The more I study the Bible the more wisdom I discover. History itself revolves around one man.
Bravo, and here here!
That’d be Kim Il-Sung, right? At least there are some contemporary external accounts of his deeds.
Bob; I get your point about gaining wisdom from study of scripture, and that history does indeed revolve around one man.
I know many many Christians have found Lockridge’s sermon very uplifting; I hope I don’t sound like a curmudgeon, but I have never understood the appeal of that kind of oration. My guess is that the truths that Lockman spoke (e.g., “He is the King of Heaven”) were only part (probably not the major part) of the communication.
Would you think it fair to suggest that Lockridge’s sermon was more about creating and stoking a “group spirit” (for lack of a better term) than about the truths he was speaking–much like a pep rally is less about the truth of the proposition “we’re number one!” than it is about everyone feeling “school spirit”?
Exodus 21:17 (KJV): And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
Exodus 31:15 (KJV): […] whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
Exodus 35:2 (KJV): […] on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the Lord: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.
Leviticus 20:9 (KJV): For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.
Leviticus 20:10 (KJV): And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Leviticus 20:11 (KJV): And the man that lieth with his father’s wife hath uncovered his father’s nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Leviticus 20:12 (KJV): And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.
Leviticus 20:13 (KJV): If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Leviticus 20:14 (KJV): And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.
Leviticus 20:27 (KJV): A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.
Leviticus 21:9 (KJV): And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.
Leviticus 24:16 (KJV): And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.
Leviticus 27:28-29 (KJV): Notwithstanding no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the Lord of all that he hath, […] None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but shall surely be put to death.
Matthew 5:17 (KJV): Think not that I [“Jesus”] am come to destroy the law [of Moses,] or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Luke 19:27 (KJV): [Removed by RPM.]
Christianity and “Jesus Christ” are incongruent with Voluntarism.
Voluntarist you can’t quote Jesus telling a parable and make the reader think it is a quote of Jesus talking directly about Himself. That’s very misleading.
1. In that 1 quote of 15 (6.6%) you responded to, bracketing “I” to an illustrative parable character — instead of bracketing “A certain nobleman” (Luke 19:12) — is misrepresentation, I agree 100%.
2. The qualities being communicated in that 3rd person, illustrative parable — represented by “a certain nobleman” — are the same; the “rich” “sinner” Zacchaeus is associated with the parable “servants” who do not get slain, but the parable “citizens” against the nobleman’s (now king) reign are slain:
Luke 19:14 (KJV): But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.
Luke 19:27 (KJV) [Jesus ending the parable]: But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
3. You did not respond to 13 (86.6%) of the 15 quotes from just Exodus and Leviticus of the Hebrew Bible.
4. You did not respond to the (1st person) Jesus quote:
Matthew 5:17-18 (KJV): Think not that I [Jesus] am come to destroy the law [of Moses,] or the prophets: I [Jesus] am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I [Jesus] say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
My two subjective principles prioritized here are Empiricism and Voluntarism, not your “biblical worldview” subjective principle.
Voluntarist – Since Voluntarism is a mutually agreeable way of life, how would you use Empiricism to give a logically consistent accounting for such things as, say, property rights and free association?
Voluntarist – There is no basis for voluntarism apart from the biblical worldview. Your statement assumes something is wrong with non-voluntarism, and that there is a contradiction between Christianity and voluntarism. While we all know there is a right and wrong, as well as the law of non-contradiction, apart from the biblical worldview one cannot give an account for such abstract concepts.
“There is no basis for voluntarism apart from the biblical worldview.”
” … apart from the biblical worldview one cannot give an account for such abstract concepts.”
Both of these claims are utter nonsense.
knoxharrington – I do not accept your unilateral assertion. But for the sake of discussion, let’s assume I do. By claiming those statements are nonsense you are saying things *can* make sense. On what basis, then, apart from a biblical worldview, could we give an account for why abstract concepts either would or would not make sense?
I don’t accept presuppositional apologetics because it is a circular argument and does go anywhere meaningful. Anyone who claims that we can’t know anything without a biblical worldview is engaging in presuppositional apologetics and that is utter nonsense.
You are the one making the claim that “there is no basis for voluntarism apart from the biblical worldview” and that “apart from the biblical worldview one cannot give an account for such abstract concepts.” Stating that these views are utter nonsense, which they are, does not require me to replace them with anything else – I’m not making a positive assertion, I’m making a negative assertion with regard to your views. As the person making the positive assertion with regard to a biblical worldview (whatever that is supposed to mean) you must show that you are correct. I would ask for you to marshal evidence to support your argument but I’m guessing that as a presuppositionalist (I’m assuming that because you made that argument) that you don’t want to engage in an evidentialist argument.
Knox – If a worldview is internally consistent it will, it must, make a circle. Whatever one’s ultimate authority is it will be circular. If not, he needs to peel back another layer to find out why he believes what he believes.
Once again, based on your worldview, how does it give an account for why abstract concepts either would or would not make sense?
I’m not going to debate presuppositionalism with you. Not because it’s not refutable, it is, but because people who argue from a presuppositionalist perspective always try to shift the burden of proof. You claim that we can only make sense of abstract concepts with a biblical worldview. Prove it. First, prove their is a god. Second, prove that god is a necessary precondition for knowledge concerning abstract concepts. Third, prove that god is a sufficient precondition for knowledge concerning abstract concepts.
guest put it well: “The concepts of language and logic have to be logically prior to the capacity for Biblical interpretation because you need them to even read the Bible.
Therefore these, and other concepts presumed by the Bible to be already known by the reader (such as math), derive their validity from outside of the Bible.”
Apologists think presuppositionalism is really clever. That’s what is so sad. The quest to justify a delusion leads them to check their brain at the door.
Knox – If you know about presuppositionalism then you also know that you have your own presuppositional apologetic. There’s nothing clever about it, it’s just being logically consistent, of which libertarian-oriented people ought to be the best.
If voluntarism is right over non-voluntarism that implies a right and wrong. Therefore, there must be a starndard, an objective starndard of which to measure what is right and what is wrong. Subjectivity reigns otherwise.
In some cultures respect of neighbors and their property is honored, while in others eating one’s neighbor is acceptable.
In terms of money, one dollar is not some subjective term, but has a real objective standard (not in its use today, of course). When our nation began a dollar represented a unit of weight: one ounce of silver money, and 1/20 of an ounce of gold money. In Rothbard’s book, “The Case for Gold”, the dollar began as the generally applied name of an ounce weight of silver. That’s an objective standard.
Similarly, laws of morality, physics, mathematics, logic, even property rights all have an objective standard. In the biblical view these make sense because they reflect the nature and character of God.
Apart from the bible there is no logically consistent way to account for why it’s wrong to take someone’s property, or force one to use it in a way that is up against his will.
Prove there is a god first and then get back to me.
If you can do that without resorting to “necessity” then I will listen. Until then what you are saying is nothing but special pleading and white noise.
Knox – “Prove there is a god first and then get back to me. If you can do that without resorting to “necessity” then I will listen. Until then what you are saying is nothing but special pleading and white noise.”
You’ve just done the very thing for which you accuse me.
If I had not provide an account as to why voluntarism, property rights, and right/wrong make sense (because they reflect the nature and character of God), then you could say I had set up a double standard by demanding from you that which I was not willing to do myself.
But it is you who appeals to special pleading by demanding that I prove God’s existence while you have not provided proof of his non-existence.
This should be fairly simple:
Assuming you agree that property rights are important, voluntarism is better than non-voluntarism, etc., just look at your worldview, your presupposition, your ultimate authority and give an account for those abstract concepts. Then we could move on to the next part of discussion. “Until then what you are saying is nothing but special pleading and white noise.”
Burden shifting is the first refuge of a scoundrel. You are making a positive assertion and have the burden to prove what you are saying is true.
“But it is you who appeals to special pleading by demanding that I prove God’s existence while you have not provided proof of his non-existence.”
If there is a god it should be easy to prove. Go ahead and prove it. Then we can discuss whether or not the existence of a god is a necessary or sufficient precondition for anything else. Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception. In any other case you would ask for evidence. If I told you that a unicorn told me that socialism was the only way to go you would ask for proof of the unicorn. It is only with god that you check your requirements. Seriously, this is ridiculous. You make a positive claim – now back it up. It should be easy, right? God is awesome and he/she/it provided you with evidence for its existence, right? Well, break out the evidence and show us. Again, this should be so easy for you that it is really child’s play. Produce the evidence for god and THEN we can discuss the rest.
“If I told you that a unicorn told me that socialism was the only way to go …”
At first you were like “Special pleading …” blah, blah, blah.
And I was like, “That’s really wordy. Just say ‘unicorn’.”
But I think my argument from free will proves God exists.
(I was totally going to reference Candy Mountain, a land of sweets and joy, and joyness.)
Free will for you or free will for god? Either way there are problems with using that formulation as an argument for the existence of a god.
Free will for me.
But free will for anyone or any animal would suffice.
“On what basis, then, apart from a biblical worldview, could we give an account for why abstract concepts either would or would not make sense?”
Calvinists paint themselves into a corner with this one.
The concepts of language and logic have to be logically prior to the capacity for Biblical interpretation because you need them to even read the Bible.
Therefore these, and other concepts presumed by the Bible to be already known by the reader (such as math), derive their validity from outside of the Bible.
guest – Then apart from a biblical worldview, how do you give an account for the abstract concepts you mentioned, such as laws of logic, and laws of mathematics?
PS – After studying the Synod of Dort I could only agree with the fifth head.
There’s a difference between knowing about these abstract concepts and being able to ground them in a consistent worldview.
It’s like how everyone knows that we have free will because we use it every day, but not everyone considers what other things must logically be required for such a capacity to exist.
Or, it’s like how Keynesians know how to get data points, but they don’t consider that the data didn’t happen in a vaccuum and that there are facts about reality that may be inferred from the data, and that, further, those facts had to be true before the data was discovered. Er go: synthetic a priori truths can theoretically be known without an appeal to data, and the data can only exemplify such truths, never prove them.
Yes, a consistent worldview is one in which God(s) exists, but a belief in God is not required in order to know that these concepts are true.
Maybe this will help, further:
Grounding Morality (Video)
“It’s like how everyone knows that we have free will because we use it every day”
Not true. I do not know we have free will. I have at least the illusion of free will, but I have no way to distinguish between the illusion and the reality. The other things that you say are logically required for free will to exist gives me the illusion that I think my free will is more of an illusion than reality.
You made the decision to write a response, though you didn’t have to. That’s free will.
And if you accept that your free will is an illusion (which no one really does; making it difficult to argue with people who claim that it is) then you must also accept that you’re not really communicating anything, since the words appearing on my screen are not the result, in your worldview, of a deliberate act, and you would have typed them anyway whether they were right or wrong.
“You made the decision to write a response, though you didn’t have to. That’s free will.”
Who says I didn’t have to?
“then you must also accept that you’re not really communicating anything”
Whether or not I have free will, there can still be communication. I surely exist in some form, so if you exist, then you can receive what I write as an input, which changes your state. That is communication. This change in state may compel you to respond. You may have the illusion that you choose to do this, but actually maybe you could do no other.
My free will may be an illusion whether I accept it or not.
Unless we interpret free will as Hobbes did – that a a person is acting on the person’s own will only if it were also possible for the person to be able to do otherwise, if the person had decided to. Then we can have free will and still be deterministic. Your statement that I wrote although I didn’t have to does apply here. I could have done differently if I had desired differently.
“I surely exist in some form, so if you exist, then you can receive what I write as an input, which changes your state. That is communication.”
No. It’s not.
Clouds aren’t communicating with you when they become arranged so as to resemble an animal from below.
Communication requires someone to attempt to inform another. A deliberate act is necessary for this to happen.
“Unless we interpret free will as Hobbes did – that a a person is acting on the person’s own will only if it were also possible for the person to be able to do otherwise, if the person had decided to. Then we can have free will and still be deterministic.”
Free will doesn’t mean having the capacity to change the kind of being you are.
You are forced by the nature of humanity to act in accordance with your will.
Your will is free in the sense that it is not an effect, however influenced you may be by your circumstances to act in a particular way.
Knox – the existence of God can be shown to be true by the impossibility of the contrary. It would be impossible to prove anything without Him. Only a biblical worldview gives a consistent account for the existence of the pre-conditions of intelligibility, i.e. – laws of logic, laws of mathematics, laws of science, uniformity in nature, absolute morality. These must all pre-exist knowledge and rational thought. Non-biblical thinking ultimately leads to absurdity. Non-Christians who make true statements, and engage in rational thought, do so only because they unknowingly borrow from the Biblical worldview.
You appealed to logic in your response: “The concepts of language and logic have to be logically prior to the capacity for Biblical interpretation because you need them to even read the Bible.” Yes, of course these concepts existed prior to the writing of the Bible, in fact, their source lives outside the confines of time.
But, a more difficult challenge for you is this — how does your worldview account for the existence of the laws of logic, as well as the other pre-conditions of intelligibility? This gets back to your earlier statement that it’s “utter nonsense” to believe there is no basis for voluntarism apart from the biblical worldview, and that it is impossible to give a consistent account for abstract concepts apart from a biblical worldview.
You’ll be using biblical concepts while considering your response regardless if you believe in the Bible or not. Remember, our belief and unbelief does not affect truth.
The biblical worldview simply identifies the source of these pre-conditions that make knowledge possible, and in this case, a consistent accounting for property rights.
“[T]he existence of God can be shown to be true by the impossibility of the contrary.”
Wow – that is a breathtakingly stupid statement. You claim that something exists and you want to prove it exists by claiming it cannot be otherwise. That is simply ridiculous. There must be a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow – it cannot be otherwise.
Knox – As stated earlier by another libertarian Christian, discussing a true ultimate authority unavoidably involves a non-fallacious circle. The transcendental nature of God is what makes reasoning and knowledge possible. You unknowingly assume His attributes when you engage in rational thought, otherwise, rational thought could not exist.
Because we’re dealing with an ultimate authority, there is no further evidence to show as proof, otherwise, that evidence would become the ultimate authority. This cycle would repeat itself until you reached a true ultimate authority. You might not like it, but you can’t escape this logical truth. That’ where we are when talking about a sovereign God, the source of property rights and the non-aggression principle.
Some of us are simply epistemologically self-conscious. I encourage you to peel back the layers of your own worldview — where will it lead you?
BTW, believing that knowledge and rational thought is possible apart from the existence of God is your “pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.”
“The transcendental nature of God is what makes reasoning and knowledge possible. You unknowingly assume His attributes when you engage in rational thought, otherwise, rational thought could not exist.”
Those are affirmative claims and require proof. Let’s start with evidence that god exists.
I’m not sure why there must be a “true, ultimate authority” and why that “true ultimate authority” must be something that no one can prove exists. That last one is a little weird. Something which we cannot prove exists is the ultimate authority for everything. Isn’t that really just code for a group of people with a shared delusion thinking they have the right to order others around? If you really are a voluntarist then god ultimately doesn’t matter.
Mail (will not be published)
This site uses valid HTML and CSS. All content Copyright © 2010 Consulting by RPM