« The Post Resurrection Behavior of Jesus Eliminates the Possibility of an Imposter | Main | What Counts As Evidence? »

April 03, 2013

Comments

Schblrm, you are really, really, weirdly obsessed with rape. It's unsettling. Also, people who say they're "merely assuming" things come off like complete prats.

Society's concept of what constitutes rape has changed dramatically over the years. Even Jewish law only recognized violent rape by a stranger if it was done in certain ways. Later, date and marital rape as well as statutory rape became recognized as valid forms of sexual assault. As women cast off the shackles of slavery, as their bodily rights become more and more recognized by society at large, their right to consent to each and every single use of their bodies forces people's view of rape to evolve further and further.

It's astonishing to claim that some "ultimate ethic" has guided this evolution in perception, considering how bitterly evangelical Christians still resist the idea of marital and date rape and blame the victims even for violent rape.

I literally need a shower after contemplating this subject and why someone needed it spelled out.

scblhrm,

I think I finally see that you are trying to say. You are suggesting that your love is different than mine, presumably because your love comes from "god" and is immutable, and my love is genetic and cultural, so my love is presumably mutable. So, you then conclude that since my love is mutable, I am as equally capable of rape as I am of love.

Did I get that right?

If so, then you are correct of course, but you are correct for yourself as well. All humans are capable of any behavior, good or bad. We must all make continually choices as to what type of person we want to be.

I mostly choose love, voluntarily and without regret. I do not choose it because I should or because I am required to do so. I choose it because I recognize that love is better than hate. I know that when I love, I get love in return, and I value love above all else.

Do other people make other choices? Of course. Many Christians make terrible moral choices. Their presumably immutable love does not stop them from choosing evil over good, any more that my presumably mutable love does.

Jason,


“So, you then conclude that since my love is mutable, I am as equally capable of rape as I am of love...”


No. I never made any such conclusion. What I conclude is that there is a glaring incoherency in your statement that Love and rape are unequal within themselves. What I conclude is that there is an inherent equality between the two in simple genomic appeals to fostering the gene pool.


“I choose it because I recognize that love is better than hate...”


You have not shown us how any itch from the genome is “better” than any another itch from that same genome. What constitutes better when it comes to our blind dance to the music played by our genome?


Jason do you believe that Love is the highest Ethic? From whence does this drive come from? How did it get there? How is that any different than any other drive or tendency, whether rape or any other drive or tendency?


“you are correct for yourself as well…. Their presumably immutable love does not stop them from choosing evil over good, any more that my presumably mutable love does…”


That is correct. What does Man and Man’s terrible acts born of our (mine included) loveless interiors have to do with Immutable Love and His emptying of Himself both into and for we who are too often loveless towards one another?


As one acquainted with the pain of such loveless acts, I find myself having to leave behind those particular philosophies which appeal to any mutable form of morality as some sort of mere tool which the genome has used, and blindly so, to perpetuate its own reproduction. The tendency towards violence, tooth and claw, has risen to the top of such a value system and as such is wholly incoherent with what I both know and taste to be Truth.


All the anger in this thread towards violence speaks as a testimony against the validity of atheism’s appeal to the blind, deterministic dance to music played by the genome and given such evidence I have had to leave atheism behind in order that I may embrace the coherency found within Love Himself Who has, and continues to, rescue me.


If you actually do believe that Love is the Ultimate Ethic, then I do not think you believe in your atheism. If you do not believe there is any sort of better-ness to Love other than that which perpetuates the gene pool, then it is clear that we disagree on this, and to the Nth degree, and as such you do not believe in Love as I have come to know and taste Him.


Jason BTW thank you for inferring that I may be mentally ill in your post from April 05, 2013 at 04:56 PM. In another thread here on STR you referenced your prior role as a Christian pastor (I believe that was you?). As such I assume you are familiar with the interior topography of someone or something triune and in particular the trinity and those nuances from that perspective. If describing such nuances whether academically or in poor attempts at simple prose for the sheer fun of it constitutes mental illness in your assessment then it seems you agree with various and famous vitriolic atheists who make their living off of such abuse of other human beings via such loveless outreaches.

Shaughnessy,

See the thread on "What Counts As Evidence".

Lets just get to the bottom of this fairly quickly.

Schmdsbrlsfgbm, do you believe that your god that you worship, as shown in the bible, exhibits "immutable love"? Also, please give us what 'your' definition of "immutable love" is. I think we need to do this just to understand what you're trying to get across, because for many of us, your prose, while it may give believers a tingle that runs up their leg to hear it, to us, is simply loud noise, signifying......very little.

Matt,


I take it to be the case that you find value via an appeal to some sort of a genome-based mutable ethic. I've already described here I how I view such an appeal towards a philosophy wherein the Self who survives is king and how this relates inversely to Love's interior. All sorts of impulses have helped us survive, per that thesis. All sorts of ugly things like hatred, and rape, and murder, and so on. And, I have already in part described here why such a view is incoherent with reality and truth. Even the anger here against all sorts of evils is proof enough that the genome-based philosophy is incoherent with all its own fist-shaking. Good and Evil are fantasies made up inside our skulls, and that is as far as it goes, really, over in that corner. In Love we find the inverse of that sort of Self, for it is not the Self who survives who is King -- as in that genome-perpetuation thesis of ethics wherein love is but one more tool to perpetuate Self -- but it is the Self who dies who is King within that interior of the God Who is Love. Love shouts Other and not Self, You and not I, and pours out Self utterly, and therein we find the Eternally Sacrificed Self, and so on, as I have already described in part here in such places as the post of April 05, 2013 at 02:34 PM. I believe you questioned if it was written in English. Why would I offer more fuel for yet more ridicule? And I have already described such things in such places as April 06, 2013 at 01:11 AM. I believe you have responded to that by re-naming me Schmdsbrlsfgbm. Why would I offer more fuel for yet more de-valuing?


Matt, peoples names carry a bit of value, simply because the person carries value, and it's a good show of kindness to value the person enough to call them by name whether at work or home or wherever one may find oneself touching other lives.


It seems we wholly disagree, and to the Nth degree, on the source, fabric, value, and destiny of love.

scblhrm, I didn't question your mental health to insult you, truly. It's just that half of what you write is completely indecipherable to other human beings. Specifically, no one has any idea what you are trying to say because you say it in such an incredibly confusing nonsensical manner. I am honestly wondering if you brain functions normally. Again, I'm not trying to insult you.

Take for example the following sentence from you:

"In Love we find the inverse of that sort of Self, for it is not the Self who survives who is King -- as in that genome-perpetuation thesis of ethics wherein love is but one more tool to perpetuate Self -- but it is the Self who dies who is King within that interior of the God Who is Love"

Surely there is a way you could have written this sentence where any other human being would be able to understand what you are saying? There's got to be a plain English way for you to state your points that don't cause every reader to have to read it six times to try and guess what you are trying to express.

If you don't believe that I value love more than I value rape, then it is you that has the problem, and not me.

There is no point in further discussion with a person that draws such absurd conclusions.

That needs to be on a meme. Someone, make it happen, please. That's the most illegible gobbledy-gook I've ever seen on an apologetics site, and I've seen some pretty illegible gobbledy-gook.

Christianity's easy to understand, except when it isn't.

Jason,

"I am honestly wondering if you brain functions normally"

Againk, thank you for the abuse.

"If you don't believe that I value love more than I value rape, then it is you that has the problem, and not me".

We all know you do value Love more. And that is the problem. You have no ultimate basis to do so within the framework which you say you believe in.


If you feel you can defend Moral Oughts beyond human whim within naturalism, well.... I think you cannot pull it off, Jason.


That has been what is presented to you. And you simply cannot reconcile your value of love with your genome-based equality of all itches.


"There is no point in further discussion with a person that draws such absurd conclusions"


No one made that conclusion. You just do not want to address the incoherency between what you value truly in your heart and what you say you believe in your mind.

"Again, thank you for the abuse"

scblhrm, my questions regarding your mental state are not intended to be abusive. Do you notice that no other Christians are coming to your defense here? It's because they are just as confused by your prose as I am.

By the way, thanking for finally speaking clearly in your last post, i.e. leaving out all the gobbly-gook. I sincerely mean that compliment.

"You just do not want to address the incoherency between what you value truly in your heart and what you say you believe in your mind."

What you seem to miss is that the incoherency only exists in your mind. It doesn't exist in mine. It exists for you because of your definition of "immutable love" and your definition my my "framework". I do not share or agree with your definitions. It's as simple as that.

Why is that so hard to understand? What is the point of questioning what type of love I have?

DAMN. Great insight J

That distinction DOES exist in his mind only.
That's pretty insightful. Who are you to say, Scrubleberm, that what's in his mind isn't in his (non-existent btw) soul? Who made you judge, jury and executioner?

Jason,

I have asked you in several ways to account for the basis of your value of love over other itches. We all know you do value love above other things. The problem is that you believe that in your heart, and you don't like being asked to defend that (what you truly value in your heart) intellectually with what you say in your mind.

The genome based equality of all itches you say you believe with your mind cannot give you what your heart knows is true. And you don't like that. Which is why you have yet to answer the question, as the two just cannot be reconciled one with the other.

You should go with your heart, Jason, because it's telling you the truth. Love is the highest ethic, even if all men say it is not.

scblhrm,

I think we've exhausted this line of discussion as we simply disagree.

Thanks for the discussion.

Jason

Jason,

You should go with your heart, because it's telling you the truth. Love is the highest ethic, even if all men say it is not.

Love is the highest ethic. I never disagreed with that. I made it the highest ethic. I chose it. I wish more people would.

Jason,

We agree on that it seems.


We disagree, it seems to me, that such is the case regardless of what men feel, and, should you or I chose otherwise (many have and do as our terribly painful human history reveals), and, should all men chose otherwise, and, should our genome lead us into other, "better" ways of surviving which somehow got rid of love, Love would still be the Highest Good, for, the Highest Reality is simply the God Who is Himself Love. Thus while the genome will continue to mutate, such a mutation will have (in my view) exactly zero impact on what the Highest Ethic is simply because the God Who is Love is, well, Immutable.


evolution and natural selection tell us that love would not have evolved as the highest ethic if it in fact was not the highest ethic.

Jason,

The drive to do, well, whatever, are all in that same boat. They all have come to be, and, many disagree with you on love's status.

Show us how love is different in source and value from murder or any other drive found within man.

What about those who do not hold that love is the highest ethic?

Why are you right and they wrong?

Etc.

What is so incredibly ironic is that you bring up "immutable love" as if Christianity is the only way to understand and know love, and yet the god of the Bible's "love" is so obviously NOT immutable.

What Bible are you reading?

Also, to address the 9987987983 comments about atheism and rape...........

There are people in all faiths/beliefs that rape. Including Christianity. Including pastors. Its not a problem with a belief, it is a problem with a specific person. I could send you many, many links to show you the countless pastors who have raped, molested, sexually assaulted or harassed others, most often people he pastored in his church. Not to mention the Catholic churche's issue with the many rapes and molestations of little children, but I think that was already brought up.

Christianity does not have the monopoly on love or morality. Just because you have a BOOK that you can supposedly get your morals from (even if the book is contradictory)(and the Christians who supposedly hear from God contradict each other), that does not mean you have a higher moral ground. There are even many things in the Bible that YOU (yes YOU!) will be disgusted by (such as rape, murder, slavery) and rightfully so! Not because your book told you, but because you are a thinking, feeling human being. And if you do not feel disgusted by these things, there is something horribly, horribly wrong.

Step out of your church and look around. Meet some people. Make friends with some atheists/agnostics or people of other faiths. You'll find there are many, many good people out there, of all different faiths and beliefs.

Hoier than thou much, scblhrm?

It seems we all agree on the weightiness of love as an ethical guide. When we find ourselves realizing or moving towards Love as the Ultimate Ethic we find ourselves making a truth claim about Ultimate Reality and therein we begin to touch the truth of all things. Love is the Ultimate Ethic not because our mutable and broken frames merely whim it to be so, but because Actuality’s immutable and everlasting Frame is Love. There are no further appeals beyond an Actuality which Never Changes.


While the human genome has, over time, according to the thesis of natural selection, embraced the benefits of various drives which have helped perpetuate it, and has thus maintained those various drives, over time, drives such as hunger, murder, vomiting, kindness, and so on with everything for there just is no such thing as a part of our genome which lies outside of that process and therefore we can say of all of man’s drives, even the ugly ones, “This too has been valued and retained by natural selection”. The genome makes no moral distinctions. It never has. It can’t.


Anyone who thinks there is an impulse in man which natural selection is not responsible for, and still tries to claim natural selection (genomic mutations) as his method is simply wrong. If natural selection has favored kindness, then it has also favored cruelty, for natural selection alone is what has shaped our entire genome (in that theory). Natural selection has valued, and thus retained, even our “ugly” drives. In fact, it has valued those drives. That’s why those drives developed. That is why those drives are being maintained in the genome.


Sex trafficking is on the rise worldwide. That drive in the male so use, so abuse, his female counterpart is morphing and on the rise towards higher frequencies as those tendencies are perpetuated via the offspring of those abuses (the genome). That is simple mathematical observations of natural selection at work.


Yet we all are disgusted with that behavior. And we should be even though those tendencies are increasing in frequency within mankind.


No one here has shown us any bedrock which supports Everlasting, Immutable Love within all these appeals to genomic mutations.


Yet we all agree that Love is the Ultimate Ethic.


Actually, we do not all agree. AJG felt otherwise and was honest enough to realize his naturalistic framework inevitably reduced to personal opinion and as such there is no “Absolute Moral Ought” and so on.


You have to admire his honesty. I do.


But it seems to me AJG is, while honest, also wrong and in fact there is an Absolute Moral Ought which exists outside of, external to, and beyond mankind’s mutable and fickle genome-based whims.


And that Absolute and Immutable is this: Love.


There is no such thing as Immutable Love, Everlasting Love, Love which exists outside of, external to and beyond mankind’s mutable and fickle genome-based whims within “Naturalism” or within its various cousins and thus I have left all those philosophies behind for they just cannot provide me with what I know to be the Truth of All Things: Ultimate Actuality is Love.


Ultimate Reality is Love. Another way of saying that is this: God is Love.


The Uncaused Cause, or, Actual Actuality, or, Ultimate Reality, is Love, and in Love we find the joyful embrace among what we all taste within love: the touch and embrace amid the “Me and the You”, amid the Self and the Other. Love Himself tells us that Marriage is a Pattern which reflects His Image and thus in that delightful embrace between myself and my wife, me and the other, Self and Other, we find that third and unique distinct entity which is the wonderful “We”, the Singular-Us that just is my wife and I in union. “We are one”.


In marriage we are told we have a Mirror of the truth of all things as Scripture tells us that marriage and its fabric is a reflection of God’s interior. Is it I? Yes. Thus Self. Is it my wife? Yes. Thus Other. It is the Singular-We within our lifelong embrace? Yes. Thus We. The following thus manifests, and wonderfully so: I, You, We. Our marriage is both one and three therein. And this triune fabric of our marriage is a reflection, though blurry perhaps, of Love’s Everlasting and Unchanging topography for Love just is triune here within the I-You-We.


When we say that God is Love, we find that Love’s Triune becomes manifest there within that discovery. And let me add this. The longer I have been married to my wife, the less of Me there is in my priorities, and the more of Her becomes my priority. In Love we discover this odd thing of Self-Sacrifice, and not a Sacrifice of Pain, but of delight for it is my joy to defer for my beloved. Let it be her and not me, let it be You and not I, Yours and not Mine, Other and not Self. Such is Love. And this Sacrifice of Self, which tastes to me as Joy as I give to my wife her will at the expense of my own, just is what we find Love doing. The Self who dies, the Self who gives up itself for its beloved, is King in Love’s Kingdom.


Eternal Love thus manifests this: the Eternally Sacrificed Self.


Within the God who is Love, within that Triune interior wherein love’s embraces amid the I-You-We forever dances, we discover each “Person” therein forever spreading its arms wide and in delight shouting “You and not I! Thine and not Mine!”


When Everlasting Love manifests, we find Him, arms spread wide, pouring Himself out for His Beloved.


God is Love. He is therein Triune. And He therein spreads His arms wide. And He therein pours Himself out for His Beloved.


We are His Beloved.


He Loves us with His Unchanging, Immutable, and Eternally Sacrificed Self.


When we find Eternal Love manifest, we find Love’s Eternally Sacrificed Self manifest.
Because I know Love to be the Truth of All Things, I find myself pulled into His Triune interior wherein that peculiar Eternally Sacrificed Self is found manifest.

Good morning scblhrm.

Let's say for the sake of discussion I concede your entire post above, that there is an ultimate immutable source, i.e. "god".

What evidence do you have that this ultimate immutable source is the Christian god?

...and even more specifically, and what is really of interest to me...

What is your personal direct objective evidence, i.e. evidence in your own life outside of your thoughts and emotions?

Jason,


I would tell you He has healed my emotions. And my body. And my spirit. And it would be the truth. But based on how you have talked to me and about me thus far you will either call me a liar playing games with words, or, you will say I am mentally ill, or, you will say you fear for my mental health, or, it will not bridge the desire you have. And it shouldn't bridge that desire. It can't.


Only He can Jason. One on one. Go there

scblhrm,

I admit that I went over the line questioning your mental state. I apologize for that. I still don't understand most of what you say based on your style of prose, and I disagree with your concept of love as exclusive to your god.

I am a very calm reasonable person. I admit that I became extremely frustrated with you when you refused to answer my questions and kept copying and pasting prose that you knew I didn't understand. I interpreted that as an insult, and I probably should not have.

Again, I apologize. Let's start over :)

scblhrm,

On your evidence...

Emotional healing exists in many realms and many faiths. It's can done through therapy, etc.

What healing did he do in your body if you don't mind me asking? Was it something that doctors could not fix? Was it something you also took medicine and/or got surgery for? How do you know it was god that did the healing?

Jason

Stirred my heart. Awesome.

scblhrm, don't stay away!

I apologized. Please remember that you told me about 30 times that my atheism values rape and love the same and I'm not demanding an apology from you on that :)

Seriously though, please come back to the discussion.

Jason,

I'll move over to the other thread.

Thanks scblhrm. I'm not going to monitor this thread anymore either, as I am are more interested in the evidence thread.

Wow great thread. I am a Christian because when I look at the narrative and consider it from beginning to end it is the most reasonable explanation for the world I find myself in. I know my sin and I don't know anyone else's sin. Pride is the one sin that trumps them all and as CS Lewis said it is the root of all the others. I don't want to beat anyone into submission I am called to let them know redemption is available. Whether they believe it, or not is their responsibility. I believe science is very good at saying how, but not why things are rather way they are.

The comments to this entry are closed.