Semantics. He is bound by his very nature. How you phrase it has no practical consequences.
People presuppose natural law and categorical truth every time they act. If there was no truth, if causality didn’t exist, if there were no natural laws governing our universe, then all action would be meaningless. You could wake up in the morning and find that your bed has turned into a black hole, or your doorknob into a snake, or that the sun no longer exists; your life, sanity, and whatever would be in danger at all times. Constancy and order within the universe allow for purposeful action. The teleological argument, at least for me, is the most reasonable explanation for such order (to say that there isn’t complete order, or that the world isn’t perfect, would be ignoring the argument, rather than refuting it; men are not gods, and not omnipotent, which is also necessary for human action). If it’s good enough for economics, it’s good enough for metaphysics, at least that’s my view.
He is the creator of nature. If you’re going to talk about god, the same god in the bible, then he knows no limits. He invented limits for all other beings.
What does it matter what is the actual vocabulary employed? People are capable of drawing their own conclusions as to what it amounts to. The point is that fundamentalist religion (including Orthodox Marxism) demands submission to gods will that is completely arbitrary, thus virtue is completely dependant on the context. Anything may be virtous provided that god wills it. Whereas Christianity (with exceptions) specifically made efforts to explain that Gods will can not possibly be for someone to commit what would on its own amount to evil. In words of the common man, God is incapable of making his will be for you to commit evil.
God is not “Bound” by anything, you are falsely implying that His nature binds him.
Because subtle changes in vocabulary can have a massive effect on the meaning of the sentance.
It is utter nonsense to speak of God’s will as “completely arbitrary”.
I don’t understand what you are asserting here.
That is utterly contradictory due to the fact that whatever God wills is, by definition, good. However, to assert that even the most extreme forms of divine voluntarism are incompatible with Christianity is incorrect; many theologians, though, have tried to create systems in which God cannot will anything that would be intuited by man as “bad”, the end results of such systems do not shackle God to any exogenous moral law, but rather state that He is not simply a good being, but rather goodness per se. As a result, God has no limits, but He would simply not will anything to that which is not good - but, at this point natural theology simply breaks down due to the limits of pure reason.
This repugnant thread is just a sermon.
Like most arguments against god, they’re either entirely invalid, like Marko’s position, or entirely emotional, like yours. That’s not to say that there are extremely valid arguments against God, because there are, but they’re hard to find in non-philosophical circles. And yet, in these circles (non-philosophical), you will find the most, let’s say, ‘aggressive’ arguments against God (the broadest possible definition of God).
Even on libertarian websites, you can’t support any notion of God without being called disgusting, nor can you even defend the mere possibility of God when it’s attacked. No one on this thread has damned anyone to hell, nor have I said anyone is immoral because they don’t believe in God; rather, I put forth a very straightforward statement, which was immediately attacked, and now I’m expressing my views. It seems like some so-called libertarians will let anyone BUT religious people exist.
Very emotional and irrational. I mean your icon says it all.
Well I said god`s will. Or do you deny that the will of The God That Is Communism (to the devout) is arbitrary? Simply because the Marxist-Leninist priestly clas asserts otherwise (that it is “scientific”)?
Nobody actually goes out to say their god`s will is arbitrary. But many of them say a lot of other things which taken together amount to the same thing.
Who cares? Does this distinction have a consequence as per the natural law or is it purely cosmetic? God which is bound by his nature, and God which is not bound but would never ever in a million years do it because he is not a bastard , act precisely the same. The distinction is meaningless as per the conseqences. Wheter they are bound or not they both act as if they were in fact bound.
And yes, yes I know. God is not only 100% good, but in fact all goodness is from God so that actually what ever he does is by definition good. The same way everything jelly does is by definition sleazy. It is merely that we in our strictly limited wisdom can not hope to comprehend His actions. Thus even should he do something which seems naughty, it is actually not naughty it is just that we, the morons that we are, don`t get it. I know the rap.
But there are some things to be said about this:
A.) First of all this point is (fortunately) largely academic, because God manages to last the length of the New Testament without actually doing anything which would seem naughty to us.
B.) Second of all this is a strictly Christian thing. There is none of this touchy-feely stuff in Islam and Judaism. The God of Abraham is not “goodness itself”. The God of Abraham is a stone cold killer. And as I understood it we are discussing the relation of religion to natural law, not just of Chritianity.
C.) Finally it is a doctrine that rings a little hollow when you open up the New Testament and there is “God” genociding people left, right and center. Screw my finite wisdom. That at least is not a complicated thing. You just need some basic common sense to see that that is some henious stuff. Had God actually done all that it would have made Him an asshole. It is highly doubtful anyone who thinks differently can at the same time harbour a commitment to a meaningful concept of natural rights. It is a little hard to argue that it is a good starting point for understanding natural rights and sanctity of human life to belive that, if God had gotten so pissed at people, that barring a single family, he needed to go and drown every single one of them, it was all a fault of their own. Sooner it is a lesson of how cheap human life is, and unless God`s bidding is done to the letter - forfeit.
Esuric: keep in mind that property rights are the natural law of human nature. I don’t know if I can ever know the natural law of God.
Marko: To say God is bound by his very nature can also be stated as: God is bound by his/her very definition. Nature also means definition. The nature of something is the definition (identity) of something. Can I really grasp God’s identity/definition? Completely I say no. But do I grasp a God’s existence that there IS a God. I do by belief, but I wouldn’t know how to fully explain any of this. My belief might be full well a trick, a lie - i don’t know.
I’m well aware of the dangers of this thread turning into a theological one but I cannot help resisting the urge to write a pet theory of mine that might be a sufficient response to the above.
Now God is supposed to be above all categories in excess since He is transcendent.
But God massacres people yet he is supposed to be so good that he transcends all known goodness
The reason for this happening is several fold:
-
God is so high above all things that our morality is only an analogous morality (think plato’s forms versus the items which mimic them).
-
Yet God must communicate with people to save them from immorality and must do so in a way that doesn’t deprive them of free will which is a perfection which they have.
-
So God commands things which are bad since he knows man cannot carry out orders perfectly (in the moral sense) or efficiently because man faces trade-offs and is hindered in his attempts at virtue. Therefore again, God must tailor his commands to fit the madness of mankind or else, no man could follow such commands.
-
therefore mankind is led into genocide. But this is man’s fault and not God’s since it seems, God did the best he could.
There’s no such thing as natural rights or God.
There are no objective rights. But you can work out what is ethical or not, through reasoning.
People get to God through secular reasoning; that reasoning is simply faulty.
Rights are a statist concept; it is a means of a trade off… your sovereignty for the ability to petition for safety and empty promises. And since the state must create a monopoly to do so, we know from economics their product will be crap.
Marxists hate religion because they see it as a means of keeping the powerless down and accepting of their fate in life. Christianity does this through telling the poor they will inherit the earth. Buddhism through reincarnation myths (misfortune comes from a past life). Hinduism through caste system mythology. Etc. Etc. etc.
Liberals generally only hate Christianity, if they hate any religions. And that’s because they think conservatives are Christian. Generally, liberals will find some way to deconstruct Christianity to make more to their liking. Michael Moore even has a pathetic segment of Catholic priests calling capitalism corrupt (without any irony). Conservative Christians (even the war-making kind) can fit to their liking. And then all is well. They read what they want to read into it.
Why is it that Marxists dislike religion?
The problem that Marxists encounter with establish religious doctrine arises out of a conflict between class consciousness on the one hand and an incentive system based on individual behavior in which there are ‘saints’ and ‘sinners.’ The arrival of the Communist revolution brings with it a realization within man that he/she is one with all and all are one with him. Bluntly, the interests, needs and desires of an individual are similar to all others. We are a ‘species-class’ meaning we are one in the same. At first, class consciousness is suppose to manifest itself within the state apparatus. If one were to read works concerning the Hegelian dialectic then one can see that man is himself a god, capable of being divine yet not perfected to its final form. Marx though that the communist revolution was the final form and therefore we would achieve our oneness with nature and thus become divine figures. The state then being composed of divine figures then becomes man’s religion. The state never dies, it is able to weld vast power over the inhabitants, being lead by divine figures who are intune with nature it can now bend nature to its will. Is this not the ability of a God? Compare that to a system of beliefs in which individual acts are the basis for whither or not such divinity can be achieved. Where some experience paradise while other experience hell [ notice that a class conflict still exists ] That is the main reason why Marxism opposes religion. You can also say that religion is apart of the superstructure which is based on the forces of production and therefore anything that is religion is merely established along the lines of bourgeois dominance over proletariat masses.
What is a ‘subjective right’?
Well that is contradictory. Isn’t your sovereignty involved in gaining and enacting such a petition?
I guess people are at liberty to say whatever they want as long as it doesn’t initiate physical aggression against anybody ie. property.
Subjective rights are: I have a right to ponies for my birthday and Christmas carols. Stuff people just make up. Maybe they’ll get it. Maybe not. This also involves every other thing people claim to have a right to. Free speech, trial by jury, right to bear arms. Even property rights. which people claim to exists, whether they’re being squashed by the guarantors of them or not.
Your sovereignty wasn’t involved in the choice, but it is nullified. The social contract just makes up rules as it goes along regarding this particular trade. Hence, why it is nonsensical to believe in rights or social contracts with government.
I think that you’re right to the extent that without God there is no ultimate enforcer. However, the rule of “don’t do to others what you wouldn’t have them do unto you” still makes sense to me even though I don’t believe in God. However, there are some people that are perfectly willing to play the game as “do unto others before they do unto you” and if those people don’t believe that there will ultimately be anyone judging them for their actions, they could obviously be dangerous.
I love how people who believe in talking snakes talk about validity.
The reason I called the thread repugnant is because the OP did not request an assault by jesuit missionaries. But that is what jesuits do best, right? Aggressively smear all opposition and shove tall tales is everyone’s face 24/7.
I didn`t make an argument against God. Why would I do that?
Ok so you believe that property rights are derived not from homesteading principles but because of government and once this government is gone then no one will have any actual rights and it will be a war against all?
The urge to pitch the sales schtick to talk to yourself every night is so strong and unrelenting that any subject is a candidate, however unlikely it may seem, for some kind of essay on how only Bible thumpers can have anything to contribute or have any reason to. Maybe nearly every serious believer being an annoying snob is why “liberals” (really anyone not religious) hate religion. Even some people who believe in a god hate religion.
…Oh, then they turn around and play the hard-done-by victim routine, croon on and on about how 3vil, devilsent conspiring forces are out to get them and how they don’t get a fair shake in secular societies like science, etc. Then they run off and sign up on countless Christian singles websites so they don’t have to think the person they share every day with for the rest of their lives is going to burn in agony for eternity, so they can find someone who can stand their sanctimonious lectures on everything little thing.
Now, to make this topical, which is more likely reason for why anyone would ever have hated religion:
a) some ivory tower philosophy that 0.01% of people have heard.
b) the scary, creepy, harassing character of it.