First impressions

A couple of early impressions after Clinton's speech.

1.  Virtually everything she said needed to be fixed is stuff that P-BO ran on fixing.   If all of things things haven't been fixed after 8 years of P-BO, then doens't that suggest that the current president hasn't been particularly successful?

2.   Every analysis of the RNC talks about how much Trumps campaign is based on fear, Clinton's answer to combat the fear, be afraid of what might, possibly, could, maybe happen if Trump gets elected.

Bubba refugee camp.

Elsewhere, it has proposed that Bubba be banned from commenting on a certain blog thread.   This ban could be a result of mistrust of Bubba, or fear of what he might say.   I just don't know for sure.  

Therefore I am establishing this thread as a safe space where Bubba will be allowed to comment as he sees fit.

Think of this as a virtual refugee camp or a sanctuary city.

Remember when...

Remember when there were some investigative journalist types who managed to document multiple Planned Parenthood staffers  admitting to all sorts of unpleasant things?

Then do you remember how certain folks on the left jumped all over the fact that these investigative journalist types were indicted?

Then do you remember how this we trumpeted as proof that these folks were guilty of some horrible crime and how Planned Parenthood was a pure as the wind driven snow?


 Oops...


http://hotair.com/archives/2016/07/26/texas-da-withdraws-all-remaining-charges-against-cmps-daleiden-over-planned-parenthood-videos/?utm_con

I guess there were some folks who jumped on the bandwagon a bit too early.

Remember when those folks apologized for being wrong?

Me neither.

The Choice we have for president.

The other day I saw a post on Facebook that got me thinking about what poor choices we have for president this time around, and people are responding to the state of affairs.  Just a few quotes from the post.

"The lesser of two evils is LESS EVIL"    (Of course, this means that you are choosing to vote for "EVIL", but whatever)

"I don't give a damn about anything Donald Trump has done. I'm concerned with what Hilary Clinton WILL do."

I don't know what I will do about the presidential race.  Fortunately (or not) the peoples republic up here will gleefully ensure that Hilary gets our electoral votes, which allows me to either not vote for president or vote Libertarian/write in. in good conscience.

Personally, I just can't understand this willingness to vote for evil or to ignore what someone has done in the past for purely political reasons.

FYI

Life has been incredibly hectic lately; work, home renovations, houseguests, 2 family members involving me in their car buying process, and the fact that it's the one week of the summer when it get genuinely hot up here, so that mean that blogging and commenting has taken a back seat.  I hope to at least get Dan a long promised "rational bases" for believing that God is real, that He communicates with us, and that we can actually correctly understand Him done this weekend.

Bubba

Since I have no idea which of my comments responding to you have been deleted, and since I didn't copy them they remain lost.   But I wanted to say a couple of things.

First thanks, your contributions have been welcome and well done.   You have done an excellent job pointing out many issues and problems with Dan's attitude and position.  

Second, regarding your ACLS,  I've been spending some time back with Scheaffer recently and he talks about our ability to know things about God that are True, but not exhaustive.  Seems like you are both in the same ballpark.

In order to stop the insane and hellish complaining, I'm doing this.

1. Yes, I get that you put your reason to the "litmus test" of Scripture, prayer, etc... BUT how do you assess what those things mean? DO YOU NOT USE YOUR REASON?

2. What do you have or how are you using your reason in ways that are different than what I am doing?

3. What is different from my way and your way?

4. CRAIG: "your underlying premise, (Reason is all we have) remains unproven."

As is the claim that we have some other Thing in addition to Reason, right?

5. What else, in addition to reason, do you use?

1.   I use every resource available to me including my reason, scripture, the counsel of others, the accumulated wisdom of my family, my community, as well as the breadth of accumulated wisdom and knowledge from the past.    So, as I have said, I use my reason as one part of the process but subordinate it when it disagrees with things I value more highly than my selfish desires.   I assess what things mean by using my ability to read and understand the English language.  If my reason tells me I should be graceless and derisive and my reading of scrfipture tells me otherwise, then I (should) subordinate my reason to scripture.  It's really not that difficult.

2.  I am subordinating my personal reasoning to other things or people, not elevating my personal, subjective, fallible, inconsistent, limited, human reason to superiority over other factors.   

3.  Since this is the exact same question you just asked, worded slightly differently I'm going to point out that you have this incredibly stupid habit of asking the same questions over and over in the same comment.  It's pointless, stupid and annoying.  I suspect it's a way to allow you to say that I didn't answer all of your questions.

4.  No, I have listed things other than reason that are all tools that I use.   You, still haven't proven that the claim of fact you use as your underlying premise is actually true.

5.  Again, you ask the same question twice in the same comment.  It's ridiculous, stupid and petty.  But since I've already answered it...


There.  Answers to Dan's questions.   They are statements.  They are not intended as a basis for further conversation, merely as a means to stop the constant harping and to allow Dan to misrepresent other things.  I don't really care if these answers are satisfactory to Dan, I don't care if his subjective worldview won't allow for this kind of diversity of thought.  I don't even make the claim that these are objectively true for others in the same way they are for me.   

But, they are answers, and they are the last answers I will give to these question.

It's interesting, the amount of pressure Dan is applying in trying to force me to conform to using his term of choice, "Reason".   He's complaining, that my answers aren't enough, of course ignoring the fact that of his 5 questions, two are simply repeating earlier question and one is simply an attempt to draw attention away from his unproven, unsupported, premise which he demands should be accepted without question.   Or at least declines to provide any evidence of.

It seems clear that his commitment to rationalism is incredibly strong, so strong that he is willing to go to significant lengths to insist that it is our only option.  In his commitment, he is willing to abandon the grace, and benefit of the doubt he claims to give others and is unwilling to even tolerate the possibility that someone would have the temerity not to agree with his unproven, unsupported premise.   

With that said, I'm sure that the pressure, lies, and demands will continue unless I simply capitulate and agree to use his terms and his definitions.   

It's strange that I (the closed minded , intolerant conservative) am willing to live and let live on this point.  Even though I find his worldview, limited, limiting, depressing, nihilistic, and self centered.    I find it hard to believe that one could base ones worldview solely and completely on the basis if ones personal, subjective, fallible, limited, human Reason, yet Dan claims to have done just that.  Have I been derisive? Demeaning? Ridiculed him?  Tried to bully him into conforming with my worldview or into using the terminology I prefer?   

It's becoming more clear that this rationalism that Dan is so committed to is something that he holds very deeply and given great value to.  It is something so dear to him that in a world where he holds virtually everything else to be subjective, this rationalism is the one objective thing he has to cling to.   I can see how it could be a bit scary when people don't blindly accept something that you cling so tightly to, but when you can't even explain why,( out of all the other things you find subjective) this one premise is so far beyond sacred that you can't even entertain the need to provide evidence for is a bit disconcerting.    

In conclusion Dan, I am well aware that you can read and comprehend English, so any further attempts at coercion or bullying will simply indicate that you have chosen to not read this entire post or that you have chosen to ignore it.

With the revisions above, I've given you all the answer I intend to, additional attempts at shame, coercion, bullying, ridicule and derision will simply be met with me pointing out your unwillingness to read the entire post.   I know that you don't like my answer, perhaps your don't understand it (earlier I compared this to my writing in Urdu or Tagalog).  But my answer is my answer, the only choice you have it this point is to continue in pressure, coercion, bullying, derision, and ridicule or to embrace the tolerance, grace, and benefit of the doubt you talk so much about.

Your call, will you embrace grace?

"
I will note that some people - many people - are so heavily invested in their human ideas and opinions that attacks on those opinions, to them, feel like attacks on them, or perhaps to their faith."

I will note that this has the appearance of an acute pot/kettle crisis.

You've blinded me with science. Or at least pointed out some scientific studies that don't help your case.

I'm not going to pull out quotes or anything, just post the link.  But, not the number of links to scientific peer reviewed studies that dispute the argument of some that same sex parents are just fine and dandy.

https://winteryknight.com/

I never ever delete comments.

In a startling change to his oft bragged about policy of (almost) never, ever, ever, (well occasionally maybe) ever deleting comments Dan has chosen to start deleting.

Now, I have no problem with a blog owner choosing to delete comments, I do it myself.   Personally, I usually give both a specific reason for and plenty of warning before I delete.   I also rarely make editorial comments about the content of deleted comments.  I will occasionally quote from or respond to specific sections of deleted comments, but will always make sure the quote is there.   I also cannot ever recall casting aspersions on the character of the commenter without the context of the comment to support my contention.

Having said that, I feel like I need to point out what's happening at Dan's and why I believe he feels the need to misrepresent the contents of the comments he deletes.

My statement that brought this about was;

"I do not rely solely on my reasoning to determine anything."

It's clear from my statement that "reasoning" is one tool that I use to determine things.   It's a simple uncomplicated declarative sentence.   The question my comment elecited was;

"What DO you us, [sic] if not reason to sort these moral questions out?"

So, I say that I use reason, and Dan asks what I use instead of reason.  There is a clear disconnect between the statement and the question.  In fact that question presumes that the questioner knows facts beyond the content of the question.

Now, I've answered this question elsewhere for Dan and his response was to ignore my answer and to insist that I used reason, in the same way he does.   When I've pointed this out to him he has accused me of "dodging" his question.   In fact, I have done quite the opposite, as the deleted comments would demonstrate, I have explained why I have chosen to not answer a question again when my answer has already been judged unsatisfactory.

When this disconnect is pointed out Dan demonstrates one of his classic tactics.  He "rephrases" his question to include all sorts of things that were not present in the initial question.   Such as;

"I've duly noted the "solely" question, noting that of course we pray, we read, we research... And THEN we reason out our understanding, using our reason to sort out the various input."

 "Again, noting that I'm counting prayer, Bible study, research, meditation, additional information as sources for data which we THEN use our reasoning to sort out."

Now it's clear from reading Dan's question that none of this later nonsense is either noted or expressed in the question, yet despite the clear and obvious evidence to the contrary he insists that it is.

Then, we get to the real point.   The answer is preordained.  There is no other option beyond this undeniable truth as we see from these quotes;

" What else is there?"
" Do you use something besides your reasoning to sort out moral questions?"

It's clear from those questions that Dan con conceive of no other options beyond Reason and that to even suggest any other option will be dismissed as a foolish notion.  Given this preconception of there being only one possible correct answer, why would I bother to do anything but explain why answering again would be fruitless and a waste of time.

I guess this is just one more example of how grace is demonstrated.

Unlike an earlier post where I closed comments, I will leave comments open on this.  Having said that any attempts (as judged by me) justification for this graceless behavior, attacks or disparagement of my character, accusations of lying or dodging, or anything that strikes me as being remotely annoying will be deleted.   Further, I will make an exception and make editorial comments on the content and nature of the deleted comments if the mood strikes me.

I really didn't want to have to do this, but my hand was forced.

Morality

There have been multiple assertions made about the nature of morality and I'd like to look at two of them.

First; Definitions.

Morality
1.   Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion, or culture,
2.   In its descriptive sense, "morality" refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores. It does not connote objective claims of right or wrong.
3.    Morality in a descriptive sense may be defined as a code of conduct endorsed and adhered to by a society, group or—much less frequently—individual. Moral codes in this sense will, therefore, differ both from society to society, within societies, and amongst individuals.
4.    Morality in a descriptive sense may be defined as a code of conduct endorsed and adhered to by a society, group or—much less frequently—individual. Moral codes in this sense will, therefore, differ both from society to society, within societies, and amongst individuals.
5.     Conformance to a recognized code, doctrine, or system of rules of what is right or wrong and to behave accordingly. No system of morality is accepted as universal, and the answers to the question "What is morality?" differ sharply from place to place, group to group, and time to time

The first is that morality is subjective.   If one looks at the dictionary as well as what sociologists say the morality is subjective, at least at the level of the society or group.  So far no one is suggesting that morality is subjective at the individual level, which seems as though it would result in chaos.   But what does it mean to be subjective at the society or group level.   In practice that probably means that as long as either 51% of the society or group agree, or if there is some sort of intellectual or ruling "elite" who guide the society, that decisions about morality will be made by either of those two groups.   Personally the idea of 51% being able to impose their will on 49% doesn't sit well with me on some level.  Of course, neither does having some "elite" class doing the same thing.  The primary problem with this construct is that things change.  For example, in many cultures throughout history (even today in many Islamic nations) chattel slavery was a practice that was approved of by a majority of the population, which made it a moral practice based on the social mores of the groups in question.   Nowadays, many people regard chattel slavery as an immoral act and condemn it.   Yet, if one holds to morality as subjective and society driven, then both the anti slavery society and pro slavery society are moral as defined by their societal norms.    Or, what happens when a society changes it's mind?   Again take slavery.  For years slavery was considered as a moral act by much of western society.  Yet as attitudes changed, slavery was considered immoral.   This raises the question, can an act be immoral at one point in the development of a society, yet immoral at another point.

The second is that morality is self evident.   This one raises numerous questions.

1.  If morality is self evident, why do we see so much variation on moral principles from society to society and group to group?
2.   If morality is self evident, how do we explain the large numbers of people who act in immoral ways?
3.   How can morality be both self evident and subjective/
4.   How can one argue that protecting the right to live is self evidently moral, and argue that abortion is not immoral?   (That abortion is either moral or morally neutral)
5.   When people engage in acts that contravene these self evident morals, why do they engage in those acts?
6.   Are people simply unaware of these self evident moral standards and act from ignorance?
7.   Are people aware of these self evident moral standards, yet choose to act contrary to them?
8.   If a member of a society who considers it moral to randomly kill innocent people, acts in a way they (and their society) believe to be (subjectively) moral, what basis do other societies have to condemn those actions?
9.   Are actions moral or are individuals moral?

Finally, no matter whether you believe that morality is subjective and culture driven or that morality is objective and God directed, what morality really comes down to is simply exercising human effort in order to outwardly conform to some external standard of behavior.   It doesn't address motive or attitude.  It doesn't address acts in private.  It is simply peer pressure from either society or authority that forces conformity of action.     Don't get me wrong, "Don't kill innocent people." is a good moral standard from either perspective and I'm glad that most of the world agrees, but is it enough to simply exert enough control to avoid acting on our impulses?

Jesus never once told people to be moral.   Jesus told the one guy who bragged about how moral he was that his incredible morality wasn't enough.   Jesus talked about not just avoiding actually killing people, but about avoiding the internal hatred that is equivalent to killing someone, about the lust of the heart that is the equivalent of adultery.    Jesus commanded us to love Him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength and to love others the way we love ourselves.   Jesus talked about how those who love Him will keep His commandments, He never mentions conforming to some societal ordained subjective list of behaviors.     Elsewhere we hear talk about faith and not works, lest anyone should boast about how incredibly moral they are.

I guess I conclude that subjective societal morality certainly plays a role in regulating behavior, but that if someone claims to follow Jesus then that bar just seems like it's much to low.  

Personally being moral doesn't seem like much to boast about, but if it's enough for some, then I guess it's better than nothing.

Incredible

Part of the root of this ongoing discussion about morality, is Dans claim that he is "incredibly" moral.  So I thought it might be helpful to look at what "incredible" (or" incredibly") means in the hope of providing some understanding.

INCREDIBLE

1.  Difficult or impossible to believe.
2.  Too extraordinary and improbable to be believed
3.  Amazing, Extraordinary
4.   So implausible as to elicit disbelief

5.   Astonishing, extraordinary, or extreme

6.    Beyond belief or understanding; unbelievable

7.    So extraordinary as to seem impossible

 

So, in reality, the claim being made is that Dan is so moral that the level of his adherence to a set of subjective societal rules is simply beyond the ability of people to believe, that he is so good at obeying subjective societal rules that it seems impossible that anyone could be that good at obeying subjective societal rules.

 

As an aside.  One of my cousins is an incredible musician, he has been compared to people like Jimi Hendrix, people who have literally changed how people thought about what can be done with a given musical instrument and genre.   The terms that others use to describe him are glowing, and incredible is entirely appropriate.    But, I can't for a second imaging him describing himself in the terms others use.   He is much mor humble and reticent when talking about his musical abilities.

 

I think that most of us are unwilling to make superlative claims about ourselves call it modesty, humility, realism, self deprecation, what have you that when someone actually makes such an outlandish claim about themselves that it comes off as jarring, like a note out of tune.

 

Had Dan simply said something like "I think I'm a pretty moral guy." or "I think that I'm more moral than the average person." then I wouldn't have had a problem.  It's the claim that "I'm so moral that people can't believe how amazingly, extraordinarily, impossibly moral I am."  that rubs me the wrong way.

 

Jesus encountered a guy like this, a guy who claimed that he'd kept every single law perfectly from the time he was born, Jesus punctured his balloon.   

 

I suspect that one way Dan has convinced himself that he is "incredibly" moral is that he has constructed a system of morals which happen to align with how he behaves.   He's clearly made comments in earlier threads that indicate that he does not believe that things like drug use, pornography, or abortion are immoral.  His point may be that he believes them morally neutral, but even that puts him at odds with millions of people.

 

In closing, perhaps modesty and humility is a more appropriate choice when describing ones self    

 

At least for now, I am not going to allow comments on this post.   This is simply my expressing my opinion and explaining why I have responded in the way I have to Dan's claim.   Given that I fail to see how comments will be useful.   Comments about this posted elsewhere will, of course, be ignored and/or deleted.

Beginnings

I suspect that most would acknowledge that everything that currently exists has an ultimate beginning.   I also suspect that how one views that beginning speaks volumes about their worldview.   Here are three options for what caused that beginning, each of which has ramifications for ones values and moral code.

1.   Everything that exists was created from nothing.  Absolute nothing.

2.   Everything that exists was created by some impersonal force.  Energy, matter, gravity, time, chance, whatever.

3.   Everything that exists was created by some personal force.  

Interesting racist drivel

A good piece, even if it is written by someone who is clearly racist.


http://freedomsjournalinstitute.org/latest-news/family/white-privilege-black-fathers/

Mass shootings

Lots of talk lately about mass shootings and how to stop them after the terrorist attack in Orlando.  Yet, one wonders why the attack below by an armed man at a club didn't get nearly the publicity of the Orlando attack.



http://www.goupstate.com/article/20160627/ARTICLES/160629757/-1/wire?Title=Lyman-man-charged-following-shooting-at-nightclub


I have a few thoughts on why, but for now I'll just let this stand.