Jump to content

delaMancha

Members
  • Content count

    354
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by delaMancha

  1. delaMancha

    Eternal Security, Re-re-revisited

    Thanks, that's very interesting. I grew up Catholic, and at least up to confirmation, I wasn't exposed to any concepts similar to eternal or conditional security. (Though they may exist at a more academic level.) The emphasis was on the separation that sin, especially mortal sin, creates between a person and God. The separation can be total, resulting in damnation in the case where someone dies with an unforgiven mortal sin. However, forgiveness is readily available for a repentant sinner, and being saved is less of a binary state of being and more of a continuum of nearness and separation.
  2. delaMancha

    Eternal Security, Re-re-revisited

    I have a question about Reformed conditional security. Is there a technical definition for "lost forever"? Assume that the below statements are true descriptions of a person's salvation from the speaker's perspective. Suppose that a Wesleyan conditional security adherent said, "Person A believed, then fell away and lost salvation. They have returned and are saved again." Would a Reformed conditional security adherent say they were always secure because the were able to come back? Suppose that a Wesleyan adherent said, "Person B believed, then fell away and lost salvation. They have died, unsaved." How would a Reformed adherent react? Is the Wesleyan criteria for losing salvation necessarily easier to fall into than the Reformed criteria, given that in the Wesleyan model, people can return to salvation?
  3. delaMancha

    Is the rebel flag racist?

    Thanks, that's very interesting. I hadn't considered the effect of academia. I was thinking more of the elementary school level.
  4. delaMancha

    Is the rebel flag racist?

    Thanks, that's very interesting. I hadn't considered the effect of academia. I was thinking more of the elementary school level.
  5. delaMancha

    Is the rebel flag racist?

    Thanks, it looks like I was 40 some years early in my reference to northern aggression. I should have used the term Lost Cause. I'm a bit confused by your attribution of the Northern Aggression concept primarily to leftists. I can see that it was used by Zinn, but it seems to belong much more strongly to actual neo-Confederates. I don't think Zinn could have used it to the desired effect if he were not co-opting an already established concept.
  6. delaMancha

    Is the rebel flag racist?

    Case in point: A great deal of the Confederate monuments and historical markers were erected in the 1890s to 1930s, decades after the actual war. They were set up by neo-Confederates as political tools to glorify the old South and legitimize the South's framing of the war as a "Northern aggression". This worked very well, and history books changed in the 1940s to 1960s to be much more sympathetic to the slave owners before the war and to terrorists like the KKK during Reconstruction. PlasmaHam, what you are calling an unacceptable intrusion of politics into history is simply a correction to previous, neo-Confederate political intrusion.
  7. delaMancha

    Debate of Gay Marriage

    Ephesians gives the "Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands" and "Husbands, love your wives" bit, yes. How does the "fleshly reality of biological sex" (in terms of both gender and procreation) relate to these commands? The passage structures the commands as husband is to wife as Christ is to church. In what way do the biological relationship and differences between husband and wife mirror the relationship and differences between Christ and church?
  8. delaMancha

    Debate of Gay Marriage

    It seems like we should be able to structure at least part of this definition as: God's ____ is to man's ____ as a husband's ____ is to a wife's ____. When I think about the relationship and disparity between God and man, I'm struggling to see reasonable equivalents for governing a relationship between humans.
  9. delaMancha

    On minimum wage

    I want to try to create an extreme scenario to explore this question. I don't say this is really possible; it's a thought experiment. Suppose in an increasingly free-market dominated future, income disparity increases to the point that the following is true: There is a small set of wealthy people who own literally all capital on earth. (Land, water, factories, money, raw materials, etc. I said it was extreme) The is a large set of poor people who own literally no capital. Any durable possessions they have are rented from the wealthy people. The poor people are wholly employed by the wealthy people at subsistence wages. The wealthy people collude with their vast resources to make sure that no poor person accrues any capital. All interactions are strictly voluntary, but the wealthy people will refuse to hire anyone who does not conform, and there is not enough food among the poor people to support any sizable number of non-conformists. This state persists for at least one poor person's entire natural lifetime. Was the poor person who was born, lived and died under this regime afforded the natural rights of life liberty and property you described? This person had the liberty to choose to claim property and forego life, or to live and forego property. If an external power had the ability change one or more of these rules, would they have the moral authority to do so against the will of the wealthy people? If the answer is yes, where does that moral authority end? We don't live in the above world, but we do live in a world where fewer and fewer people own more and more capital.
  10. delaMancha

    Debate of Gay Marriage

    The same can be said for a lot of straight marriages, and straight marriage has had the benefit of official recognition far longer than gay marriage. Because these colors don't run.
  11. delaMancha

    Debate of Gay Marriage

    That's whole point of that questionnaire. If you are uncomfortable with those questions, it shows that they come from a unworthy place. If it's not fair to ask them regarding heterosexuality, then it's not fair to ask them regarding homosexuality. Too late!!!!!!!
  12. delaMancha

    Should same sex marriage be legal?

    My immediate interests in a marriage debate are in the legalization and normalization of same sex marriage and in an egalitarian division of marital and child rearing responsibilities. I see those as trending in a positive and progressive direction, at least in the US, and to the extent that marriage is and continues to be an institution, I would like to see those interests represented in it. I agree with Alister Roberts that some of the traditional opposite sex marriage goals and structures are weakened by these changes. However, I don't see that as a bad thing. I think the changes provide an opportunity to replace and improve outdated models of behavior and rules that are no longer useful, though they might once have been. In general, I think that the prescriptive focus on the exclusive roles of men and women is unnecessary, and feeds into damaging trends in larger society. If we can remove this dross of gender essentialist thinking, we will be left with a more pure representation of the same important precepts that underlie the institution of opposite sex marriage. I would certainly not say that monogamy, pair-bonding, or child rearing are outdated concepts that should be removed from the concept of marriage.
  13. delaMancha

    Should same sex marriage be legal?

    I don't really have an alternative in mind or think that the institution needs to be replaced by something completely different. When I said that the opposite sex marriage doesn't have a monopoly, I think I muddied the nuance I was trying to convey. I should have said: I don't think the underlying good ideas and practices that Alastair Roberts refers can only be found in the context of traditional opposite sex marriage. We can change the context to something that includes same sex marriage and preserve the most important common goods. Depending on the path we take, we might lose some positive aspects, but we ought to gain novel positive aspects as well. Importantly, this context change is already well under way. If Roberts sees a mortal societal danger in the de-institutionalization of traditional marriage, then I only see three possible responses: 1. Do nothing and let it happen 2. Fight to reverse the momentum of the change and rebuild traditional opposite sex marriage 3. Work with the change and construct a new institution that reflects the new context and preserves the larger goods from the previous institution. He does not seem satisfied with 1, and I think most of the effort expended in 2 is wasted to reverse an existing trend without necessarily addressing the root cause of the change. Working on 3 puts all of the effort into guiding an existing change, and I think is much more likely to produce a stable institution that preserves important common goods.
  14. delaMancha

    Should same sex marriage be legal?

    I think this is the important thing. I'm my reading, Alastair Roberts makes three major points: 1. Opposite sex marriage is an institution that has been and is very invested in child rearing as a common good. 2. Opposite sex marriage is being de-instutionalized in that people think less about it as promoting common good and more about it serving individual needs. 3. Same sex marriage exacerbates this de-institutionalization because it focuses on those individual needs. I agree with 1 (in the limited way I have phrased it here), but feel that if 2 is true, then fighting 3 is the wrong response, especially from a self-proclaimed secular viewpoint. We should be using this momentum and interest in any kind of marriage to steer society toward a different institution. Trying to reverse a decades old social trend sounds like folly to me. Opposite sex marriage as instituted (over the past few hundred years, (in the west,)) does not have a monopoly on good child rearing precepts, and I believe that it is fatally outdated in many ways, especially in gender roles, masculinity/femininity, etc. Alastair Roberts makes claims about the benefits of opposite sex marriage that are true, but are rooted in the assumption that it is the best and only solution. I don't think that he justifies that assumption.
  15. Thank you for posting this. I was raised Catholic, and and only recently considered this question. I was shocked to find such a big blind spot after so long. It seems to me that the Immaculate Conception significantly and unnecessarily complicates the concept of original sin.
  16. delaMancha

    Submission In Relationships

    goxfiles and Mike Spero: Thanks for your responses. I appreciate that you both carve out exceptions/nuances, at least in extenuating circumstances. I have two thoughts about your comments. First, both of you offered cases where a wife might need to fulfill roles that you would otherwise assign to her husband, and vice versa. Given that these situations could strike any family, wouldn't it be beneficial for husbands and wives to practice filling these roles in non-stressful circumstances? Otherwise, either spouse could be caught unprepared for the new responsibilities of a role that was suddenly thrust upon them. Second, supose that my example couple, through human imperfection and variation, is not suited to the Biblical ideal. The wife is more comfortable in a leading role, and the husband in a following role. When they make an honest effort to fill the roles you have described, they are unhappy and feel unfulfilled. In this case, is it more important for the marriage to appear to follow the ideal with both spouses resenting their assigned role, or for it to diverge from the ideal with both spouses embracing their chosen role?
  17. delaMancha

    Submission In Relationships

    JAG: You brought up equality as being a matter of equivalent value, not of identical treatment. You have presented the model of wife submiting to her husband and husband being responsible for the wellbeing of his wife as an equal valuation. You cite Christ's relationship with His church as the foundation for this model. Let me know if that is not an accurate summary. Do you think that reversing the roles is also an equal valuation? If a couple is as happy, healthy and functional as your model couple, but the husband submits to his wife and the wife is responsible for the wellbeing of her husband, are the two relationship of equivalent value in the eyes of God? Is there a reason that the wife should not take the role of Christ and the husband the role of His chruch? Obviously the individual people in the two relationships would be very different from one another, but suppose all feel well suited to their chosen role.
  18. delaMancha

    Women's Rights

    I would argue that unequal results are inherently suspicious. Women make up a small percentage of the policy making bodies of the world, despite being ~half the population, and that is a good recipe for shrinking representation. How do you determine how well their needs are being met? If a vulnerable group has insufficient wealth or power, their voice is more easily ignored and their suffering can be made harder to see. A hierarchy can be changed unilaterally by those at the top. How do we deal with situations where their best interests run counter to the interests of those at the bottom?
  19. delaMancha

    Is the Bible Political?

    If the poor were not living hand to mouth, they would have more opportunities to participate in your greater more eternal good. In your valuation, the relatively wealthy have a monopoly on that good, and it would appear that the poor are simply a means to participate in it. If serving the needs of the poor is not the purpose of charity, then those who participate are serving only themselves, and are not participating in any real good. When a police officer catches a criminal, is the greater good the overall reduction of crime and increase in safety for society, or is it the personal participation of the officer in serving justice? If it's the former, we want to catch all criminals. If it's the latter, we want to release the ones we catch and make as many new ones as we can. If your moral perspective encourages gaming the system, you need to reexamine it. (I get the impression that you are using words like agency to represent a whole class of elements, so I may not be understanding you fully.) Success and lack of success are self-reinforcing. The Successful tend to become more successful, and vice versa. If we reduce the agency of the successful without making them unsuccessful, we can apportion that surplus to the unsuccessful, and make more successful people. That's really hard to do in practice, but I don't see a philosophical problem with it.
  20. delaMancha

    Women's Rights

    The issue is that immoral rights-violating-structures are typically built on those systematic inequalities. They exacerbate them rather than correcting for them. Take your earlier example of marriage. Historically, it was built around the idea that women were the property of their nearest male relative. That's somewhat better than the idea that they were any man's property to use and discard, but the arrangement still denied women actual agency. And the biggest reason the institution protected women to the extent that it did was to ensure the purity of father-son family lines. It took a lot of work to improve marriage to its current state, and it's still not free of all of the oppressive elements of the past. An example of a positive gendered structure based on a biological differences would be the blue-light phone and escort service offered by many colleges. If women are, on average, less powerful than men, it makes sense to offer them protection if they want it. However, I think this sort of corrective gendered structure is rarer than you suppose. Even when they are not all bad, we can still strive to make them more equal.
  21. delaMancha

    Is the Bible Political?

    To go back to what Yves said last month, the problem I see is that even if unregulated people give more than regulated people, that doesn't matter if they don't give enough. Suppose an average person gives 8% of their income as a charitable donation each year, and pays 0% in coerced "donation" through a tax earmark system. If they were coerced to "donate" 5% of their income through tax earmarks, perhaps their charitable donation would drop to 2%. That's certainly less money. However, if the final project actually needs an average donation of 10%, removing the coerced portion is not the solution. The solution is to increase the coercion so that the sum of the two is 10%, even if that shrinks the voluntary portion even more. The goal of charitable giving is not to build grace in the giver; that's just a nice side effect. The goal is to help those in need. If that need is not being met, that is the big problem. We must solve that problem before we can talk about how to increase the charitable component and decrease the coerced component. If we can get all the way to 10% voluntary donation, that's fantastic, but until we do, meeting the need is the most important factor. The fact that the US doesn't have a free, private, charitable, universal health care system should be ample proof that relying on charitable donation is not enough.
  22. delaMancha

    Rob Bell is a heretic, a false prophet

    C.S. Lewis always did have something good to say. I don't think we disagree on the definition of finite. I'm not worried about finite in the sense the limited time that we have on Earth. I'm concerned with the limited understanding that we have of our sin. I don't think the finite human mind can comprehend what it means to commit treason against God. If we can't comprehend it, we can't be responsible for it. We are children next to God, and children can not justly be held to the same standard of responsibility as adults. Of course, it's best to obey, because it's best to do what God wants us to do, but we are only partly aware of the pain sin causes. We can only ever be partly aware. Justice may call for eternal punishment for knowingly transgressing God's will, but that same justice requires that the sentence be reduced due to our status as children. This is why I prefer the view of hell as a cleansing fire. Yes, we should be punished for being bad children, but when we have been punished enough, we should be released from torment. What happens then is up to God.
  23. delaMancha

    Rob Bell is a heretic, a false prophet

    From a physical perspective that makes sense, but we're already thinking of a post-death form of existence. It doesn't need to be physical or similar to Earth to be interesting and meaningful. People who wanted to be in heaven and didn't make the cut might be haunted by their missed opportunity, but they might find value in introspection, or relationships with other souls, or exploration of the environment, or whatever the form of existence allows. That makes sense to me. After all, we die in the physical world, why not in the spiritual world? The short answer is, "Yes". The only reason to have something like hell is to separate sinners from God. What happens in hell (temporary, eternal, destruction, etc.) doesn't really matter for why you get sent there.
  24. delaMancha

    Rob Bell is a heretic, a false prophet

    I have heard this argument before and am unclear where it comes from. That is certainly one way that things could be, but what makes you think that that's the way things are? How can you tell what a world cut off from grace would feel like?
  25. delaMancha

    Rob Bell is a heretic, a false prophet

    I see a few possibilities that are internally consistent with the nature of God:1) There is no hell. The passages that are used to defend the idea are being misinterpreted. 2) There is a hell, but no one goes there. The mercy of God wins out against the justice of God, or there is an opportunity to accept salvation at the point of judgment. 3) There is a hell, and people go there for their sins, but do not stay eternally. Hell is more like purgatory in that it is meant to purify people for eventual reunion with God, or there is some other way out of hell. (This one makes the most sense to me given the nature of God. It is compatible with both both justice and mercy, and preserves meaning in Christ's sacrifice.) 4) There is a hell, and people stay there eternally for their sins, but it is not a place of torture or misery. It is simply a place of existence without God. 5) Some combination of the above. None of those options involve God torturing people to hell for eternity. I reject that possibility because I don't believe a perfectly just being can sentence a finite being to infinite torture. The concept is fundamentally incompatible with justice, regardless of the crime. Thank you for your response. I think that answers my question adequately. I am primarily looking for internal consistency, and shifting the infinite burden to an infinite being removes that obstacle. I still find the idea narratively unsatisfying, however. An infinite being saved us from an unfathomable fate by undergoing an incomprehensible ordeal, but was not is any way diminished in the process. What does that even mean? My followup to your answer would be to question the ability of a finite being to owe an infinite debt, as I mentioned above. I would be interested in exploring it, if you are game.
×