Home arrow static arrow Java Programming [Archive] - Kurt Goedel
Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /www/htdocs/w008deb8/wiki/components/com_staticxt/staticxt.php on line 51
Java Programming [Archive] - Kurt Goedel
This topic has 635 replies on 43 pages.    « Previous | 1 | ... 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | Next »

Posts:6,750
Registered: 1/25/04
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 11, 2004 7:55 AM (reply 540 of 635)



 
You do realize of course that I am not discussing
simply whether those two can be seperated but rather
the impact that both have on the issue I am making
about religion and homosexuality.

Yes, and I have absolutely no argument with that, as you should know by now.

If you wish me to simply state that the two are
seperate conceptual entities then of course I realize
that.

That certainly has not been apparent.

But that has nothing to do with the points that
I am trying to make.

I disagree. When I kept trying to keep the discussion about doctrine, you kept pulling in people's behavior and feelings, and then stated that doctrine by itself is meaningless. Since the point you were trying to make originally was specifically about doctrine, the connection or lack thereof between doctrine and behavior is quite relevant.
 

Posts:4,906
Registered: 23/07/02
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 11, 2004 8:08 AM (reply 541 of 635)



 
No, seriously. Presumably the parts of your belief system that cover sinning and right vs. wrong, etc. are universally applicable--if it's a sin for you to do X,
it's also a sin for me to do X, right?

Christian ethics relate to motives as well as actions. It's also worth pointing out (again, IIRC) that Christian doctrine teaches that everyone sins (except for Jesus (and I think the RCC teaches also except for his mother)). The second half of the wiki post I quoted for Joe was about NT ethics:

I'm not sure I'd say there is NT law, although there's certainly NT ethical instruction. Most of Paul's letters, for example, consist of a chunk of doctrine, followed by a chunk of ethical instruction arising from that doctrine. Look at the way he moves from doctrine to praxis (therefores referring back to the preceding doctrine): "Therefore I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God - this is your reasonable act of worship" (NIV: Rom 12: 1 - see margin); "Therefore I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received" (NIV: Eph 4: 1); "Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed - not only in my presence but also in my absence - continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to His good purpose" (NIV: Php 2: 12-13); "We instructed you how to live in order to please God, as in fact you are living. Now we ask you and urge you in the Lord Jesus to do this more and more" (NIV: 1Thes 4: 1). The theme of pleasing God is back, with the observation that this is the logical thing to do. There's also a hint in the Philippians passage of the work of the HolySpirit, although that's more to do with how a Christian lives a moral life.

So Christians should seek to live a moral life, but that's not motivated by a fear of hellfire but (primarily) by differing levels of reward when God judges them.
 

Posts:6,750
Registered: 1/25/04
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 11, 2004 8:11 AM (reply 542 of 635)



 
I'm not sure I'd say there is NT law, although there's
certainly NT ethical instruction.

Quoting off the top of my head here:
Audience member (Pharisee or lawyer or some such): "Which is the greatest commandment?"
JC: "The greatest commandment is to love thy God with all thy might, mind, and strength, and the second is like unto it: love thy neighbor as thyself."

Commandment == law?
 

Posts:4,906
Registered: 23/07/02
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 11, 2004 8:21 AM (reply 543 of 635)



 
Joe said:
Given that I believe religious positions on homosexuality are nothing more than flat out straight bigotry...

I replied:
Does the same apply to religious positions on adultery?

This appears to be the context of the following exchange:

I don't see anyone passing laws that not only prevents adulters from marrying but also specifically allows people to not hire them, deny
them housing, etc because they are adulters.

Are there laws currently on the books which specifically allow people to deny homosexuals housing and employment? If so, I assume you
will cite them.

Please cite a law that allows anyone to discriminate in hiring based on race.

???? I never claimed there were such laws. I guess you think that is some kind of dodge of the question. In any case it appears to me that those
discriminatory laws you referred to don't exist. Good. Let's move on.

Why exactly do you think the Civil Rights Act was passed?
Do you think it was a whim that wasn't needed because no one was discriminating based on race?
What exactly do you think keeps people right now from discriminating based on sexual orientation?

Not being a U.S. citizen, I'm not well informed on U.S. discrimination legislation, so I don't know whether that question is intended to imply that the Civil Rights Act prevents discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or to imply that there's no legislation preventing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. However, regardless I fail to see the relevance to the question of which acts or actions one may hold a religious position on without being a bigot. Was there any point at all to this sidetrack into U.S. law?
 

Posts:4,680
Registered: 6/14/99
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 11, 2004 8:27 AM (reply 544 of 635)



 
Good morning from the US east coast. This is addressed to jverd, Post #524. Instead of quoting all the trail, I'm going to try to address your questions directly, since I think it will be alot 'cleaner' and easier on the eyes. I'm similarly imressed and pleased with the fact that we can discuss these topics in a rational and civil manner, my respect for you folks grows.

jverd, I personably find that your fundamental question is very reasonalble and I will answer it as best as I can by first citing one particular scripture ... if you feel inclined, have a look at Acts 17: 22-32. This pretty well lays out the Christain appeal, and approach. I would ask that, before you read, or at least reply to my following comments, you read the citation first.

As others have said, I too, as a professed Christain believe that the Christian way is the way. The reason I believe that is because I believe that people need to be reconciled to God. Thru the life and death of Christ that way has been provided. Paul explains it much better in the above citation.

At the same time, I respect people, I respect peoples choices, I respect peoples reasoning. I can't imagine even wanting to force a line of thought or reasoning on someone, and especially not one so important as this in my opinion. Far more importantly, the Bible clearly shows that God respects peoples freedom to decide and think.

When I said that, according to the Bible, God holds everyone accountable in the end, I meant exactly that; namely, he holds them accountable. According to the Bible, noone should consider the 'fate' of another, or of themselves sealed ... it ain't over till it's over. In fact, the Bible does not teach 'fate' at all, but rather we are all free moral agents.

Now, does that mean that God gives us no guidance in what his will for us is? NO! That's why Christains want others to read and study the Bible. But in the end, can I or another Christian, or anybody else judge another's righteousness before God? NO! Only God can. So then, how will a person as you describe fair in the end before God? The Bible tells us in the above cited scripture. I will not add to it. The Bible does add however, that there will be a 'resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous'. How does this fit in? If you're really interested you will look into it further.

But whatever anyone decides about this, that is their own decision, and everyone else must respect that. I know that I do. And I hope that answers your question too. I also hope I have not affended anyone. I did not initially intend to get this detailed and specific with regard to my faith because I don't feel it's really fair to all those who might come here not desiring this type of information. But I've enjoyed sharing views with you all at the same time. ;o)
 

Posts:4,906
Registered: 23/07/02
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 11, 2004 8:28 AM (reply 545 of 635)



 
I'm not sure I'd say there is NT law, although there's certainly NT ethical instruction.

Quoting off the top of my head here:
Audience member (Pharisee or lawyer or some such): "Which is the greatest commandment?"
JC: "The greatest commandment is to love thy God with all thy might, mind, and strength, and the second is like unto it: love thy neighbor as thyself."

Commandment == law?

Yes, but both commandments are from the OT. (I was also wanting to avoid a long discussion over what "NT law" would mean - in the original context of "the law ( NT and OT )" a natural interpretation would be national legislation).
 

Posts:6,750
Registered: 1/25/04
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 11, 2004 8:32 AM (reply 546 of 635)



 
However, regardless I fail to see
the relevance to the question of which acts or actions
one may hold a religious position on without being a
bigot.

Come to think of it, jschell has still not answered that question.
 

Posts:4,680
Registered: 6/14/99
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 11, 2004 9:00 AM (reply 547 of 635)



 
I'm not sure I'd say there is NT law, although
there's
certainly NT ethical instruction.

Quoting off the top of my head here:
Audience member (Pharisee or lawyer or some such):
"Which is the greatest commandment?"
JC: "The greatest commandment is to love thy God with
all thy might, mind, and strength, and the second is
like unto it: love thy neighbor as thyself."

Commandment == law?

Strictly speaking, since Jesus was speaking to members of the Jewish faith, of which he too obviously was, he was speaking about the Mosaic law. But would a Christain ever take something that Jesus spoke of as a Commandment as anything other than law? ;o)
 

Posts:37,103
Registered: 3/30/99
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 11, 2004 9:01 AM (reply 548 of 635)



 
jverd, I personably find that your fundamental
question is very reasonalble and I will answer it as
best as I can by first citing one particular scripture
... if you feel inclined, have a look at Acts 17:
22-32. This pretty well lays out the Christain appeal,
and approach. I would ask that, before you read, or at
least reply to my following comments, you read the
citation first.

Thanks for the response. Unfortunately, I don't think I even own a bible, and it's not likely I'll get to the library before this particular sub-topic has moved toward the back of my consciousness. So, I'll suspend this thread for now, but if I do happen to have the opportunity to read and ponder the passages you've cited, I'll post any response I may have after that.
 

Posts:4,680
Registered: 6/14/99
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 11, 2004 9:05 AM (reply 549 of 635)



 
jverd, I personably find that your fundamental
question is very reasonalble and I will answer it as
best as I can by first citing one particular
scripture
... if you feel inclined, have a look at Acts 17:
22-32. This pretty well lays out the Christain
appeal,
and approach. I would ask that, before you read, or
at
least reply to my following comments, you read the
citation first.

Thanks for the response. Unfortunately, I don't think
I even own a bible, and it's not likely I'll get to
the library before this particular sub-topic has moved
toward the back of my consciousness. So, I'll suspend
this thread for now, but if I do happen to have the
opportunity to read and ponder the passages you've
cited, I'll post any response I may have after that.

The web my friend ;o) Try this one ... http://bible.gospelcom.net/
There are many others.
 

Posts:4,680
Registered: 6/14/99
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 11, 2004 9:07 AM (reply 550 of 635)



 
More specifically:
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=ACTS+17&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on
 

Posts:27,518
Registered: 11/3/97
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 11, 2004 9:22 AM (reply 551 of 635)



 

Analogy, analogy, analogy.....

Not a very good one, IMAO. You asked about two
particular hyptothetical situations to get a handle on
what somebody thought made a person a bigot. That
person answered that, in his view, properly
interpreting a study or studies and then basing a
race-related conclusion those results did not make
that person a bigot. Presumably that would answer your
question about what the person meant in his
explanation of what makes a bigot. Suddenly "why not
join a white supremacist group?" or something like
that. How is that an analogy? What analogy are you
drawing and why is it relevant? It seems you're merely
trying to "subtly" accuse the person of white
supremacist leanings just because he thinks that one
could have an opinion about the relative intelligences
of races and not be a bigot for it.

Because when one relies on authorities, regardless of the authority, it can lead to a position that many people find wrong.

There are people who justify their position on white supremacy using studies.
There are people who justify their position on homosexual using studies.
There are people who justify their position on homosexual based on their research of the bible.

And there are other people who rely solely on the above people. And believe them because they say that there are studies to back them up (or research.) And these people never validate those claims.

You're really not making much sense here.


You frequently ask for and cite studies to support a
position in these forums. Are you now saying that
scientific studies should not be used to support
positions that supremacists and bigots might hold for
totally unscientific reasons? Just because a complete
******* makes an assertion for *******
reasons, that doesn't meant the assertion itself is
incorrect.

And of course showing that an argument leads to an
absurd (and untenable) conclusion is an accepted
technique for showing that the argument itself is
faulty.

What does that have to do with this subthread? What
was the allegedly faulty argument and what was the
absurd and untenable conclusion that argument led to?

Actually at this particular moment I don't feel like finding 20 posts out of 500 and then reading them to try to justify what I was doing.

Remind me later on and I will do it.


Yes, I understand your point but you are taking it out
of the context for which I was using it.

I don't think I was.


Again, whence the attitude? Nobody is saying that
scientists are infallible.

That is where you are wrong.

There are a great number of people who think
scientists are infallible. Just as they think that
the clergy are infallible.

sigh Okay. I'm taking the same liberty with "nobody"
that you took earlier with "everybody." I didn't mean
"nobody in the world" I meant "nobody in this
thread"--or at least "nobody in this subthread" thinks
that scientists are infallible.


I am not really challenging individual beliefs. I don't care if individuals don't like homosexuals or other races or even people with bald heads.

What I do care about is that a lot of people are rationalizing their dislike for homosexuals and turning that dislike into political action.

Given that attacking a belief in a logical manner is illogical, one can only attack the arguments that are used to rationalize the above behavior.

And there are "studies" that are used to demonize homonsexuals. And there are people that use those to lend credence to their position.

Which finally leads me back to the point I was making that many people believe in "scientists" and "studies" and assume merely that because a "scientist" or "study" said something that it must be true.



That isn't to say that you think they are but
rather that many people do.

There are people that use "science" to justify a
number of things including denigrating homosexuals.
And other people believe those statements
without question.

Yes, but that's not what's being discussed here. This
sub (or sub-sub?) thread started from this:

superiorlobe
I.e. You are a bigot by virtue of how you believe,
not by virtue of what you believe.

jschell
So someone who believes certain races are less
intelligent than others because his father told him
that is bigoted?

But someone who believes that certain races are less
intelligent than others because several studies on IQ
show a difference is not?

superiorlobe
Yes. Good example. (Assuming he has assessed the
studies correctly, etc.)

Note the difference between the bigot and the
non-bigot. The bigot thinks other races are less
intelligent because his father told him so. He just
accepted it, didn't apply critical thinking. The
non-bigot looked at several studies (not guaranteed to
be "good" studies), and, with superiorlobe's
qualification "assessed the sutdies correctly, etc." I
assume that means the person applied some critical
thinking to the studies' methods and analysis,
compared the results of the studies to each other, did
whatever one normally does to draw a "reasonable" or
"valid" conclusion from studies.


Read what I said again (and what you thoughtfully quoted.)

Do you see anything in there that says anything about "critical analysis" or even that the person even read the studies?

Seems like I already said this (perhaps much earlier in this thread) but no one can critically analyze everything in their life. They believe in things seemly because someone else told them it was true.

So making it explicit how are the following different?

1 Someone believes cigarettes causes cancer because their father told them so.
2. Someone believes cigarettes causes cancer because there studies that say so.

3 Someone believes certain races are lessintelligent than others because their father told them so.
4. Someone believes certain races are lessintelligent than others because there studies that say so.
 

Posts:27,518
Registered: 11/3/97
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 11, 2004 9:29 AM (reply 552 of 635)



 
On the issue of privacy, I am aware of the fact that
my opinions diverge from what most readers of this
thread will likely hold. On the other hand, I am in
agreement with a vast number of legal scholars,
including supreme court justices, who think the
"constitutional right to privacy" was invented out of
thin air.

Of course it was. It doesn't say anything about that in the constitution.

However, the existing legal precedents and various laws have produced what we have.
 

Posts:27,518
Registered: 11/3/97
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 11, 2004 9:34 AM (reply 553 of 635)



 
So exactly when was the last time you stoned someone
to death?
Or perhaps you have never actually seen someone work
on Sunday (or whatever your sabbath might be?)
Or do you figure that god some how meant 'death' and
'stone' in some figurative sense?

I had a discussion on this on a wiki a month or two
ago, and this is part of what I said then:

The OT law is part of God's self-revelation, and since
God is immutable it's still valuable in showing
Christians what pleases and displeases God. The NT
makes it clear that it's not possible to keep the OT
law, and so there is no intrinsic value in keeping it:
however, the NT writers expect Christians to seek to
please God (Paul's prayer for the Colossian church is
that they may please God in every way - NIV: Col 1:
9-12 - and one of his instructions to the Ephesians is
to find out what pleases God - NIV: Eph 5: 10).
Therefore, to continue with the same example, a
Christian ought not to be involved in sorcery, and
church discipline should be applied when such cases
come to light. The punishments don't apply directly
today, because the Church has a different commission
to Israel. Israel's commission was to live as a people
separated from the nations around them. The Church's
commission is to live as a community within the pagan
nation-states. It is true that there are states which
claim to be Christian states, and base their laws on
the OT; the level to which Christians in legislative
positions should seek to impose Christian morality on
the nation is one on which Christians disagree, and on
which I have yet to reach firm conclusions.

And that means what exactly?

So God contradicted himself? Or Christ was just rebelling against his father and so decided to monkey with fate?

Or that you just get to pay attention to what you want and ignore what you don't?
 

Posts:27,518
Registered: 11/3/97
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 11, 2004 9:36 AM (reply 554 of 635)



 
There is no such thing as a "incorrect" belief.

Since you don't seem to object to colloquial language
in this thread: the conventional understanding of
'incorrect belief' is a belief that P when it is an
objective fact that !P.

And how does that "object fact" come about? Does God hand it out or does a bunch of people just agree to assume that it is a fact?
 
This topic has 635 replies on 43 pages.    « Previous | 1 | ... 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | Next »