Mark T
Lawrence Wong
around to asking you some questions. Just wondering if you have any of
your artwork anywhere on the net?
Also wondering what restrictions you think should be placed on art in view
of Christian morality?
Finally I was wondering how the death of one *mere man* can atone for the
sins of many people (if Jesus is God, then I can see it, but if not...)?
RAZA 2004
Mark T
> Hey Mark, I read your testimony the other week and am finally getting
> around to asking you some questions. Just wondering if you have any of
> your artwork anywhere on the net?
I don't think so. Most of my paintings were back in the 70s and I took few
pictures of them. I have a few photos of work I entered in recent
exhibitions. Still getting back into painting. It is probably my weakest
area though I have won awards.
> Also wondering what restrictions you think should be >placed on art in
view of Christian morality?
For the Christian artist it is the body of one's artwork over a lifetime
that matters. (Mine is splattered over several fields and when
concentrating on one area another may be neglected for a while ... no
painting in the 80s and little in the 90s) The individual artwork is part
of a larger picture therefore one is free to engage the artwork on whatever
topic and whatever medium one views as necessary. This means that an
individual artwork may look at topics that are nonChristian or
anti-Christian. It may be disturbing, ugly and shocking. Art need not be
always nice. Christians artists have repeatedly done so in the past. One
only has to look at the master at portraits, Rembrandt, and his "Side of
Beef". If one honestly engages life in one's work one's views are expressed
in the totality of one's life's work. Mine reflects my early search for God
in the 60s, fundamentalism in the 70s and a growth to wider topics in the 80
and 90s.
For the Christian viewer, take what is good and spit out the bad. Art is
very subjective and personal. Don't ban art that you don't like or disagree
with, boycott it. If you ban anti-Christian art then you are provoking the
response to ban Christian art. Avoid kitsch and propaganda. Learn how to
read art. Surround yourself with good art. Regularly change the art in
your house. Rearrange the paintings. Listen to a new style of music you
have not heard before. Read a book by a new author. Visit art galleries, go
to concerts and live theatre. See a new movie. Don't restrict yourself to
the Christian ghetto.
> Finally I was wondering how the death of one *mere >man* can atone for the
sins of many people (if Jesus is >God, then I can see it, but if not...)?
I have struggled with this and continue to do so.
Currently I tend to think that Jesus' death was understood as a sacrifice by
the Jewish Christians after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD and as
the final atonement rather than a yearly atonement at the Temple. They
could see their freedom as being bought by Christ's death. They had follwed
the Jewish sacrificial system in the the Temple but the Temple no longer
existed. Judaism changed as a result of this and I think Christianity also
changed. It was a way of having continuity with their past.
In reality the yearly blood sacrifice did not atone for sins in any real way
other than placating people's fears. This is a myth believed in throughout
early civilisations. Killing something is not a away for us to understand
ationement for sins nor the grace of God.
I think forgiveness of sins is two fold:
Individually one forgives the sions of others that others have done to the
individual. One's personal sins are likewise forgiven by others
(hopefully).
On the larger scale God's nature is love, grace and forgiveness. If one
follows the greatest commandments of Jesus then one's love toward God and
one;'s fellow many dictate that one should seek forgiveness not only from
the other person but also from God. I don't think God requires a killing or
m urder or bloodshed in order to forgive. God forgives us if we honestly
come to God and confess our sins to God as God is love. In this area, Islam
is correct about the forgiving nature of God. It is an evolution of belief
from the sacrificial system of the Jews to the commandments of love given by
Jesus and Jesus' proclamation of the Good News of freedom, locve and
forgiveness in the realm of God.
Lawrence Wong
>"Lawrence Wong" wrote:
>> Hey Mark, I read your testimony the other week and am finally getting
>> around to asking you some questions. Just wondering if you have any of
>> your artwork anywhere on the net?
>I don't think so. Most of my paintings were back in the 70s and I took few
>pictures of them. I have a few photos of work I entered in recent
>exhibitions. Still getting back into painting. It is probably my weakest
>area though I have won awards.
oh ok, so what is your strongest area?
>> Also wondering what restrictions you think should be >placed on art in
>view of Christian morality?
>For the Christian artist it is the body of one's artwork over a lifetime
>that matters. (Mine is splattered over several fields and when
>concentrating on one area another may be neglected for a while ... no
>painting in the 80s and little in the 90s) The individual artwork is part
>of a larger picture therefore one is free to engage the artwork on whatever
>topic and whatever medium one views as necessary. This means that an
>individual artwork may look at topics that are nonChristian or
>anti-Christian. It may be disturbing, ugly and shocking. Art need not be
>always nice. Christians artists have repeatedly done so in the past. One
>only has to look at the master at portraits, Rembrandt, and his "Side of
>Beef". If one honestly engages life in one's work one's views are expressed
>in the totality of one's life's work. Mine reflects my early search for God
>in the 60s, fundamentalism in the 70s and a growth to wider topics in the 80
>and 90s.
I guess I should ask if you see art itself as "restircted" in that the
term art does not apply to everything. For example, would the photos in
"playboy" be considered art?
>For the Christian viewer, take what is good and spit out the bad. Art is
>very subjective and personal. Don't ban art that you don't like or disagree
>with, boycott it. If you ban anti-Christian art then you are provoking the
>response to ban Christian art. Avoid kitsch and propaganda. Learn how to
>read art. Surround yourself with good art. Regularly change the art in
>your house. Rearrange the paintings. Listen to a new style of music you
>have not heard before. Read a book by a new author. Visit art galleries, go
>to concerts and live theatre. See a new movie. Don't restrict yourself to
>the Christian ghetto.
It is true that Christians must be discerning. The advice above seem fine,
but I am now wondering what Standards you "judge" a book, movie or
whatnot?
>> Finally I was wondering how the death of one *mere >man* can atone for the
>sins of many people (if Jesus is >God, then I can see it, but if not...)?
>I have struggled with this and continue to do so.
ok.
>Currently I tend to think that Jesus' death was understood as a sacrifice by
>the Jewish Christians after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD and as
>the final atonement rather than a yearly atonement at the Temple. They
>could see their freedom as being bought by Christ's death. They had follwed
>the Jewish sacrificial system in the the Temple but the Temple no longer
>existed. Judaism changed as a result of this and I think Christianity also
>changed. It was a way of having continuity with their past.
So you mean before 70AD the Jewish Christians would have still gone to the
temple for "remision of sins"?
>In reality the yearly blood sacrifice did not atone for sins in any real way
>other than placating people's fears. This is a myth believed in throughout
>early civilisations. Killing something is not a away for us to understand
>ationement for sins nor the grace of God.
This is why I asked about "standards" earlier. If one of God's standards
is that it is just for a murderer to be killed (not murdered) then there
is a sense in which blood must be shed for justice to be upheld, at least
in the case of a murderer. My understanding of God is that God is Holy and
hence cannot stand sin (I'm sure you've heard this before). But God is
also Love. So God provided Jesus as a sacrifice to take the full pentaly
of the justice system, thus God remains just and we can have our wrongs
taken care of. So we may come into a correct relationship with God. So God
does not belittle our sin, but neither does God become unholy.
>I think forgiveness of sins is two fold:
>Individually one forgives the sions of others that others have done to the
>individual. One's personal sins are likewise forgiven by others
>(hopefully).
Like "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those that trespass against
us."
>On the larger scale God's nature is love, grace and forgiveness. If one
>follows the greatest commandments of Jesus then one's love toward God and
>one;'s fellow many dictate that one should seek forgiveness not only from
>the other person but also from God.
Yes.
> I don't think God requires a killing or murder or bloodshed in order to
> forgive.
Again I'm curious as to the whole standard thing. Where do you get this
idea of God? Surely the only way to know an infinite being is for that
being to reveal themself to us truly.
> God forgives us if we honestly
>come to God and confess our sins to God as God is love.
"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just and will forgive us our
sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." 1 John 1:9
> In this area, Islam
>is correct about the forgiving nature of God.
Allah is mecriful oft just and forgiving (iirc).
> It is an evolution of belief
>from the sacrificial system of the Jews to the commandments of love given by
>Jesus and Jesus' proclamation of the Good News of freedom, locve and
>forgiveness in the realm of God.
So it seems, if I've understood you correctky. That there is nothing
"metaphysical" about Jesus' death that atones for our sins, more
psycological?
thanks for the thought out answers...
RAZA 2004
Mark T
> I guess I should ask if you see art itself as "restircted" in that the
> term art does not apply to everything.
It has to do with the artist's intent.
> For example, would the photos in "playboy" be considered art?
Could be. Nudity has been a subject in art since the dawn of time. Marilyn
Monroe's nudes in Playboy are art.
> but I am now wondering what Standards you "judge" a book, movie or
> whatnot?
Asthetic pleasure. Wedding of content and form.
> So you mean before 70AD the Jewish Christians would have still gone to the
> temple for "remision of sins"?
Yes ... some did.
> This is why I asked about "standards" earlier. If one of God's standards
> is that it is just for a murderer to be killed (not murdered) then there
> is a sense in which blood must be shed for justice to be upheld, at least
> in the case of a murderer. My understanding of God is that God is Holy and
> hence cannot stand sin (I'm sure you've heard this before). But God is
> also Love. So God provided Jesus as a sacrifice to take the full pentaly
> of the justice system, thus God remains just and we can have our wrongs
> taken care of. So we may come into a correct relationship with God. So God
> does not belittle our sin, but neither does God become unholy.
I don't think it is at all just to murder a murderer. Two wrongs don't make
a right. It is not an act of love to the murderer thus breaking the second
greatest commandment given by Jesus.
It is a weird and bloodthirsty sadistic God that approves of killing
anything. This is more like a primitive god who is offered food to appease
him so that he won't murder the people by starving them.
Is God a mean vindictive sadist vengeful bastard who punishes and tortures
people for breaking any minor rule that he arbitrarily makes on high .... or
is God love?
Your view of God's nature dictates how you think God acts.
> Where do you get this idea of God?
Meditation on truth. Logical reasoning. Using one's God-given brain.
>Surely the only way to know an infinite being is for that
> being to reveal themself to us truly.
Why?
How would we know the revelation? How would it be confirmed definitively
and not merely by faith?
> So it seems, if I've understood you correctky. That there is nothing
> "metaphysical" about Jesus' death that atones for our sins
Correct.
> more psycological?
Maybe more deep myth that is part of our psyche and helps to ensure our
survival. What happens when one is confronted by that which is larger than
oneself and which threatens to destroy and annihilate the self. If one
cannot fight it and either overcome it or destroy it, one tries to pacify
it. That is the origin of sacrifice. It is based on the idea of a
punishing god. I sugest that one of Jesus' great contributions was to focus
on God as a loving father rather than as a vengeful deity and to free people
from the bondage of petty rules.
Now, I could be wrong. I have been wrong in the past. This is why I
consider Christianity as a journey not an endpoint.
Lawrence Wong
>"Lawrence Wong" wrote:
>> I guess I should ask if you see art itself as "restircted" in that the
>> term art does not apply to everything.
>It has to do with the artist's intent.
ok.
>> For example, would the photos in "playboy" be considered art?
>Could be. Nudity has been a subject in art since the dawn of time. Marilyn
>Monroe's nudes in Playboy are art.
>> but I am now wondering what Standards you "judge" a book, movie or
>> whatnot?
>Asthetic pleasure. Wedding of content and form.
You're talking about "judging" it artistily? as opposed to judging it
morally?
>> So you mean before 70AD the Jewish Christians would have still gone to the
>> temple for "remision of sins"?
>Yes ... some did.
>> This is why I asked about "standards" earlier. If one of God's standards
>> is that it is just for a murderer to be killed (not murdered) then there
>> is a sense in which blood must be shed for justice to be upheld, at least
>> in the case of a murderer. My understanding of God is that God is Holy and
>> hence cannot stand sin (I'm sure you've heard this before). But God is
>> also Love. So God provided Jesus as a sacrifice to take the full pentaly
>> of the justice system, thus God remains just and we can have our wrongs
>> taken care of. So we may come into a correct relationship with God. So God
>> does not belittle our sin, but neither does God become unholy.
>I don't think it is at all just to murder a murderer.
Here is an article I wrote, you may be interested in.
http://www.geocities.com/rod_raza_2003/Murder_or_Killing.html
> Two wrongs don't make a right.
Correct.
> It is not an act of love to the murderer thus breaking the second
>greatest commandment given by Jesus.
Should a parent discipline a child or would that not be loving to the
child?
>It is a weird and bloodthirsty sadistic God that approves of killing
>anything.
Do you believe in evolution?
> This is more like a primitive god who is offered food to appease
>him so that he won't murder the people by starving them.
>Is God a mean vindictive sadist vengeful bastard who punishes and tortures
>people for breaking any minor rule that he arbitrarily makes on high .... or
>is God love?
God is many things, including - Holy, just, mericful, loving and logical
(logos)
>Your view of God's nature dictates how you think God acts.
Yes, but is anybodies nature simply describe by one attribute?
>> Where do you get this idea of God?
>Meditation on truth.
Do you mean thinking about the bible?
> Logical reasoning. Using one's God-given brain.
YEs, in the beginning was the Logos, the Logos was with God and the Logos
was God. The word logos is where we get our word logic from.
>>Surely the only way to know an infinite being is for that
>> being to reveal themself to us truly.
>Why?
Because we are finite. Technically we could "stumble' across the Truth,
but the probability is so minute we may as well say it is zero.
>How would we know the revelation?
I believe there are only 4 things we can know for certain -
1) I exist in some form
2) I have sense data of some form
3) Analytic truths
4) Logical Necessities
Everything else - which is quite a lot, is believed by faith.
>How would it be confirmed definitively and not merely by faith?
It cannot be confirmed *definitely* merely reasonable. Fulfilled prophecy
can be a good start.
>> So it seems, if I've understood you correctky. That there is nothing
>> "metaphysical" about Jesus' death that atones for our sins
>Correct.
>> more psycological?
>Maybe more deep myth that is part of our psyche and helps to ensure our
>survival. What happens when one is confronted by that which is larger than
>oneself and which threatens to destroy and annihilate the self. If one
>cannot fight it and either overcome it or destroy it, one tries to pacify
>it. That is the origin of sacrifice. It is based on the idea of a
>punishing god. I sugest that one of Jesus' great contributions was to focus
>on God as a loving father rather than as a vengeful deity and to free people
>from the bondage of petty rules.
Surely the notion of punishment comes hand in hand with the notion of
justice?
>Now, I could be wrong. I have been wrong in the past. This is why I
>consider Christianity as a journey not an endpoint.
That's why it's faith...
RAZA 2004
Mark T
> >> but I am now wondering what Standards you "judge" a book, movie or
> >> whatnot?
>
> >Asthetic pleasure. Wedding of content and form.
>
> You're talking about "judging" it artistily? as opposed to judging it
> morally?
Artistically which is the only correct way. Why the obsession with issues
of morality in art????
Do you judge your food, cars, houses, plants, pets, etc morally???
> http://www.geocities.com/rod_raza_2003/Murder_or_Killing.html
> Do you believe in evolution?
Yes.
> >> Where do you get this idea of God?
>
> >Meditation on truth.
>
> Do you mean thinking about the bible?
The parts of the bible are true. Part is poetry, apocalypse, myth. Truth
is part of the bible but the bible is not the sum total of truth. All truth
is God's truth.
> >How would we know the revelation?
>
> I believe there are only 4 things we can know for certain -
>
> 1) I exist in some form
Descrates was wrong in his cogito. One cannot prove one's own existence.
> 2) I have sense data of some form
Sense data may be wrong.
> 3) Analytic truths
We can only use induction and deduction and both are faulty.
> Surely the notion of punishment comes hand in hand with the notion of
> justice?
Why?
Lawrence Wong
>"Lawrence Wong" wrote:
>> >> but I am now wondering what Standards you "judge" a book, movie or
>> >> whatnot?
>>
>> >Asthetic pleasure. Wedding of content and form.
>>
>> You're talking about "judging" it artistily? as opposed to judging it
>> morally?
>Artistically which is the only correct way. Why the obsession with issues
>of morality in art????
>Do you judge your food, cars, houses, plants, pets, etc morally???
The use of them can be judged that way. If I eat too much I'm a glutton
etc
>> http://www.geocities.com/rod_raza_2003/Murder_or_Killing.html
>> Do you believe in evolution?
>Yes.
ok well how do you reconcile the believe that "God is love" and hence your
"pacific" type stance. With a God that uses a method of death and chance
to produce us?
>> >> Where do you get this idea of God?
>>
>> >Meditation on truth.
>>
>> Do you mean thinking about the bible?
>The parts of the bible are true. Part is poetry, apocalypse, myth. Truth
>is part of the bible but the bible is not the sum total of truth. All truth
>is God's truth.
I agree that the bible is not the totality of truth. In fact the bible
agrees with you on that part. For it says tha the secret things belong to
God but the things revealed to us and our children. Hence there are things
that are not revealed in the bible.
Part is poetry and apocalytic, but they are also truth but not to be
understood literally. All things must be taken in their correct context,
which includes historical context and literary type, as well as the
textual context.
>> >How would we know the revelation?
>>
>> I believe there are only 4 things we can know for certain -
>>
>> 1) I exist in some form
>Descrates was wrong in his cogito. One cannot prove one's own existence.
While it seems that is what he is doing, I personally don't believe it
was. I believe Decartes arguement is *esiptemilogical*. So technically it
should be formuated.
Doubting presupposes thinking
thinking presupposes a thinker
I think therefore I *know* I am
>> 2) I have sense data of some form
>Sense data may be wrong.
Yes, hence why I said "in some form". Just like I can be absolutely sure
that I exist I cannot be sure of the form of my existence. I could be a
brain in a vat. Similarly sense data exists, but it may not exist
externally to me, and even if it is external to me it may not be what my
brain interprets it as. So there is a sense which 1) and 2) could actually
be the same thing, depending on the true nature of existence. But either
way, I *know* I have sense data, even if I do not know what the
*interpretation* of that data is.
>> 3) Analytic truths
>We can only use induction and deduction and both are faulty.
Analytic truths as I understand them are things that are true by
definition. (Ie. Linguistically true). "All bachelors are unmarried men"
is true, by the definition of bachelor.
>> Surely the notion of punishment comes hand in hand with the notion of
>> justice?
>Why?
Hmm why indeed. ok I'll think about it and give you an answer. I have a
general idea in my head, but will try to crystaklise it better.
RAZA 2004
Mark T
>>>>Descrates was wrong in his cogito. One cannot prove one's own
>>>>existence.
>>>
>>> While it seems that is what he is doing, I personally don't believe it
>>> was. I believe Decartes arguement is *esiptemilogical*. So technically
>>> it
>>> should be formuated.
>
>>Eh????
>
> The argument is about knowledge not being.
Epistemology is about how we go about knowing things, what methods are used
and what proofs are valid, etc.
Descartes definitely set out to prove being and he failed.
>>> Doubting presupposes thinking
>>> thinking presupposes a thinker
>>>
>>> I think therefore I *know* I am
>
>>Thinking is not linked to being in your argument.
>
> Then what does "thinking presupposes a thinker" mean? Does a thinker have
> no being?
Thinking is not linked to knowing in your example. Nor is thinking
necessarily linked to being in your argument.
>>>>We can only use induction and deduction and both are faulty.
>>>
>>> Analytic truths as I understand them are things that are true by
>>> definition. (Ie. Linguistically true). "All bachelors are unmarried men"
>>> is true, by the definition of bachelor.
>
>>This definition may not be true in the real world.
>
> It is true *by definition* it doesn't matter if it corresponds to the
> "real world" or not. Linguistically it is true, and hence a truth that I
> can be certain of.
A thing may be "linguistically true" but false as one of the premises in its
proof are in error.
All Wongs are always wrong.
You are a Wong.
Therefore you are always wrong.
... by definition.
However the firtys premise is faulty. The second is not proven (it may a
false name). The conclusion is faulty in the real world.
> Let us assume that Justice and Punishment are mutually exclusive. So Bob
> the Theif goes and steals some Jewels from Rachel. Rachel goes to the
> police and demands justice. The police inverstigate and finally conclude
> that all the evidence points to Bob as the one who stole the Jewels. So
> the police go to Bob and say, "Bob we've concluded our investigaion and
> you are definitely the theif who stole the Jewels. As a matter of truth we
> tell you this. As a matter of justice there is nothing we can do. We
> cannot punish you because Justice and punishment do not go hand in hand.".
> Bob the teif replies, "Yeah I stole the Jewels, three chears for justice!"
>
> Do you really think justice has been served in this case?
What if Bob gave back the Jewels? Justice is served (the act of Bob being
just and giving the jewels back to the rightful owner). No punishment is
involved.
Lawrence Wong
>"Lawrence Wong" wrote:
>>>>>Descrates was wrong in his cogito. One cannot prove one's own
>>>>>existence.
>>>>
>>>> While it seems that is what he is doing, I personally don't believe it
>>>> was. I believe Decartes arguement is *esiptemilogical*. So technically
>>>> it
>>>> should be formuated.
>>
>>>Eh????
>>
>> The argument is about knowledge not being.
>Epistemology is about how we go about knowing things, what methods are used
>and what proofs are valid, etc.
>Descartes definitely set out to prove being and he failed.
Decarts as I understand from what I've read and been taugh about him.
Wanted to not be like other philosophers, he want to know what could be
know for certain. Thus he startd out by seeing what copuld be doubted. He
realised that he could doubt the existence of a bed because he could be
dreaming it, etc. So then he moved to absract "objects" like maths. Could
he doubt that 1+1 always =2 ? Well yes, he could doubt it, because he
reasoned that he could be being deceived by a malicous demon. Eventually
he concluded that only thing that he could not doubt was the fact that he
was doubting.
>>>> Doubting presupposes thinking
>>>> thinking presupposes a thinker
>>>>
>>>> I think therefore I *know* I am
>>
>>>Thinking is not linked to being in your argument.
>>
>> Then what does "thinking presupposes a thinker" mean? Does a thinker have
>> no being?
>Thinking is not linked to knowing in your example. Nor is thinking
>necessarily linked to being in your argument.
Thinking *is* linked to knowing and being by the premise "thinking
presupposes a thinker".
>>>>>We can only use induction and deduction and both are faulty.
>>>>
>>>> Analytic truths as I understand them are things that are true by
>>>> definition. (Ie. Linguistically true). "All bachelors are unmarried men"
>>>> is true, by the definition of bachelor.
>>
>>>This definition may not be true in the real world.
>>
>> It is true *by definition* it doesn't matter if it corresponds to the
>> "real world" or not. Linguistically it is true, and hence a truth that I
>> can be certain of.
>A thing may be "linguistically true" but false as one of the premises in its
>proof are in error.
>All Wongs are always wrong.
>You are a Wong.
>Therefore you are always wrong.
>... by definition.
>However the firtys premise is faulty. The second is not proven (it may a
>false name). The conclusion is faulty in the real world.
but definitionally it is true, and we can know that it is true
definitionally.
>> Let us assume that Justice and Punishment are mutually exclusive. So Bob
>> the Theif goes and steals some Jewels from Rachel. Rachel goes to the
>> police and demands justice. The police inverstigate and finally conclude
>> that all the evidence points to Bob as the one who stole the Jewels. So
>> the police go to Bob and say, "Bob we've concluded our investigaion and
>> you are definitely the theif who stole the Jewels. As a matter of truth we
>> tell you this. As a matter of justice there is nothing we can do. We
>> cannot punish you because Justice and punishment do not go hand in hand.".
>> Bob the teif replies, "Yeah I stole the Jewels, three chears for justice!"
>>
>> Do you really think justice has been served in this case?
>What if Bob gave back the Jewels? Justice is served (the act of Bob being
>just and giving the jewels back to the rightful owner). No punishment is
>involved.
So then everyone should steal, and if they get caught they can be just and
give back what was stolen, if they don't get caught good for them huh?
Where is the deterant from stealing?
RAZA 2004
Mark T
> Thinking *is* linked to knowing and being by the premise "thinking
> presupposes a thinker".
Thinking is related to thinker as a thinker is one who thinks. One who
thinks may not necessarily be one who exists. Thinking is not the same as
being or existing. This is where Descartes failed to provide proof of a
link ... and where you also fail.
>>A thing may be "linguistically true" but false as one of the premises in
>>its
>>proof are in error.
>
>>All Wongs are always wrong.
>>You are a Wong.
>>Therefore you are always wrong.
>
>>... by definition.
>
>>However the first premise is faulty. The second is not proven (it may a
>>false name). The conclusion is faulty in the real world.
>
> but definitionally it is true, and we can know that it is true
> definitionally.
No, it is not true. It is unproven. Read again.
>>What if Bob gave back the Jewels? Justice is served (the act of Bob being
>>just and giving the jewels back to the rightful owner). No punishment is
>>involved.
>
> So then everyone should steal, and if they get caught they can be just and
> give back what was stolen, if they don't get caught good for them huh?
> Where is the deterant from stealing?
None in this example which demonstrates that justice is not necessarily
linked to punishment.
Lawrence Wong
>"Lawrence Wong" wrote:
>> Thinking *is* linked to knowing and being by the premise "thinking
>> presupposes a thinker".
>Thinking is related to thinker as a thinker is one who thinks. One who
>thinks may not necessarily be one who exists. Thinking is not the same as
>being or existing. This is where Descartes failed to provide proof of a
>link ... and where you also fail.
The impossibility of the contrary. There can be no existing thoughts
without an *existant* thinker.
>>>A thing may be "linguistically true" but false as one of the premises in
>>>its
>>>proof are in error.
>>
>>>All Wongs are always wrong.
>>>You are a Wong.
>>>Therefore you are always wrong.
>>
>>>... by definition.
>>
>>>However the first premise is faulty. The second is not proven (it may a
>>>false name). The conclusion is faulty in the real world.
>>
>> but definitionally it is true, and we can know that it is true
>> definitionally.
>No, it is not true. It is unproven. Read again.
Sorry my reply was a bit too hasty. First I'd like to point out that this
is a logical syllogism not an "analytic truth".
"According to Kant, an anyaltic statement (or judgement) is one in which
the concept of the predicate is already contained, or thought, in the
concept of the subject -an example would be the statement that a vixen is
a female fox..." Oxford Comapnion to Philosophy 1995 page 28
So the first premise could be an analytic statement *if* that is the
definition of a wong.
Anyawys, I would like to remind you, that this part of this thread came
about because you *implied* that faith was not a good reason for adhering
to the bible as a standard. I replied by saying it must be by faith
because most things are believed by faith (including the belief that the
sun will rise tomorrow). I suggested there were 4 things we could be
certain of but other than those 4 everything else is believed by faith.
Now *even if* you proceed to show that there are less than 4, you are
merely *strengthening* my position of faith as being necessary for one's
adherance to a standrad.
>>>What if Bob gave back the Jewels? Justice is served (the act of Bob being
>>>just and giving the jewels back to the rightful owner). No punishment is
>>>involved.
>>
>> So then everyone should steal, and if they get caught they can be just and
>> give back what was stolen, if they don't get caught good for them huh?
>> Where is the deterant from stealing?
>None in this example which demonstrates that justice is not necessarily
>linked to punishment.
hehe. Well I'm not so sure how it "shows" this.
As a side note, because I'm not sure what you thought of the article I
wrote on the difference between killing and murder, I'd like to point out
that - It seems to me that the same reasoning that leads one to believe
that if a murderer is killed via capital punishment they have been
murdered by capital punishment. It seems a person who believes that should
also believe that a theif that has been caught and had the stolen property
taken off them. That stolen property has been stolen from them, therefore
one should not return stolen good of a theif. Obviously I do not believe
this is the way it should be, but it seems to me that a person who
believes capital punishment is murder should be consitent and apply the
same reasoning to stealing as well.
What do you think?
RAZA 2004
Mark T
>>Thinking is related to thinker as a thinker is one who thinks. One who
>>thinks may not necessarily be one who exists. Thinking is not the same as
>>being or existing. This is where Descartes failed to provide proof of a
>>link ... and where you also fail.
>
> The impossibility of the contrary. There can be no existing thoughts
> without an *existant* thinker.
You have to prove that thoughts exist. What is the nature of existence? It
is not thinking for rocks exist but do not think.
> Anyawys, I would like to remind you, that this part of this thread came
> about because you *implied* that faith was not a good reason for adhering
> to the bible as a standard.
Correct. It is not sufficient. One could demand the same of Grimm's fairy
tales or Superman comics or my Mark 17 (which I write as an addition to the
bioble and must be believced by faith). Why is either of these not the
standard?
Mark 17:2 - 4 "Everything I write is absolute truth and can never be wrong
...including this verse.Everything I wrote must be obeyed or you will fry in
Trew Kristyun hell. You must believe this to be true by faith or you are not
a Tew Kristyun."
My bible verse above is my proof. Believe it by faith.
> a person who believes capital punishment is murder should be consitent and
> apply >the same reasoning to stealing as well.
>
> What do you think?
The concept of justice is about right action not punishment of crimes.
Lawrence Wong
>"Lawrence Wong" wrote:
>>>Thinking is related to thinker as a thinker is one who thinks. One who
>>>thinks may not necessarily be one who exists. Thinking is not the same as
>>>being or existing. This is where Descartes failed to provide proof of a
>>>link ... and where you also fail.
>>
>> The impossibility of the contrary. There can be no existing thoughts
>> without an *existant* thinker.
>You have to prove that thoughts exist. What is the nature of existence? It
>is not thinking for rocks exist but do not think.
ok, I see where your misunderstanding is.
This argument is a purely subjective argument. *I* think, which only I can
know, you cannot know that I think, but I do. therefore I know that I am,
but I do not know what the *form* of my existence is. Decartes knew he
existed as long as he was thinking, but he could not know that I (RAZA)
existed. I cannot know that you exist but I can know that I exist. It is
a rational faith based belief for me to say you exist. It is reasonable
for me to *assume* that you think, but I cannot be certain because of the
subjective nature of thinking.
Also this argument technically is about knowledge. The "I am" should
really be "I know that I am". While is is a ration faith based belief to
believe that a non-thinking rock does really exist. A non-thinking rock
cannot *know* that it exist, just because it doesn't think, however it can
still exist. Once again this poionts to the subjective nature of this
argument. A rock *subjectively* doesn't think and hence does know of it's
own existence. I do think hence I know of my own existence, I do not
*know* of other people's existence, except by faith.
>> Anyawys, I would like to remind you, that this part of this thread came
>> about because you *implied* that faith was not a good reason for adhering
>> to the bible as a standard.
>Correct. It is not sufficient.
I didn't claim it was sufficent but I did claim it was necessary.
> One could demand the same of Grimm's fairy
>tales or Superman comics or my Mark 17 (which I write as an addition to the
>bioble and must be believced by faith). Why is either of these not the
>standard?
Ahh you got me exicted there when you said you were writing a comic, but
hten I read the bit in brackets and realised that you're just sayin ghtat
for hte sake of argument. :)
Like I mentioned earlier in this thread fulfilled prophecy is a big help.
"There is already so much of the Prophecy [in Revelation] fulfilled, that
as many as will take pains in this study, may see sufficent instances of
God's providence: but then the signal revolutions predicted by all the
holy Prophets, will at once both turn men's eyes upon considering the
predictions, and plainly interpret them."
Sir Isaac Newton (from "Observations upon the prophecies of Daniel and the
Apocalyse of St. John, in two parts" by Sir Isaac Newton, London
MDCCXXXIII, part II Chapter 1). p306
"For the event of things predicted many ages before, will then be a
convincing argument that the world is governed by Providence."
Sir Isaac Newton (from "Sir Isaac Newton's Daniel and the Apocalyse -
with an introductory study of the nature and the cause of unbelief,
of miracles and prophecy." by Sir William Whitla M.P. M.D. D.Sc. LL.D.
London 1922
>Mark 17:2 - 4 "Everything I write is absolute truth and can never be wrong
>...including this verse.Everything I wrote must be obeyed or you will fry in
>Trew Kristyun hell. You must believe this to be true by faith or you are not
>a Tew Kristyun."
>My bible verse above is my proof. Believe it by faith.
I note that faith is a *necessary* condition for beieving the above.
Although not sufficent *if* one wishes to be rational.
>> a person who believes capital punishment is murder should be consitent and
>> apply >the same reasoning to stealing as well.
>>
>> What do you think?
>The concept of justice is about right action not punishment of crimes.
But is it right to steal from a theif?
RAZA 2004
Mark T
> This argument is a purely subjective argument. *I* think, which only I can
> know, you cannot know that I think, but I do. therefore I know that I am,
> but I do not know what the *form* of my existence is. Decartes knew he
> existed as long as he was thinking
Thinking and existence are not the same. A rock exists but does not think.
>A non-thinking rock cannot *know* that it exist, just because it doesn't
>think, >however it can still exist.
So ...thinking and existence are separarte uissues not to be confused as the
same thing. This is why Descartes' argument fails.
>>> Anyawys, I would like to remind you, that this part of this thread came
>>> about because you *implied* that faith was not a good reason for
>>> adhering
>>> to the bible as a standard.
>
>>Correct. It is not sufficient.
>
> I didn't claim it was sufficent but I did claim it was necessary.
Faith MAY be helpful (*but not necessary) for such an irrational act but it
does not prove that the bible is a standard. One could have the same
misplaced faith in the Vedas.
> Like I mentioned earlier in this thread fulfilled prophecy is a big help.
The prophecies weren't fiulfilled except in retrospect manipulation.
> "There is already so much of the Prophecy [in Revelation] fulfilled ...
> Sir Isaac Newton
Newton was fallible and wrong about a number of things ... including
physics.
>>Mark 17:2 - 4 "Everything I write is absolute truth and can never be wrong
>>...including this verse.Everything I wrote must be obeyed or you will fry
>>in
>>Trew Kristyun hell. You must believe this to be true by faith or you are
>>not
>>a Tew Kristyun."
>
>>My bible verse above is my proof. Believe it by faith.
>
> I note that faith is a *necessary* condition for beieving the above.
> Although not sufficent *if* one wishes to be rational.
Faith is not necessary to beileve the above. One could be duped into
believing it was true.
>>The concept of justice is about right action not punishment of crimes.
>
> But is it right to steal from a theif?
If steal implies unlawfully taking something, then it is unlawful but it may
not be ethically immoral as lawfulness and morality are two different
issues. It was lawful to kill 6 million Jews in Nazi Germany but it was not
morally right to do so nor was it just to do so. Their was no moral justice
for Jews in Nazi Germnany but their was legal justice for Jews in Nazi
Germany. Justice is about action not punishment. The justice may be
undergirded by conflicting premises (as in the oppositional legal and moral
justice detaiuled in this post).
Lawrence Wong
>"Lawrence Wong" wrote:
>> This argument is a purely subjective argument. *I* think, which only I can
>> know, you cannot know that I think, but I do. therefore I know that I am,
>> but I do not know what the *form* of my existence is. Decartes knew he
>> existed as long as he was thinking
>Thinking and existence are not the same. A rock exists but does not think.
While it is true that thining and existing are not the same thing, they
don't have to be for the arguement to work, subjectively. For one to
actually think, those thoughts *must* exist. So existence is a necessary
property of having a thought. Thus if one *does* have a thought they can
know for certain that that thought exists, in some form.
>>A non-thinking rock cannot *know* that it exist, just because it doesn't
>>think, >however it can still exist.
>So ...thinking and existence are separarte uissues not to be confused as the
>same thing. This is why Descartes' argument fails.
They are not the same thing, you are correct in that. But the arg does not
fail because of them being different.
>>>> Anyawys, I would like to remind you, that this part of this thread came
>>>> about because you *implied* that faith was not a good reason for
>>>> adhering
>>>> to the bible as a standard.
>>
>>>Correct. It is not sufficient.
>>
>> I didn't claim it was sufficent but I did claim it was necessary.
>Faith MAY be helpful (*but not necessary) for such an irrational act but it
>does not prove that the bible is a standard. One could have the same
>misplaced faith in the Vedas.
Faith is only not necessary when one is omniscient, so I guess technically
you are right that it is not necessary. But for finite, non-omniscient
humans it is necessary.
And it is also true that one could have the same faith in the Vedas, that
is why *if one whishes to be rational* faith is not sufficent.
>> Like I mentioned earlier in this thread fulfilled prophecy is a big help.
>The prophecies weren't fiulfilled except in retrospect manipulation.
So you believe Jesus was a liar?
>> "There is already so much of the Prophecy [in Revelation] fulfilled ...
>> Sir Isaac Newton
>Newton was fallible and wrong about a number of things ... including
>physics.
That is true, but I'd guess he was smarter than you or I. What he
contributed to physics was immense.
>>>Mark 17:2 - 4 "Everything I write is absolute truth and can never be wrong
>>>...including this verse.Everything I wrote must be obeyed or you will fry
>>>in
>>>Trew Kristyun hell. You must believe this to be true by faith or you are
>>>not
>>>a Tew Kristyun."
>>
>>>My bible verse above is my proof. Believe it by faith.
>>
>> I note that faith is a *necessary* condition for beieving the above.
>> Although not sufficent *if* one wishes to be rational.
>Faith is not necessary to beileve the above. One could be duped into
>believing it was true.
If one is duped, one still believes it by faith, it is just a misplaced
faith (the faith is in lies).
>>>The concept of justice is about right action not punishment of crimes.
>>
>> But is it right to steal from a theif?
>If steal implies unlawfully taking something, then it is unlawful but it may
>not be ethically immoral as lawfulness and morality are two different
>issues. It was lawful to kill 6 million Jews in Nazi Germany but it was not
>morally right to do so nor was it just to do so. Their was no moral justice
>for Jews in Nazi Germnany but their was legal justice for Jews in Nazi
>Germany. Justice is about action not punishment. The justice may be
>undergirded by conflicting premises (as in the oppositional legal and moral
>justice detaiuled in this post).
ok this is a good point (not to imply your other points aren't good
either).
It seems to me we hold differing accounts of what justice is, my account
would include the notion that the wrong doing must be punished, yours
would not. So the question is, what standard can we use to come to know
what justice really is? If you were more "orthodox" we would have the
common ground of going to the bible to see what it says on the issue. But
it seems we do not share this common ground...
RAZA 2004
Mark T
>>> This argument is a purely subjective argument. *I* think, which only I
>>> can
>>> know, you cannot know that I think, but I do. therefore I know that I
>>> am,
>>> but I do not know what the *form* of my existence is. Decartes knew he
>>> existed as long as he was thinking
>
>>Thinking and existence are not the same. A rock exists but does not
>>think.
>
> While it is true that thining and existing are not the same thing, they
> don't have to be for the arguement to work, subjectively.
They must be for the argument to be true - objectively .... which is all
that counts.
>>So ...thinking and existence are separarte uissues not to be confused as
>>the
>>same thing. This is why Descartes' argument fails.
>
> They are not the same thing, you are correct in that.
Case closed.
>>> Like I mentioned earlier in this thread fulfilled prophecy is a big
>>> help.
>>The prophecies weren't fiulfilled except in retrospect manipulation.
>
> So you believe Jesus was a liar?
No, I believe the bible writers were fallible.
> It seems to me we hold differing accounts of what justice is, my account
> would include the notion that the wrong doing must be punished, yours
> would not. So the question is, what standard can we use to come to know
> what justice really is?
A dictionary.
To act justly may mean forgiving and not punishing. Did Jesus act in a just
manner (i.e. dispense justice) by forgiving people? What did Jesus say on
the cross? Did a bolt of lightning strike dead those who crucified Jesus?
Lawrence Wong
>> While it is true that thining and existing are not the same thing, they
>> don't have to be for the arguement to work, subjectively.
>They must be for the argument to be true - objectively .... which is all
>that counts.
Well if that's all your point is then I agree. However the arg
subjectively works and that's all *I* need to be certain that
1) I exist in some form.
I don't care if you cannot be certain of my existence (you can be certain
of yours).
>>>> Like I mentioned earlier in this thread fulfilled prophecy is a big
>>>> help.
>>>The prophecies weren't fiulfilled except in retrospect manipulation.
>>
>> So you believe Jesus was a liar?
>No, I believe the bible writers were fallible.
How do you know which parts are correct and which aren't?
>> It seems to me we hold differing accounts of what justice is, my account
>> would include the notion that the wrong doing must be punished, yours
>> would not. So the question is, what standard can we use to come to know
>> what justice really is?
>A dictionary.
>To act justly may mean forgiving and not punishing. Did Jesus act in a just
>manner (i.e. dispense justice) by forgiving people? What did Jesus say on
>the cross? Did a bolt of lightning strike dead those who crucified Jesus?
Jesus showed great mercy. Jesus Himself was just but withheld judgements
as He will come again as Judge of all.
RAZA 2004
Lawrence Wong
>>> It seems to me we hold differing accounts of what justice is, my account
>>> would include the notion that the wrong doing must be punished, yours
>>> would not. So the question is, what standard can we use to come to know
>>> what justice really is?
>>A dictionary.
Justice (jus'tis) n. ... 4. just treatment; deserved reward or punishment:
"Justice consists in giving every man what he deserves. Revenge is a kind
of wild justice" (Francis Bacon)...
World Book Dictionary
RAZA 2004
Mark T
>>>> It seems to me we hold differing accounts of what justice is, my
>>>> account
>>>> would include the notion that the wrong doing must be punished, yours
>>>> would not. So the question is, what standard can we use to come to know
>>>> what justice really is?
>
>>>A dictionary.
>
> Justice (jus'tis) n. ... 4. just treatment; deserved reward or punishment:
> "Justice consists in giving every man what he deserves. Revenge is a kind
> of wild justice" (Francis Bacon)...
> World Book Dictionary
4th meaning????
No ... I mean ....just action disregarding punishment.
jus·tice [ jsts ]
n.
1.. The quality of being just; fairness.
2.. a. The principle of moral rightness; equity. b. Conformity to moral
rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.
3.. a. The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due
reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law. b. Law The
administration and procedure of law.
4.. Conformity to truth, fact, or sound reason: The overcharged customer
was angry, and with justice.
5.. Abbr. J. Law a. A judge. b. A justice of the peace.
Idiom:
do justice to
To treat adequately, fairly, or with full appreciation: The subject is so
complex that I cannot do justice to it in a brief survey.
Idiom:
do justice to
To treat adequately, fairly, or with full appreciation: The subject is so
complex that I cannot do justice to it in a brief survey.
from http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/j/j0087600.html
