LawTalkers - Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I tried the "kids are nice" thing on club and it didn't work at all. apparently the kids in his family and his friends' kids are all satan spawn.

This is why I also believe in original sin.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

05-27-2005 02:29 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Nah, they're generally considered semi-Pelagian; Pelagius denied original sin entirely, believing that, if man has free will, and must choose to act in accordance with God's wishes to be saved, then man must inherently have the capacity to do so (i.e.: man can through exercise of his will, effectively, save himself - I've heard this best summarized as "responsibility necessarily implies ability"). Semi-Pelagianism (which also was formally denounced, but is, you are correct, pretty much the unofficial view of the RC these days) holds that man is fallen and grace is still necessary to enable man to discern God's wishes, but grace alone is not sufficient to secure salvation.

Straight-up Augustinianism (grace alone, and that in the sole discretion of God) is still official doctrine. Evangelical proddies are pretty much the last proponents of that.

On a more fun (and, given the lack of anything useful happening today, appropriate) note, this dude made me think of y'all:

http://abum.com/?show_media=1439#nohead

(work-safe; must have sound)

I thought that the old view that Pelagius denied the Fall and thus original sin had been discredited, and that it was mainly an Augustinian straw horse adopted by later heretics who adopted the Pelagian description. There are some letter of Pelagius that I believe were translated about 15 or 20 years ago that instead suggest that he though the innate goodness given by God in the creation survived the Fall, so that while now born with sin we are also born with the free will to refuse sin.

In other words, was Pelagius what you call a semi-Pelagian?

I don't buy that Augustinianism is straight-up grace, but instead see it as grace+free well, with both needed (but will agree that Evang. proddies are the last grace-only extremists out there, just think that to the extent they attribute it to Augustine, that's crazy).

As a matter of fact, I have a mother in law who fears my influence on the grandchildren because I see grace as playing into the equation; she views Catholicism and Augustinianism as all about free will and me as dreadfully unorthodox. She believes, I think very much like Pelagius, that to the extent grace comes into the equation it is fully accessible to all.

By the way, I couldn't get the video. I'll check it out at home.

Spanky

05-27-2005 02:37 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
What is your point? That morality is divine, given to us by "God?" If it is, I'm willing to believe you. All you have to do is prove it to me.

We're past opening argument. No public policy arguments. Proof, my boy. Lay your proof that morality is divine on the table. If not, I move for directed verdict, and sanctions. You haven't come close to proving your case.

The thing is, in any court, anywhere, the notion that there is a higher "divine" law handed down wouldn't even pass summary judgment.

My point on what you just quoted was that collective morality and selfish morality are the same. As far as proving divinity, as I have stated ad nauseaum, that position can't be proved, it is very weak, but it is the best of the three weak possiblities.

sebastian_dangerfield

05-27-2005 02:45 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
My point on what you just quoted was that collective morality and selfish morality are the same. As far as proving divinity, as I have stated ad nauseaum, that position can't be proved, it is very weak, but it is the best of the three weak possiblities.

Thats not true. You can amass tons of anthropological studies and historical evidence to prove that people developed morality as a result of instinct and evolutionary pressures, which are largely selfish (directed toward keeping yourself alive). You can't prove a stitch of the divine morality theory.

notcasesensitive

05-27-2005 02:47 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Thats not true. You can amass tons of anthropological studies and historical evidence to prove that people developed morality as a result of instinct and evolutionary pressures, which are largely selfish (directed toward keeping yourself alive). You can't prove a stitch of the divine morality theory.

When he says "the best" he means "the best in my opinion, which cannot be changed". Let it go. The wall is hard.

Spanky

05-27-2005 02:48 PM

Sorry, Flinty, Nothing Personal

Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Generally, not much. Here are my nits on the statement -- I think here needs only be agreement on the relevant elements of a common moral code. If we're talking about "thou shalt not kill" evaluations of moral conduct, the way our respective moral codes view polygamy probably isn't relevant.

I also don't know if the introductory clause is necessary. If someone has a moral code based entirely on self-interest (assuming such a code rises to the level of a moral code), I'm not sure why the rest of the statement wouldn't apply.

OK - so you have to agree on the parts of the moral code that are relative to your discussion on morality. So in other words if you are talking about polygamy, you need to agree on the part of the code that discusses polygamy, but no others. That is valid.

I use the introductory clause because if both participants to the converation believe morality is all based on selfishness (which is commonly held belief among may Atheists and Agnostics), then you do have a basis for morality and you don't need a code. The discussion of polygamy and killing would then revolve around the issue over whether such rules if enforced would be in the interest of the participants of the conversation.

Bad_Rich_Chic

05-27-2005 02:51 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
In other words, was Pelagius what you call a semi-Pelagian?

Quite possibly, though Pelagianism, as an identifier of a (heretical) doctrine, still means the denial of original sin.

Then again, I'm a bit of a universal salvationist myself (to the extent I'd adhere to Christianity at all), so I'm hardly doctrine girl.

Quote:

By the way, I couldn't get the video. I'll check it out at home.

Don't rush home for it - it's amusing, but that's about it. (Unless you collect nutjob rantings for fun. Oh, wait, you hang out here, so ... by all means, rush home!)

More fun crap to watch while bored before a holiday weekend: Everyone's favorite dancing cadet -

http://www.glumbert.com/media/dancewhiteboy.html

Spanky

05-27-2005 02:59 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

I have stated over and over I agree with what you just said. The problem is that if a random mutation that helps us survive is the only source of morality then we face a few problems:

All morality is relative (or in other words there is no morality but morality is just an ill defined word used to cloud the fact that all decisions of right and wrong are really based on self interest).

If all morality is relative organization like Amnesty International are futile at best and utterly ignorant and out of line at worst. There is no such thing as international human rights, and trying to enforce them is really you just trying to impose your random moral ideas on another culture, which has developed other moral ideas that have worked just fine to help that culture survive.

Discussion groups like this board are really futile because we have no common moral base. The only discussion on this board that would makes sense, is that for every political proposition that was discussed, people would posit whether or not such position was in their self interest or not. Every political proposal would either be in your self interest or not. Everything else is irrelevant.

Spanky

05-27-2005 03:10 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Then again, I'm a bit of a universal salvationist myself (to the extent I'd adhere to Christianity at all), so I'm hardly doctrine girl.
http://www.glumbert.com/media/dancewhiteboy.html

So you believe in an afterlife, you consider youself a partial Christian, and at the same time you think all morality is relative?

sgtclub

05-27-2005 03:31 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I tried the "kids are nice" thing on club and it didn't work at all. apparently the kids in his family and his friends' kids are all satan spawn.

I think kids are nice because generally they are taught to be nice. If you taught them otherwise, they would not be.

Let me ask you this. Do you think "kids" of other species are nice? Take dolphins for instance. Most are "nice." However, there are some sects (I think in the northern pacific ocean) that are not. They are cold blooded killers. Apparently, it is a dolphin cultural thing.

ltl/fb

05-27-2005 03:49 PM

Sorry, Flinty, Nothing Personal

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
OK - so you have to agree on the parts of the moral code that are relative to your discussion on morality. So in other words if you are talking about polygamy, you need to agree on the part of the code that discusses polygamy, but no others. That is valid.

I use the introductory clause because if both participants to the converation believe morality is all based on selfishness (which is commonly held belief among may Atheists and Agnostics), then you do have a basis for morality and you don't need a code. The discussion of polygamy and killing would then revolve around the issue over whether such rules if enforced would be in the interest of the participants of the conversation.

Has anyone on here argued that morality is all based on selfishness? I don't recall seeing that argument. So part of this whole thing could be that you really need to talk this out with someone who actually has the view you are ascribing to anyone who doesn't agree with you.

Bad_Rich_Chic

05-27-2005 03:53 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
So you believe in an afterlife, you consider youself a partial Christian, and at the same time you think all morality is relative?

I consider myself culturally to be a high-church Protestant, but am not religiously Christian. To the extent I could buy into a religion as a religion, it would probably be a form of neo-paganism or non-Gardnerian Wicca. I plead agnosticism on the God thing. I tend to be strongly skeptical of an afterlife, but never say never.

Spanky

05-27-2005 04:23 PM

Sorry, Flinty, Nothing Personal

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Has anyone on here argued that morality is all based on selfishness? I don't recall seeing that argument. So part of this whole thing could be that you really need to talk this out with someone who actually has the view you are ascribing to anyone who doesn't agree with you.

When I made that assertion I had quoted dangerfiled who had just made such a claim (there was a reason for using the quotation). Before that many people have made the claim on the board.

Tyrone Slothrop

05-27-2005 04:24 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
The problem is that if a random mutation that helps us survive is the only source of morality then we face a few problems:

This makes about as much sense as saying that a random mutation that helps us survive is the only source of religion.

Evolution may be responsible for our ability to reason, or to have faith, but that does not diminish the quality of our reasoning or the power of our faith.

Spanky

05-27-2005 04:25 PM

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal

Quote:

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
I consider myself culturally to be a high-church Protestant, but am not religiously Christian. To the extent I could buy into a religion as a religion, it would probably be a form of neo-paganism or non-Gardnerian Wicca. I plead agnosticism on the God thing. I tend to be strongly skeptical of an afterlife, but never say never.

What is the difference between a high church protestant and protestant?

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:10 AM.

Page 315 of 334

315

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page