Gordon Clark wrote:
Man is responsible because God calls him to account; man is responsible because the supreme power can punish him for disobedience. God, on the contrary, cannot be responsible for the plain reason that there is no power superior to him; no greater being can hold him accountable; no one can punish him; there is no one to whom God is responsible; there are no laws which he could disobey.
The sinner therefore, and not God, is responsible; the sinner alone is the author of sin. Man has no free will, for salvation is purely of grace; and God is sovereign.
That does it. God is good because he has all the power. We are told not to kill people because the most powerful being in the universe told us not to. But God didn't command himself to prevent killing and suffering, so he has no such obligation.
Gosh, I wish it were that easy.
117 comments:
I haven't seen the Calvinist yet who is not, at bottom, a nominalist.
WLC holds a very similar view about his god. No matter what his god does, it is by definition good, because his god did it.
Idiot.
Also, thank you for at least acknowledging (apparently) that this is a thorny problem for theism. Many theists who lurk about these parts don't think it is.
Well Craig’s reasoning is a bit different than this. Craig would argue that God adheres to various values embedded in His essential nature. Craig would agree though that God has no moral obligations.
My position is that Gordon’s theodicy is only a partial one. Obviously God, being in the massive position of authority he is in, has a different set of moral parameters than we do. In other words there are some things God can do that we can’t. For example, only God has the right to punish the wicked. We forfeit that right when we sin. Additionally God would seem to have the right to cut short our time on this Earth. Only He knows when it is time to condemn or exalt people. One shortcoming of this theodicy is that it wouldn’t justify any condemnation of innocent children or any other unjust action. Another weakness might be that it appears, at least, to leave little room for God’s love (though you could claim that God is using a persons death for a loving purpose). Finally I’m not certain that this theodicy would explain the excessive suffering felt by many, if not most, who do die, let alone the suffering brought on by diseases and natural disasters.
I’m really not sure how big of a problem the problem of evil is for Christian theism. I suppose it depends what ethical views you hold to.
I haven't seen the Calvinist yet who is not, at bottom, a nominalist.
I had never thought about it that way, but this is entirely true.
Also, over at Prosblogion they've been having an interesting discussion about theodicy: http://prosblogion.ektopos.com/archives/2012/12/is-successful-t.html
'We are told not to kill people because the most powerful being in the universe told us not to. But God didn't command himself to prevent killing and suffering, so he has no such obligation.'
It appears that Gordon Clark has read his William Lane Craig, who says exactly the same thing.
'Since God doesn’t issue commands to Himself, He has no moral duties to fulfill. He is certainly not subject to the same moral obligations and prohibitions that we are.'
Craig though continues with a claim that evil is morally obligatory if commanded by his god, in which case it stops being evil and turns into good.
'On divine command theory, then, God has the right to command an act, which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been sin, but which is now morally obligatory in virtue of that command.'
No wonder Christians consider him one of the greatest philosophers they have in the world today.
Who else , but a truly great Christian thinker, can say that sin can be morally obligatory, and get away with it by claiming it has stopped being sin, because my god told me to do it?
'Man is responsible because God calls him to account; man is responsible because the supreme power can punish him for disobedience.'
Ah, the good old Christian 'might makes right' doctrine.
I thought Americans were considering putting armed guards in schools to stop this god gunning people down, not claiming that if their god wants to gun down children, then He has every right to do so.
Once again the Calvinists demonstrate that, whatever it is that they are, they ain't Christians!
God is not a moral agent & yes God has no moral obligations to us. But that is because given His nature classically it is incoherent to say God is a moral agent unequivocally compared to a human moral agent.
Of course, the problem gets a whole lot trickier for the Calvinist, since he or she is (almost certainly) a compatibilist, and therefore thinks that though we act in the way in which we wish, God has pre-determined all our wants, desires, etc., such that we can do whatever we want, but what we want to do is not under our control.
"That does it. God is good because he has all the power. ... Gosh, I wish it were that easy."
That's what Son-of-Confusion is forever ranting about ... he juat uses more words, and a corresponding lesser directness, and, of course, more venom, than Mr Clark did.
"I haven't seen the Calvinist yet who is not, at bottom, a nominalist."
The same tends to apply to those pushing (the never-did-exist religion of) "classical theism."
"Once again the Calvinists demonstrate that, whatever it is that they are, they ain't Christians!"
I guess that applies to Catholics, too. For, among other things, Catholicism advocates Calvinism when it suits its purposes. Such as trying to justify Maryolatry.
"God is not a moral agent & yes God has no moral obligations to us. But that is because given His nature classically it is incoherent to say God is a moral agent unequivocally compared to a human moral agent."
... as I said.
I guess we can expect to soon see Prokop -- who, let's face it, is a Leftist, rather than a Christian -- holding forth on whether Son-of-Confusion is really a Christian.
Leftists, who have, historically speaking, represented the political interests of the disadvantaged classes, can't be Christians? Only rightists, who have, historically speaking, defended the privileges of the oligarchical, plutocratic classes can be? Weird.
^^ Someone appears to know very little about history, and even less about reasoning.
Or "representing interests". Unless, of course, being mass-murdered is in one's "political interests".
Well, that became about politics with surprising alacrity.
No argument, no development, just conclusory piffle--and he says I have the problem with reasoning.
The same tends to apply to those pushing (the never-did-exist religion of) "classical theism."
Sigh.... what part of "God has an eternal, unchanging nature" smacks of nominalism, the notion that there are no universals? Enthrall me with your acumen.
Dan,
Do not feed the troll.
"Ilion" (or whatever his true name is) has shown his True Colors long before this. He is a perfect example of what C.S. Lewis called "Christianity and..." in that he prizes his political views above his faith, so if you do not agree with him on them, your infinitely more important faith in Christ counts for nothing.
Ilion's last three posts exhibit an astonishing level of overweening ignorance.
"I haven't seen the Calvinist yet who is not, at bottom, a nominalist."
The same tends to apply to those pushing (the never-did-exist religion of) "classical theism."
Good Lord, what a swing and a miss. Thomas Aquinas, classical theist par excellence and the poster boy of Scholasticism, was as such an essentialist, and essentialism is exactly opposite of nominalism. In fact, the advent of anti-essentialism and its subsequent nominalistic flavor is typically regarded by historians and medieval specialists as following immediately from the rejection of Scholastic concepts and other classical theistic concepts by medieval philosophers such as William of Ockham. As Aquinas scholar Edward Feser notes:
"Aquinas took the view that 'will follows upon intellect' (ST I.19.1), that reason is more fundamental than volition. Ockham reverses this 'intellectualist' position in favor of voluntarism, which regards will as prior to intellect. Hence while Aquinas took God to will only in a manner consistent with the necessary truths entailed by the essences of the things His intellect apprehends, Ockham makes the divine will primary and rejects essentialism as incompatible with its supreme freedom. To be sure, he does not go so far as to hold that God’s actions can violate the law of non-contradiction. But by denying that things have essences, Ockham was able radically to shrink the domain of actions that would be ruled out by that law."
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/03/razor-boy.html
In sum, Ilion simply hasn't a clue what he's talking. He is blinded by his irrational dislike of Catholicism and classical theism, and hence steadfastly misrepresents both.
I hope that, in the near future, he will put a stop to this misinformation campaign. It's beyond pathetic.
I'm not the Son-of-Confusion.
I'm the Son of James. I thought my nickname made that clear.
Victor:
Are you sure that it isn't as easy as Clark makes it? It seems like POE constructs are all direct or implicit accusations that God has permitted too much evil. This would be a man in the position of being God's moral superior as a judge. That seems simply wrong.
It seems like POE constructs are all direct or implicit accusations that God has permitted too much evil. This would be a man in the position of being God's moral superior as a judge.
Surely, then, the reverse is at least equally true. Constructing a theodicy which says that God allows an acceptable amount of evil puts one on an equal standing, WRT judgement, as God.
Syllabus said...
"I haven't seen the Calvinist yet who is not, at bottom, a nominalist."
How many Calvinists have you seen? What Reformed philosophers or theologians have you read?
Matt DeStefano said...
"I had never thought about it that way, but this is entirely true."
And your argument for that assertion is what?
How many Calvinists have you seen? What Reformed philosophers or theologians have you read?
Seen is, obviously, a figure of speech. Or can't you see that?
As for the other: Bruce Ware, DA Carson, John Piper, Wayne Grudem, JI Packer, and Alvin Plantinga, for starters.
Though Plantinga isn't a traditional Calvinist, since he claims to be a Molinist. But he is a supralapsarian, so I suppose the one outweighs the other.
I should perhaps clarify and de-hyperbolize: I haven't yet seen the Calvinist who, having thought Calvinism out to its logical conclusion and embraced that conclusion, is no tacitly or explicitly a nominalist (or, in the specifically theological sense, a voluntarist).
Hmm... "Ilion" says that what he terms as leftist views are incompatible with Christianity, while the Pope in his New Year's address blasted "hotbeds of tension and conflict caused by growing instances of inequality between rich and poor" and condemned "the prevalence of a selfish and individualistic mindset which finds expression in an unregulated capitalism".
But then we already know Ilion's views on Catholicism, so his response is all too predictable.
So Steve, two things:
1. Yay or nay on the existence of universals?
2. Yay or nay on the existence of abstract objects?
Syllabus:
Surely, then, the reverse is at least equally true. Constructing a theodicy which says that God allows an acceptable amount of evil puts one on an equal standing, WRT judgement, as God.
I agree, it could be equally true. To avoid being in that place, we would say that given that a perfect God exists, and the amount of evil in the world is such as it is, it is the right amount, not because we have judged it so, but because it is. The painful part is all the "power" it drains us of.
I agree, it could be equally true. To avoid being in that place, we would say that given that a perfect God exists, and the amount of evil in the world is such as it is, it is the right amount, not because we have judged it so, but because it is. The painful part is all the "power" it drains us of.
I would, in general, prescind entirely from answering the question positively, but I take your point. At this spot in time, I have little patience for theodicies in general. Maybe all that DB Hart I've been reading is to blame.
Some apologist for, and advocate of, murderous leftism: ""Ilion" (or whatever his true name is) has shown his True Colors long before this. He is a perfect example of what C.S. Lewis called "Christianity and..." in that he prizes his political views above his faith, so if you do not agree with him on them, your infinitely more important faith in Christ counts for nothing."
That is such a charming 'projection' you have there! And it's so becoming to you, too!
"... Enthrall me with your acumen."
You surely ought to know by now that I'm not about to play that game.
You don't want to learn anything. And, if you did, there was already enough said, in this very thread alone, for you to have learned.
Still, and goodness, are we *still* waiting for some intellectual consistency (and intellectual honesty) from that infamous Leftist, ol' whatever his name is?
I mean, here he is asserting that, based on the silly expression of Gordon Clark, that "again the Calvinists demonstrate that, whatever it is that they are, they ain't Christians". Yet, regarding "classical theists" -- who say the exact same thing -- silence. Gee, could that "classical theists" tend to be the sort of people who vainly imagine that Christ's Church is tied to some specific human bureaucracy have anything to do with this mysterious silence calling out other masqueraders?
someone satisfied to be ignorant: "Ilion's last three posts exhibit an astonishing level of overweening ignorance.
... Good Lord, what a swing and a miss."
Someone doesn't even begin to understand what he is going on about. This ain't about Aquinas, it's about:
1) that there never was a religion called "classical theism";
2) ignorant modern persons who bang on about their knowledge of and/or adherence to "classical theism" (which never existed) ... as though that somehow makes them superior in some obscure way to Christians;
3) the intellectual hypocrisy of those persons who go out of their way to assert that Calvinists aren't Christians, because they believe some silly things, while remaining silent about certain Catholics who believe the exact same thing.
"In sum, Ilion simply hasn't a clue what he's talking. He is blinded by his irrational dislike of Catholicism and classical theism, and hence steadfastly misrepresents both."
Someone is obviously so blinded by whatever his hatred is that he is willing to say any old ignorant thing.
"I'm the Son of James. I thought my nickname made that clear."
Silly child, 'Son of James' is you handle; but your nickname is 'Son or Confusion': for, it's fitting and it's a verbal play on you handle.
Syllabus said...
"I haven't seen the Calvinist yet who is not, at bottom, a nominalist."
So you're saying consistent Calvinists don't believe in abstract objects, universals, or relations. They don't believe in multiply-exemplifiable universals.
Rather, they believe everything is physical. Everything consists of bare, concrete particulars.
Syllabus said...
"As for the other: Bruce Ware, DA Carson, John Piper, Wayne Grudem, JI Packer, and Alvin Plantinga, for starters."
Ware is an Amyradian Molinist. Plantinga is a leading proponent of libertarian freewill. So I wouldn't call either one a Calvinist.
Yes, Plantinga has a kind of supralapsarian theodicy, but he certainly doesn't subscribe to double predestination, limited atonement, &c.
Carson is a NT scholar, not a philosopher or theologian. Piper is an expository preacher. We might classify him as a NT scholar.
Grudem is basically a NT scholar who does systematic theology and ethics.
Packer is basically into historical theology (a la the Puritans).
I draw these distinctions because, if you're sincerely judging what Calvinists think of nominalism/voluntarism, it would be more honest of you to focus on Reformed philosophers–inasmuch as you're dealing with what's essentially an issue in philosophical theology.
Syllabus said...
"I should perhaps clarify and de-hyperbolize: I haven't yet seen the Calvinist who, having thought Calvinism out to its logical conclusion and embraced that conclusion, is no tacitly or explicitly a nominalist (or, in the specifically theological sense, a voluntarist)."
i) You've offered no argument showing how Calvinism entails theological voluntarism.
ii) To take a specific counterexample, Helm argues that Calvin was not a voluntarist. Cf. John Calvin's Ideas, chap. 11. What do you think is wrong with Helm's analysis?
Syllabus said...
"I haven't seen the Calvinist yet who is not, at bottom, a nominalist."
Considering the fact that Gordon Clark, who's the subject of this post, was an Augustinian realist, your claim is prima facie false. But perhaps you can further enlighten us.
BTW, John Frame, in Apologetics to the Glory of God, is quite critical of Clark's theodicy.
BTW, here's another Calvinist on the problem of evil:
http://www.proginosko.com/welty/probevil.htm
One of the things that people like Paul Manata disabused me of was identifying Calvinism with theological voluntarism. They didn't come anywhere near to convincing me that Calvinism was true, but most of them don't make the straightforward voluntarist move that Clark makes.
Considering the fact that Gordon Clark, who's the subject of this post, was an Augustinian realist, your claim is prima facie false.
Fair enough. Words spoken - or written in haste often go awry, and that is especially true of broad statements. So I'll amend it to smaller, less all-embracing statement: I do think that Calvinism entails - or at the very least strongly suggests - voluntarism. But I won't argue that tonight.
You don't want to learn anything. And, if you did, there was already enough said, in this very thread alone, for you to have learned.
You haven't even begun to expostulate upon how classical theism entails nominalism. And how in blue blazes could you possibly know that I don't want to learn anything?
And, as to what has been said in this thread, I will here reproduce everything you've written:
That's what Son-of-Confusion is forever ranting about ... he juat uses more words, and a corresponding lesser directness, and, of course, more venom, than Mr Clark did.
The same tends to apply to those pushing (the never-did-exist religion of) "classical theism."
I guess that applies to Catholics, too. For, among other things, Catholicism advocates Calvinism when it suits its purposes. Such as trying to justify Maryolatry.
... as I said.
I guess we can expect to soon see Prokop -- who, let's face it, is a Leftist, rather than a Christian -- holding forth on whether Son-of-Confusion is really a Christian.
^^ Someone appears to know very little about history, and even less about reasoning.
Or "representing interests". Unless, of course, being mass-murdered is in one's "political interests".
That is such a charming 'projection' you have there! And it's so becoming to you, too!
You surely ought to know by now that I'm not about to play that game.
You don't want to learn anything. And, if you did, there was already enough said, in this very thread alone, for you to have learned.
Still, and goodness, are we *still* waiting for some intellectual consistency (and intellectual honesty) from that infamous Leftist, ol' whatever his name is?
I mean, here he is asserting that, based on the silly expression of Gordon Clark, that "again the Calvinists demonstrate that, whatever it is that they are, they ain't Christians". Yet, regarding "classical theists" -- who say the exact same thing -- silence. Gee, could that "classical theists" tend to be the sort of people who vainly imagine that Christ's Church is tied to some specific human bureaucracy have anything to do with this mysterious silence calling out other masqueraders?
someone satisfied to be ignorant: "Ilion's last three posts exhibit an astonishing level of overweening ignorance.
... Good Lord, what a swing and a miss."
Someone doesn't even begin to understand what he is going on about. This ain't about Aquinas, it's about:
1) that there never was a religion called "classical theism";
2) ignorant modern persons who bang on about their knowledge of and/or adherence to "classical theism" (which never existed) ... as though that somehow makes them superior in some obscure way to Christians;
3) the intellectual hypocrisy of those persons who go out of their way to assert that Calvinists aren't Christians, because they believe some silly things, while remaining silent about certain Catholics who believe the exact same thing.
"In sum, Ilion simply hasn't a clue what he's talking. He is blinded by his irrational dislike of Catholicism and classical theism, and hence steadfastly misrepresents both."
Someone is obviously so blinded by whatever his hatred is that he is willing to say any old ignorant thing.
Silly child, 'Son of James' is you handle; but your nickname is 'Son or Confusion': for, it's fitting and it's a verbal play on you handle.
I invite anyone here to examine these statements and see whether they have said anything to attempt to demonstrate the notion that classical theism entails nominalism. Otherwise, your claim that you've said enough in this thread to address the notion is vacuous.
Oh, and for the record, Catholics call (what is essentially) Calvinism "Jansenism", and consider it a heresy,. If you think that it's true that Catholic teaching has indeed taught Calvinism, then please, point to the council/document/whatever that does so (and I'm not Roman Catholic, so it doesn't really affect me one way or the other). To assert that Catholics believe the same things as Calvinists demonstrates a surprising amount of ignorance about one or both of those theological systems.
And classical theism is NOT a religion. It's a philosophical position about the Divine Nature.
Really, I see nothing in your comments but a collection of assertions and personal screeds.
Ilion said:
" 1) that there never was a religion called "classical theism"
Classical theism isn't a "religion," you dolt, anymore than atheism, voluntarism, realism, nominalism, rationalism, idealism, empiricism, transcendental idealism, substantivalism, relationalism, possibilism, libertarianism, conservatism, materialism, determinism, pluralism, holism, postmodernism, modal fictionalism, conventionalism, reductionism, eliminativism, etc., are "religions."
Every single one of those -isms is nothing more than a properly philosophical position. They don't aspire to be religions anymore than they aspire to be strawberry milkshakes.
Ex. It's perfectly possible to be a theist without being religious. Cf. Thomas Jefferson, Voltaire.
As usual, you know not whereof you speak.
---
2) "ignorant modern persons who bang on about their knowledge of and/or adherence to "classical theism" (which never existed) ... as though that somehow makes them superior in some obscure way to Christians"
Then I suppose, in your world, Anselm and Aquinas, as well as Athanasius, Clement, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil, Maximus, and the rest of the Church Fathers not only were not Christians, but never existed. Oh yeah, and Aristotle, Plotinus, Avicenna, and Maimonides never existed either.
What lunacy.
V.Reppert: "One of the things that people like Paul Manata disabused me of was identifying Calvinism with theological voluntarism. They didn't come anywhere near to convincing me that Calvinism was true, but most of them don't make the straightforward voluntarist move that Clark makes."
Sure, but does it matter whether or not "most of them don't make the straightforward voluntarist move that Clark makes"?
That is, if "theological voluntarism" is inherent in the Calvin-ism itself, than that some individual Calvin-ist doesn't "make the straightforward voluntarist move that Clark makes" is essentially meaningless -- it would as though an 'atheist' (of the Western sort) were to deny materialistic reductionism or were to affirm free-will/agency and the existence of selves; materialistic reductionism is inherent in ('Western') 'atheism' ('Eastern' denies that even matter exists) and the denial of free-will/agency and of the existence of selves is inherent in both 'Western' and 'Eastern' atheism.
"Really, I see nothing in your comments but a collection of assertions and personal screeds"
As I said, you have no intention of learning anything.
"You haven't even begun to expostulate upon how classical theism entails nominalism."
See, you have no intention of opening your eyes; and you'll continue to assert that I have made claims I never did.
Just as I don't waste my time with fools, neither do I with people who will not read.
"I haven't seen the Calvinist yet who is not, at bottom, a nominalist."
The same tends to apply to those pushing (the never-did-exist religion of) "classical theism."
That sure as heck sounds to me like claiming that classical theists are nominalists. The implication is that this is because of classical theism. Now, if you'd stop being obtuse about it, and actually answer a bloody question, then perhaps the matter would advance, but since all you're saying is that I have no intention of listening - when I have repeatedly asked you to explain what you mean, and you have repeatedly persisted in being an obscurantist - the conversation is, well, stymied.
And again, I invite you, would you care to expand upon your remark
that "The same tends to apply to those pushing (the never-did-exist religion of) "classical theism.""? Or am I completely closed off from learning? Or do I not want to learn? Or do I not read? In spite of repeated indications to the contrary.
But hey, deny it if you like. It'll just serve as further confirmation of what I already suspect.
Syllabus,
Ilíon probably doesn't believe that classical theism entails nominalism; he is just probably unaware of what he writes--unaware that he asserted the very "fact".
Syllabus,
I'll give you the same advice I gave to Dan, "Do not feed the troll."
"Ilion" has long proven himself to be shuttered within a thought-proof self-made mental prison even more impervious to outside stimulus than Papalinton's "No Idea Zone".
And no, this is not "going negative" - it's actually soft-pedaling the true horror of the situation (so it doesn't count as breaking my new year's resolution). But seriously, you'll only get frustrated trying to coax a coherent reply from a madman.
Bob:
Point taken.
""Ilion" has long proven himself to be shuttered within a thought-proof self-made mental prison even more impervious to outside stimulus than Papalinton's "No Idea Zone"."
The irony here Bob, is the clash of the woo Titans: Ilion the god-botherer vs Syllabus the god botherer. The fight is on one side of the fence only.
I certainly don't have a dog in this fight. :o)
In respect of your "No Idea Zone", you know that is a misconstrual. I have plenty of ideas, they are however, just a priori rational, reasoned, logical and sensibly naturalist ones, that's all. There is no role for looking down the kaleidoscope of superstitious supernaturalism for a distorted reality to make sense of my existence. I classify all theological knowledge, as most sensible people now do, as a sub-section under the general heading of Mythologies. And religion fits hand in glove with the conventionally accepted definition of 'myths':
mythology |məˈθäləjē|
noun ( pl. -gies)
1 a collection of myths, esp. one belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition : Ganesa was the god of wisdom and success in Hindu mythology | a book discussing Jewish and Christian mythologies.
• a set of stories or beliefs about a particular person, institution, or situation, esp. when exaggerated or fictitious : in popular mythology, truckers are kings of the road.
2 the study of myths.
[All References Library Dictionary]
It further expounds: "The main characters in myths are usually gods, supernatural heroes and humans.[5][6][7] As sacred stories, myths are often endorsed by rulers and priests and closely linked to religion or spirituality.[5] In the society in which it is told, a myth is usually regarded as a true account of the remote past.[5][6][8][9] In fact, many societies have two categories of traditional narrative, "true stories" or myths, and "false stories" or fables.[10] Creation myths generally take place in a primordial age, when the world had not yet achieved its current form,[5] and explain how the world gained its current form[2][11] and how customs, institutions and taboos were established."
If at all, I could be said to having a "No God-Damned Idea Zone".
Hmmmmm?
Ilion & Paps in a pit filled with starving dogs fighting for raw meat.
Whoever crawls out alive first wins.
I don't know about you but I don't care what Ilion has said about me my money is on him.
In respect of your "No Idea Zone", you know that is a misconstrual. I have plenty of ideas, they are however, just a priori rational, reasoned, logical and sensibly naturalist ones, that's all. There is no role for looking down the kaleidoscope of superstitious supernaturalism for a distorted reality to make sense of my existence. I classify all theological knowledge, as most sensible people now do, as a sub-section under the general heading of Mythologies.
This is implying the only alternative to naturalism is revealed religion. I don't really buy into any revealed religion, nor am I particularly convinced by any theistic proof, but I am not a naturalist in any meaningful sense of the word. I believe that the mind is immaterial, and I see no compelling reason to believe that an afterlife is impossible. Your thinking is a prime example of the false dichotomy between religion and materialism that perverts this entire subject matter in contemporary thought.
I don't know about you but I don't care what Ilion has said about me my money is on him.
And mine. His near-manic intensity is nonpareil.
"Ilion & Paps in a pit filled with starving dogs fighting for raw meat."
"And mine. His near-manic intensity is nonpareil."
How utterly in character such comments are.
Yet, when all is said and done and you (plural) have stopped slapping yourselves silly(er) over your wittiness (*) at ignoring the logical reasoning I present against the silly and false and even downright foolish things you assert, I'm still right, and you're still willfully wrong, and you still haven’t taken even the first step in showing any flaws in anything I’ve ever said.
I refuse to tickle anyone’s ears, and that enrages you children. I refuse to give anyone a pass on easily identified illogic, no matter which “side” he is on, and that *really* enrages you children.
And your rage is utterly irrelevant.
(*) Wait! Was that supposed to be ‘witlessness’? It’s so hard to tell, sometimes.
"I refuse to tickle anyone’s ears, and that enrages you children."
Then why do you bother posting at all to this website? Or even reading it?
ingx24
"This is implying the only alternative to naturalism is revealed religion."
Revealed religion a [viable] alternative? Good Heavens No. No, not an alternative. If anything revealed religion is irrational, unreasoned, illogical and non-sensibly unnatural.
You say, " I believe that the mind is immaterial .." How do you define 'mind'? Do you mean the act of thinking, imagining or memorializing is the immaterial part? Or that the mind exists independently of the brain? If your claim is that the mind exists independent of the brain then does an anencephalic child have a mind? More here.
You also say, "Your thinking is a prime example of the false dichotomy between religion and materialism that perverts this entire subject matter in contemporary thought."
How could that be? My thoughts, my mind are immaterial, you told me that yourself. How could my thinking pervert the entire subject matter in contemporary thought if my mind is immaterial? How does the immaterial physically pervert the entire subject matter ...? More germane to your proposition, is how does one distinguish between the immaterial and the non-existent? I know the brain exists and I know the mind exists and I know that the mind is what the brain does. The mind is the actualizing function of the brain. When the neurons stop firing, the mind stop functioning. End of story. QED. Nothing immaterial in that relationship, I'm afraid.
What is your take on the immaterial mind?
On the principle that 'you get what you pay for', I'd have to say that it appears to me that VR has achieved just the sort of blog-community he wants.
VR, I can’t find the comment to which I’m indirectly referring, and I’m not going to spend any more time trying to find it. It was you commiserating with (if I recall correctly) BDK to the effect of what a terrible, terrible man I am and how much better your blog is after I mostly lost interest in it (and your audience). You apparently didn’t really want rational adults … and so, mostly, you have irrational/emotional children.
I have no idea how to respond to the incoherent question-begging bullshit you just posted, but I guess I might as well try:
You say, " I believe that the mind is immaterial .." How do you define 'mind'? Do you mean the act of thinking, imagining or memorializing is the immaterial part? Or that the mind exists independently of the brain? If your claim is that the mind exists independent of the brain then does an anencephalic child have a mind? More here.
What the hell is that supposed to prove? A child born without a brain would either never have developed a mind or their mind would be somewhere else (under the assumption that mind and brain exist independently). I have no idea what you're trying to prove with that example.
How could my thinking pervert the entire subject matter in contemporary thought if my mind is immaterial? How does the immaterial physically pervert the entire subject matter ...?
I'm going to assume that this incoherent mess right here is supposed to be referring to the interaction problem - the blatantly question-begging assumption that immaterial things can't affect material things. I think if quantum mechanics taught us anything, it's that we can't just assume we know how causation works. Who are you to say that you "know" that mind-brain interaction is impossible?
More germane to your proposition, is how does one distinguish between the immaterial and the non-existent?
I don't understand what your point here is supposed to be. Are you saying that, because we can't directly observe the immaterial, we can't prove it exists? If our minds are immaterial, we DO know they exist in our own case, and we can infer based on others' behavior and language that they have minds as well. What's the problem?
I know the brain exists and I know the mind exists and I know that the mind is what the brain does. The mind is the actualizing function of the brain. When the neurons stop firing, the mind stop functioning. End of story. QED. Nothing immaterial in that relationship, I'm afraid.
Instead of wasting my time replying to this, I'm going to direct you here. You should read this, it's pretty interesting and it may enlighten you a bit.
Really, responding to you is pointless because all of your posts are incoherent jibberish without any actual arguments.
Bye Ilíon! Don't let the door hit you on your way out!
^^ What a fool! Also, apparently functionally illiterate (though, I expect that that, just as the foolishness, is the result of deliberate choices).
ingx24,
Papalinton seems to believe that overwriting makes him look smarter. We here just ignore him for it--mostly anyways.
Ilíon,
How is it that I can be functionally illiterate and still make less spelling and grammatical mistakes than you? Idiot.
Anyways, were you going to walk back your assertion that classical theism entails nominalism, or were you just going to chest-thump more about how rational you are compared to everyone else?
Yeah, I've been reading this blog for a long time so I know all about Papalinton. I don't really know why you guys put up with him; he's clearly just here to give you guys a hard time.
He mostly doesn't give me a hard time, but that's because I'm not a Christian.
"Anyways, were you going to walk back your assertion that classical theism entails nominalism, ..."
I don't waste my time either with fools or with fellow who will not read. And this fellow appears to be both.
Gee Ilion I said I'd bet on you.
Now that is gratitude for ya.
ingx24
"I have no idea how to respond to the incoherent question-begging bullshit you just posted, ..."
Don't burst your boiler on my account. All you have to do is acknowledge that your proposal for an immaterial mind is a personal unsubstantiated explication at best, thoroughly wedded to some form of ethereal woo-woo you imagine percolates through the universe. That's all. There is not a scintilla of evidence that supernaturalism, replete with its panoply of [putatively] live entities, is somehow just over there separated by an 'event horizon', a natural/supernatural divide, across which these live phantasms freely traverse interfering and intervening in all manner of events in the natural world. Attempting to invoke Quantum Mechanics, as evidence for woo-woo, or the beauty of mathematics, as the religious-minded are want to do, along with Deepak Chopra, is a silly state of forlorn rationalizing.
So, you rightly noted previously, "I don't really buy into any revealed religion, nor am I particularly convinced by any theistic proof, ..." I say, good for you. Now ditch the rest of the shamanic woo that predisposes you imagining things that go bump in the night. or under the bed. Even Wiccans and Druids, together with their christian, muslim and hindu confreres have never come anywhere near substantiating any claim about the existence of spectral numens that infest the natural and supernatural world. Such beliefs are internally and inherently inconsistent with the facts. The Jesus H christ as a god-man incarnate ideation has always been pooh-poohed by Judaism, from the very first moment it was promulgated, that is, from the very get-go 2,000 years ago. No wool was going to be pulled over their eyes by the christmythers. They had their own myths to contend with. Muslims categorically declared jesus as a fully paid-up member of the terrestrial-bound brigade, dubbed him a prophet at best, and never a god-man, right from the very get-go that Islam was culturally fabricated, 600 years after the jesus abstract was first merchandised.
You say, " I think if quantum mechanics taught us anything, it's that we can't just assume we know how causation works."
Then how is it that woo-meisters are convinced that the only way the universe came into existence is through the handiwork of the christian god, the First Cause. You might have heard of this spurious theo-philosophical Thomistic claim?
To the chagrin of woo-wooers, and Deists, there is an excellent, reasoned, cogent, and lucidly explained account of how the universe can be created by its own volition. I recommend it: A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing by Lawrence M. Krauss;
"Now, in a cosmological story that rivets as it enlightens, pioneering theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss explains the groundbreaking new scientific advances that turn the most basic philosophical questions on their heads. One of the few prominent scientists today to have actively crossed the chasm between science and popular culture, Krauss reveals that modern science is addressing the question of why there is something rather than nothing, with surprising and fascinating results. The staggeringly beautiful experimental observations and mind-bending new theories are all described accessibly in A Universe from Nothing, and they suggest that not only can something arise from nothing, something will always arise from nothing." HERE
What Quantun Mechanics is telling us, is that the interplay between energy, mass, particles, anti-particles, dark energy and dark matter etc etc, as yet to be explained fully, simply does not need a god, theistic or deistic, to kick-start it off. The scientific narrative about the brain and mind, seems inexorably to follow a similar trajectory of discovery and explanation. Sign on the door: Gods need not apply.
Ilíon, who has been hung thrice by his own words (twice by Syllabus, once by Samwell) still accuses me of foolishness. What an idiot.
"Gee Ilion I said I'd bet on you.
Now that is gratitude for ya."
Careful! You appear to be on the road to turning into a "liberal" (*) (**) ... which is just a way-station on the road to Leftism (***). Confused as you are anyway, you surely don't want to end up like Prokop or this Gillson fellow, one more pointless apologist for mass-murder who confuses it for Christianity.
What I'd rather you do is discuss Prokop's assertion that, given Mr Clark's vision of theodicy as quoted in the OP, "Calvinists ain't Christians" as his assertion relates to you, given that you believe (and frequently and loudly assert) the same thing that Mr Clark said.
For, since Prokop clearly has no intention of openly applying his logic to your position, I seems it falls to you to explain to me whether he is wrong about you ... and Calvinists ... and why. Please use small sentences and smaller words: you know what we "fundies" are like (for, you do frequently inform one and all).
(*) It's an unavoidable hazard of having been marinated in Leftism almost from birth coupled with not consciously and actively rooting out the leftist errors within one's resulting worldview.
(**) How like a "liberal" to give a man what he not only has never wanted nor asked for, but rather openly does not want, and then to passive-aggressively demand a show of gratitude for the “gift”.
(***) Which is just the means by which the envious and greedy justify within their own minds their own murderous envy and greed (for the wealth of others and for the rule over them), 'project' their own greed and envy onto their targets, use that as the justification for the pogrom they had planned all along, and then declare the whole bloody mess to have been a moral imperative.
Careful! You appear to be on the road to turning into a "liberal"
Ben. A liberal.
This should be fun.
B. Prokop said...
"Ilion" has long proven himself to be shuttered within a thought-proof self-made mental prison even more impervious to outside stimulus than Papalinton's "No Idea Zone".
Man, too true, and proven once again in this thread. He has been utterly exposed as an ignorant windbag in making the ludicrous claims that (1) classical theists tend to be nominalists, (2) classical theism never existed, and (3) classical theists cannot be Christians, and now all he can do is engage in his trademark empty psychology ("intellectually dishonest," "unwilling to learn," etc etc).
Ilion's pattern of interaction:
1) posts proposition X and declares it true
2) others see his defense of X as woefully insufficient, criticize it, disagree with it, ask him to further explain himself, etc.
3) he replies that he has said *enough*, that X's truth will be completely evident once you simply read and think about what he and others have previously said. He cannot do this reading and thinking for you, you see. Refusing to do so means you are "intellectually dishonest" and "unwilling to learn."
This seems to be his thought process at this stage:
"As I keep pointing out, I already know, via my inner mental mechanisms I know to be error-proof, that X is definitively true -- so this pretend argument against X is just a smoke-screen and red-herring. Because, you see, I already know that X is true, which means that everyone else deep down knows too. Until, and unless, the so-called "anti-X" people admit that not-X is false based on the fact that I'm Ilion, damn it, and I always know what I'm talking about, they have nothing to say (because again - in principle - I'm always right, a fact that any rational person will quickly perceive) -- and it is foolish, and immoral, for X's advocates to pretend that they do have anything to say. Because, as I know, we all know that X is true. In fact we all know deep down that I'm right about everything under the sun, which means that there is no need for me to argue, let alone argue strenuously, for anything I say. Because, once again, it is immoral for me to do so. Others must work out the truth for themselves to prove their worthiness of it."
4) Others continue criticizing and disagreeing with him, noting how hopelessly vacuous and pathetic this mode of argumentation is.
5) "Fools," "intellectually dishonest," "haters of Truth," "liars about the nature of reality," and so, interminably, on.
If nothing else, he's quite entertaining, being one of the strangest Christians I've ever seen.
All you have to do is acknowledge that your proposal for an immaterial mind is a personal unsubstantiated explication at best, thoroughly wedded to some form of ethereal woo-woo you imagine percolates through the universe. That's all. There is not a scintilla of evidence that supernaturalism, replete with its panoply of [putatively] live entities, is somehow just over there separated by an 'event horizon', a natural/supernatural divide, across which these live phantasms freely traverse interfering and intervening in all manner of events in the natural world. Attempting to invoke Quantum Mechanics, as evidence for woo-woo, or the beauty of mathematics, as the religious-minded are want to do, along with Deepak Chopra, is a silly state of forlorn rationalizing.
Actually, the reason I believe in an immaterial mind is because the proposal that our thoughts and emotions are reducible to particles in motion is incoherent. I'd explain to you why, but trying to explain anything philosophical to you is a huge waste of time, so I won't bother.
ingx24,
You're learning!
Papalinton states:To the chagrin of woo-wooers, and Deists, there is an excellent, reasoned, cogent, and lucidly explained account of how the universe can be created by its own volition. I recommend it: A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing by Lawrence M. Krauss;
On page 173 of Krauss's book he writes:
“Therefore, on a basis of logic alone one cannot rule out such a deistic view of nature.”
Oops!
>Ben. A liberal.
>This should be fun.
Well I guess I am a liberal but only if you define a "conservative" as someone to the right of a Klansmen.
But of course if that is the standard then I am not only a liberal but far left like Ronald Reaganus Maximus may he rest in peace.
Again I said I'd bet on Ilion.
What more does he want? A goodnight kiss? Not going to happen. I'm no logcabin conservative.
Unlike Ilion, Ben does not need to submit to a litmus test before entering the church door. He and I belong to the Universal Church, which embraces everyone from William F. Buckley to Fr. Daniel Berrigan.
It's the ultimate "Big Tent". What counts is one's Faith in Christ - not one's ultimately irrelevant political views - even views as misguided as Ben's! :)
What more does he want?
To renounce the works of the Virgin Mary and turn to Friedrich Hayek as your Lord and Saviour, maybe.
Walter
"On page 173 of Krauss's book he writes:
“Therefore, on a basis of logic alone one cannot rule out such a deistic view of nature.”
Absolutely spot on. But you'll note the condition to which Krauss notes that the possibility is: 'on a basis of logic alone' [my bolding]. And I subscribe to that sentiment also. Science cannot rule out the possibility of deism but then science is not in the business of ruling it out. It is the evidence that will rule it out or otherwise. But the probably of such a hypothesis melding into a workable proposition seems increasingly unlikely. It is as yet an untested, and indeed an untestable hypothesis although the process of logic suggests a possibility. My original comment included Deists in the sense that there is little comfort to be garnered from a logical possibility alone for a god. I think Krauss's quote needs to be placed in its wider context:
"In this regard, there is another important point to stress here. The apparent logical necessity of First Cause is a real issue for any universe that has a beginning. Therefore on the basis of logic alone one cannot rule out such a deistic view of nature. But even in this case it is vital to realize that this deity bears no logical connection to the personal deities of the world’s great religions. A deist who is compelled to search for some overarching intelligence to establish order in nature will not, in general, be driven to the personal God of the scriptures by the same logic."
While Krauss leaves the deistic proposition an open question, on the basis of the extended quote, it seems the belief in Deism is largely constrained, at the crossroads, to a half-way house, in which deists seem reluctant to jettison the pull of teleology, a purpose, an imposed design on the universe actualized by some agency outside the universe. Krauss's thesis is that this is not necessary, and that the perturbations of mass and energy etc are sufficient to explain how it is that there is something rather than nothing.
ingx24
"Actually, the reason I believe in an immaterial mind is because the proposal that our thoughts and emotions are reducible to particles in motion is incoherent. I'd explain to you why, but trying to explain anything philosophical to you is a huge waste of time, so I won't bother."
Is your philosophy scientifically informed or do you subscribe to a science-free philosophy? Is your philosophy Thomistic in nature, the Feserite type of philosophy founded in the long forgone school of Scholasticism? [Scholasticism is a euphemism for a science-free zone]
I understand your philosophy perfectly well. I simply don't subscribe to it. Inadvertently or otherwise, it is inextricably bound to theology. ingx24, you have to do more than offer Feser's rehash of Thomism or Plantiga's rendition of philosophical Calvinism, or William Lane Craig's philosophical assertion of the reality of the "unembodied mind".
Sheesh! This stuff has all been rationalized out of existence quite some time ago, occasionally resurfacing, and only in theological circles.
Alright, I know I REALLY shouldn't do this, but I just can't resist.
My philosophy is more "scientifically-informed" than yours. I am FAR from a Thomist; in fact I take for granted that the physical world is composed of mindless particles (or waves, if you want to go into quantum mechanics) acting according to the laws of physics. And it is BECAUSE I take science seriously that I believe the mind is immaterial. The ONLY thing that gives materialism even ONE IOTA of plausibility is the fact that materialists smuggle in mind-dependent concepts when trying to explain the mind in physical terms. For example, materialists will say that a thought is about trains when it is caused in some way by a train, completely ignoring the fact that the concept "train" is referenced nowhere in physics and therefore cannot be used to explain the mind in physical terms. Materialists will say that qualia are "representations" of the external world, ignoring the fact that representation is not a physical concept and therefore cannot be used to explain the mind in physical terms. If materialists actually consistently applied their own reductionism, they would be logically forced into either dualism or eliminative materialism, only one of which is even remotely plausible (guess which one that is).
Taking science seriously should lead you AWAY from materialism, not toward it. And most philosophers have realized this - the materialist "consensus" is much more recent than most people think, dating as recently as the 1960s.
I can't wait to see what kind of rambling irrelevant jibberish you're going to respond to this with. I need a good laugh in the mood I'm in right now.
Alright, I know I REALLY shouldn't do this, but I just can't resist.
Careful. In interactions with certain of this blog's denizens, there is a Schwarzschild radius to be mindful of.
someone putting out the he's_a_fool vibe: "Alright, I know I REALLY shouldn't do this, but I just can't resist."
Translation: "I don't intend to learn a damned thing, and I certainly do not intend to think critically about the things (*) that I believe; therefore, I'm going to 'challenge' you to make me think critically."
Dewd! I know better than to attempt the impossible. There are only two viable options for dealing with persons like that: ignore them or mock them.
(*) more likely than not, quite irrational things; the irrationality of which will tend to be obvious to cursory examination.
someone definitely putting out the he's_a_fool vibe: "I can't wait to see what kind of rambling irrelevant jibberish you're going to respond to this with."
As I said: he doesn't intend to learn a damned thing, nor to think while doing it.
"I need a good laugh in the mood I'm in right now."
He appears to be a fool. If noting else, one expects fools to be able to entertain themselves.
well-and-truly called 'Son of Confusion': "Well I guess I am a liberal but only if you define a "conservative" as someone to the right of a Klansmen."
You don't really put in much effort toward comprehending what you supposedly read and wish to dispute, do you?
I mean, just about every one knows that. But, as it turns out based on the above, you *also* don't really put much effort into comprehending what you yourself write -- the KKK are of the left: so, you're putting yourself to the right of the KKK, you're saying that you're about copasetic with Mussolini and Hitler.
Is that *really* where you want to be (though, according to Prokop, the RCC would be totally cool with that)?
"What more does he want? A goodnight kiss? Not going to happen. I'm no logcabin conservative."
According to the psychology they were teaching when I was a psych major, that *you* introduce that particular matter is grounds_enough to suspect that you have, deep inside, an affinity for these logs of which you speak.
"What more does he want?"
Of course, as he has said so many times, in so many ways, what he wants is for you (singular and plural) to reason. He knows that all of you, even that Mad Dingo, are fully capable of reasoning (obviously, some of you will need to take it slowly, especially at first).
our local rabid apologist for mass-murder: "Unlike Ilion, Ben does not need to submit to a litmus test before entering the church door. He and I belong to the Universal Church, which embraces everyone from William F. Buckley to Fr. Daniel Berrigan.
It's the ultimate "Big Tent". What counts is one's Faith in Christ - not one's ultimately irrelevant political views - even views as misguided as Ben's! :)"
All the more reason for moral persons to avoid the Roman denomination like the plague, irrespective of its theological flaws. It’s one thing to “embrace” mass-murderers and their apologists after they have renounced their sin; it’s quite another to “embrace” them even as they sin and refuse to repent and continue teach others to do likewise.
But, if all that matter is market-share, then such an attitude is quite understandable. And really, hasn’t the attitude of e One True Bureaucracy *always* been: “Let’s rope them in first (preferably, via the decrees of their rulers), and sort them out later”?
our local rabid apologist for mass-murder: "It's the ultimate "Big Tent". What counts is one's Faith in Christ - not one's ultimately irrelevant political views - even views as misguided as Ben's! :)"
1) This fool says that political views are irrelevant to inclusion in some “Big Tent” … and yet justifies his entire animus toward (and lies about) me on the basis of my opposition to his confiscatory, and ultimately murderous, politics;
2) This fool says that “What counts is one's Faith in Christ” … and yet asserts that Calvinists, who are all about faith in Christ, even if they are slightly misguided in the logic of their application of the faith, are definitely not Christians;
3) At the same time, politics just is entirely about morality – politics just is the argument which follows the question “What may_and_ought we, and what may_and_ought we not, compel or forbid others to do in the name of morality?”
3a) Thus, a man’s politics is *never* irrelevant to judging whether he is or is not a moral person;
4) Clearly, that “Big Tent” which concerns this fool is not Christianity, but rather something to do with a certain out-moded late-imperial bureaucracy (*) which happened to survive its empire.
5) According to the fool, The One True Bureaucracy has no objection to the advocacy of mass-murder. I wonder, do the other fools, the ones who like to beat The One True Bureaucracy with any stick that comes to hand, no matter its honesty, know about this?
(*) and leftists *do* always seem to worship bureaucracies, don’t they?
Son of Confusion: "What more does he want?"
Syllipus: "To renounce the works of the Virgin Mary and turn to Friedrich Hayek as your Lord and Saviour, maybe."
You people *insist* that you don't worship the mere-human Mary; you *insist* that you don't try to elevate her to be Christ's equal-in-divinity-and-salvific-power, much less his superior. Of course, literally everyone understands full well that you really do all these things.
I wish you (singular and plural) to renounce your idolatries, including leftism and including Maryolaty, and "turn to [Christ] as your Lord and Saviour."
But, it is telling, is it not, that you people consider turning directly to Christ -- whom the Bible claims to be the *only* intercessor between God and man -- to be equivalent to the renunciation of "the Virgin".
When are you (singular and plural) going to think critically about this attitude?
Apparently -- and by their own (ahem) arguments against me -- and pace the fool and proponent of mass-murder Prokop, it isn't the Calvinists who are not Christians, but rather the Catholics.
You people *insist* that you don't worship the mere-human Mary; you *insist* that you don't try to elevate her to be Christ's equal-in-divinity-and-salvific-power, much less his superior. Of course, literally everyone understands full well that you really do all these things.
I wish you (singular and plural) to renounce your idolatries, including leftism and including Maryolaty, and "turn to [Christ] as your Lord and Saviour."
Good grief.
I am not, and have never been, a Roman Catholic (as you would have noticed, if you would actually pay attention to anything I've ever written, in this thread or elsewhere on this blog), a leftist, or a liberal, so your point is moot. And hilarious, since I'm the one who is supposed to have the reading comprehension difficulties.
But, it is telling, is it not, that you people consider turning directly to Christ -- whom the Bible claims to be the *only* intercessor between God and man -- to be equivalent to the renunciation of "the Virgin".
Oh please, lord of Reading Comprehension, point me to a place in which I have written or clearly implied any of those things. Otherwise, spare me your internet psychologizing.
And again, I'm not Catholic, so I don't really care that much, but point me to an official Catholic document/council/etc. that actually, explicitly teaches that Mary is Co-redemptrix, etc. Yes, some Catholics believe this, but it's hardly normative Church doctrine.
When are you (singular and plural) going to think critically about this attitude?
When you actually read the stuff that I fucking type.
Please, Ilion. With a cherry on top. Stop a). alleging things that you don't back up anywhere, b). refusing to explain yourself, and c). making false accusations. Unless you do, I'm done.
“you *insist* that you don't try to elevate her to be Christ's equal-in-divinity-and-salvific-power”
According to the Bible, Christ and Christ alone has salvific power; his is the only name give men by which they might be saved – thus *according to real Christianity*, Mary can no more save you than I can; Mary can no more make you “a little bit more saved” (*) than I can.
According to the Bible, Christ and Christ alone is without sin – thus *according to real Christianity*, even Mary was a sinner.
So, if you (singular and plural) want to deny the clear teaching of the Bible, you really ought to stop calling yourselves Christians: Christianity is *this* and not *that* -- one who denies the ‘this’ or affirms the ‘that’ logically is not a Christian, whatever else he may be.
(*) And, of course, salvation is like pregnancy: one is or one isn’t.
Isn’t it amazing, and amusing?
The Gillson fool – an apologist for leftism, which is built upon covetous mass-murder – gets all bent out of shape because in passing I pointed out that the Prokop fool is a Leftist, rather than a Christian, and vainly imagines that he’s going to “take me on”, so as to defend Leftism.
And here it turns out, all un-sought, by their own arguments, that Catholics aren’t Christians. Who knew?
Man! I sure hope that Marie -- the old Catholic woman who lived with us until her death, for “the church” certainly did not “embrace” old divorced women (unless they had money to donate), however much it “embraces” advocates of mass-murder -- went to *our* church enough times to wash off the potpourri and get saved.
“ When you actually read the stuff that I fucking type.”
I do the best I can at ignoring fools.
“… so your point is moot.”
Pathetic fool, my points are never moot.
Had you misrepresented what Catholics *really* believe, why did not one of the Catholics here dispute your characterization that I want Son-of-Confusion to “ renounce the works of the Virgin Mary and turn to Friedrich Hayek as your Lord and Saviour”
Silly, pathetic fool if you are not at minimum a “liberal”, why the Hell would your pick Hayek as the anti-Christ (or, at any rate, the anti-Mary) you ascribe to me?
Silly, pathetic fool if you are not at minimum a “liberal”, why the Hell would your pick Hayek as the anti-Christ (or, at any rate, the anti-Mary) you ascribe to me?
Because Hayek is the analogous part of CHRIST in baptismal/confirmational ceremonies, genius, not the anti-Christ. The original goes "Do you renounce Satan and all the spiritual forces
of wickedness that rebel against God?" and "Do you turn to Jesus Christ and accept him as your Savior?". Thus, since you clearly think their devotion to Mary misguided, you would putatively wish for them to turn from it, yes? And I inserted Hayek for Christ because your devotion to conservatism can, not inaccurately, be called "fanatical". The opening words of Job 38 come to mind.
And that sentence was entirely in jest - a joke, in other words. I was joking. Not being serious. Speaking ironically. I realize that the internet is a poor place for subtlety, but do at least try.
Had you misrepresented what Catholics *really* believe, why did not one of the Catholics here dispute your characterization that I want Son-of-Confusion to “ renounce the works of the Virgin Mary and turn to Friedrich Hayek as your Lord and Saviour”
Dude. Really. That reasoning is about as solid as that MP who declared that, because God did not strike him down for blasphemy at the opening of every session of parliament, said God did not, therefore, exist. That is to say, it sucks. Your reasoning seems to basically be this: because they have not commented on a comment, therefore they endorse everything within it. Care to spell out precisely what enthymemic premisses you're keeping from the rest of us?
Pathetic fool, my points are never moot.
Oh yay! Two insults in one seven-word sentence. That'll show me!
And in refutation of your assertion re: official Catholic doctrine concerning Mary and any redemptive properties she possesses, I offer this and this. Assuming this is a reliable source (which I think, what with it being what it is and all, it certainly is), can you find anything here that would support your assertion that Catholics worship Mary and/or think that she is a co-redemptrix? Because I can actually find things in both of those articles that refute that. Again, some Catholics believe that, but that is by no means the official position of the RCC on that subject.
Also:
you are not at minimum a “liberal”, why the Hell would your pick Hayek as the anti-Christ (or, at any rate, the anti-Mary) you ascribe to me?
Are you familiar with the fallacy of the excluded middle?
But, y'know, what with me being a pathetic fool and all, I probably don't know what the hell I'm talking about. So that'll be the last of that.
ingX24: "Alright, I know I REALLY shouldn't do this, but I just can't resist."
Syllabus: "Careful. In interactions with certain of this blog's denizens, there is a Schwarzschild radius to be mindful of."
Oh don't lead the poor man astray, Syllabus. He is REALLY serious about science. As he alerts us, "My philosophy is more "scientifically-informed" than yours." I wonder if he means this in a "My dick is bigger than your dick" or "My Dad is bigger than your Dad" kind of comparison against a double-blind control group measurement?
Your reference to his position relative to the radius really depends on which side of the event horizon you think he is. Given the drivel about how materialists should think or not think about materialism, conspiratorially smuggling in 'mind-dependent concepts when trying to explain the mind in physical terms', the Thomas the Tank Engine knock-out punch together with the idiocy of the qualia example, clearly indicates he is on the inner edge of that radius and about to 'undergo irreversible gravitational collapse'.
I don't have the heart to respond to him in this instance.
ilion and papalinton are my two favorite internet comedians
I thought about ignoring Ilíon's recent tantrums, but it's Sunday and I'm bored, so I'll have some fun.
"The Gillson fool – an apologist for leftism, which is built upon covetous mass-murder – gets all bent out of shape because in passing I pointed out that the Prokop fool is a Leftist, rather than a Christian, and vainly imagines that he’s going to “take me on”, so as to defend Leftism."
i. The only insult in Ilíon's repertoire is apparently "fool." I'm a fool; Bob is a fool; Syllabus is a fool. Everyone is a fool except for Ilíon--and possibly Ayn Rand. Perhaps years of bland Rightism have dulled his creativity. Supervised finger-painting, along with a regiment of antipsychotic medications, should help get him back on track.
ii. Ilíon has rather strangely identified 'Leftism', which is, broadly speaking, a movement in politics to represent the needs of disadvantaged classes, with 'Leninism', which is, historically speaking, a movement which sought to overthrow the established order of Russian societyviolently to install a dictatorship of the proletariat. Certain Leninist rulers have committed horrible atrocities against their own people. The leaders of most Leftist movements, however, don't go around killing people. I'm thinking of leaders such as Jesus, who preached against the politico-religious establishment on behalf of the poor, the needy, and other outcasts. If Jesus were a man of the Right, he'd preach on behalf of the politico-religious establishment.
iii. Ilíon, who has regularly accused others of not wanting to learn anything ( an no Ilíon, it's not that we don't want to learn anything, it's that you don't have anything to teach us) should sit back now and take a lesson. 'Leftism' designates a loosely connected aggregate of left-wing ideals, and is not to be mistaken for Leninism, a historical, violent instantiation of Leftist politics. Other leftist ideas include: left-libertarianism, market anarchism, pacifism, socialism, civil rights. These ideas don't espouse, nor promote, violent means of achieving their political ends.
The only insult in Ilíon's repertoire is apparently "fool."
Don't forget "pitiful" fool.
There is nothing worst than being a fool, for a fool seeks to murder the truth. So, unlike you all, with your multifarious insults, I don’t casually insult others.
But, as always, you children would rather “get” me than get at the truth: you’ll say anything, and let stand unchallenged anything said by one of your allies-at-the-task, so long as you (vainlt) imagine you can “get” me with it. And here, you’d rather discuss me than discuss the horribly faulty reasoning I had mocked – your own whinging about having been called fools demonstrates that you are, indeed, fools.
If we are such fools then quit bearing our company. Lord knows we won't miss you.
I don't understand Illion's thinking. He keeps referring to Bob as an apologist for mass murder. Has Bob ever advocated mass murder? If not why does Illion keep repeating that? He writes as though being a Leftist is equivalent to being a mass murderer (or at least supporting mass murder). Why does he do this? Does he think that all leftists love killing people? I can't believe a sane adult would think like that. Does he think that Stalinism is the only species of left wing thought in existence? I hope he's not that ignorant. I also don't understand why he keeps using the words 'Leftist' and 'Christian' as if the two were mutually exclusive. Christianity makes a variety of metaphysical claims about the nature of reality and a number of historical claims about Jesus. It's unclear to me why believing in the equal distribution of wealth precludes belief in these claims. Does Illion think atheism is essential to leftwing thought? Surely he can't be that stupid. These are genuine questions guys. We've already established that Paps is insane. I have a strong suspicion that Illion is no different but I'd like to be proven wrong.
IIion
Not to mention Illion referring to Bob as an apologist for mass murder is more than a bit hypocritical since Illion argued on this very site for nuking Mecca, amongst other things.
Ilion's special bile for me is understandable, since I rightly called him out many months ago as advocating Hell's own governing constitution. He has never been able to refute this - indeed, he confirms his support for such with each successive posting. I almost never respond to his insanity, because all of his accusations of "whinging, intellectual dishonesty, foolishness, etc. are nothing more than projection of his own interior qualities.
HyperEntity111,
No, I don't think Linton is "insane" - he is rather astonishingly obtuse, and an extremely sloppy researcher. I have no problem regarding Ilion as certifiable, however.
https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/2016/11/01/addressing-problem-evil/
Post a Comment