Posted on 07/25/2010 1:37:12 PM PDT by betty boop
Curiosity compels me to ask you what you mean by “each man,” “participate directly,” and “management of the state”?
I think I told you that already: I don't know what God is and I can neither confirm nor deny what I don't know.
The rest of your opening paragraph indicates you know what denial is
Yes, denial of the world around you, isolating yourself from the world, not God.
What about shutting out God?
I am not shutting out God or the world for that matter. I just don't know anything that I would call God.
Wouldn't that [shutting out God] constitute denial as well?
Yes. That's what atheists do. They consciously deny God as believers consciously affirm him. I presume that both groups know exactly what God is or else they couldn't believe what they believe. I can't because I don't know what God is.
Yet you say you cannot confirm or deny God. (Maybe "affirm" would be a better word?)
Actually both.
This is all very puzzling to me
Why?
I mean them exactly what as they read. I am not sure what you are driving at.
Because I cannot imagine why a person of your intelligence and erudition evidently prefers to "sit on the fence" rather than deal with what is probably the single most important question a human being can ask. One that has so much consequence for his/our life in this world and the next.
Why do you think it is a matter of "preference" unless you think of belief from the Pascal's point of view—as a satistically safer wager? To me, that is not true faith, but opportunistic posturing.
Your puzzlement is to me that much more puzzling, given that both you and Alamo-Girl affirm that reason, intellect and education are not what it takes, but that faith is equally accessible to the learned and the unlearned, that what one needs are the spiritual "eyes" and "ears" and only God (I suppose) can give those, as he chooses and not as you or I will.
And, just being on this Forum, I don't think I am merely sitting it our on a fence. I am probing, albeit unsuccessfully, the erudite minds of the affirmed believers like yourself for answers. :)
ping
Dear brother kosta, it was not ME who brought up Pascal's Wager. Which FWIW I find completely tiresome, not to mention irrelevant to the Truth of divine Reality. People who gamble with their own souls are difficult to take seriously; but neither can they be forgotten, and left to twist in the wind, all alone....
Not to mention that there is no way in which "statistics" can be relevant to the "economy" of souls. If I might put it that way.
BTW, I have never claimed to be "erudite" on any subject matter whatsoever. Moreover, I figure I am a sinner, just like you, stumbling along as best I can, praying for God's Light on the path that stretches before me, unto eternity....
Without context? In the context of this topic? Perhaps in a somewhat broader context than this topic? And possibly likewise somewhat more abstractly?
“I am not sure what you are driving at.”
”each man” In the generic sense? Also, in an electoral sense that excludes minors and the mentally incompetent?
“participate directly” As in a ‘pure’ democracy vs a ‘representative’ democracy, perhaps with the addition of republican features? Does this activity include lobbying efforts (consider a simple phone call or a letter to be ‘lobbying,’ which they are)? Or, simply a parliamentary system?
“management of the state” Bureaucratically? Policy formulation? Road repair? If the share of power, authority, and direction which each (any?) individual ought to have is to be denied in favor of a superior few, by what means are the select elite to be chosen, and by whose authority?
But it is also true that God is a rewarder of those who believe that He IS and diligently seek Him.
Thank you for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!
I've just been listening in to this conversation, and I'm not asking this facetiously, but how do you know that you don't know what God is?
Not that I presume that a finite mind could know God exhaustively, but conversely, without presupposing God nothing intelligible at all.
Cordially,
Not directly. It was the way you asked me why I "prefer" to sit on the fence that brought it up. If faith (or lack thereof) is a preference we consciously make then it is a wager.
But because you and Alamo-Girl say that is not, I was puzzled by your question.
Moreover, I figure I am a sinner, just like you, stumbling along as best I can, praying for God's Light on the path that stretches before me, unto eternity....
You don't appear to be stumbling. You seem to know that God exists with absolute and unwavering certainty.
Because I don't.
Not that I presume that a finite mind could know God exhaustively, but conversely, without presupposing God nothing intelligible at all.
Why do you have to presuppose a God?
I was making a general statement about Rousseau’s idea of the social contract and the direction in which the French Revolution took off.
Because you do.
Otherwise you have no account of the basis for the morality or reason that is so evident in your posts here.
If without God, all things are permissible, then it doesn't make any sense to condemn, for example, the French Revolutionaries' grotesque distortion of freedom and equality, as you so eloquently do. If there's no measuring standard it doesn't make any sense to try to be measuring something. You presuppose a measuring standard for morality and reason. That unacknowledged Standard is God, which betty boop has referred to elsewhere as "the God Standard".
Cordially,
No I don't.
Otherwise you have no account of the basis for the morality or reason that is so evident in your posts here
That is as banal as it gets. Morality is part of society and society is man-made. Reason is capacity humans are born with.
If without God, all things are permissible, then it doesn't make any sense to condemn, for example, the French Revolutionaries' grotesque distortion of freedom and equality, as you so eloquently do.
The resulting anarchy in the French Revolution was a grotesque distortion of the social contract theories which did not envision destruction of the state and lawlessness.
The natural man is not limited by anything. He did not come into this world with a contract or a set of rules. Before he created communities he was free to do whatever, whenever and however he willed.
Our standards come from the social contract which replaced the divinely ordained authority of the kings as the source of sovereignty. But no matter how you turn it around, it is all man-made, because the society is man-made, and everything in a society is man-made.
You presuppose a measuring standard for morality and reason
Every society has its standards derived from its narrowly defined interests and cultural values.
That unacknowledged Standard is God
So that is your definition of what God is? If you are going to state it as a matter of fact, then prove it. I can't wait for you to prove God.
Does it follow therefore in your view that morality is man-made?
Every society has its standards derived from its narrowly defined interests and cultural values.
What you are describing is conventionalism, i.e., that you ought to do what your society tells you to do, which if you think about it for a moment leaves you no basis or grounds for your condemnation of the destruction of the state and lawlessness of the French revolution. If there is no law above society and moral rules are relative to society, then once French society speaks, end of discussion. Fin.
So that is your definition of what God is? If you are going to state it as a matter of fact, then prove it. I can't wait for you to prove God.
I think you already have proved it by your condemnation of the French revolution. On what basis do you issue your moral evaluations and judgments of the French revolution? You presuppose some higher standard of moral wisdom by which the French revolution as either inferior or superior to others. Yet in terms of what view of reality and knowledge inherent in the moral conventionalism that you espouse do you assume that there is anything like an objective criterion of morality by which to find the French revolution lacking?
Cordially,
Basically, Rousseau’s idea of the social contract was that each man has the right to participate directly in the management of the state?
“. . . and the direction in which the French Revolution took off.”
And that direction was?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.