Welcome to Political Irish

We believe in free legal speech, fair play and good discussion. Sign up and join in!

Register Log in

Self Moderated God as the Source of Freedom

jon 1000's of irish f

Donator
PI Member
Joined
May 27, 2018
Messages
6,341
Likes
4,354
"red" and "blue" aren't value judgements.

Good and evil are.
no they are not they are generally agreed upon colours. as we can generally agree apon good and evil. there may be trick colours mix of blue and red that are confusing. as with good and evil but broadly specking we can come to societal agreement if we have full information. but i can understand how evil would like to muddy the waters....
 

jon 1000's of irish f

Donator
PI Member
Joined
May 27, 2018
Messages
6,341
Likes
4,354
To quote Nietzsche, "There is no such thing as moral phenomena, only a moral interpretation of phenomena"

Depending on your perspective, external phenomena is either advantageous, disadvantageous or neither.
You may choose to affix the labels "good" or "evil" but they don't exist as independent, ontological categories.

The underlying, ultimate substance from which everything in the universe is derived (call it "God" if you wish) has little concern for the childishisly simplistic meanderings of higher primates.

It has little more regard for so called "evil" than we do for a hawk devouring a hare or a lion slaughtering a gazelle.
lol he who though "god was dead" he was jesus and killed himself to prove it...
 

Sailor

PI Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2018
Messages
211
Likes
225
Read post #18.

I'm a moral perspectivist (not to be confused with moral nihilism)
What you say back in #18 does not mean that they do not exist, instead it suggests that their meaning is subject to interpretation i.e they lack a single objective definition. That is no different from a physical measurement such as velocity, which Relativity explains as varying with the reference frame of the observer. But I don’t think you would suggest that velocity does not exist.
 

ShumanTheHuman

Donator
PI Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2018
Messages
599
Likes
1,109
Location
Caves of Ice
Thanks - but I have two problems with that argument:

1. It seems to depend on Lewis’s own particular definition of his God, and does not extend to a divinity which would not require us to have unrestricted free will.

2. It concentrates only on those aspects of evil that are within our control i.e. those evils that we consciously do. But there are other evils over which we have little or no control e.g painful illnesses. Lewis does not address this category of evil, and if we are to believe in a loving god then we must reconcile this evil with the good and loving divinity.
1. I'm not really sure why he should have to address anything beyond his own framework which is conscious evil not random negative shit . As far as Lewis is concerned we have free will for the reasons outlined in the clip. That divinity requires us to have free will - I'm not sure about unrestricted though. Does the body rule the mind, or does the mind rule the body? I don't know
2. He does go into these issue in greater detail in The Problem of Pain and A Grief Observed apparently. From what I have garnered so far its basically the Job solution: Q: Why do things happen to good people? A: Suck it up and don't ask questions
 

Sailor

PI Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2018
Messages
211
Likes
225
1. I'm not really sure why he should have to address anything beyond his own framework which is conscious evil not random negative shit . As far as Lewis is concerned we have free will for the reasons outlined in the clip. That divinity requires us to have free will - I'm not sure about unrestricted though. Does the body rule the mind, or does the mind rule the body? I don't know
2. He does go into these issue in greater detail in The Problem of Pain and A Grief Observed apparently. From what I have garnered so far its basically the Job solution: Q: Why do things happen to good people? A: Suck it up and don't ask questions
1. The point here is that he is explaining an aspect of a God of his own invention, not the generality of divinity. So his comments are only valid for his version of a divinity, not for a more general explanation of the issue.

2. That certainly seems to be the case, but it is not compatible with the concept of a loving deity.
 

ShumanTheHuman

Donator
PI Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2018
Messages
599
Likes
1,109
Location
Caves of Ice
1. The point here is that he is explaining an aspect of a God of his own invention, not the generality of divinity. So his comments are only valid for his version of a divinity, not for a more general explanation of the issue.

2. That certainly seems to be the case, but it is not compatible with the concept of a loving deity.
The Christian God is not all loving, this is a fallacy. He does worse to you than chucking you into the sea with a millstone tied around your neck if you cause little ones to stumble
 
Top Bottom