders rather stupefied to his car, only to realize that the door is locked and he does not have the keys.  He also finds that the car seems not to have been driven for some time.  Thoroughly puzzled, he begins the short trek to the local bus stop.  The bus passes him by.  It will not pick him up.  So he walks the mile to work.  As we wanders up to the turnstile, he notices a new guard.  The guard just stares coldly towards him.  Then he tries his badge.  Thankfully the turnstile turns; unfortunately, he realizes that it was for the person on the other side who is leaving.  They got their card to work first.  So he waits politely as they brush coldly past him.  He finally gets his card to work.  Surprising the rather skeptical guard.  He walks in the building, glad that some things never change, only to find that his office is occupied by a short, squat woman named Sandra Smitt, who apparently did not appreciate his opening the door.  As he walks out he notices a box with his name on it.  This box contains all of the personal effects from his office.  Above it is a bulletin board with his picture and epitaph.

Questions:

    Was everything that Stan experienced or interacted with that day real?

    Was Stan real?

    Were his experiences real?

    Is there such a thing as Ghosts?

My Attempt at Answers:

    Everything, from the comb to the generic honeycomb, or from the car to the turnstile, was very real.  It was reality.  This was the place that everyone lived in, it was the physical reality.

    Stan was  real.  He was at one point a part of the physical reality.  However, he had lost that which tied him to the physical reality.  In other words, he lost his body.  The physical objects (people, places, things) could not sense him in the physical sense, but he was real even at that point, even if not part of the physical reality.

    His experiences were real.  There were real objects that he interacted with, unfortunately with varying degrees of success.  However, his inability to use physical objects (to the degree he had) made them no less real nor diminished his own realness.

    Yes.  In a limited sense.  Each of us has a spirit/soul.  Some make differentiations between the two, but for the sake of time (and a lack of clearness on the subject) we will use the term spirit as an encompassing framework.  When we die, we lose that physical connection and go on to the existence of the spirit.

    My point is, is that Reality is real.  There is objects and items outside of us that are real.  The truth is all around us.  We are not in some great VR system, or in a purely physical world.  There is truth and reality right in front of us, however there is a deeper and more true reality behind the physical charade.  The two are as closely connected as the body and the spirit.  The physical reality is what decides the fate of the spiritual.  I also want to make the point that there is a real objective truth that works beyond all of this.  That truth is God.  God is.