Language often makes implicit arguments which are contradictory

[xero]

For example we've been recently admonished via scripture to "not hurry ourselves to become offended" and in the same admonishment hear the words "someone hurt our feelings".

Do you see how the former suggests the locus of control is internal, that becoming offended is an act of the will on our part, whereas the latter is an external locus of control and lacking in free will, but rather a reaction to an external act?

 

The latter, in my view is more along the lines of "I didn't like what you said" vs "you hurt my feelings" as if ones "feelings" was some naked worm crawling along the sidewalk defenseless against being stepped on.

 

[Mic Drop]

Interesting point. The entire world has become super sensitive and laws are written to protect those “sensitive” people slowly turning us into some dystopian future novel.  

[xero]

The same thing is involved when I hear people say "I encouraged that brother". I always say, no you didn't. If you'll look and see he still appears to be discouraged. What you should have said is "I attempted to encourage that brother, but I failed." 

[TrueTomHarley]

20 hours ago, xero said:

The same thing is involved when I hear people say "I encouraged that brother". I always say, no you didn't. If you'll look and see he still appears to be discouraged. What you should have said is "I attempted to encourage that brother, but I failed." 

What about those verses that say God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and God struck Nabal dead, and in both cases we bend over backwards to say he didn’t, that he allowed the lout’s own stubbornness to kill him? Sometimes I think the Bible writer meant it exactly as he wrote, in the vein of ‘the light gets brighter as the day dawns.’

Sometimes in Twitter you will read of a given tweet removed with the note that this user limits who can read his tweets (though other tweets of his will be visible). I know of no such setting to do that. That’s why I’m inclined to believe the explanation I read that they ‘limit’ their tweets by going against something Twitter doesnt want them to say and so has removed it.

[xero]

34 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

What about those verses that say God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and God struck Nabal dead, and in both cases we bend over backwards to say he didn’t, that he allowed the lout’s own stubbornness to kill him? Sometimes I think the Bible writer meant it exactly as he wrote, in the vein of ‘the light gets brighter as the day dawns.’

Sometimes in Twitter you will read of a given tweet removed with the note that this user limits who can read his tweets (though other tweets of his will be visible). I know of no such setting to do that. That’s why I’m inclined to believe the explanation I read that they ‘limit’ their tweets by going against something Twitter doesnt want them to say and so has removed it.

I suspect that the interpretation of the locus of the action leading to the hardening of pharaoh's heart is interpreted variously due to social values and ideas current at any given time. Both can be true with qualification. Jehovah has created this universe and all the natural cause-effect relations which allow for a measure of free will so one could say he caused the heart-hardening, on the other hand we could also say he allowed it insofar as he allows us to have free will.

Of course we could ask how we pretend to know our will is free.

[TrueTomHarley]

10 minutes ago, xero said:

Of course we could ask how we pretend to know our will is free.

Kant was stopped dead in his tracks on this dilemma when his church told him he kant ask that question.  (sorry)

[xero]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Kant was stopped dead in his tracks on this dilemma when his church told him he kant ask that question.  (sorry)

Kant was a pedant, who was wrong about his categorical imperative. He knew nothing about the scalability of actions or even the capability of any given actor performing a given action. I think of him as a pigeon walking in circles imagining he'd circumnavigated the globe.

[xero]

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Kant was stopped dead in his tracks on this dilemma when his church told him he kant ask that question.  (sorry)

Along these lines I decided to harass this one brother (who's really annoyed me, so fair play) ... he's an IRS Lawyer/CPA... anyway I asked him:

"Dan...Could Jehovah have created Adam and Even with faux free will such that these imagined they were free to perform a forbidden or evil action, but lacked the capacity to actually act on the imagined act?"

Dan says "Sure, Jehovah could have done that."

I continue..."So then, if he had done that, would Adam or Eve have eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad?"

Dan responds "Well, no, of course."

I ask..."So what do you suppose Adam and Eve have thought when presented with Satan's challenge"

Dan says "I suppose they might have considered the situation, well at least Eve might, since it says she was deceived, but she wouldn't have eaten, because of not having free will. She'd have been wired to continue doing good, even though she had the capacity to consider doing the wrong thing."

Then I say "In all this, though she would have felt free, though wouldn't she...both she and Adam?"

Dan responds "In this thought experiment, the answer would be 'Yes'."

Then I ask "So then, the fall of man, death and sin would never have taken place?"

Dan says "Correct."

And I continue "...and Adam and Eve would imagine in all this that they were still free moral agents."

Dan says "That's what faux free will looks like."

And I continue "So we'd all be in a paradise earth now, then wouldn't we, and none the wiser for lacking free will..."

Dan says "Sure...."

And I say "So why didn't Jehovah do it that way? We'd all be happy and be congratulating ourselves on how we we are so wise that we always obey Jehovah..."

Dan says "Well Jehovah would know..."

And I blurt out "So it's all about him is it?"

Dan says "What about the angels? They'd know we didn't have free will?"

I say "Would they? If Jehovah could make humans with faux free will, then couldn't he likewise do so with any sentient being giving some actual free will and some faux and not allowing the knowledge of who here or there actually possesses the same?"

Dan says "What about love? They couldn't actually love each other or Jehovah."

I say "With faux free will you could imagine you were doing so..."

Then I say "Don't worry Dan. I'm sure we have free will. Maybe."

 

[xero]

More on language. In Genesis, during the antediluvian times we see the blessed lineage, the line of Seth accomplishing nothing of note, whereas the lineage from Cain is engaging in all manner of building, engineering, music, etc. That implies something as well.

[TrueTomHarley]

On 5/5/2022 at 11:38 AM, xero said:

Along these lines I decided to harass this one brother (who's really annoyed me, so fair play) ... he's an IRS Lawyer/CPA... anyway I asked him:

"Dan...Could Jehovah have created Adam and Even with faux free will such that these imagined they were free to perform a forbidden or evil action, but lacked the capacity to actually act on the imagined act?"

Dan says "Sure, Jehovah could have done that."

I continue..."So then, if he had done that, would Adam or Eve have eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad?"

Dan responds "Well, no, of course."

I ask..."So what do you suppose Adam and Eve have thought when presented with Satan's challenge"

Dan says "I suppose they might have considered the situation, well at least Eve might, since it says she was deceived, but she wouldn't have eaten, because of not having free will. She'd have been wired to continue doing good, even though she had the capacity to consider doing the wrong thing."

Then I say "In all this, though she would have felt free, though wouldn't she...both she and Adam?"

Dan responds "In this thought experiment, the answer would be 'Yes'."

Then I ask "So then, the fall of man, death and sin would never have taken place?"

Dan says "Correct."

And I continue "...and Adam and Eve would imagine in all this that they were still free moral agents."

Dan says "That's what faux free will looks like."

And I continue "So we'd all be in a paradise earth now, then wouldn't we, and none the wiser for lacking free will..."

Dan says "Sure...."

And I say "So why didn't Jehovah do it that way? We'd all be happy and be congratulating ourselves on how we we are so wise that we always obey Jehovah..."

Dan says "Well Jehovah would know..."

And I blurt out "So it's all about him is it?"

Dan says "What about the angels? They'd know we didn't have free will?"

I say "Would they? If Jehovah could make humans with faux free will, then couldn't he likewise do so with any sentient being giving some actual free will and some faux and not allowing the knowledge of who here or there actually possesses the same?"

Dan says "What about love? They couldn't actually love each other or Jehovah."

I say "With faux free will you could imagine you were doing so..."

Then I say "Don't worry Dan. I'm sure we have free will. Maybe."

 

What a weird congregation you have.

It’s like when the Regional brother and his wife hit town and it isn’t yet clear just what congregation they will be attending. “Are we in that stage of trying to haul in the big fish?” I ask them, making gestures of reeling in the big one. They reply yes. “Well,” I tell them, “just between us, I’m not sure they even believe in God at those other congregations.”

[TrueTomHarley]

On 5/5/2022 at 8:49 AM, TrueTomHarley said:

Kant was stopped dead in his tracks on this dilemma when his church told him he kant ask that question.  (sorry)

 

On 5/5/2022 at 9:52 AM, xero said:

Kant was a pedant, who was wrong about his categorical imperative. He knew nothing about the scalability of actions or even the capability of any given actor performing a given action.

Few realize that the Beatles later built upon his platform of philosophy:

”because I told you before…oh…you kant do that.”

[xero]

54 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

What a weird congregation you have.

It’s like when the Regional brother and his wife hit town and it isn’t yet clear just what congregation they will be attending. “Are we in that stage of trying to haul in the big fish?” I ask them, making gestures of reeling in the big one. They reply yes. “Well,” I tell them, “just between us, I’m not sure they even believe in God at those other congregations.”

It's just Dan. His parents were missionaries and he used to be a pioneer, then he got DF'ed and reinstated. I don't know what it was for, but he's really sharp. I remember when I got him the DVD "Legally Blonde" for a graduation gift from law school (he'd previously refused to see it)...but anyway, he's super legalistic about everything. He'd hassle me about how long I conducted the meetings for FS and complain about how he was pioneering that month and needed to get in more time. So...I called his whiney little complaint and since I was pioneering too, I dragged him out in the Texas summer sun and we worked this whole hilly street about a mile long until sweat was dripping off the end of his nose at the door. Since he and I were like oil and water personality-wise I figured I needed to spend as much time w/him as possible to get over how much he annoyed me. (you know like when people only do service enough to hate it?...you have to push on through).