by Farkel 82 Replies latest jw friends
How about this from a book I'm reading about Freemasonry?
Looks like complete fantasy to me.
Freemasonry is not a religion. Neither, btw, is it very secret anymore. They do guided tours now. They play secret games, but they aren't very secret.
So it shouldn't be necessary to rely on such rubbish for information about the freemasons.
PS: When was the last time year heard about ex-masons forming support groups?
- Jan
--
"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate." - Occam
: in this post and the one on 'god v good' you are trying to establish what is 'uppermost' the standard or god himself. does god follow the standard, making himself subordinate to it or does the standard follow god making him arbitrary and the concept of right basically meaningless? im saying that this is a 'false dilemma', black-and-white argument. it does not necessarily follow that a standard which god follows makes him subordinate to that standard.
It could very well be a false dilemma, and I have considered that possibility. My argument is not new nor is it unique. It is an argument based upon the Divine Command Theory of Ethics. What other possibilities do you see? In order to create a false dilemma you need other possibilities. What could they be?
The two that the theory presents are:
1) God IS the standard
2) God is subject to another standard
Well?
<the rest of your comments were pretty much in agreement with mine.>
Farkel
: Just to stay on topic for a change
Since this is my thread, how could I do otherwise?
Farkel
> The two that the theory presents are:
> 1) God IS the standard
> 2) God is subject to another standard
thats not what im saying the dilemma might be--it was your statement that follows from that that god is either an arbitrary jerk or is subordinate to a higher law. im exploring the idea of god following a standard without requiring that there be a higher law. perhaps if youve been reading up on this then my line of thought regarding rationality is covered in like chapter 2 of the 'Big Book of Divine Ethics' so you can just cut to the conclusion and/or direct me to some reading material that u think i might like.
mox
: im exploring the idea of god following a standard without requiring that there be a higher law
God either defines the standard or he follows another standard. What other possibilities do you see?
Farkel
: : im exploring the idea of god following a standard without requiring that there be a higher law
: God either defines the standard or he follows another standard. What other possibilities do you see?
none, but following a standard does not mean that a law exists above god.
im looking at it this way: if u say that god must follow, for example, the laws of physics, well then he isnt god because god must exist above the laws of physics. he should have made them and he could have made different laws of physics than the ones we know. we can imagine such a universe as possible. your argument seems similar but with 'moral law' substituted for 'laws of physics' - so im trying to find a 'standard' or 'law' that is intrinsic to our state of existence which god could not create and for which no other possibility exists. and that standard is rationality. put simply, true is true and not false. god should be the ultimate judge of what is true and what is false and what is neither. if we can explain moral law in terms of rationality (im not sure that we can) then we have a standard of rightness that god follows that no one 'made' or imposed on him. it simply _is_. now i dont know how any of this would affect us peons. if we thought that our god was being inconsistent or irrational and called him to task on it, i suppose he could just sigh and say, 'you'll understand one day when _you're_ omnipotent' and maybe smite us a couple times for asking. from a more technical standpoint, quantum physics tells us that there can statements that _are_ both true and false at the same, and whereas god should be able to see past that, it doesnt really help us from our viewpoint. to us his standard of truth would just seem arbitrary no matter how kindly he explained to us that he really, really was the real deal. i dont really think this line of reasoning takes us anywhere useful at all but i feel obligated to try and present counter-arguments to anything i hear. thats just how i figure things out...
mox
1-God is an arbitrary jerk
2-God is subject to a higher standard than Himself
OR
3-There are two standards - one for humans and one for God
God created everything (except Himself)
God made all the rules
God punishes those who break the rules
God tells us we are NOT to kill one another
God kills those who do not please Him
This is not an oxymoron, and it is not illogical. It is really very simple. God punishes those who break his rules AND we are not permitted to do the same. This is similar to a parent/child relationship - a parent can do many things that a child isn't permitted to do. It's called a double standard and it may not be fair, but it's not all that complicated.
frkel,
about the spelling i am dyslexic. i thought you were looking for formal logic were the terminalogy is established first, why did you feel the need to put me down?
"you are trying to establish what is 'uppermost' the standard or god himself. does god follow the standard, making himself subordinate to it or does the standard follow god making him arbitrary and the concept of right basically meaningless?"
"uppermost", most high = god
how is that no logic
the ideas and opinions expressed in this post do not necessiarly represent those of the WTB&TS inc. or any of it's subsidiary corporations.
hello conflicted,
This is similar to a parent/child relationship - a parent can do many things that a child isn't permitted to do. It's called a double standard
Ahhhh, the old "do as I say, not as I do" parent/child standard?
I don't know if you're agreeing with it or not - but I definitely disagree with that standard. My parents were true believers of it. The term "double standard" is hypocritical at the very least. Any teenager can see through it and if they've got guts and aren't hypocritical themselves - will valiantly rebel.
If God is all good, He wouldn't be part of a double standard. How could we have been "made in his image" - his attributes then?
I must agree with Farkel, again.
waiting
I said:
: God either defines the standard or he follows another standard. What other possibilities do you see?
You said:
:none, but following a standard does not mean that a law exists above
God.
If God defines the standard, it IS the standard. If he doesn't, then he is subject to another standard or he is subject to no standard. If he is subject to no standard, then there are NO rules from God. What part of this do you not understand?
If another standard does exist, and God follows it then there IS a "law" or at least a standard that does exist above God. Period.
It can be no other way. You may not like it, but that is the way it is.
The Bible God dies from a toxic overdose of logic. Bad way to go for a God who isn't even strong enough to make sure people know how to pronounce his dang name. Or even how to spell it properly. He loves to kill lots of people, though. Indeed. Puny Gods need all sorts of distractions to keep people from figuring out that they are puny Gods.
Farkel
