Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 645 646 [647] 648 649 ... 852

Author Topic: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread  (Read 880151 times)

EveryZig

  • Bay Watcher
  • Adequate Liar
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #9690 on: January 11, 2012, 02:10:04 am »

Actually, I think a theologian would answer with a "God is Good" reasoning. Most Christian denominations stick to it as dogma:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibenevolence#Religious_perspectives

The argument you put forward sounds more likely coming form a non-religious person. Most practitioners of religions actually think highly of their divinity of choice, they don't just bow and scrape because he/she/it is mighty and might just smite them otherwise (though they MIGHT think this as well).
Of course they believe that god is good. My question is whether they have a specific reason for stating that he defines morality.
Logged
Soaplent green is goblins!

kaijyuu

  • Bay Watcher
  • Hrm...
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #9691 on: January 11, 2012, 02:10:52 am »

Quote
Yeah neither of those are really good claims, but they're better than the "just 'cause he is" that you'll normally get. Like Chairmanpoo said, most the time it's just God is Good. Pressure someone who's studied theology and they'll probably give you one of the above two I gave, though.
Actually, I think a theologian would answer with a "God is Good" reasoning. Most Christian denominations stick to it as dogma:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibenevolence#Religious_perspectives

The argument you put forward sounds more likely coming form a non-religious person. Most practitioners of religions actually think highly of their divinity of choice, they don't just bow and scrape because he/she/it is mighty and might just smite them otherwise (though they MIGHT think this as well).
Fair 'nough. Though I HAVE heard some... less than "perfect" interpretations of God from believers. Several in fact. One guy I knew outright said that the reason the old testament was so harsh and the new testament less so was because when Jesus came down, he got some perspective knocked into him. Quite a... human interpretation of God but okay.

Just my personal experience though.
Logged
Quote from: Chesterton
For, in order that men should resist injustice, something more is necessary than that they should think injustice unpleasant. They must think injustice absurd; above all, they must think it startling. They must retain the violence of a virgin astonishment. When the pessimist looks at any infamy, it is to him, after all, only a repetition of the infamy of existence. But the optimist sees injustice as something discordant and unexpected, and it stings him into action.

G-Flex

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #9692 on: January 11, 2012, 02:52:02 am »

For some reason I've found myself a lot more interested in revising my writing. Hopefully this new urge will help out a lot in school this semester.

Thank you for sharing that with us???
Logged
There are 2 types of people in the world: Those who understand hexadecimal, and those who don't.
Visit the #Bay12Games IRC channel on NewNet
== Human Renovation: My Deus Ex mod/fan patch (v1.30, updated 5/31/2012) ==

kaijyuu

  • Bay Watcher
  • Hrm...
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #9693 on: January 11, 2012, 02:59:29 am »

Probably missed the happy thread.

Hell I posted in the wrong topic TWICE yesterday.  :-[
Logged
Quote from: Chesterton
For, in order that men should resist injustice, something more is necessary than that they should think injustice unpleasant. They must think injustice absurd; above all, they must think it startling. They must retain the violence of a virgin astonishment. When the pessimist looks at any infamy, it is to him, after all, only a repetition of the infamy of existence. But the optimist sees injustice as something discordant and unexpected, and it stings him into action.

Frumple

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Prettiest Kyuuki
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #9694 on: January 11, 2012, 03:44:12 am »

As a kind of general response to the god is good thing, I can sorta' share what I picked up studying (very lightly, 'twas an undergrad course) medieval philosophy, which heavily (incredibly heavily) dovetails into the theology of the time; several of the more influential theologians were also influential, in their own way, in more secular philosophy.

The big one of the time, from what I understand, can be boiled down something like this: God is not just good, but the ultimate good. The ultimate good is that good which all other good things rely on to manifest, i.e. the most fundamental good. That which allows all other good things to manifest is brute existence. .'. The goodness of God is the goodness of existence. Not to say the goodness that is in existence (The good things that are in reality), but the actual fact that the thing exists. All things that exist partake in the goodness of God, because 'to be = to be good'. In pseudo-logical terms, the good of God and existence are logical equivalents. The closest modern ideological analog (That's not theological) is basically hardcore materialism.

Omnibenevolence is logically equivalent to omnipresence, from this point of view. That God is all good is tautological; nothing can exist without the goodness of God (Including God!), because existence is (hard equivalence) the goodness of God. Morality, human morality, and the moral tenants of the bible have absolutely jack-nothing to do with it.

In layman's terms what one of the major theological traditions within the church did, was violently abuse the term "Good." When they were talking about the goodness of God, it had absolutely nothing, not even in the vaguest of ways, to do with the goodness of Man (Morality). This was the trick they used to get around nasty problems such as the problem of evil (The existence of evil, pain, suffering, etc., is in absolute logical contradiction to an all-(Human)-good entity that is omnipotent), or contradictory or confusing parts of the bible; God can act any way he pleases in the eyes of man, because our moral strictures are completely irrelevant to him. God's "good" is the good of the atom, or the rock, or the bone in our flesh, not the act of the good man.

From what I understand, the higher theological positions of many of the larger Christian sects around today still pander to this, to varying degrees. There is, of course, an absolutely tremendous gap between the theological understanding of a layman and the people that actually, genuinely, study (Not just read it and think about it, mind. We're talking the folks that pull out the hebrew stuff and start comparing versions.) the bible (even tangentially, or to limited degrees) and the history of theological thought, which sorta' explains where a lot of strange conflicts arise between the clergy's understanding (and spoken word relating to) the bible and the way the layman understands it. They're, sometimes very literally, speaking different languages or using words in entirely different ways.

tl;dr version: Big christian theological point, still influential today: The goodness of god is not the goodness of man. It's not related to the goodness of man. It has absolutely nothing to do with the goodness of man. "The Goodness of God" is effectively one, single word and concept. The "Goodness of Man" is an entirely different word and concept, and there is absolutely no overlap between them. God is not moral, God is Good.

As a side note, theology, especially the really high functioning stuff that dovetails into philosophy and tries to make theology logically consistent, is really, really, interesting, especially from the periods where most of the genuine intellectuals were clergy or religiously trained.

... also, I typed way, waay too much. S'what I get for doing that at 2:45 AM.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2012, 03:46:07 am by Frumple »
Logged
Ask not!
What your country can hump for you.
Ask!
What you can hump for your country.

Sheb

  • Bay Watcher
  • You Are An Avatar
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #9695 on: January 11, 2012, 07:16:32 am »

So basically, they could have said God Is Appleness with exactly the same logical basis, (by equating Appleness with Existing) and used it to defend their own dogma concerning the eating of apple pie (With or without cream?), while saying the Appleness of God and the Appleness of a pie are actually totally different things?

Maybe I misunderstood it, but it really sound like they didn't really had any argument and had to invent something.
Logged

Quote from: Paul-Henry Spaak
Europe consists only of small countries, some of which know it and some of which don’t yet.

SalmonGod

  • Bay Watcher
  • Nyarrr
    • View Profile
Logged
In the land of twilight, under the moon
We dance for the idiots
As the end will come so soon
In the land of twilight

Maybe people should love for the sake of loving, and not with all of these optimization conditions.

Frumple

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Prettiest Kyuuki
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #9697 on: January 11, 2012, 08:53:17 am »

So basically, they could have said God Is Appleness with exactly the same logical basis, (by equating Appleness with Existing) and used it to defend their own dogma concerning the eating of apple pie (With or without cream?), while saying the Appleness of God and the Appleness of a pie are actually totally different things?

Maybe I misunderstood it, but it really sound like they didn't really had any argument and had to invent something.
No, that's more or less accurate.

Giving them a fair shake, there are ways to "defend" the bible without resorting to linguistic abuse of that sort, but none that preserve the claim to literal truth of biblical text that many, probably most, Christian sects cling to. An ordained priest, though very, very radical, and bible scholar I knew (One of my teachers) held the position that while the biblical texts are true and divinely inspired, that truth is not historical (or at the very least mostly ahistorical); it is of a existential (relating to the nature and means of human's place in reality) and moral nature. Not even remotely less important because of it, but not a literal, word for word, absolutely historically true, truth. This isn't denying the religious importance or weight of the bible, merely changing the focus; it's especially good for integrating biblical stories and lessons into the modern world, where much of the historical trappings of the bible are flat-out obsolete.

But, put simply, there are absolute (completely inescapable and irrefutable) contradictions in a literal interpretation of biblical text (and Christian dogma). God can not be good in the way humans are good, with the given discussion, (There can not be even resemblance between those two goods!) and be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent in a reality where evil, pain, suffering, etc., exists. In that situation, where evil exists and the goodness of God is even remotely resembling the goodness of man, either God is not omnipotent (For an omnipotent being would be able to create a world where evil was not necessary.), or God is not omnibenevolent (Being able to use 'lesser' evils for 'greater' goods; this is not omnibenevolence. At best, it is merely benevolence.). That, at its worst, completely renders claims to the absolute moral goodness of God null and void.

Literally the only way to avoid the problem is to change the definitions. Either God's omnipotence is limited, somehow (This is actually an argument, that reality is such that smaller evils, such as pain and suffering, are necessary for greater goods, such as redemption, to occur. Problem there is that it puts something above God, namely reality, leading to the old 'if God loves good things because they are good, why do we bother with God?' thing.), which makes it no longer omnipotence -- just really, really, potent potence -- or the goodness of God (Call it supreme appleness, if it pleases you.) is categorically different from the goodness of Man.

Basically, the only way to avoid contradiction is to either deny the literal truth of biblical text (This is no great loss! Much great work involving faith, spirituality, and religion can still be done.) or abuse the language and change the meaning of things around so you can say one thing (God is Good) and mean another (God is.). I can't really blame the folks going the way of the second, though. While its a little shifty, it's easy to spot, and frankly put they're doing their best at an impossible task. The results of that infinitely fruitless work is very impressive, often very incredibly logical and well put together, it's just fundamentally flawed. When you base your starting foundation off contradiction, all things built from it will necessarily be tainted.
Logged
Ask not!
What your country can hump for you.
Ask!
What you can hump for your country.

Darvi

  • Bay Watcher
  • <Cript> Darvi is my wifi.
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #9698 on: January 11, 2012, 08:57:27 am »

So basically, they could have said God Is Appleness with exactly the same logical basis, (by equating Appleness with Existing) and used it to defend their own dogma concerning the eating of apple pie (With or without cream?), while saying the Appleness of God and the Appleness of a pie are actually totally different things?

People actually did that. Just replace apples with pasta.
Logged

penguinofhonor

  • Bay Watcher
  • Minister of Love
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #9699 on: January 11, 2012, 09:33:42 am »

Woops, missed the happy thread with that! Sorry.
Logged

Realmfighter

  • Bay Watcher
  • Yeaah?
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #9700 on: January 11, 2012, 09:43:11 am »

You guys seem to be confused about why wSin exists. Well, to the best of my knowledge, god didn't want a race of mindless worshipers. He created us with free will, and while he had to deal with the agony of knowing that one day the human race would commit sin, it would be softened because you know that your followers have chosen their path of their own will, not because they are forced to.

But you can't just drop "Free Will" and end it there. Free will is irrelevant when you say that good is omniscient. Either he's not omniscient or he's not omnibenevolent.
Logged
We may not be as brave as Gryffindor, as willing to get our hands dirty as Hufflepuff, or as devious as Slytherin, but there is nothing, nothing more dangerous than a little too much knowledge and a conscience that is open to debate

EveryZig

  • Bay Watcher
  • Adequate Liar
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #9701 on: January 11, 2012, 11:05:24 am »

So basically, they could have said God Is Appleness with exactly the same logical basis, (by equating Appleness with Existing) and used it to defend their own dogma concerning the eating of apple pie (With or without cream?), while saying the Appleness of God and the Appleness of a pie are actually totally different things?
That would make a pretty awesome religion. All hail His ineffable appleness!  Apples for the Apple God!
Logged
Soaplent green is goblins!

Sheb

  • Bay Watcher
  • You Are An Avatar
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #9702 on: January 11, 2012, 11:07:36 am »

Except "appleness" really mean "exists". And "Apple for the Apple God" mean "Virgins for the Great Priest".
Logged

Quote from: Paul-Henry Spaak
Europe consists only of small countries, some of which know it and some of which don’t yet.

Leafsnail

  • Bay Watcher
  • A single snail can make a world go extinct.
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #9703 on: January 11, 2012, 11:31:09 am »

Speaking of Theology: UK Government effectively bans the teaching of Creationism in Free Schools.
That's good, I guess.  I don't think the government ever intended to allow them, but it's good to hear clarification.

Although I'm wondering whether we might get rid of that "daily act of worship" requirement in schools.  I mean, none of the schools I've been to actually follow that at all, but it's a pretty embarrassing thing to have on the books and it could be problematic if someone tried to enforce it.
Logged

EveryZig

  • Bay Watcher
  • Adequate Liar
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #9704 on: January 11, 2012, 12:52:37 pm »

Except "appleness" really mean "exists". And "Apple for the Apple God" mean "Virgins for the Great Priest".
Than I guess it is time for an apple schism, as the orthodox's appleness has clearly become a Diet of Worms.  :P
Logged
Soaplent green is goblins!
Pages: 1 ... 645 646 [647] 648 649 ... 852