tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post1236523623535541991..comments2023-09-18T07:21:34.847-07:00Comments on Church Bell: Is God Responsible for Original Sin?Liberty Bellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12583326798091256934noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post-41329717747479050142017-01-11T18:12:47.385-08:002017-01-11T18:12:47.385-08:00Lest I forget and as I noted elsewhere, determinis...Lest I forget and as I noted elsewhere, determinism is simply absolute cause-effect, everything being being cause of something and the effect of something. And such absolute cause-effect, determinism, is simple conclusion of induction.<br /><br />And there's no perfectly free human will, humans being sinners, etc., that perfectly free will, by definition, only aspect of God.<br /><br />apsterianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03297809679042040011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post-3755995169605897732016-11-29T20:28:17.815-08:002016-11-29T20:28:17.815-08:00Well of course I'm "interested"--I w...<br /><br />Well of course I'm "interested"--I was philosophy major and have never given it up. But surely u understand u're doomed for ur efforts: there is no "good-evil," Pelagian heresy, "good-evil" something NO ONE has ever, in all history, been able to define in satisfactory, rational manner.<br /><br /><br /> apsterianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03297809679042040011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post-75005241855800901082016-11-29T20:22:30.881-08:002016-11-29T20:22:30.881-08:00Objectivity: Independent Existence In Accord W. Id...<br />Objectivity: Independent Existence In Accord W. Identity, A = A<br /><br />As I understand Aristotle, primary def. of "objective" is existing independently, regardless one's own mentality (subjectivism) or perception, but perception otherwise being necessary, axiomatic means ("consciousness" necessary accompaniment of identity and objectivity) of apprehending such objective reality.<br /><br />So if there's objective reality, including of particulars, then they have necessary natures for potential and actual, etc., all in accord w. cause-effect, the scientific, verified reality of all observations--DETERMINISM.<br /><br />Satanism (extreme subjectivism by way of pretending to Godliness) then attempts to pretending there's exception to determinism--by means of fallacious, delusionary, hereticalist (Pelagianist) "free" will, key to their satanic criminal conspiracies by which satanists take advantage of rest of (childish) humanity, typically, historically beginning w. delusionary, child's "good-evil" delusion, as pretext for further delusions, esp. and ultimately in way of "central-banking," etc., by which they seek total ownership/control of everything and everyone, so often seeming to coming soooo close to actually succeeding in this (dictatorship), but ALWAYS failing, ho ho oho ho.<br /><br /><br />apsterianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03297809679042040011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post-16379116017331999032016-11-29T20:02:27.483-08:002016-11-29T20:02:27.483-08:00Christianity Profoundly Rational
Well, according ...<br />Christianity Profoundly Rational<br /><br />Well, according to Aristotle, as I understand, objectivity is simply necessary assumption ("first philosophy"), thus we get logic, science, reason, etc. The alternative subjectivism (Platonism, transcendence) is too easily reduced to absurd. And there's no better either-or choice than such objectivity vs. subjectivism (or mysticism). So Christianity simply affirms Aristotlean objectivity, hence determinism, but additionally supplies felicitous, rational, practicable ethics, pure and simple, all this in contrast to foremost satanists, subjectivists, criminals, psychopathic murderers, the Pharisees and their dupes (masons [who come later in hist., of course], homosexuals, et al.).<br /><br />To be sure, Pharisaist satanism is outstanding weaponized psychology for waging of war, the Pharisaic God being a war-God, but Christ rather demonstrated, I think, how that only goes so far, and has to end.apsterianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03297809679042040011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post-69375062497671741512016-11-29T19:53:04.297-08:002016-11-29T19:53:04.297-08:00Does it occur to u ur "degrees" haven...Does it occur to u ur "degrees" haven't helped u?--in fact, rather the contrary? U can bid "adieu" all u pls, buddy, I'm not worried, ho ho ho ohoapsterianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03297809679042040011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post-60841504223069618442016-11-29T19:22:26.391-08:002016-11-29T19:22:26.391-08:00P.S. I have notes for a post in which I will sketc...P.S. I have notes for a post in which I will sketch a case that Goodness exists objectively. In passing, I will also defend what is called the "particularist" answer the "problem of the criterion," which (intentionally or not) you alluded to in another of your comments. If you're interested, then look for that in the future. (And, again, I'll try to make time to review Vexen Crabtree's - at least, according to you, I have not read it yet - denial of free will.)<br /><br />Peace :-)Liberty Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12583326798091256934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post-23796431153194263792016-11-29T19:22:08.090-08:002016-11-29T19:22:08.090-08:00But what does "objective" mean? When I t...But what does "objective" mean? When I turn to my trusty dictionary and look under "O," I find that "objective" means "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts." <br /><br />I take that as my starting point. It's a neutral definition in the sense that I didn't just formulate it in order to buttress my position or to attack yours.<br /><br />You, however, appear to want to simply "define" "objective" as "determined" in order to "win" the debate by ipse dixit. Well, that's quite a trick. You just continue:<br /><br />5. If reality is objective, then it's determined.<br />6. Reality is objective.<br />7. Therefore, reality is determined.<br /><br />But why should I go along with this? What reason can you provide in support of premise 5? Why should I think that for x to be "independent of human opinion" (which is the definition that I am using for "objective") entails that x is "determined"? Certainly, you haven't provided *any* reason for me to think this. And I can see none. <br /><br />"Reality is objective but not determined" is only a contradiction is "objective" entails, means, or is synonymous with "determined." Let me be clear: Presently, I deny that "objective" entails, means, or is synonymous with "determined." Therefore, I see no contradiction. I am open to the possibility that you could help me to see a contradiction. But you have to do better than to simply demand, insist, or other suggest that I just accept the identification of "objectivity" and "determination." Why should I do that? (And if you really think that everything is determined, then why try to argue with me? Are you determined to argue? Are we both not determined to hold our differing views? What's the point of arguing?)<br /><br />Well, that's all the time I have for now. As always, thanks for the attention.Liberty Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12583326798091256934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post-48578202038636402982016-11-29T19:20:35.815-08:002016-11-29T19:20:35.815-08:00I would love to read from you even a single argume...I would love to read from you even a single argument purporting to establish any of your preferred conclusions. <br /><br />Let me try to illustrate, more clearly, what I am hoping for. I'll start by answering your question: of course, "Christ = truth," as can be gleaned from John 14:6 (in the same way that "God = good," as is explicitly stated in Psalm 34:8; Psalm 100:5; Psalm 136:1). <br /><br />So you might proceed:<br /><br />1. If truth exists objectively (that is, independently of human opinion), then something exists objectively.<br />2. If something exists objectively, then "reality is objective."<br /><br />The consequent of premise 2 is a little vague for my tastes, but ...so far, so good. Furthermore, I agree that:<br /><br />3. Truth exists objectively.<br /><br />Therefore, I agree that:<br /><br />4. "Reality is objective."Liberty Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12583326798091256934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post-64767303825296234772016-11-29T19:20:15.702-08:002016-11-29T19:20:15.702-08:00Are you passing on the question of what form of Ch...Are you passing on the question of what form of Christianity espouses anything like the denial-of-free-will / denial-of-Goodness theology that you are so adamant about? Shall I assume, then, that these ideas are original to you? Or did you obtain all of them by reading the Bible expositions of Satanists? ;-)<br /><br />Of course, I am being gratuitously belligerent. But, really, "keep wiggling and squirming"? Come on, please don't antagonize me. If you are interested in a philosophical exchange, then I am happy to dialog with you. But if you just want to be (ahem) Pharisaical (!) in propounding your own, as far as I can see idiosyncratic, version of Christianity, then I will have to bid you adieu. <br /><br />I am not going to abandon my understanding of historic Christianity - that I have developed over the course of two academic degrees and many years - simply because you accuse me (in my view incorrectly) of "Mysticism" or "Pelagianism" - especially when no rigorous definitions or arguments are forthcoming. (I mean, do you want to jettison your positions simply because I have expressed my disagreement with you? Apparently not.)<br /><br />I mean, suppose - even though I deny it - that my position *is* fairly described as "mysticism." Does that make my position false? No; all that you have done is labeled me. You have nowhere defined "mysticism." You have nowhere argued that mysticism, so-defined, is false. And you have nowhere demonstrated that my positions satisfy the conditions for the definition of "mysticism." Liberty Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12583326798091256934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post-18407440878469664672016-11-29T18:12:15.950-08:002016-11-29T18:12:15.950-08:00Determinism Really Simple, Crushing Argument
Well...Determinism Really Simple, Crushing Argument<br /><br />Well, I said what I said, and consider that's sufficient, u just repeating ur special-pleading and mysticism. Christianity (worship of TRUTH [= Christ] founded upon objectivity) is the Hegelian (-style) anti-thesis to Pharisaic subjectivism ("midrash," Oral Law Tradition), hence lies (Gosp. JOHN 8:44), as I've noted.<br /><br />Foremost pretext to this subjectivism is non-existent "good-evil," Pelagian heresy--why is this so difficult to grasp? Neither u nor anyone is capable of "good" (which requires definition), and this is a deterministic fact, period.<br /><br />St. Paul affirms we're sinners, we not having "free" will to not sinning, we requiring God's grace and mercy to enter Heaven, etc.<br /><br />So is Christ = truth?--yes or no? How can there be truth without an objective reality? And if reality is objective, then it's determined (absolute cause-effect) which is affirmed by St. Paul--so what do u want? Determinism is also the necessary inductive conclusion given observation of reality, u not capable of presenting any counter-evidence. So keep wiggling and squirming.<br /> <br /><br />apsterianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03297809679042040011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post-57734754476917229542016-11-29T17:52:54.055-08:002016-11-29T17:52:54.055-08:00As for your professed Internet difficulties: Make ...As for your professed Internet difficulties: Make sure that you are not copying the final period. The period ends the sentence, not the URL. The URL is as follows:<br /><br />http://www.vexen.co.uk/vexen.html<br /><br />You can also access it via The Wayback Machine.<br /><br />https://web.archive.org/web/20161116210947/http://www.vexen.co.uk/vexen.html<br /><br />In any case, Vexen's page relates: "I've been a member of the Church of Satan for 15 years (since 1999), and ran the London Satanists for several years..."<br /><br />As to the remainder of your remarks, I already admitted that the "fact [that he is a Satanist] ...does not entail that either his biblical exegesis or his theological musings will be in error..." <br /><br />Nonetheless I find it darkly humorous that, for all your protestations against "Satanism," and for all of the millions of pages written on the issue of free will by Christian exegetes and theologians, the Bible expository that you submit (in lieu of your own) in defense of your stated denial of free will was penned by a Church of Satan adherent.<br /><br />Is there no Church Doctor or Divine - whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant - that you can summon in support of your denial of free will? Just out of curiosity, can you point to any denomination or sect of Christianity (besides the "Church of Satan"!) that has even held or that now holds a position similar to the one that you endorse?<br /><br />Of course, I already said that I would be willing to at least scan Crabtree's commentary. (Though I admit that I do not have anything like high hopes for it.) But I will need some time to do so, since at present my workload will not permit it.<br /><br />So...stay tuned, I guess :-)Liberty Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12583326798091256934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post-89514640747165445952016-11-29T16:46:03.821-08:002016-11-29T16:46:03.821-08:00Ok, I'm getting an error msg for that address,...Ok, I'm getting an error msg for that address, but it doesn't matter. It's sufficient for the argument (Christianity preaching objectivity/determinism, humans as sinners, no "free" will to change such sinful nature) to sticking w. the expo, even if Crabtree is satanist. If there's an error in the expo regarding Christian determinism, then it still requires identification, despite Crabtree's putative satanism.apsterianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03297809679042040011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post-41928854350913195092016-11-29T16:31:51.317-08:002016-11-29T16:31:51.317-08:00Christian Worships TRUTH (= Christ) In Accord W. H...<br />Christian Worships TRUTH (= Christ) In Accord W. Holy Spirit (Reason, Honesty, Integrity)<br /><br />U say, above:<br /><br />"To put it slightly differently, just as knowing that truth *exists* is one thing, but finding out what propositions are true is something else, so too, knowing that good exists is not the same thing as being correct about what things are good."<br /><br />TRUTH (= Christ, Gosp. JOHN 14:6) exists given the ASSUMPTION (as all logic is necessarily founded) of objective (Aristotelian) reality. Particulars are then mere subsets, including non-existent, particular (even if abstract) "good-evil."<br /><br />Subjectivism, never forget, is just another (the alternative) assumption which one can choose, but question is what practical good does it do? For subjectivism only fails by reduction-ad-absurdum, that's all, and that's why objectivity is more useful, practical choice.<br /><br />Subjectivism is necessary premise to satanism and "good," "good" mere instrument of satanism--it's reason, for another example, Alex Jones (InfoWars.com) is heavily promoted by Jews, satanists, including hitlery Clinton, Jones notorious pusher of such "good-evil" fallacy/heresy (Pelagianism).<br /><br />And all u do for "good" is, like typical Platonist, begging question repetitively, obsessively, continuously--as if to thus make such begging-question seemingly legitimate. Good is necessarily a particular, if it exists, which must be demonstrated and properly defined (regardless what u say about "definition") which we see u're incapable of doing.<br /><br />Thus we see u continue to wiggle and squirm, begging the question, and special-pleading etc., for ur obsession for "good" (and hence "evil"), almost as if u want to reify this non-existent "good" by means of repetitively asserting it exists, even as u practically admit it can't be defined (and despite cavilling over meaning/use of the word, "definition").<br /><br />So if "good" exists, given it's wide usage, it deserves a fairly simple, practical definition, "good" being mere PARTICULAR, though perhaps abstract, which neither u nor anyone else can do, period; admit the truth like proper Christian.<br /><br /><br />apsterianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03297809679042040011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post-77593572087905887982016-11-29T15:59:21.580-08:002016-11-29T15:59:21.580-08:00Here you go: http://www.vexen.co.uk/vexen.html .Here you go: http://www.vexen.co.uk/vexen.html .Liberty Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12583326798091256934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post-61004251925175511152016-11-29T15:45:22.250-08:002016-11-29T15:45:22.250-08:00U're right: I didn't see (still don't ...U're right: I didn't see (still don't see) that the author, Crabtree, is satanist. I simply looked (quickly) at his text, saw the allusions to St. Paul (who I think is pretty definitive) and the expo for determinism. The second citation refers to the note I made in the top response to my lacking a ref., so I added the second response for purpose of complete argument.<br /><br /><br /><br />apsterianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03297809679042040011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post-57702527013183514262016-11-29T13:13:34.105-08:002016-11-29T13:13:34.105-08:00Errata:
"The good and the true are an analog...Errata:<br /><br />"The good and the true are an analogous positions..." should have been:<br /><br />The good and the true are **in** analogous positions...<br /><br />And "primarily confusions over truth and over derivatively confusions over goodness" should have been:<br /><br />...primarily confusions over truth and **only** derivatively confusions over goodness.Liberty Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12583326798091256934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post-81798072014592141172016-11-29T13:11:01.436-08:002016-11-29T13:11:01.436-08:00Time permitting, I will take a look at the materia...Time permitting, I will take a look at the material at these links.<br /><br />I observe straightaway, however, that Mr. "Vexen Crabtree" is a self-professed Satanist. While this fact certainly does not entail that either his biblical exegesis or his theological musings will be in error, it seems curious to me that you would direct me toward him.<br /><br />It seems curious on account of the fact that, over its 2,000-year history, Christianity has had no shortage of sophisticated expositors and thinkers. It seems peculiar to me, therefore, that a person who continually writes "Christ = truth" should unceremoniously pass over many learned and important Christian commentators and depend, concerning a crucial philosophical issue, on the speculations of a 21st-century apologist for the "Church of Satan."<br /><br />As to the second link, again, I will look it over as soon as feasible. But I am not quite sure what point you consider the second link to be a "citation" *for*. You write that it's "for the sinful nature of humanity." However, as I hope is clear, I nowhere deny that humanity is sinful. The question that I tackled in this weblog post was not whether humanity is sinful (short answer: humanity *is* sinful), but whether God is the author of sin (He's not).<br /><br />Peace.Liberty Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12583326798091256934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post-57873726171653573252016-11-29T12:59:26.231-08:002016-11-29T12:59:26.231-08:00Remember that there is a difference between metaph...Remember that there is a difference between metaphysics (the study of being or existence) and epistemology (the study of how we know). We should not confuse the two. A thing's metaphysical status is one thing; it's epistemic status is another.<br /><br />The good and the true are an analogous positions, both with respect to metaphysics and epistemology. To put it slightly differently, just as knowing that truth *exists* is one thing, but finding out what propositions are true is something else, so too, knowing that good exists is not the same thing as being correct about what things are good.<br /><br />I deny that any of the examples of moral confusion that you gesture towards - self-hatred, slavery, prohibition, seat-belt laws, fiat-money creation, and so on - are clearcut reasons to deny the existence of goodness. They give no better reason to deny the existence of goodness than they do to deny the existence of truth. After all, someone could say that the confusions that you highlight are primarily confusions over truth and over derivatively confusions over goodness.<br /><br />But, presumably, you would want to say that racial self-hatred is not good and that it is true that one should not have racial self-hatred. And so on for each example.<br /><br />For sure, your examples show that it is often difficult to come to know what propositions are true and what acts are good. And it is often contentious to advocate in favor of particular propositions or of particular acts. However, again, to draw metaphysical confusions from this epistemic quagmire just conflates metaphysics with epistemology.Liberty Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12583326798091256934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post-660133588424282072016-11-26T15:49:35.455-08:002016-11-26T15:49:35.455-08:00Found good citation for sinful nature of humanity:...Found good citation for sinful nature of humanity: http://bible-truth.org/saintsin.htmapsterianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03297809679042040011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post-31587682825045550462016-11-26T15:32:20.144-08:002016-11-26T15:32:20.144-08:00Objectivity Renders Determinism
Note also Christi...Objectivity Renders Determinism<br /><br />Note also Christian theology affirms determinism, as in writings of St. Paul, but don't forget that even before St. Paul, it's taught (sorry no citation handy at the moment) we're sinners, no one without sin--and we can't change that. So there's determinism. Great discussion on determinism at http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/christianity_freewill.html<br /><br />apsterianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03297809679042040011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post-42170368745604545522016-11-24T16:19:59.644-08:002016-11-24T16:19:59.644-08:00"Good": Worst Enemy Of Truth (= Christ)
...<br />"Good": Worst Enemy Of Truth (= Christ)<br /><br />Note the horrific enmity of (non-existent) "good" for TRUTH (= Christ, Gosp. JOHN 14:6), this "good" pretext for satanism (extreme subjectivism). Worst enemy of truth is "good."<br /><br />Thus to begin, (a) we have the suicide of the white race in USA at the Civil War, the northerners acceding to the mass-murder of their own people (in South), failing and refusing the right of self-gov., consent of governed. Of course, there were complications, northerners persuaded South wanted to take the Western territories for slavery, following Dred Scott Decision, etc. Regardless, note the ease by which moralism ALWAYS intrudes any discussion of the strict issue for states-rights, by means of "slavery."<br /><br />(b) Then we have the issue of "prohibition" (of alcoholic beverages), obviously idiotic, and obviously inspired by moralism destroying law. Precisely same sort of moralism continues in the drug laws of today. Enough said on this subject to demonstrate the pt., though many details can be added.<br /><br />(c) Seat-belt laws are infamous and notorious.<br /><br />(d) Perhaps worst of all is the legalized counterfeiting of central-banking by which satanism is entrenched and established as the leading power, as we see, owning/controlling all judges and politicians, over-populated morons and scum persuaded it's "good" to have more and evermore currency (not real "money") by means of the fiat-currency now pumped-out by the criminals and satanists. <br /><br />Thus we see the means by which satanism operates and prevails--by means of the lie about "good" which works so diabolically against truth and justice. "Good" the foremost pretext for satanism. Not for nothing were Pharisaics ID'd as worst enemy of God and humanity (and which such Pharisaics essentially admit in their own Talmud).<br /><br /><br />apsterianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03297809679042040011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post-38300853137791102812016-11-22T22:09:12.167-08:002016-11-22T22:09:12.167-08:00It's All God's Fault, Which He Admitted, D...<br />It's All God's Fault, Which He Admitted, Duly Died For, Giving Us Holy Spirit For Guidance<br /><br />Good gravy, but what is this blog really supposed to be about? I note the title question, Is God responsible (for original sin)?--and yes, he obviously must be, but still we have our problem(s) to occupy our attn.<br /><br />Then, however, we see u write lots of other stuff which perhaps we're supposed to address, but maybe it's safer not to.<br /><br />But when in doubt, often I find it's expedient to refer to the thematic dialectic of the literature which pertains to grasping the problem within proper context, Christ (= truth, Gosp. JOHN 14:6) vs. the satanic Pharisees who seriously thought they could murder TRUTH, but which truth triumphantly resurrected (Easter) as it can't be killed, as reality is objective and can't be killed, truly a lesson to be taken to heart.<br /><br />Thus the objective, Aristotelian reality triumphs over satanic subjectivist, the objective reality base for all/any ensuing ethics, exemplified by Christ, reconciling emotion w. inexorable, inevitable, determined reality, including then, the emotions of fellow humans. It's much an artistic effort, regarding ethics, politics, and human psychology.<br /><br />So "original sin" is that condition of human will, hence self-interest, and problem of management, necessity of reason and Holy Spirit by which we grasp the truth (= Christ), the greatest virtue for things. And life then is very much an art for ethical virtue and management therewith, Holy Spirit (reason, honesty, and integrity) there to guide us for grasping truth (= Christ).<br /><br /><br />apsterianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03297809679042040011noreply@blogger.com