Can God be intelligently discussed anymore?

If I'm reading it correctly, Adam Gopnik's piece in the New Yorker suggests that today our nation is so prosperous and has such good medical care that we've done away with suffering. Therefore we no longer need look to heaven for comfort.

I think he's missing something BIG.

#1 LP on 2014-05-06 13:11 (Reply)

There are no more atheists. Only environmentalists.

#2 MikeK on 2014-05-06 13:17 (Reply)

We orthodox Christians have been murdered for our faith and suppressed at sword - spear - bayonet point at various times and places for over 2,000 years, so manipulative grammar nazis or the NYT don't pose any threat to our faith, which is not up for debate. Martyrs are the best convincing argument anyway.

It may be different for the 20,000 or so protestant sects, I can see why they'd be worried about what someone says online.

Regardless, any Christian should think twice before participating in a debate whose form leads to either a He exists/does not exist conclusion.

#3 Frigate on 2014-05-06 13:22 (Reply)

There was never an intelligent discussion about God. There was simply an "He exists" vs. "He doesn't exist" dialogue/argument.

However, the intelligence flies right out the window when you get to that point, because there is no truly intelligent way to discuss the concept.

Without proof, those who believe are considered buffoons and mystics. Backed by tepid science, those who don't believe are incapable of accepting that even science relies (however minutely) on a degree of faith.

My young nephew asked me to help him start his paper on justifying God. I explained to him that in justifying God, he must somehow prove God's existence, which is impossible. However, I explained, it's worth noting that he can't prove his mother's love for him, either. Sure, he has examples of her love. She feeds him, clothes him, protects him. Interestingly, God provides us with the capability of doing all this, too. Clearly, something 'out there' loves us. Is it 'God'? I happen to believe it is.

I have friends who don't. Those same friends, at times, make fun of my belief. I laugh along with them, knowing the joke is on them.

#4 Bulldog on 2014-05-06 13:34 (Reply)

It's also worth mentioning, within the ranks of believers, there are those who make it worse for all of us by being unwilling to accept that some people simply don't want to believe.

It doesn't help any dialogue to have people screaming "You're going to Hell" or feeling it's their job to 'convert' non-believers.

Just muddies the waters. Both sides of the dialogue have problems. There is no middle ground when it comes to intelligent discussion. The best you can to is be tolerant of others' views.

#4.1 Bulldog on 2014-05-06 13:41 (Reply)

That's very much true. No one ever converted because a finger was wagging in his face. The best thing to do is keep trudging along and love your enemies as you love yourself. Most people never realize how many people they actually influence in their lives.

My faith won't be moving any mountains in the near future, but I am inspired by those whose faith is that strong.

As for atheists, I just quietly tell them that I am impressed with their faith. After all, there is no proof that God doesn't exist.

#4.1.1 Jack Walter on 2014-05-06 21:54 (Reply)

What does "justifying God" mean in that context? Proof for His existence in a scientific sense? Explaining belief in God? The Christian doctrine of justification (of which God is not in need of)?

#4.2 Frigate on 2014-05-06 14:41 (Reply)

His class was supposed to justify God - why do we need God? You can't do that without proof of God's existence. You may need what you don't have, but if you don't know it exists (or could exist) you can't justify having something.

A person in 1700 could probably justify a computer - but not knowing one might or could exist first, the point of the justification is useless. He'd first have to 'prove' the computer is possible, or at least prove that his belief in the computer is justifiable.

Which is what I did with my nephew. Essentially killed two birds with one stone. In 'proving' the belief is supportable, you justify God's existence. We may not 'need' God (as some atheists claim), but we don't 'need' mothers, either. Both are extremely useful, and beneficial, however.

#4.2.1 Bulldog on 2014-05-06 15:06 (Reply)

Typical skool teacher, conflating different issues because they're too lazy to understand whatever it is they're trying to teach. So "justify" means a weak kind of proof.

Nice job with nephew.

Consider that Kant (I think) explains that "God is dead" because we've substituted human "objective" ethics and morality for the divine. And how's that worked out?

#4.2.1.1 Frigate on 2014-05-06 16:04 (Reply)

Actually, not so typical. It's a Catholic school and they are preparing the kids for what they have to face in the real world. I give the teacher tons if credit for posing the question. Even as believers, it is important to differentiate the arguments against God, as there are so many and they are often confused with serious misconceptions about God's role or function.

The most common, of course, being "where is your God now?" as things go bad. God is not there to heed our beck and call or fulfill our desires. He is much more subtle.

#4.2.1.1.1 Bulldog on 2014-05-06 18:46 (Reply)

"[1]Even as believers, it is important to differentiate the arguments against God, as there are so many and they are often confused with [2] serious misconceptions about God's role or function."

[1] Then its good that the school is challenging your nephew to be able to articulate a response to a challenge about God's existence. But outside school, in the rare instances where this is debated in good faith I say its prudent to reject a form of the debate where the "proof" is by some rational basis, proof of scientific theorem (e.g., nonfalsifiability) or court of law preponderance of the evidence standard of proof. In other words, almost any debate. It should be sufficient to say that "I believe because men and women in the 1st century AD willing went to their deaths rather than repudiate what they saw with their own eyes" or "the Spirit of God revealed this to me". An agnostic might counter with the statement that the universe is fundamentally random as the observations of quantum mechanics show. You'd reply that QM demonstrates that human reason cannot grasp the basic nature of the even material universe indirectly except as a probability equation and that knowledge of the spiritual realm is nearly by definition unattainable to the human mind, etc. But that isn't a debate, that's two people talking over each other.

In the the usual internet bitchslapping fight, common sense, common courtesy and agreed definitions and terms are out the window, so why participate? The purpose isn't to ascertain truth, its to score brownie points, i.e., to hurt.

[2] A careful, orthodox study of the Book of Job is a good place to start.

#4.2.1.1.1.1 Frigate on 2014-05-06 20:05 (Reply)

Yup, directed him to Job, as well as Jonah.

As for avoiding discussions which require nonfalsifiability, I don't see the point of that. It's what people are looking for, so give them a form of it. Point is, nothing in life is 'provable' - how do we know we don't live in "The Matrix"? We don't.

Yet we accept on faith that we don't. Doesn't seem to bother anyone, even the most scientific among us.

Faith in science is very much the same as faith in God. It's just been given a different name.

#4.2.1.1.1.1.1 Bulldog on 2014-05-06 22:09 (Reply)

QUOTE:

...there is no truly intelligent way to discuss the concept.

Without proof, those who believe are considered buffoons and mystics. Backed by tepid science, those who don't believe are incapable of accepting that even science relies (however minutely) on a degree of faith.

Thank you. I cannot describe G-d but I can identify the characterless uselessness of that other construct, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, characterless uselessness being its purpose.

G-d, not so much.

My argument-starter with secularist dogmatists and other faithful Nihilists is that in a G-dless Universe - which adopts their preconceptions as a first condition - somehow evolved an entire lexicon of Mind.

Mind conceiving of stuff like the long, linear axis of morality right through guilt and into redemption. Or of more abstract concepts like purpose and meaning.

How about the rather stark physiological feedback mechanism found in simple eastern Enlightenment? A false projection, that?

And the biggie: Somehow, in this G-dless Universe the self-aware Mind choose to conceive of G-d and all the reason, trajectory, rational justifications - and even proofs - and sheer illuminated brilliance that entails.

Seems to me that we're either really, really onto something or we're all mad. Let's just cut to that chase, call it what it is, and be done with the niceties.

Which, when you look around, is about where they've put us.

#5 Ten on 2014-05-06 15:18 (Reply)

http://youtu.be/1TerTgDEgUE

#6 Ten on 2014-05-06 15:57 (Reply)

"Without proof, those who believe are considered buffoons and mystics. Backed by tepid science, those who don't believe are incapable of accepting that even science relies (however minutely) on a degree of faith."

When it comes to the big bang I don't consider that a minute degree of faith. When one first considers the immensity and complexity of the known universe, the idea of all that just spontaneously exploding from nothing is no less fantastic to me than the idea of a god or two creating it all.

I tell folks I am an agnostic because I lack the ability to comprehend or have faith in any of the theories.

#7 B Moe on 2014-05-06 19:43 (Reply)

How's that argument from incredulity working for you?

#7.1 Frigate on 2014-05-06 20:19 (Reply)

This is partly why I stated God has never really been discussed intelligently.

Technically, you and I agree. Yet you've allowed being unsure of either to prevent yourself from having faith at all.

I, on the other hand, have accepted that both are potentially unsure and this is precisely which feeds my faith. What I always find funny about most non-believers is the assumption that belief in God means you can't believe in science. I once asked my biology professor (a former priest) if there was a problem with believing in God and also believing in evolution (I knew there wasn't, just curious). He asked me how I overcame what he saw as some obvious contradictions in that position. I simply said "If God created the laws of physics, or if God IS the laws of physics, and these laws have lead to the natural state of affairs in the universe, evolution being one of them, then there is no natural contradiction."

Of course, if someone wants to believe in God and is willing to believe the earth is 5,000 years old and evolution is a crock - well, good for them. I think that's a bit nutty, but we all make up the stories that make us feel best. Being agnostic makes you feel more comfortable? Fine. That's not an argument against having faith, though. You have faith that it's all just too fantastical to comprehend. That's just a statement about how you feel regarding it all.

And, that final sentence, in a nutshell, is exactly why an intelligent discussion about God is impossible. The most intelligent discussion we can ever hope to have is simply one which is tolerant of various points of view.

#7.2 Bulldog on 2014-05-06 22:24 (Reply)

There's really 2 sides to this, and the author typically touches on only one of them.

The other is the increased amount of idiocy displayed by religious people on average, the terrible hostility and bigotry towards anything that's even someone out of line with the harshest, most short sighted interpretation of their particular version of the bible.

When a decade, maybe 20 years, ago these used to be in the minority and rarely heard outside a few small villages scattered here and there, they now appear to be the overall voice of the religious community.

People who preach fire and brimstone about an artist making a music video showing a priest dancing to her music (and not inside the church, though the building is visible in the background), idiots claiming someone making a picture depicting a pyramid is associated with "the illuminati", people screaming bloody murder because you dare to cut the lawn on sunday, or just enter your car to go visit family.
Screams of indignation about women wearing bikinis ON THE BEACH, even calling for them to be outlawed.

Is it any surprise that those who're not religious get more and more entrenched when that's the image of religion that they're bombarded with every day?

#8 J.T. Wenting on 2014-05-07 00:44 (Reply)

... we all make up the stories that make us feel best. Being agnostic makes you feel more comfortable? Fine. That's not an argument against having faith, though. You have faith that it's all just too fantastical to comprehend. That's just a statement about how you feel regarding it all.

Exactly. Like the old religions that felt God was too vast, incomprehensible and mysterious to even name. I just try to pick out the parts that work for me, try to live a good and productive live, and have faith that will be enough.

#9 B Moe on 2014-05-07 08:04 (Reply)

well said. I keep my options open. With a thousand religions all claiming to be "the one true religion" and all proclaiming eternal damnation for anyone daring to believe in "false gods" and far milder treatment for those who don't believe in any of them, it's the only logical option.
If any of them is correct, I'm limiting the consequences. If none of them are correct, nothing lost.

I'll respect anyone who respects my choice to to share his or her religion.

That doesn't make me an atheist, I don't believe in the non-existence of god(s) any more than I believe in their existence.

And what I've always found most puzzling about religions, is that whole "you have to believe".
Believe implies uncertainty. If god is real there's no reason to believe in his existence, as you'll know he exists.
If god is not real and you know it you're self-delusional.
So the only conclusion can be that you are doubting in the existence of god if you believe in him existing. And THAT my friends is sacrilege according to most any religion out there.

#9.1 J.T. Wenting on 2014-05-07 12:38 (Reply)

I don't consider your argument sacrilege, I think its major fault is that its totally undeveloped posturing. However, because its intentionally based on childish misrepresentations, it ought to be an embarrassment to posit.

That's why, apart from the fun in pointing out fatal flaws in someone's argument, these discussions are a near total waste of time.

#9.1.1 Frigate on 2014-05-07 13:00 (Reply)

If you ever get tired of wasting your time you could always go try to understand what argument from incredulity actually means.

#9.1.1.1 B. Moe on 2014-05-07 13:58 (Reply)

hey moe..

if you're reading it, its for you.

#9.1.1.1.1 Frigate on 2014-05-07 14:39 (Reply)

typical, you have no arguments so you attack the person. The left would be proud of you, it's their standard way of working.

#9.1.1.2 J.T. Wenting on 2014-05-07 23:48 (Reply)

No, kid, I was careful to point out your arguments were bogus posturing. I have no opinion of you, personally. Unless you really believe, "With a thousand religions all claiming to be "the one true religion" and all proclaiming eternal damnation for anyone daring to believe in "false gods"". In that case, you're right.

#9.1.1.2.1 Frigate on 2014-05-08 02:02 (Reply)

I had about the same take on Wenting's caricatures and cartoons.

#9.1.1.2.1.1 Ten on 2014-05-08 08:14 (Reply)

But faith is faith, in my opinion. If you've chosen parts which work for you - that's great.

The problem people who believe in God face is the idea that faith is not sufficient. We have faith He exists, and we live our lives in a fashion not too dissimilar from yours, with the only difference being our belief in God.

That sole differentiation is enough to get us into trouble with non-believers, apparently.

I'm not saying you - just in general.

Yet you have faith. Faith that what you've decided on believing in how to live is enough. That's all most of us have, though some of us can honestly say we know (in our hearts, if not in our spirit) God exists simply because of this faith.

J.T. Wenting's commentary below, based on "You have to believe" is misplaced. Most religions are NOT based on "You have to believe."

They are based on you must have faith in God's goodness, or faith in God, generally. Faith in God and belief are two very different things.

Sadly, like anything else, man's understanding of 'things' gets in the way and it becomes "you must believe", but it really isn't.

Man gets in the way of himself during discussions like this. Again, exactly why any intelligent discussion can't happen. The best you can hope for is what you and I have here - a tolerant one.

#9.2 Bulldog on 2014-05-07 15:39 (Reply)

I think I get what you are saying. The biggest problem I have with my secular atheist friends is the inability to discuss that as near as I can tell it is impossible for human society to exist without some form of religion, if you allow your definition of religion to expand to the point that Gods aren't really necessary.

Progressives, Envirogreenies, Communists, all of them have a faith based system of beliefs and mores that are nothing but godless religions. You have to have a set of truths that you hold as self evident to start with.

#9.2.1 B Moe on 2014-05-07 16:09 (Reply)

Exactly.

The groups you mentioned? They have flexible 'truths'.

Mine tend to be less flexible (which isn't to say they are perfectly fixed, God often exists in the grey areas to a larger degree than we realize), but represent firm standards.

Progressive love religion because they feel it justifies their position - they misunderstand it so much, they say things like "hey you want to help the poor, so why don't you agree with Obamacare?"

Well, Mr. Progressive, because even in the Bible God opposes the use of state coercion for a positive outcome. It's clear, over and over again in the Bible, that the choice to be good and helpful is imperative to have the positive outcome you seek.

The coercion of the state increases the level of abuse - both from those receiving the help and those managing it.

So no, religion plays no role in their world view, though they bastardize it to make it 'work' for them.

#9.2.1.1 Bulldog on 2014-05-07 17:11 (Reply)

"because even in the Bible God opposes the use of state coercion for a positive outcome."

Where is that? In NT times, Christians were mocked at best, murdered at worst, and it would not be until St. Constantine's rule that state coercion was used on behalf of Christians (early 4th century, e.g., 1st Council of Nicaea, Edict of Milan, ect).

The OT is full of state coercion at God's behest: the various slaughters and conquests as the Israelites seized the Holy Land, eviction of Canaanites, eradication of pagan religions, etc., see Deut., Jos., Kings, Chronicles, etc. That's all state action, and even when its not -- injunctions to take care of the widow, strangers, etc. that appear in Deut., are enforced by the nature of the Israelite state, a conflation of penal, civil and religious law like nothing we have today.

#9.2.1.1.1 Frigate on 2014-05-07 18:26 (Reply)

Actually, that's not precisely true. There are stories of the Israelite kings imposing their will upon the people, that's true. But given that the nature of the New Testament is to rectify some of the Old, it's best to put all that in perspective, isn't it?

God told the Israelites what a king would do, and why He opposed them having a king, did he not? Yet the Israelites' kings did exactly as God said they would. Most likely, there are portions of the claims of what God "told" these kings to do that I think even you'd agree are highly questionable.

In the New Testament, Jesus drew clear lines about differentiating state from belief, in many cases.

Jesus also made it clear that the choice of being good was individual in nature, and being forced to be or do good wasn't the same as actually being good.

If you want to guide your life from the OT, be my guest. Hope you've got lots of sacrificial livestock.

While I believe the Bible is the word of God, I'm also quite attuned to the fact that much of it is analogy, as well as much being God's word as told through man (and therefore open to some small level of interpretation). Also, since it's been translated and re-translated several hundred times, I'm willing to think that the English versions aren't exactly told the way they were supposed to be told.

And, once again, we tread down the path of being able to discuss God intelligently...

You have used the fact Christians were mocked and murdered to justify state coercion. I'm not buying that. Jesus pointed out that while it was wrong to mock and murder, suffering through it because of your beliefs was part of life.

Just because something happened doesn't mean "God agrees with this and thus it must be so". It's important to apply the moral imperative to the action.

Coercion is wrong. I think you'd agree - wouldn't you?
Thus, state coercion is wrong.

#9.2.1.1.1.1 Bulldog on 2014-05-08 09:20 (Reply)

http://praxeology.net/anarchist-jesus.pdf

#9.2.1.1.1.1.1 Ten on 2014-05-08 10:56 (Reply)

Too funny.

Wasn't sure anyone else had read the same stuff I had.
Haven't read this piece (will now), but after a quick review I think this guy is coming from the same place I am.

God, is an 'anarchist', technically. If you read the portion of the OT (1 Samuel 8) where God gives them a king, He is explicit about what the government will do.

It's intriguing that God was willing to designate Judges. Essentially wise men who could mete out decisions in a fair and even-handed fashion. Contracts should be sufficient in the affairs of men.

But people are people and they want what others have. A king? Sure, let's have one, other people have them and they seem 'happy'. Riiiighht.

#9.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Bulldog on 2014-05-08 11:20 (Reply)

I've read it, and look forward to any additional remarks you have on the "render unto" part. Not surprisingly, the article completely misses the point Jesus was trying to make.

The biblical judges were more akin to warlords who also meted out justice to the tribe than Article III judges today. I suggest you rethink the idea that contractual relations alone are sufficient to order society. They have to be enforced and interpreted if there are disagreements over the terms. Third parties may have enforceable rights. Public policy or needs may restrict contract rights.

Note, specifically, the OT practice of the year of jubilee, with periodic debt forgiveness and lien release, all of which negated contracts.

#9.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Frigate on 2014-05-08 12:59 (Reply)

QUOTE:

the article completely misses the point Jesus was trying to make.

Evidently incorrect. It clarifies and amplifies it.

Individualism - in the sense that each soul is wholly self-responsible - is the goal of the entire experiment in human awareness. Such awareness is the Universe's cause and purpose, and all these factors combine to fulfill God's love for that soul, having allowed it choice and free will.

Jesus was not preaching a narrow salvation-by-works ethic, one beaten into rote submission by force. He was simply aligning a faith-based walk with its minimal, parallel lifestyle. The Mind aligned with its ultimate raw individuality, He divined, must choose to seek only One God. Nothing else may interfere.

On the other hand, regardless of its type or ostensible purpose, the organization invariably destroys the individual's breadth, scope, and responsibility. (At worst, the collective terminates hundreds of millions of lives, it being the ultimate organization). The organization also invariably seeks force and coercion, and to grant it the standing to establish morality is as intellectually faulty is as it is historically disproved. Negative force does not produce the positive trajectory of spiritual ascendency.

Structural minimalism is inherently aligned with maximum accountability and highest ascendency. The author illustrates this using the life of Christ.

#9.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Ten on 2014-05-09 10:25 (Reply)

QUOTE:

God, is an 'anarchist', technically.

Further, G-d is Alpha and Omega, The Word, Jaweh, and countless other non-definitions that in the end point to two things:

-G-d is simultaneously the All and the Unknowable; the source and definition of love, the Enigma, and the utterly Unknown;

G-d is therefore a construct of Mind at the same time as G-d is that All. Dualism.

The conclusion to draw, one that Frigate may miss for an over-emphasis on biblical historicity and intellectualism, is that G-d, in the context of all the assertions that His/Her/Its will is somehow both tangible and functional at the human level, is arguably primarily all yin and all yang, the firmament itself, all energy. Naturally, within that all we've ever done is try to divine It.

Which is to say that anything involving an invocation to, an identification with, and especially an interpretation of G-d is by definition faulty in the absolute sense.

No, this is not theological Nihilism and it's not New Age fluff. It's the tenet of all sorts of the best-reasoned, most-intuitive, most joyful and highest faiths whether the Jewish, the Sufi, the Eastern mystic, or the Western Christian intellectual. You could even add the cosmologist and the quantum physicist.

Where this goes is important: It goes to faith, natural cognition, and utter individualism.

We believe what we are both completely convicted of, rightly and rationally, a particular rational intensity of form and function as a very function of being, at the same time as we give over completely in total helplessness to that Unknown what and who we are.

Dualism is the pinnacle of faith. From there we live as best we can, that being the Walk. The Road Less Traveled. Enlightenment. Salvation.

To claim to know the will of G-d and to differentiate it from man's will is a semantic dead-end. It's unsupportable by any stretch of genuine spiritual rationale, save for a primitive theological assertion born from a particular stripe of typically Western fundamentalism. This does not condemn that faction, but that faction cannot speak for the whole Experience.

Even quantum mechanics demonstrates that the function of the Universe is mystical - a thousands of years old awareness - making our view of it either faith, false physical assertion, or properly, also mystical. If I'm not mistaken esoteric Jewish philosophy finds G-d to be intrinsically humorous, as the entire construct is blissful joy. The Eastern mystic, asked the nature of life, smiles: the goal is only the joy of the doing.

The goal of life is never to divine G-d's will. That is impossible. It is to seek.

#9.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 Ten on 2014-05-09 11:41 (Reply)

QUOTE:

God told the Israelites what a king would do, and why He opposed them having a king, did he not? Yet the Israelites' kings did exactly as God said they would.

God knew what the Israelites would do. He knew that contrary to His will Canaanite worship would not be thoroughly eradicated in the promised land, and some would continue Baal worship and the asher poles (the "high places") would not be pulled down. The good kings did this, the bad ones themselves slipped into pagan worship. In essence, obey the covenant you made with Me and you will inherit a land flowing with milk and honey. But it was the people as a whole who failed, hence, the divided kingdom, the deportations, and ultimate conquest by foreign powers.

QUOTE:

In the New Testament, Jesus drew clear lines about differentiating state from belief, in many cases.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. He did say "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's", and I don't think you'd doubt that a good Christian is also a good Citizen (obeys laws, votes, serves the community or country at need).

QUOTE:

Jesus also made it clear that the choice of being good was individual in nature, and being forced to be or do good wasn't the same as actually being good.

The choice is to conform to God's will, or not. I agree that being forced to do so is of little merit in most cases (exception: children, who do not yet understand).

QUOTE:

If you want to guide your life from the OT, be my guest. Hope you've got lots of sacrificial livestock.

Every bible I've seen still has the ten commandments which I use as a guide to life. But I think we're just sniping, right? If you take away any lesson from the OT, it should be the consequences of following one's own will rather than God's.

QUOTE:

While I believe the Bible is the word of God, I'm also quite attuned to the fact that much of it is analogy, ... I'm willing to think that the English versions aren't exactly told the way they were supposed to be told.

The Bible speaks in poetry, fable, history, allegory and in other ways, all of which is inspired revelation. The best English translations are from texts in the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

QUOTE:

And, once again, we tread down the path of being able to discuss God intelligently...

Seems like a vigorous discussion to me.

QUOTE:

You have used the fact Christians were mocked and murdered to justify state coercion. I'm not buying that. Jesus pointed out that while it was wrong to mock and murder, suffering through it because of your beliefs was part of life.

I argued that in Apostolic times, public reaction to Christians was mockery and often violence, leading to state-sanctioned persecution. Jesus and the Apostles would have known nothing else. This persisted until Constantine's Edict of Milan instituted empire-wide tolerance. By the early 6th century, the western empire had been, and its successor states in were well on their way to being fully Christian (specifically trinitarian/Nicaean Christian) partly because of state coercion, although this should be understood as the archaic concept of the followers of the king or warlord adopting his religion.

QUOTE:

Coercion is wrong. I think you'd agree - wouldn't you?
Thus, state coercion is wrong.

State mandated religion is wrong, otherwise, coercion is a neutral term. It depends, obviously. I want my commercial contracts enforced by the state if necessary and I'm glad the government put an end to slavery by force of arms. So it depends on context, as you pointed out at the beginning.

#9.2.1.1.1.1.2 Frigate on 2014-05-08 12:36 (Reply)

Whether God knew what the Israelites would do or not, it's intriguing He suggested not having a government, don't you think? After you review the New Testament (and Ten's link is very useful), it's even more enlightening. Ignore at your own risk.

You chose one part of Jesus' teaching. A good citizen can be a good Christian, but a better Christian is one who is NOT NECESSARILY a good citizen (think - were good Nazis good Christians just because they followed the law? They thought so!). You think a good Chinese, Russian or other nation citizen is 'bad' if they disobey their laws? You've engaged a poor point of dispute.

I see you agree with me on the next two points, though if you think it's sniping, so be it. I never said anything about following your own will. You added that. You also added "God's Will" where I'd have said a path of righteous living, and if that happens to conform with however you define God's Will, all the better. If not, perhaps we both have different definitions of what constitutes a good person, though I doubt we do.

Inspired revelation or not - they remain allegorical. You have made a subjective decision about what is best. I'd probably agree those are preferable, but even so, they are translations, and therefore open to interpretation in the process of translation.

My point in raising "discussing God intelligently" over and over again is that some of your points are...well....just YOUR points. They might be shared with others (as mine are often shared by others) and you may believe them (as I believe mine), but if that's your point of departure for argument or 'discussion', then it's opinion and it will devolve quickly away from any intelligent discussion. It is always this way with God when men discuss Him.

If you review our early comments, you're likely to say "Hey, I agree with this Bulldog fellow", but clearly as this discussion has continued, you've become less agreeable. What does that tell you? It tells me that, at some stage, the intelligent discussion either ended, or it never began at all. I happen to think it's the latter. We're all just doing our best.

I would heartily disagree with your definition of coercion. The State enforcing a contract is not, by the very existence of the contract, coercion. The State ending slavery is not, by the essential understanding of the Constitution's reliance on the natural rights of man, coercion because it was coercion which forced them to be slaves. It was the removal of the coercion which freed them. This is not contextual at all.

Coercion, state or individual, is wrong. If the state tells me to tithe 10% to the 'state', and if I don't I can be jailed, that is coercion. That is wrong.

You can get fancy with your language and try to rationalize it, but it's wrong. Pure and simple. In fact, it's so wrong, God told Samuel this is what was going to happen and WHY we should be on the look out for it.

#9.2.1.1.1.1.2.1 Bulldog on 2014-05-08 12:57 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Whether God knew what the Israelites would do or not, it's intriguing He suggested not having a government, don't you think?

They always had "a guy who makes decisions for everyone", starting with Moses. Be careful about making too close an analogy to the Israeli leadership structure. The Israelites were a people living in the late bronze age/early iron age, under a kind of theocratic rule that blended religious law, penal law and civil law together.

God also permitted divorce at Moses' request, although He disapproved.

QUOTE:

You chose one part of Jesus' teaching. A good citizen can be a good Christian, but a better Christian is one who is NOT NECESSARILY a good citizen

There's objective truth. A nazi can never be a good citizen in the Christian sense of what a citizen should be.

QUOTE:

I never said anything about following your own will.

Choosing to follow your (collective sense) will instead of God's will is a basic definition of sin and well illustrated in the OT. For a Christian, the obligation isn't to do good, its to do God's will.

QUOTE:

but even so, they are translations, and therefore open to interpretation in the process of translation.

definitely agree this is a mistake, one our protestant friends and others like Redford consistently make. We orthodox apply a degree more scholarship to what the texts mean. Some of us (but not me) can even read the original Greek.

QUOTE:

or it never began at all. I happen to think it's the latter. We're all just doing our best.

You make some valid points, others I disagree with. We're not calling each other names, so the discussion is a real discussion.

QUOTE:

The State enforcing a contract is not, by the very existence of the contract, coercion.

And what would you call it when the state refuses to enforce the terms of a racially restrictive covenant in in a grant deed (e.g., no blacks allowed in this park)? Or a zoning law that effectively bars you from selling your residential property to a paper mill operator who wants to operate his mill on that spot? It is coercion in one of its many forms. For other constitutional restrictions on property rights, see the takings clause.

QUOTE:

State ending slavery is not, by the essential understanding of the Constitution's reliance on the natural rights of man,

I was actually thinking of the slavery of Jews under nazi Germany or the slavery of the Chinese under Imperial Japan, ended by force of arms. Slavery in America was legal under English common law, under the Articles of Confederation and under the Constitution until it the 15th Amendment ended it completely. So telling me that there's some inherent natural right of freedom that somehow slipped by the founding fathers in re blacks is a weak, weak argument.

QUOTE:

You can get fancy with your language and try to rationalize it, but it's wrong.

Thank you for the left handed compliment, this is my normal voice.

#9.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1 Frigate on 2014-05-08 14:30 (Reply)

To further my point - there is no 'winning' this debate.

You have your view, such as it is, and you believe it is correct. I could take the time to dissect this further to show you where you're wrong, but at this stage you've only proved my point.

We've had a tolerant discussion, but that's about as far as it goes. The 'intelligence' behind it was long gone when it shuffled down the path of opinion.

For what it's worth, slavery was only barely tolerated under the Constitution, it wasn't explicitly approved of - and for good reasons. This is one of the reasons the Civil War started, yes? Using English common law and the Articles of Confederation to support your view actually supports my point that slavery is coercive - it's especially so if it is approved of by government. If you think the discussion regarding the natural rights of black men didn't occur, you are incorrect and need to revisit history. It did, but was so divisive at the time it was set aside to be dealt with later. In fact, even a cursory read of that history would support my view. While some forefathers believed slavery was justifiable, many of the most prominent (even the slaveholders like Washington and Jefferson) did not. Remember, Jefferson's portion of the Declaration, in which he sought to give slaves rights, was removed by others.

http://www.monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/property
http://classroom.monticello.org/kids/resources/profile/263/Middle/Jefferson-and-Slavery/

#9.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1 Bulldog on 2014-05-08 14:54 (Reply)

We've had a frank exchange, opinions supported by facts. Debates aren't won on the internet (there's no judge), but they're often lost when the dialog wanders into ad homs, which this hasn't.

I strongly disagree with your argument re natural rights, and I hope the opportunity arises to discuss this in more detail at some point.

But for the record, I think that natural right theory in America is a political counter to rule by "divine right", and both are ultimately contests of who is the strongest.

Regardless of how much debate there was over slavery during the constitutional convention, the fact is, it was affirmed as natural right in America (along with the repugnant 3/5 clause) and was enforceable as the law of the land until the 15th Amendment, so you're admitting either the constitution was ratified in derogation of natural rights or the concept of natural rights somehow expanded to include blacks in 1870, in which case, you need to redefine "natural".

#9.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 Frigate on 2014-05-08 15:20 (Reply)

I've enjoyed following this thread and was tempted to jump in on several points, but your last is just too much. What is repugnant about the 3/5 compromise? It was a way for the non-slave states to reduce the power of the slave states. If the anti-slave proponents had their way, slaves wouldn't have been counted at all for tallying House membership and the influence of the pro-slave states would have been reduced significantly. That's why it's referred to as a compromise. Without it, the Constitution would never have be ratified, and slavery would have continued to exist for much longer than it did.

#9.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 Jack Walter on 2014-05-09 10:51 (Reply)

Thanks, Jack, its been a fun debate.

I've been informed in this thread that the constitution guarantees natural, inalienable rights, or something like that, which is obviously false, because the right not to be a slave seems to me more important than the right to assemble or bear arms.

Unless the concept of natural law or the rights of man didn't include blacks in 1790 but magically expanded in 1870, the constitution was a fundamentally flawed piece of work that defied several major attempts at compromise over slavery/representation/taxation until it was decided by force of arms -- 600,000 Americans died in the Civil War -- and the antebellum mentality resurfaced post-reconstruction in the guise of jim crow laws until the 1960s when blacks finally hijacked the demoncrap party. Because the founders punted.

Lincoln explicitly acknowledges this evil in the lash/blood imagery in his 2d Inaug. Address: the carnage of the war is God's punishment to this nation.

"Three-fifths of a man" is a repugnant image.

Compromise, as in choosing the lesser of two evils, is morally repugnant (at least for us orthodox Christians).

In 1790 if the constitution were not ratified over the slavery/representation/taxation issue, so what? Seriously, so what??? Back to the negotiating table and find another compromise? Could they have done any worse than what history shows they did?

#9.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Frigate on 2014-05-09 12:21 (Reply)

The 3/5 compromise simply addressed how to count the slave population when apportioning House representatives. I don't think any of the founders thought that slaves were "3/5 of a man." What would the other 2/5 be?

The constitution is certainly flawed. That's why it includes the means to amend it, including the means to free slaves decades later. I'm not aware of any founding father who was happy with the constitution at the time of its signing. As the preamble states, "in order to form a more perfect union," as opposed to The perfect union.

As for "so what?" I have to disagree. In 1790, without a sound government, we would have been in real trouble. Enormous debt, economic depression, no strong navy of our own and the King with a still powerful navy, the states in great disagreement, and trouble acquiring loans from other nations, among other problems, made our new freedom very vulnerable. Shays's rebellion is just one example of the chaos and economic troubles our new nation faced. Without the 3/5 compromise our nation would not have been formed, and we very easily could have become a continent of scattered nations always at odds with each other. You cannot clean a house until after you have built it.

Anyways, we are way, way off topic from the original post, huh?

#9.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Jack Walter on 2014-05-09 16:16 (Reply)

I won't drop a dime on the off off topic if you don't.

The problem with the 3/5 compromise is that there was something to compromise over. Slavery is inherently evil and against natural law, in any meaningful way you describe natural law.

There were at least three major congressional compromises to keep the slavery issue from boiling over, and they all ultimately failed. Slavery was ended by a series of wartime acts, executive orders and ultimately the 13, 14 and 15th amendments. Wartime ... as in, without the war and 600,000 dead and widespread destruction, slavery would have persisted.

As yourself this ...

... if the constitutional delegates in 1785 could have foreseen the year 1865 (and I'm sure there were some who would not have been surprised), don't you think they would have found a better compromise?

#9.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Frigate on 2014-05-09 16:49 (Reply)

BD, I think you've touched a nerve. You've managed to bring every back bencher to the front pews, including me.

#10 Jack Walter on 2014-05-07 21:47 (Reply)

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Tuesday, May 6. 2014

Can God be intelligently discussed anymore?