Philosophy Now Forum

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 5:54 pmYou didn't bother responding to the substance of my post.

Cuz the substance of your post isn't what I'm writing about.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 5:59 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 5:54 pmYou didn't bother responding to the substance of my post.

Cuz the substance of your post isn't what I'm writing about.

Sure it is.

You say this : "I fail to see how livin' as though my fellows have natural rights, even if none of us actually do, is a bad thing or can lead to bad consequences."

And I gave an example of bad consequences.

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 6:02 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 5:59 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 5:54 pmYou didn't bother responding to the substance of my post.

Cuz the substance of your post isn't what I'm writing about.

Sure it is.

You say this : "I fail to see how livin' as though my fellows have natural rights, even if none of us actually do, is a bad thing or can lead to bad consequences."

And I gave an example of bad consequences.

I get it: the current hellshow of legal property is a bad consequence of natural rights, yes?

Your example, to me, is what folks can expect when natural rights aren't recognized and respected.

But, mebbe, I'm wrong. Please elaborate and show how natural rights justifies such abuses.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 5:43 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 10:21 amAslan 's power comes from the culture and society of Narnia

Not according to Lewis. He was clear: Aslan is what the second person of the Trinity (God the Son) might have been like had he been incarnated in a magical world of talking animals and living trees. His power, including resurrection, is not cultural or societal.

But, of course, a reader can interpret the work as she likes.

Aslan is wise enough to know that not one of his individual subjects can stand alone without the support of others.

Not according to Lewis. He was clear: Aslan, as Christ, is that which His allies cannot do without.

But, again, a reader can interpret the work as she likes.

As for my use of the quote...

Here it is again, whole...

(Puddleglum, trapped along side his comrades, in a nightmare underworld, stands up to the witch who has attempted to bewitch the group into believing there is no Narnia and no Aslan.)

“One word, Ma'am," he said, coming back from the fire; limping, because of the pain. "One word. All you've been saying is quite right, I shouldn't wonder. I'm a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won't deny any of what you said. But there's one more thing to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things-trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia. So, thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady are ready, we're leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for Overland. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that's a small loss if the world's as dull a place as you say.” ― C.S. Lewis, The Silver Chair

So, I used the quote as literary support of...

Okay, let's say natural rights is just another subjective construct. So what? Can't see how recognizing and respecting another's claim on his own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing.

That fiction, if it is fiction, is a damned sight better than living as though the world were empty and rudderless.

Even if there are no natural rights, I will still live as though there are; Even if a person has no moral claim to his life, liberty, and property, I will still live as though he does.

I wasn't defending Lewis, his work, or Christianity.

Obviously, Aslan is like Jesus in that he was executed and rose from the dead. He is also like God the Father, in that he creates the Narnian universe (including the stars, moon and sun) in "Magician's Nephew. I hope, Henry, that you aren't planning on emulating Puddleglum in other ways. He's something of a mope and a downer.

By the way, have you or Belinda read "Planet Narnia", written by Michael Ward and published in 2008? Ward points out that the Narnia series is organized on the basis of Medieval Astrology. Ward was a PhD. student at Oxford, studying Lewis for his Doctor of Divinity dissertation.

Those familiar with C.S. Lewis and his works know that Lewis was interested in Medieval astrology. In his Science Fiction trilogy, "Out of the Silent Planet" is set on Mars, and has a "martial" plot and tone. "Perelandra" is set on Venus, and has a venereal mood and tone. In "That Hideous Strength" the rulers of the Planets (equivalent to angels in Christian mythology) play a personal role.

Narnia has been criticized as a 'mish mash" -- mixing up Greek mythology, talking animal English fiction, and E. Nesbit - like children's fantasy. Indeed, Lewis begins "The Magician's Nephew" with an homage to Nesbit (from memory) --"This was back in the days when the Bastables were still looking for treasure on Lewisham road."

Probably because of the obvious Christological symbolism, readers did not look further for an organizing principle -- until it occurred to Ward.

Ward's theory (and it's obvious and irrefutable, once he lays it out) is that each of the novels portrays the "aspect" of Christ symbolized by one of the planets. In addition, the mood, or "humor": of each book is imbued with the humor of the planet.

Ward backs his theory with both textual evidence, and evidence from Lewis's life. For example, Lewis wrote a poem called "The Planets". He describes Jupiter's tale as one:

Of wrath ended
And woes mended, of winter passed
And guilt forgiven, and goof fortune
Jove is master; and of jocund revel,
Laughter of ladies. The lion-hearted,
The myriad-minded, men like the gods,
Helps and heroes, helms of nations
Just and gentle, are Jove's children,
Work his wonders.

Of course, "winter passed" is exactly what happens in "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe".

The plan is: The Lion -- Jupiter
Prince Caspian -- Mars
The Voyage of the Dawn Treader -- Sol (the sun and moon were "planets" for medieval astrologers)
The Silver Chair -- Luna
The Horse and His Boy -- Mercury
The Magician's Nephew -- Venus
The Last Battle -- Saturn

Ward is a good writer, and he goes into detail supporting his theory. There can be little doubt that Lewis used it as an organizing principle, and the book is well worth reading for fans of Narnia.

As one example: Mercury is the patron of messengers and thieves. In "The Horse and His Boy", Shasta "steals" the horse Bree, and saves Archenland by serving as a messenger. In astrology, the constellation "Gemini" is ruled by Mercury. The Gemini were the twins, Castor and Pollux. Homer (whom Lewis had doubtless read) describes Castor as the "horse tamer" and Pollux as a great boxer. Of course Shasta "tames" Bree, not by teaching him to obey, but by befriending him and teaching him about prideless honor. Shasta's twin brother Corin is a boxer. Indeed, Shasta's real birth name is "Cor", and if we combine the names, we get C(sh)ast(a)or, which can hardly be a coincidence.

The argument for all of the other books is equally persuasive (or more so, because I've given the Cliff Notes version). Perhaps fans of Narnia and medieval astrology can try to figure out some of the connections for themselves. Or they can read the book. Medieval astrology, by the way, almost vanished with Copernicus and Gallileo, (who disproved the paradigm on which it was based), and astrology was revived in the late 19th century along with an interest in other forms of mysticism and supernaturalism. It bears only a slight resemblance to modern astrology.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 11:52 pm

I hope, Henry, that you aren't planning on emulating Puddleglum in other ways. He's something of a mope and a downer.

Oh, he's not such a bad role model. Amongst his own he's considered absolutely sunny.

Planet Narnia

I wasn't aware of it, but, after reading about it: I agree with Ward. I've always thought Lewis crafted a world as complex and interconnected as Tolkien's. Lewis was just less obvious about it.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2024 3:20 am

Alexiev wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 11:52 pm

I hope, Henry, that you aren't planning on emulating Puddleglum in other ways. He's something of a mope and a downer.

Oh, he's not such a bad role model. Amongst his own he's considered absolutely sunny.

Planet Narnia

I wasn't aware of it, but, after reading about it: I agree with Ward. I've always thought Lewis crafted a world as complex and interconnected as Tolkien's. Lewis was just less obvious about it.

He was obvious in some ways and secretive in others. Ward made a brilliant discovery, like that amateur librarian who discovered that Emily Bronte's brilliant poems were penned by characters in the Bronte's childhood games.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 5:43 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 10:21 amAslan 's power comes from the culture and society of Narnia

Not according to Lewis. He was clear: Aslan is what the second person of the Trinity (God the Son) might have been like had he been incarnated in a magical world of talking animals and living trees. His power, including resurrection, is not cultural or societal.

But, of course, a reader can interpret the work as she likes.

Aslan is wise enough to know that not one of his individual subjects can stand alone without the support of others.

Not according to Lewis. He was clear: Aslan, as Christ, is that which His allies cannot do without.

But, again, a reader can interpret the work as she likes.

As for my use of the quote...

Here it is again, whole...

(Puddleglum, trapped along side his comrades, in a nightmare underworld, stands up to the witch who has attempted to bewitch the group into believing there is no Narnia and no Aslan.)

“One word, Ma'am," he said, coming back from the fire; limping, because of the pain. "One word. All you've been saying is quite right, I shouldn't wonder. I'm a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won't deny any of what you said. But there's one more thing to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things-trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia. So, thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady are ready, we're leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for Overland. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that's a small loss if the world's as dull a place as you say.” ― C.S. Lewis, The Silver Chair

So, I used the quote as literary support of...

Okay, let's say natural rights is just another subjective construct. So what? Can't see how recognizing and respecting another's claim on his own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing.

That fiction, if it is fiction, is a damned sight better than living as though the world were empty and rudderless.

Even if there are no natural rights, I will still live as though there are; Even if a person has no moral claim to his life, liberty, and property, I will still live as though he does.

I wasn't defending Lewis, his work, or Christianity.

Thanks for your thoughtful , serious, and interesting reply
Aslan is indeed like the second person of the Trinity. But Jesus is not only the second person of the Trinity he was also a real historical person. This real historical person happened to be a Jew, a faithful and observant Jew as reported by the Gospels. Christianity itself arose mostly from its roots in Jewish culture especially since the ideas of the Old Testament Prophets.

Puddlegum's speech quoted by yourself fits my idea of how people need to personify their aspirations. Even if JC, or Aslan if preferred, did not exist we would need to invent him. All I ask is that the moral code as laid down by JC in the Sermon on the Mount is attended to, and that Aslan ,or JC, not a magical fairy godmother but who said the good life was a dangerous fight against fearful odds.

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household” (Matthew 10:34-36).

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 3:08 pm

So, absolutely every one of human beings 'watch out', because the one known as "henry quirk" here WILL shoot you DEAD if it believes that you are even just attempting to take what it calls "its property".

Yes, please, remember: I will defend my property.

Also, do not forget that after it had KILLED you then it is absolutely impossible for you to inform it, nor anyone else, of what the actual Truth is, exactly.

Exactly right. I'm no mind reader. After I've put shot in a person's chest, he won't be able to plead his case. So, to avoid misunderstandings, he should talk to me and ask if he can borrow my property. Mebbe I'll say yes. It's a win-win: he gets to live, mebbe his need is met, and, mebbe, I get to do a good deed.

Or, and as what I was VERY OBVIOUSLY pointing out and alluding to, but which you OBVIOUSLY were not capable of seeing and comprehending, just maybe that other human being was NOT doing and/or NOT thinking, at all, what you, obviously, were, first, ONLY presuming or believing was true, when you just decided to SHOOT them DEAD, or when you, 'put shot in their chest', as you call it.

What "henry quirk" is doing right here in this thread is a prime example of why there was so much misunderstanding, fighting, warring, and killing of each other, again back in the days when this was being written. The bickering, quarreling, and arguing is also a result of the misunderstandings these people had as well.

'This one', literally, can NOT just listen, comprehend, nor understand what I am just pointing out and saying and claiming here, and, laughingly, this is WHEN I am actually talking to "henry quirk". And, this is because "henry quirk" does not listen to other and only really listens to its own already existing beliefs and presumptions, only. 'This one' will, literally, not listen to the other', while it is listening to its own thoughts, only. Which is, EXACTLY, what leads to all of the misunderstandings, which in turn leads to all of the bickering, arguments, warring, and/or the killing of you human beings. Which is WHY people like "henry quirk" KILL first, and only.

"henry quirk" is a prime example of someone who instead of just listening to another, to just obtain 'understanding', itself, "henry quirk" out of actual 'misunderstanding', itself, would prefer to, and would, just KILL another human beings DEAD.

And, would do so before absolutely anything else.

Which, although is a proven sign of one who is Truly SCARED, because it is living with a constant irrational FEAR, it is also proof of what happens and occurs from 'misunderstanding', itself.

Instead of just seeking out actual clarification, first, and thus obtaining any actual understanding, prior, "henry quirk" would prefer to just be a 'reactive person', and rely on its own 'misunderstandings', 'greed', and 'selfishness', only, or mostly, before absolutely anything else.

Again, which is exactly why there was so much WARRING, KILLING, MURDER, and DESTRUCTION in 'the world', in the 'olden days', back when this was being written.

Also, what can be CLEARLY NOTICED in "henry quirk's" words above here is a True 'narcissist' view. That is; 'my property' is far, far more valuable to me than 'your life' ever could be. So, you HAVE TO ASK for 'my permission' before you could even touch 'my toothpicks' or even 'my stale pieces of bread', or I WILL KILL you DEAD. In other words, "henry quirk" actually, and very laughingly, BELIEVES, ABSOLUTELY, that what it claims 'it owns' is far, far more IMPORTANT than any human being's life is. "henry quirk" actually believes, absolutely, that 'it' is more important than anyone else, and it believes this so much that it actually believes that what it claims is "his", no matter what it is, is far, far, far more important than 'human life', itself.

"henry quirk" is one who displayed, absolutely, a pure example of 'narcissistic personality disorder', itself.

"henry quirk" actually believes that human beings HAVE TO seek out and ask PERMISSION, from it, OR "Henry quirk" WILL, 'put shot in our chest', as it TELLS 'us'.

One just has to look below to see how much MORE IMPORTANCE "henry quirk" gives "itself" over others, to see just how Truly DELUDED "henry quirk" really is.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 3:08 pm

Obviously, you will have to be extra careful with 'this one' considering how ABSOLUTELY TOTALLY DELUDED it is.

That's actually a wise strategy. Yes, consider me a crazy person. That way no one dies.

Again, 'this one' actually BELIEVES, absolutely, that it has SUPERIORITY, as well as POWER, over others and that others better watch out for "henry quirk" and ' better step out of "henry quirk's way" '.

Again, the DELUSION here and below, 'speaks volumes', as some would say.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 3:08 pm

"henry quirk" actually believes that it is 'justifiable' for it to KILL other human beings DEAD over just shards of timber and stale flakes of wheat.

Yes, I do actually believe a person has the right to defend his or her property.

And, it BELIEVES that all it has to do to 'justify' the KILLING of an actual human being is just say and claim that those splinters of wood and old pieces of baked dough were "his", only.

The way I figure it: if I fairly transacted for that wood or dough, it's mine.

And, obviously, what you call 'fairly transacted' was never 'fairly transacted' at all, to others.

So, now, how do 'we' decide what is and was actually Truly 'fairly transacted', BEFORE you start, as you call it, 'putting shot into the chest of human bodies?

Or, are 'fair transactions' decided by you, alone?

Also, if you really do see things as being 'yours', then just how much GREED, and SELFISH, there, really, was, back when this was being written, can be CLEARLY SEEN here. There were, laughingly, back when this was being written some human beings who actually believed that they 'owned things', and that some things were actually 'theirs', and even 'theirs', alone, some times.

A lot of the rest below is just "henry quirk" showing and proving just how 'superior' and 'important' it believed it was to 'us' as well as it 'trying to' threaten 'us' and thus also 'trying to' have 'control' over 'us'.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 3:08 pm

Now, obviously it is people who are completely and utterly delusional who are the most dangerous in societies, and thus 'the ones' who are best most kept an observation on and watched over. And, the best way to do this is just watch, and observe, 'the words' that it picks and chooses to use. Which, thank God for forums like this 'these ones', and what they are actually thinking and believed can be very clearly observed, and looked over.

Yes, please, for your own sakes, take me as a crazy person and avoid me.

And, this completely DELUSIONAL thinking and believing is the very reason WHY 'the ones' like 'this one' are best kept 'an Eye' on, always.

Yes, be very wary of me.

'

This one' is so DANGEROUS it, actually, BELIEVES ABSOLUTELY that it can tell, ABSOLUTELY, what others 'value', and when and if 'another' 'values' "its life" or not, and just how much or how little 'the other' 'values' "their life". Which is, OBVIOUSLY, a very, very DANGEROUS person to allow out in a society.

I am dangerous, yes. So avoid me. Don't risk your life with a lunatic like me.

See, even when one like 'this one' is 'trying' so hard to convince and deceive 'you' that 'you' have an 'absolute claim' and a 'natural right' to "your own life", all someone like "henry quirk" has to do is just think or believe that 'you' have 'chosen' to 'not value' "your life", which then 'allows' those like "henry quirk" to 'chose' when to END "your life" COMPLETELY.

Every person does have an absolute moral claim to his life, liberty, and property, so no one should risk any of those monkeyin' around with a crazy man with a shotgun.

"henry quirk" may well have, already, completely and utterly fooled and deceived "itself" to be able to 'justify' the OBVIOUSLY ABSOLUTELY 'unjustifiable', but what needs to be Truly watched out for and kept 'an Eye' on is that it does not fool and deceive any others, in the way that it has been, obviously, completely fooled and deceived.

Oh, yes, I'm utterly insane, so: stay well clear.

There are stories about evil and how the "devil" can and does deceive those of 'weak will' or 'weak of rational thinking', and about God, and good, and what is Right, and Wrong, in Life, for very, very good reasons.

Yes, that's right: I'm a low down, dirty, devil-man. Keep away.

The way' that "henry quirk" is, literally, 'trying to deceive' you readers here, by 'fucking around', then it is going to 'find out' what 'the consequences' are, exactly.

Well, I don't wanna deceive anyone. To be clear, in case someone still doesn't get it: I will defend my property.

Just for your information "henry quirk" you human beings do not necessarily value less, nor at all, "their life" just because you think or believe they do, just because they 'do some particular things', and, you KILLING 'them' because you BELIEVE ABSOLUTELY that 'they' value "their life" less, or not at all, will never ever 'justify' your ABSOLUTELY Wrong and Truly ILLOGICAL, NONSENSICAL, ABSURD, and IRRATIONAL thinking and believing here.

Can't agree. If Stan tries to steal my toothpick, obviously, knowing the risk involved, he values my toothpick more than his own life. Guess what: I value my toothpick more than Stan's life too.

If you, really, want to 'try to claim' that "your logic" here is logical, then absolutely ANY one could KILL you DEAD, 'right now'.

If I try to steal: I might get my ass shot to smithereens, yes.

Just because you may well BELIEVE ABSOLUTELY that you are not, 'here, right now', stealing, murdering, slaving, nor committing fraud in absolutely no way at means that you are not.

I challenge anyone to bring to this forum evidence of my stealing, murdering, slaving, committing fraud.

Already done, but you were, and still are, too BLIND and too DEAF to SEE and HEAR.

Also, it would not matter what any one said and presented, you will 'try to' 'justify' 'you' and 'your ways'. And, the funniest, but the most revealing and exposing, part here is that you, actually, do 'justify' 'you' and 'your ways', but, again, only to 'you' and "yourself", ONLY.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 3:08 pm

And, these six little words by this very 'little person' here PROVES, ABSOLUTELY, just how much of a danger it, and people like it, REALLY ARE in society.

Yes. I'm a nightmare. Everyone should spare themselves grief, and blood loss, and leave me be.

If you were not holding weapons, and not threatening others, then you would be left alone.

See, if you *bore arms only, and thus were not really a threat to anyone, at all, nor in society, itself, then you, literally, would be left alone to your own devices.

(* If it is the wrong word, then correct it.)

But, bragging about how you own weapons and WILL use them to kill others, and over absolutely, relatively, nothing at all as well, then this is a sure sign that you should not be left alone, ever.

Now, obviously if you got rid of the threats and the weapons, and so had your arms only, then, because you obviously are not a very courageous man at all, and would also not be a threat to society at all, then you could and would be left to be.

Exactly like if in countries peoples would just stopped hoarding more and more weapons, and/or stopped threatening others, then people's in other countries could and would, literally, just leave each other 'to be', as well.

But, as you have shown and proved when one has a weapon, and especially starts threatening, then others become AFRAID, and SCARED, and so start obtaining, (more and more), weapons as well. Exactly like you are "henry quirk", that is; a very, very SCARED and AFRAID little human being. Thus, the clearly seen threatening behavior above here.

If, and when, you human beings stockpile weapon/s, and then threaten each other, then the ABSOLUTE LUNACY continues, and even grows, well by the Truly WEAK and AFRAID human beings anyway, who obtain more and more, bigger and bigger, and/or continually more advanced weapons, to, laughingly, so-call ' defend "yourselves" ' from "yourselves".

you human beings can be, and are, by far, the most STUPIDEST animal on that planet.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 3:08 pm

Further PROOF of just how DELUDED, and DANGEROUS, some adult human beings had ACTUALLY BECOME, back in 'those days' when this was being written.

Yes, I'm certifiable. A mad dog with a coach gun. Do. Not. Disturb.

So, this one continues to keep making threats, while also believing that it is okay for it to come into public forums, threatening to KILL others DEAD, while, laughingly, expecting others to just leave it be.

This one actually believes that it is SO IMPORTANT that it can threaten 'us', while 'we' are not allowed to 'defend ourselves' even with just words alone, and that 'we' should just 'take' its threats, seriously, laughingly, while it wants to also claim that it has so MUCH IMPORTANCE that can 'defend its property', which it BELIEVES is more important than any one of 'us'.

you "henry quirk" are a pure example of the DELUDED, and one with a huge 'self-importance delusion'.

your words are also a prime example of one who has been so fooled and deceived, by others, as well as "yourself", that you cannot recognize, see, and notice when you are 'trying to' fool and deceive others here.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 5:18 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 3:44 am

Well, I bring it up because -- click -- I believe "here and now" that the existence of God is of fundamental importance when it comes to meaning, morality and metaphysics. After all, didn't He create the universe? Didn't He provide us with free will and a soul driven to embody "the dictates of Reason and Nature"?

Even so, my point doesn't require God's backing.

Again: Can't see how recognizing and respecting another's claim on his own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing.

Of course you cannot SEE how what you claim here is a 'bad thing'.

This is because you do not know what you are doing, here.

It is ABSOLUTELY BLATANTLY OBVIOUS how, EXACTLY, you are DELUDING "yourself" here. It is also BLATANTLY OBVIOUS how and why you are not able to SEE and RECOGNIZE this.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 5:18 pm Of course, as a deist, I believe God is the measure and arbiter of good and evil.

And, let 'us' not forget that you also BELIEVE that God is 'a person', laughingly of all things.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 5:18 pm But I fail to see how livin' as though my fellows have natural rights, even if none of us actually do, is a bad thing or can lead to bad consequences.

OBVIOUSLY, that in and of itself is a 'bad thing' nor leads to 'bad consequences'. It is the 'provisos' that you, alone, 'try to' 'sneak' in there and add in there that is what is Truly 'bad', and Truly Wrong.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 5:18 pm

Instead, all you do here, in my opinion, is to keep insisting that the way you understand life, liberty and property really, really does reflect the only rational and natural truth there is to ascertain about them.

Well, yeah, I do really think everyone has a moral claim to his or her, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

Which is the 'very way' "henry quirk" can 'justify', again to "it" 'self" only, that it is allowed to KILL human beings.

The CONTRADICTION, HYPOCRISY, and very False 'justification/s' for its very OBVIOUS Wrong doings here are BLATANTLY OBVIOUS. However, "henry quirk" is OBVIOUSLY, absolutely, OBLIVIOUS to all of them.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 5:18 pm So, yeah, I am insistent.

Many, many people before you have been 'insistent' about Falsehoods and Wrong doings, as well.

And, OBVIOUSLY 'insistence' is never, ever, implies Correctness nor Rightness.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 5:18 pm And, yeah, I really do believe treating people like meat or commodity is wrong.

LOL Yet, as it says, it WILL, 'put shot in chest', WITHOUT LISTENING nor WITHOUT even BEGINNING to SEEK TO LISTEN, to 'the person'. And, it even claims it would do this OVER relatively nothing at all.

Talk about, AGAIN, pure CONTRADICTION and pure HYPOCRISY.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 5:18 pm And, yeah, even if natural rights is a fiction and people are really just Solent Green with legs, I see no downside to livin' as though people are sumthin' more than meat, and that each has a claim to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property. In fact, it seems to me, the only downside is for folks who really do see people as meat or commodity.

YET, MOST people WILL NOT go around SHOOTING 'others' DEAD, for relatively NO REASON at all.

'you' may well be able to FOOL and DECEIVE "yourself" here "henry quirk", but you certainly are NOT FOOLING and DECEIVING some or most of 'us', here.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 5:18 pm

It's just that down through the centuries and all across the globe, there have been hundreds and hundreds of Divine Creators. Yours is just all that more problematic because there is no Scripture for Deists fall back on. They can pretty much shape and mold this long gone God into any moral narrative and political agenda that suits their own rooted existentially in dasein value judgments.

Even so, my point, the one I don't want lost in somebody else's ax-grindings and rhetoric, doesn't require God's backing.

Again: I can't see how recognizing and respecting another's claim on his or her own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing.

OF COURSE NOT. And, this is just BECAUSE you are, literally, TOO GREEDY, TOO SELFISH, TOO BLIND, TOO DEAF, and TOO STUPID here, to SEE and RECOGNIZE, EXACTLY, how what you are claiming here is A 'BAD THING'.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 5:18 pm Of course, as a deist, I believe God is the measure and arbiter of good and evil. But I fail to see how livin' as though my fellows have natural rights, even if none of us actually do, is a bad thing or can lead to bad consequences. As I say: the only downside would be for those who insist man is meat.

Well, let's just say that, from my frame of mind, what is odd is how these hundreds and hundreds of religious communities have come and gone over the years, yet each and every one of them had, have or will have only their own "my way or the highway" assessment of what life and liberty and property mean.

Sure. I think it's odd too.

BUT, here you are, ONCE AGAIN, with the VERY 'my way or highway' VIEW. And, which is EXACTLY LIKE most 'theologian views', that is; you will FOLLOW 'my way' or you WILL BE IGNORED, REJECTED, or just REMOVED, and if ANY one 'takes' 'my stuff' 'my/our theology' has collected, then you WILL BE PUNISHED, or KILLED.

you here "henry quirk" could not be MORE LIKE the other religions/theologies, even if you wanted to be MORE LIKE 'them'.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 5:18 pm I don't see how life or liberty or property can be redefined to justify murder or slavery or theft while preserving the original meanings.

This one REALLY IS PURELY DELUDED here.

This one, literally, BELIEVES ABSOLUTELY that if one were just attempting to make off with a toothpick, or even if "henry quirk" just SUSPECTED another one was just 'trying to' make of with what "henry quirk" Falsely claims is "his stuff", then, "henry quirk" 'justifies', again to "its" 'self' ONLY the MURDER of that 'human being'.

"henry quirk" is, literally, SO DELUDED here that it can NOT SEE the BLATANT OBVIOUS CONTRADICTION and HYPOCRISY.

The 'self-given IMPORTANCE' here is ABSOLUTELY BLOCKING ad PREVENTING 'this one's' ABILITY TO SEE. Which is a VERY COMMON OCCURRENCE within ALL RELIGIONS. And, our of sharing information is an actual definition of the 'religion' or 'religious' words, themselves.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 5:18 pm War Is Peace. Freedom Is Slavery. Ignorance Is Strength. is dystopian. Only folks who win in such a circumstance are the ones runnin' the madhouse. Even so, my point, the one I don't want lost in somebody else's ax-grindings and rhetoric, doesn't require redefining any words. Again: I can't see how recognizing and respecting another's claim on his or her own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing. As I say: the only downside would be for those who insist man is meat or commodity.

The ABSOLUTE STUPIDITY and BLINDNESS here 'speaks for itself', as some can VERY EASILY HEAR, and SEE, here.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 5:18 pm

But, let me guess, only you and your ilk really do understand them.

Well, I understand the meanings of life and liberty and property. I understand the meanings of recognize and respect. So, yeah, I think I have a decent handle on what it means to say: I believe a person has a natural right to his or her, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

You should, at least try a little harder to grasp the existential implications of this. Also, that's before we get to all of the secular dogmas.

I think I have a good handle on that as well. Good enough to know it's not possible to recognize and respect another's natural rights while at the same time use natural rights to justify murder, slavery, rape, theft, and fraud.

It is EXACTLY this type of thinking and believing WHY 'the world' is in the ABSOLUTE MESS that it is in 'right now' in the very day that this is being written.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 5:18 pm

We've been over and over this in regard to guns and abortions and other things. You start by insisting that unless others grasp what the Deist God meant by "the dictates of Reason and Nature" here, they are wrong. Just as IC will insist that unless you accept Jesus Christ as your own personal servant you cannot be saved.

Yes, I do think clinging to a view of a Creatorless world is dumb.

But, "henry quirk" also thinks that 'clinging' to whatever view or belief it has, at any particular moment, is NOT 'dumb'.

Which, in terms that "henry qurik" would use, is, actually, MORE DUMBER.

LOL These people, actually, BELIEVED that what they thought or believed, or how they 'saw things' was the one and only 'right way'. Which could not be a MORE STUPID view nor belief to have and/or to behold.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 5:18 pm As a believer, what else am I to think?

LOL The STUPIDITY continues.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 5:18 pm But, unlike adherents of so many other religions (those with coffers to fill and leaders to submit to), mine is silent when it comes to eternal rewards or punishments.

So, ONCE AGAIN, what 'we' have here is just ANOTHER ADHERENT who BELIEVES, ABSOLUTELY, that what it ADHERES TO is the one and only true and right one, and ALL of the other ones are the false and wrong ones.

LOL

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 5:18 pm As for guns: just property. As for abortion: erring on safety's side (hell if I know when or if a person comes to be in the womb) it's, most of the time, murder.

Come on, henry, you know full well if you were to interact with others from very different communities, over and again most of them would be insisting it is only their own understanding of these things that count. After all, like you they will link the "logic" of their own social, political and econonmic interactions to God.

Just not yours.

Yeah, I get that. Not sure what the point is, though, in pointing it out.

The POINT IS, just like you SEE and VIEW 'the others' as BEING DUMB, so to 'others' VIEW and SEE 'you' as BEING DUMB, and VERY DUMB, as well.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 5:18 pm Am I obligated in some way to go against these folks? Can't see why.

Right, let's run this by the sociopaths.

Sociopaths are crazy people. Why would I consult with them?

'you', "yourself", have ADMITTED that you are a crazy person. Do you 'consult' with "yourself"?

In fact, who and/or what else here do you 'consult' with, and/or follow?

Actually, if 'you' did answer these just 'clarifying questions', openly and honestly, then 'you' WILL show and prove what 'crazy people' really do do.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 5:18 pm

Only, with you, you can't confront them with Judgement Day.

I wouldn't even if there was such a thing. Free will and all that.

You can't even assure them that if they do follow the dictates of Reason and Nature and become Deists that there will be any rewards at all after you die.

No, I can't.

Instead, you just keep on assuring us that "somehow" you "just know" deep down in your own Intrinsic Self what you do about Deism. And that need be as far as it goes in reard to life, liberty and property.

Well, what I actually say is there are evidences that moved me from atheism to deism. These evidences are pretty convincing to me, but not so much to others (as illustrated by responses I've gotten from various members of this forum).

Once again, there are 'evidences' that the sun revolves around the earth and that the Universe is expanding, although the EXACT OPPOSITES that are the ACTUAL Truths, and which are IRREFUTABLE because they are backed up and supported with, and by, actual, 'proof', itself.

Also, if absolutely any 'needs' to be 'convinced' of some thing, then this is a GREAT SIGN of 'it' just NOT being True, Right, Accurate, nor Correct anyway.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 5:18 pm So, I kinda leave it all alone. Again, other folks bring up my deism far more than I do these days.

As for life, liberty, and property. I can only say again: even if natural rights are a fiction, even if God is a fiction, even if I'm using idiosyncratic definitions, I cannot see the downside to recognizing and respecting the other guy's right to his own life, liberty, and property.

you do not SEE the downside here BECAUSE you have become far too DELUDED with, and by, your own DECEPTION here.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 5:18 pm As I say: the only downside is for those who insist man is meat to be used.

Well this is OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect in and of itself.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 5:18 pm

Okay, let's run Deism by those here who worship and adore The Chronicles of Narnia. Again, given what is at stake on both sides of the grave.

Not seeing the point of this jibe. I'll address the quote more fully in my response to Belinda.

Let me close by bringing it back to my point (cuz I really don't want it lost in somebody else's dissembling)...

I fail to see how livin' as though my fellows have natural rights, even if none of us actually do, is a bad thing or can lead to bad consequences.

OF COURSE you are, again, FAILING here.

And, YOUR FAILING here is what HELPS you 'try to' 'justify' the Falsehoods and Wrongness in what you are saying and claiming.

you FAILING TO SEE is VERY, VERY CONVENIENT for you here. Especially considering HOW you are 'trying to' DECEIVE others here.

And, ONCE AGAIN, BECAUSE you were DECEIVED, FOOLED, DELUDED "yourself", by 'others', you FAIL TO SEE HOW you are 'trying to' DECEIVE and FOOL others here, now.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 5:52 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 12:57 pmDo you see that it's not a simple binary good/bad issue?

I do. Property, in the legal sense, is complex.

Property, in the moral sense (which is what I'm talkin' about here) really is simple to understand. What a person fairly transacts for or what he creates or raw materials he refines and gives purpose to, are his.

you could not come across as MORE DELUDED here "henry quirk".

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 5:54 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 5:52 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 12:57 pmDo you see that it's not a simple binary good/bad issue?

I do. Property, in the legal sense, is complex.

Property, in the moral sense (which is what I'm talkin' about here) really is simple to understand. What a person fairly transacts for or what he creates or raw materials he refines and gives purpose to, are his.

Well done.

You didn't bother responding to the substance of my post.

"henry quirk" admits that it FAILS to SEE, here.

So, it not 'bothering' to respond what you, actually, said and pointed out is of no real surprise.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 6:31 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 6:02 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 5:59 pm

Cuz the substance of your post isn't what I'm writing about.

Sure it is.

You say this : "I fail to see how livin' as though my fellows have natural rights, even if none of us actually do, is a bad thing or can lead to bad consequences."

And I gave an example of bad consequences.

I get it: the current hellshow of legal property is a bad consequence of natural rights, yes?

Your example, to me, is what folks can expect when natural rights aren't recognized and respected.

But, mebbe, I'm wrong. Please elaborate and show how natural rights justifies such abuses.

Once again, you keep MISSING, what is STARING AT you.

What you CLAIM are 'natural rights' ARE NOT.

AGAIN, just because you BELIEVE some thing never, ever, makes 'it' so.

Well, I bring it up because -- click -- I believe "here and now" that the existence of God is of fundamental importance when it comes to meaning, morality and metaphysics. After all, didn't He create the universe? Didn't He provide us with free will and a soul driven to embody "the dictates of Reason and Nature"?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 5:18 pm Even so, my point doesn't require God's backing.

Besides, it's not like you yourself have anything definitive to provide us with in the way of noting what Deists might expect, say, "for all the rest of eternity"?

Deists don't even show up here: https://www.pewresearch.org/religious-l ... /database/

As for Life, Liberty, and Property, again, if you are actually able to convince yourself that how you understand them "here and now" -- even in a No God universe! -- reflects either the optimal or the only rational assessment of God and religion...?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 5:18 pm Again: Can't see how recognizing and respecting another's claim on his own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing. Of course, as a deist, I believe God is the measure and arbiter of good and evil. But I fail to see how livin' as though my fellows have natural rights, even if none of us actually do, is a bad thing or can lead to bad consequences.

Prompting me to remind others here yet again of just how typical you are with respect to God and religion. You "somehow" bumped into Deism given the trajectory of the life you're lived; and then given the extent to which the "self" here is rooted intersubjectively out in particular worlds historically and culturally, you took your own existential leap of faith to Deism, placed your own existential wager that even though any number of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

... think it is you who are the atheist, your own rendition of the One True Path, what, makes that impossible?

Right?

Unless, of course, you can take Deism to the cafeteria and load it up with value judgments that are wholly in sync with your own existential prejudices. You know, like almost all of the other denominations do?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 5:18 pm Well, yeah, I do really think everyone has a moral claim to his or her, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property. So, yeah, I am insistent. And, yeah, I really do believe treating people like meat or commodity is wrong. And, yeah, even if natural rights is a fiction and people are really just Solent Green with legs, I see no downside to livin' as though people are sumthin' more than meat, and that each has a claim to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property. In fact, it seems to me, the only downside is for folks who really do see people as meat or commodity.

It's just that down through the centuries and all across the globe, there have been hundreds and hundreds of Divine Creators. Yours is just all that more problematic because there is no Scripture for Deists fall back on. They can pretty much shape and mold this long gone God into any moral narrative and political agenda that suits their own rooted existentially in dasein value judgments.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 5:18 pm Again: I can't see how recognizing and respecting another's claim on his or her own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing. Of course, as a deist, I believe God is the measure and arbiter of good and evil. But I fail to see how livin' as though my fellows have natural rights, even if none of us actually do, is a bad thing or can lead to bad consequences. As I say: the only downside would be for those who insist man is meat.

As always, there is "good" and "bad" up in the spiritual clouds and there are those such as yourself who merely assume "in a world of words" that no matter the circumatial context or the moral conflagration, only their own arrogant, autocratic and authorirarian assessment of them count.

Thus...

Well, let's just say that, from my frame of mind, what is odd is how these hundreds and hundreds of religious communities have come and gone over the years, yet each and every one of them had, have or will have only their own "my way or the highway" assessment of what life and liberty and property really mean.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 5:18 pm Sure. I think it's odd too. I don't see how life or liberty or property can be redefined to justify murder or slavery or theft while preserving the original meanings.

Right, the "original meaning". On the other hand, many of those original founding fathers had no qualms about being slave-owners themselves, or of practicing genocide against the original Native Americans, or of treating any number of women as second class citizens.

But even here to the extent that determinism is understood by some, this is all an inherent component of the only possible reality.

As for being or not being a commodity [then and now] let's run this by the wage slaves among us. In fact. Ironically enough, there's almost nothing on Earth that can't -- that hasn't actually already been -- a commodity to those who own and operate the global economy.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 5:18 pm War Is Peace. Freedom Is Slavery. Ignorance Is Strength. is dystopian.

Actually, what others deem to be dystopian are the worlds created by those of your ilk. The Fascists and the Communists and the Maoists and the Libertarians and the Anarchists and the Theocrats etc., Countless regimes brutally enforcing their own "my way or the highway" dogmas.

You talk the talk when you speak of the Deist God being "the measure and arbiter of good and evil", but then so do most of the others.

Right? You don't walk the talk however because, in my view, your "proof" that the Deist God does exist in the manner in which you encompass Him is nothing more than what you believe "in your head".

We've been over and over this in regard to guns and abortions and other things. You start by insisting that unless others grasp what the Deist God meant by "the dictates of Reason and Nature" here, they are wrong. Just as IC will insist that unless you accept Jesus Christ as your own personal servant you cannot be saved.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 5:18 pm Yes, I do think clinging to a view of a Creatorless world is dumb. As a believer, what else am I to think?

Well, I wouldn't use the word dumb to describe those who do believe in God. Instead, I come back around to these 4 factors:

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of your God or religious/spiritual path
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in Gods and religious/spiritual faiths
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God or religious/spiritual path

When it comes to things like guns and abortion and human sexuality, there's the stuff your own God starts us out with and there's the stuff that all the other Gods start all the other flocks off with.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2024 5:36 am

Besides, it's not like you yourself have anything definitive to provide us with in the way of noting what Deists might expect, say, "for all the rest of eternity"?

You're right, I have nuthin' definitive to offer about what anyone can or should expect in an afterlife. But, even if I did, none of that is germane to my point...

A person, any person, anywhere or when, has an absolute moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

But, okay, let's say natural rights is just another subjective construct. So what? Can't see how recognizing and respecting another's claim on his own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing.

Deists don't even show up here: https://www.pewresearch.org/religious-l ... /database/

Deism isn't a widely recognized religion, this is true. Of course, deism's obscurity has nuthin' to do with my point...

A person, any person, anywhere or when, has an absolute moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

But, okay, let's say natural rights is just another subjective construct. So what? Can't see how recognizing and respecting another's claim on his own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing.

As for Life, Liberty, and Property, again, if you are actually able to convince yourself that how you understand them "here and now" -- even in a No God universe! -- reflects either the optimal or the only rational assessment of God and religion...?

Well, as I say, I think I do have a handle on those things, but none of that is relevant to my point...

A person, any person, anywhere or when, has an absolute moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

But, okay, let's say natural rights is just another subjective construct. So what? Can't see how recognizing and respecting another's claim on his own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing.

Prompting me to remind others here yet again of just how typical you are with respect to God and religion. You "somehow" bumped into Deism given the trajectory of the life you're lived; and then given the extent to which the "self" here is rooted intersubjectively out in particular worlds historically and culturally, you took your own existential leap of faith to Deism, placed your own existential wager that even though any number of these folks...

That assessment, right or wrong, has nuthin' to do with my point...

A person, any person, anywhere or when, has an absolute moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

But, okay, let's say natural rights is just another subjective construct. So what? Can't see how recognizing and respecting another's claim on his own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

There are a variety of traditions, yes there are. Not really seein' how that multiplicity has anything to do with my point...

A person, any person, anywhere or when, has an absolute moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

But, okay, let's say natural rights is just another subjective construct. So what? Can't see how recognizing and respecting another's claim on his own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing.

... think it is you who are the atheist, your own rendition of the One True Path, what, makes that impossible?

I'm well aware my views are considered wrong by some. But, back to my point...

A person, any person, anywhere or when, has an absolute moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

But, okay, let's say natural rights is just another subjective construct. So what? Can't see how recognizing and respecting another's claim on his own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing.

Right?

Sure. But then, there's my point...

A person, any person, anywhere or when, has an absolute moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

But, okay, let's say natural rights is just another subjective construct. So what? Can't see how recognizing and respecting another's claim on his own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing.

Unless, of course, you can take Deism to the cafeteria and load it up with value judgments that are wholly in sync with your own existential prejudices. You know, like almost all of the other denominations do?

Well, I'm personally not inclined to fatten my deism with anything beyond...

A person, any person, anywhere or when, has an absolute moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

But, okay, let's say natural rights is just another subjective construct. So what? Can't see how recognizing and respecting another's claim on his own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing.

...cuz that's the (my) whole point in this leg of our on-again, off-again conversation.

As always, there is "good" and "bad" up in the spiritual clouds and there are those such as yourself who merely assume "in a world of words" that no matter the circumatial context or the moral conflagration, only their own arrogant, autocratic and authorirarian assessment of them count.

Oh, I'm not in the clouds. When I say...

A person, any person, anywhere or when, has an absolute moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

...plainly I'm sayin' murder is wrong, rape is wrong, slavery is wrong, theft is wrong, fraud is wrong, all the time, everywhere, for everyone, but...

okay, let's say natural rights is just another subjective construct. So what? Can't see how recognizing and respecting another's claim on his own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing.

Which is to say: I can see no downside to livin' as though murder is wrong, rape is wrong, slavery is wrong, theft is wrong, fraud is wrong, all the time, everywhere, for everyone, even if none of those are actually wrong in any objective sense. Seems to me, only murderers, rapists, slavers, thieves, and con men can object.

Right, the "original meaning".

Yes, as you might find detailed in any standard dictionary.

On the other hand, many of those original founding fathers had no qualms about being slave-owners themselves, or of practicing genocide against the original Native Americans, or of treating any number of women as second class citizens.

The hypocrisy of those guys (that I didn't bring up) has nuthin' to do with my point...

As I say: a person, any person, anywhere or when, has an absolute moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

But, okay, let's say natural rights is just another subjective construct. So what? Can't see how recognizing and respecting another's claim on his own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing.

But even here to the extent that determinism is understood by some, this is all an inherent component of the only possible reality.

Can't see what determinism has to do with my point...

A person, any person, anywhere or when, has an absolute moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

But, okay, let's say natural rights is just another subjective construct. So what? Can't see how recognizing and respecting another's claim on his own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing.

...but I'll offer this: if (hard) determinism is true then my point...

A person, any person, anywhere or when, has an absolute moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

But, okay, let's say natural rights is just another subjective construct. So what? Can't see how recognizing and respecting another's claim on his own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing.

...is as meaningless as anything else. On the other hand: if libertarian free will applies, then my point...

A person, any person, anywhere or when, has an absolute moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

But, okay, let's say natural rights is just another subjective construct. So what? Can't see how recognizing and respecting another's claim on his own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing.

...is worth talkin' about.

As for compatibilism (soft determinism): it's nonsensical and, in context, not worth commenting on.

As for being or not being a commodity [then and now] let's run this by the wage slaves among us. In fact. Ironically enough, there's almost nothing on Earth that can't -- that hasn't actually already been -- a commodity to those who own and operate the global economy.

Well, an actual slave can't walk off the job, can he? A wage slave can. So, even if the employer sees his employees as commodities, those commodities aren't held there against their will. Someone could say the wage slave is compelled by his circumstance (payin' for a livin' space, fillin' his belly, havin' a safety net) to work for that employer. My counter: the wage slave still gets to choose. He can remain commodified, he can seek a better employment, he can self-employ. Another counter, relevant to my point...

A person, any person, anywhere or when, has an absolute moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

But, okay, let's say natural rights is just another subjective construct. So what? Can't see how recognizing and respecting another's claim on his own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing.

...is: to the extent the wage slave believes he has no control over his life and that it's his lot to be a wage slave it's becuz he's been hoodwinked by people who want him to believe he's powerless. In other words: folks who have no respect for his natural rights have lied to and defrauded the wage slave.

Actually, what others deem to be dystopian are the worlds created by those of your ilk. The Fascists and the Communists and the Maoists and the Libertarians and the Anarchists and the Theocrats etc., Countless regimes brutally enforcing their own "my way or the highway" dogmas.

I wasn't aware there were or are libertarian regimes. Given their particular view, I could see the ancaps gettin' as dirty as the commies but I'm not sure the ancaps even think of themselves as libertarian. Anyway, none of that has anything to do with my point...

A person, any person, anywhere or when, has an absolute moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

But, okay, let's say natural rights is just another subjective construct. So what? Can't see how recognizing and respecting another's claim on his own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing.

Only folks who wanna murder, rape, slave, steal, and defraud (and that might well include the ancaps, as it does most certainly include the commies, fascists, maoists, theocrats, and leftist-anarchists) can have a problem with natural rights.

You talk the talk when you speak of the Deist God being "the measure and arbiter of good and evil", but then so do most of the others.

Sure, but that isn't relevant to my point...

A person, any person, anywhere or when, has an absolute moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

But, okay, let's say natural rights is just another subjective construct. So what? Can't see how recognizing and respecting another's claim on his own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing.

Right? You don't walk the talk however because, in my view, your "proof" that the Deist God does exist in the manner in which you encompass Him is nothing more than what you believe "in your head".

Well, I do believe there is a Creator, and I do believe He is the measure and arbiter, but, no, I can't prove any of that to anyone. Which is, as I say, why I don't bring it up much. But that, and the fact others (with axes to grind) bring up my deism way more than I do, isn't germane to my point...

A person, any person, anywhere or when, has an absolute moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

But, okay, let's say natural rights is just another subjective construct. So what? Can't see how recognizing and respecting another's claim on his own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing.

Well, I wouldn't use the word dumb to describe those who do believe in God.

Good on you.

Instead, I come back around to these 4 factors:

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of your God or religious/spiritual path

I can't give you that.

2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?

I can't answer that question.

3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in Gods and religious/spiritual faiths

Well, I don't believe in dasein, and I've been given no reason why I should.

4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God or religious/spiritual path[/b]

Now, I can offer some thoughts -- not evidence, not proof -- on this. But I'll split that off to a different post, perhaps in a new thread. Right now, in this leg of our conversation, my only point is...

A person, any person, anywhere or when, has an absolute moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

But, okay, let's say natural rights is just another subjective construct. So what? Can't see how recognizing and respecting another's claim on his own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing.

When it comes to things like guns and abortion and human sexuality, there's the stuff your own God starts us out with and there's the stuff that all the other Gods start all the other flocks off with.

Well, as I say, I don't need God's backing. My point...

A person, any person, anywhere or when, has an absolute moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

But, okay, let's say natural rights is just another subjective construct. So what? Can't see how recognizing and respecting another's claim on his own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing.

...stands on it's own without Him.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2024 12:16 pm

Thanks for your thoughtful , serious, and interesting reply

You're welcome, B.

he was also a real historical person.

Yes, I'm sure Lewis would agree.

Christianity itself arose mostly from its roots in Jewish culture especially since the ideas of the Old Testament Prophets.

Here, Lewis might not agree. He would concede what you say is true but point out, mebbe, this is the circumstance into which God chose to interpose Himself. He, Lewis, might say Christianity itself was not the product of its time but was and is God's counter to that time and this time too.

Puddlegum's speech quoted by yourself fits my idea of how people need to personify their aspirations. Even if JC, or Aslan if preferred, did not exist we would need to invent him. All I ask is that the moral code as laid down by JC in the Sermon on the Mount is attended to, and that Aslan ,or JC, not a magical fairy godmother but who said the good life was a dangerous fight against fearful odds.

Myself, I prefer, even as a non-Christian, to take Lewis's work as it is. And as it is is as Lewis described: Aslan is Christ, the second person of the trinity. And upon that narrative fact all the Narnia tales rest.

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household” (Matthew 10:34-36).

Yes, despite being an observant jew, he was quite willing to upset the applecart, wasn't he?