The problem of evil

OK, so you know I stopped responding to you there because I have a hang up with Watts and not in reaction to how I thought you were posting. Which is a fuck you to me, and so was the way you presented yourself as the only honorable person (in the world potentially) but certainly here at the forums. You might want to consider that some people may pull away from you because your attitude, that you think you are the only honorable person affects the way you communicate with them and your own ability to introspect and evaluate what you are doing. Toss in your certainty around your psychic abilities and you have a really toxic batch.

Of course it is my interpretation. And right or wrong that interpretation was why I stopped responding to you in that thread despite your psychic conclusion. Here you seem to accept that it is my interpretation. Would it be so strange if that was my interpretation that it would lead to motivating me to stop responding? And in fact it was the reason. Being bugged by Watts could easily motivate my continued critique of him, in fact that is more likely. But you are sure, for some reason, I stopped because I had a problem with Watts. Frankly that’s not just bad psychic abilities, but just plain psychologically insightless.

When someone is repeatedly willing to contradict himself and not on small points but on the main point of disagreement, without acknowledging it, it is inconsiderate because it is not honorable disagreement. It is ‘I will say anything to win or not lose’. If you were not very intelligent I would think it might just be errors. Now I don’t think you sat there and decided to not notice the serious contradictions, but unconsciously it served you and it made the discussion uninteresting and rude. When someone assumes they know other people’s motivations (online, no less) when presented with very likely other interpretations and decides to just go with his psychic abilities, that is also inconsiderate. Of me, in this instance.

No, I was just noting the position you are taking as part of a point I was making and consider your estimation incorrect. But my mentioning that you present yourself this way is not me saying you should keep that estimation to yourself. It is good you got your universal fuck you on the table.

Didn’t know what you thought you were? No. It’s helpful actually.

That’s not an emotion.

Sure.

Um what an odd thing to say, I already did stop responding in that thread, as I said I would. You noticed that so…what a weird thing to say.

Again, here you are implying that I am saying I can do bad things because I did not sign a contract to not do them. Whereas I am saying that I signed no contract to be treated poorly and I backed out. Your post seemed to be saying that it is honorable to just keep posting regardless of how you are being treated. That is not a contract I have signed nor an ideal or goal of mine. It seems to be one of yours. Me I do not consider it immoral or dishonorable to back away from having my time wasted and doing something else I find valuable and/or enjoy. Perhaps you and Iambiguous will find an infinite honor in each other and post together till death do you part in some thread. You might want to consider, I guess in your case, what to do if having fun and honorably responding forever come into conflict. I would prefer to have a more flexible approach to my activities. I am impressed you always find it fun while also being a victim.

I don’t think everyone’s bad. I don’t think you are bad or simply a prick. I think you were doing something in that thread that was disrespectful and not interesting, after a while. I think this noble victim posturing is disrespectful and not interesting. You are not everyone. And these patterns are not all you are.

Well, it’s back there in my last response in that thread.

I am not sure how that kind of telling me what I should do and what my attitude should be fits with other statements you have made about moral positions, but I’ll follow my own conscience thank you. I find value in things that are not always fun. If you only find value in activities that are fun, your ability to be introspective, for example, and to know what you are doing and ability evaluate your behavior is seriously undermined. Facing what one is doing, feeling, did and felt is often not fun in just those most important places. I mean, I am likely taking too seriously what was simply a dig, a getting a shot in at me, but it was, in this instance, fun to point out the stupidity of it on three levels. Only doing fun things can also limit skill development, should one have certain types of mastery goals. Desire for that mastery or self-knowledge is easily enough motivation however, and there is flow possible.

yes, you said you did.

So,you’ve said.

I really appreciate knowing more about how you view yourself in contrast to everyone else and how you only do things for fun. It helps me to put your introspective abilities in context. It gives me a sense of how hard it might be for you to notice what you are doing, when something important to you is at issue. It makes it easier to ignore you without a nagging feeling from my conscience that I left someone hanging who had not already left me hanging long ago. And since my conscience is clear I have not been dishonorable, as you have argued elsewhere.

I hear you Serendipity - a name I understand the relevance of better now - you saw me get out of bed before you had yours. Thing is, you think I had mine and I am so rude to leave you hanging. But not only did I not have mine, you think the way you’ve been touching me was pleasant. You think you are the one good lover, whom no one satisfies.

The second part may be true, but the first is not. In fact it is false in a couple of ways.

Serendipper,

If we look at things in terms of the progression of human rights, then I think that we’re more moral now than 100 years ago.

Very true. I have found that when things are sailing smoothly grace abounds, but when times get hard, people often want resolutions asap. It has a lot to do with people’s need for security IMV.

Here is what you said: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193673&start=375#p2698635

I am going to give this exchange a rest for two reasons 1) It feels like you will say anything to keep Alan Watts on the pedestal. 2) As a social mammal, I am now tired of seeing emotions and the expression of emotions judged so universally negatively.

So, I do not need psychic abilities; just a memory.

And if I’ve told you “fuck you”, you should be happy I’ve not repressed my emotions like Alan Watts.

And people who issue threats or ultimatums have earned themselves a violent reaction because I am not a robot, saint, or honorable person, but an animal just like everyone else. Don’t bother with the threats because I will never give in to them. The best way to manipulate me is to play the victim and appeal to empathy. It also works with others:

I called my ISP and barked “If you reach into my pocket for an extra $5 one more time, I’m all done with you!” He basically told me to go fuck myself. A year or so later I called back “I’ve got a competing offer from DSL and I don’t know what to do. Can you help me decide which is best?” They took $20/mo off my bill and bumped my service to 100mbs.

And yes I pride myself on keeping my word and diligently replying to messages and I’m not the only person on earth who does so, but one of an extremely small minority. There are just too many people and the devices are made for convenience, not productivity, so regardless if people actually wanted to reply, they’re handicapped by convenience and couldn’t keep up with everyone anyway. Plus the fact that people are easily replaceable by virtue of fantastic amounts of them, so there is increasingly less incentive to be considerate.

If you tell me you do not want to talk to me anymore, that’s unfortunate, but there are 8 billion other people and we may as well say infinite because I couldn’t shake hands with them fast enough to keep up with the birth rate.

See, here we go again because everything you say from here on is going to be based on the psychic conclusion which was in fact correct, but you’re going to suppose it’s wrong for the rest of this post.

That never happens in practice.

Where did I contradict myself? Why didn’t you take the time to spell it out? Maybe I can’t see it? I’m not the most perceptive person on earth.

Funny how I claim no one can keep their word nor reply to messages which no one challenges, but instead I’m demonized for flattering myself for doing what should be admirable. By that logic, instead of training harder to beat the fastest runner, let’s just shoot him. Anyone not in prison should be executed lest we become self-righteous about not being criminals.

And this is exactly why works cannot save you and all religions are moot, at best. If you could be perfect, you’d be contaminated with purity and not be perfect. There is no way to win.

That’s just to say that whatever means you’re going to use to threaten me, I will tell you to do it. If you say you have no obligation to do X, then don’t.

It’s not about posting forever, but coming to a resolution.

You’re taking dad’s line: he runs from an argument because he’s afraid to be wrong, so the issue festers and pops up even more ferociously the next time until eventually he sacrifices his own son on his ego altar proclaiming that his mistake was talking to me in the first place “Damn it! I knew it! I should have kept my mouth shut. When will I learn!” So yeah, if you can’t handle being wrong or aren’t after truth, then you’re going to be betteroff not engaging me. Now, of course, you’re going to say I’m dogmatic, but I’m dogmatically going to refuse that diagnosis.

Corned beef comes with a little seasoning pack inside and I suggested we research when is the best time to add the spices because in my experience, spices can have the flavor cooked out of them so maybe it’s better to put them in at the end rather than boil them for 5 hours, well dad blew up and said “I’ve been making corned beef for 30 yrs!” and he had no interest in researching anything; only in being right. So his solution is to avoid me. No more corned beef, no more dinners, no more talking, no more relationship, no more having to be wrong. People will do anything to guard their egos. And the atheists give Abraham a hard time for attempting to sacrifice his son :laughing: They would do the same damn thing for much less.

Isaiah 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

So you have no clue either.

If it isn’t fun, then you’re trying to accomplish something for which you cannot determine if it’s good. The only innocent motivation is fun.

Probably so.

Idk what to say to that.

The name implies I do not take credit for my ideas which I can only stumble upon.

I think a man is serving 2 years in prison for teaching a dog to perform a nazi salute. Is that progression of human rights? I feel like I have less rights today than 10 years ago. I don’t have the right not to wear a seatbelt or helmet. I can’t drink a beer while mowing the lawn or else risk a dui. I can’t open an account in another country to avoid the FIFO accounting policy of the US. In other words, analogizing assets to cars, if I buy a red car and a blue car, but sell the blue car first, I have to report that I’ve sold the red car first because: first in, first out.

And just today: New California Bill Would Eliminate Free Speech, Require “Online Fact Checkers”

These people will not be happy until I am strapped to a table in a rubber room for my own protection. Quantity and longevity trump quality to the communists and feminists.

Speaking of how well we are doing morality wise, have you guys seem this presentation that shows how we have never had the great stats that we now enjoy.

Richard Dawkins latest.

youtube.com/watch?v=aLulcfyqrc0

Regards
DL

The interesting thing about morality is that it’s an internalisation of self-oppression, it gets people to police themselves so they don’t need policing by others as much. But today people feel they don’t need to be moral because they feel they can be trusted to be free to do whatever they want to do to themselves.

Some other significant factors at play are that communication is increasingly enormously: if something good or bad happens, more people are able to find out about it and/or share it - even unintentionally, accidentally or opportunistically via their mobile communication technologies - and also, populations are increasing globally and local population densities are increasing: more people are closer to more other people. Travel technologies result in an increased potential for more and more people to be surrounded by more and more unfamiliar people, each communicating about one another more and more.
i.e.
Advances in technologies and the corresponding growth in populations have perhaps inadvertently resulted in both a better policing of one another by one another, and less trustingly so.

So putting all of this together: with these better technologies, higher and more blended populations, and more demands about our personal freedoms, we’re under much more pressure to act socially acceptably and less able to slip under the radar, we’re less trusting of others to act socially acceptably and more exposed to one another whether we do or don’t, we feel more and more entitled to do whatever we want, and we even have less time to gather a bigger picture about the whole thing, leaving us vulnerable to cherry-picked one-sided pictures of everyone else.

Cue the hysteria and feeling like we have less rights than we used to, on pretty much all accounts and from all sides and every angle - simply as a result of our own success as a species!

As an aside, I’m not convinced it’s a political thing at all. People seem to either distrust centralised powers more, or decentralised powers more. The former are more accountable but less free to do good or bad, and vice versa - it’s basically a choice between lower risk lower reward and higher risk higher reward. The existence of the theory that it’s all down to your brain chemistry is not surprising at all. But what if neither is the real issue, and seeming to have less rights is happening either way regardless and apolitically?

Christian capitalists discussing morally or ethics makes me lolz. Can there be any bigger hypocrites in this world?

While I love a puzzle challenge like this and think I can certainly find other, even red side of the divide, hypocrites, i think in this forum it is probably best to say. good point. And perhaps refer to how US capitalists have influenced latin americans. It not necessarily the best example, but it is so clear.

In what sense are they hypocrites?

In a Christian society, food needs to be grow, goods need to be manufactured, products need to be distributed. It’s not possible for everyone to give away all his possessions and wander the desert.

Is the only way to perform those actions via current neo-liberal capitalism?
Are their ways that do not allow, for example, corporate personhood, permanent corporate charter (that is we used to withdraw corporate charters from companies that did messed up stuff, but no more), corporate control of elected officials (that is current lobbying and election finance practices), fiat banking and banker creation of money, the variety of not based on labor types of earning (the capital part of capitalism, especially in its modern form), corporate control of media and the like`?

IOW I think in a lot of these kinds of discussions there is a false dilemma between state socialism a al the USSR and capitalism, as if the latter represents freedom of tyranny and the former is the only way to hinder the oligarchies we have today that call themselves democracies.

I didn’t say that it was the only way, but it’s a possible way. Christian capitalists would have discuss the morality and ethics of it, to determine which aspects of capitalism are in sync with Christianity and which are not.
Capitalism is a broad subject and there are many aspects to it. It includes the person who owns an auto repair shop (or hairstylist) and employs a couple of people. That sort of business does not seem to be contrary to Christian principles.

Jesus and the apostles did not provide any specific answers to those questions. There is not one true Christian position to go to. Can Christian capitalists be called hypocrites if they see some of those things as not being contrary to Christianity? I don’t think so.

To me that’s not capitalism. Capitalism is the way the economy is organized in general. The person owning the repair shop would have days very similar in many types of economic system. And that person is not a capitalist, he or she is a laborer. Or a small business owner with minor capital. He makes money off his labor. Which people do in all sorts of economies.

They can if those things lead to evil treatment of people, which they do. A Christian auto repair worker in the US has little choice but to participate in the wider economy. But to be pro-Capitalist is another matter. Most people do not realize that capitalism is many of the things it is and further a system that was democratic and even allowed for varieties of income need not be capitalist. Christian capitalists in the 80s say, were supporting evil in Latin America where corporations were doing whatever they wanted including overthrowing governments and getting people killed and stifling democracy. Wall Street and corporations connected to the Bush administration created the second Iraq war for a set of different money related reasons. No one has gone to prison for this and the reasons come down to facets of capitalism: control of government, government oversight and also media.

The auto repair shop guy does not have capital in the sense of capitalism. He makes money from his labor. The people making decisions make money through capital. The system is mainly for them. There are facets that work to varying degrees for other people, but most people are not capitalists, say in the US, even if they think capitalism is the best or least bad alternative.

The zero sum game aspects of capitalism are anti-christian. There almost no convictions for the 2008 financial crisis despite the enormous effects on the world and workers. This is because capitalism is for the capitalists, primarily. Try stealing in the ways non-capitalist class members steal and you will find out you are not considered a capitalist by the system. This does not fit with Christianity where we all have equal value. None of this means that communism, especially on a large scale, has fit with Christianity. But these are not the only choices.

Capitalism necessarily enhances the view that other people are resources (or not) and not people (or souls). It is also utterly materialistic in its view of human worth. There is no spiritual aspect to humans in capitalism, something capitalism shares with communism.

But most obviously Capitalism contradicts the Sermon on the Mount. Capitalists absolutely do not follow ‘do unto others as you would have…’ They don’t even pass the less restrictive Mosaic version that Jesus was making even tougher. Their expectations for their own treatment does not match their expectations for the treatment of others, and capitalism is precisely designed to honor, again not coincidentally, the capital owning class. Banks can loan out money and then invest it and bankers make money off of those investments. Corporations are contracts with the government where owners are treated in ways regular people are not. Capitalism is fundamentally designed for the rich to do differently unto others, then they wish to have done to themselves. And this is all direct and legal and built in. Then given the power the money gives them they can and do extend this even more.

And let me be clear on this. It is not that some bad capitalists do bad things. The system is founded on the idea that we will do unto others, NOT as we would have them do unto us. Certainly some capitalists take this further, but it is inherent in capitalism to go against the SErmon on the Mount.

That’s just it. Your definition of capitalism is different from mine. If one looks at a basic definition, then those small business owners are capitalists - they own the means of production and use it to make a profit. For example:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

Right but here’s what I notice. I am talking about the whole thing, and you are talking about one nice little piece from a Norman Rockwell painting. That’s propaganda. There are people running auto shops in communist china, that doesn’t make communism OK. People owned shops in Feudalism, that didn’t make it OK or Christian. Further you do not need to have capitalism to have auto shops, even where people own their own business. I am not saying that the auto shop is not a part of capitalist society, it is. So are parks and libraries and hospitals and car accidents and lots of other things. I am saying that that little nice and carefully chosen example can be found in other economic systems and it not the problem for Christians. We could look at some facet of an unjust war and find some example of something neutral or good that was a facet of it, but this does not offset the larger picture. Yeah, I lost weight when I got cancer and I had been overweight, still I think the disease was not a good one. Etc.

That’s a partial definition of capitalism focused only on some facets and ignoring the ones I mentioned, and it’s not a very accurate one in the areas it mentions.

No response to the Sermon on the Mount. No response to any of the facets of Capitalism I mentioned in my post. Voluntary exchange - in what reality does capitalism ONLY have that? Pick one piece of my post. Focus on that. Ignore anything that might take some work to respond to. Cherry pick one zoomed in image from somewhere in the capitalist West, which in fact could be found also in parts of the communist or fascist type regulated economy East. That limited definition of capitalism also allows for the power of the capitalists to withhold labor from work and thus livlihood - since it is what they call a free market - and to let the market determine things like the price of an apartment. IOW since there is no morals here, but market regulating, people can charge rents and do that are beyond the means of some of the working class. That does not fit with the SErmon on the Mount. These are not bad apple problems, but inherent in capitalism.

Amd even within Wiki’s distorted image of capitalism, you still have problems with the Sermon the Mount. In capitalism if you do not have what is considered the correct production ability you are on your own, outside, worth nothing and according to wikipedia, outside decision-making.

Fellas…

Capitalism is the total lack of regulation because no capitalist would consider it beneficial to himself, an individual, to argue for regulations that benefit society.

Once even one regulation has been conceded, it is no longer capitalism, but socialism since every regulation is only for the good of society; therefore, everyone is arguing the degree of socialism and how many regulations we ought to have. 99.99% of people are socialists.

Capitalism = zero regulation
Socialism = greater than zero, but less than 100% regulation
fascism/communism = 100% regulated.

Since both you guys have decided to ignore me, I’m curious which one of you will be first to ignore the other :smiley:

My money is on Phyllo since he’s next to bandy the ball and he’s been around longer (annoyed longer/less patience).

Phyllo, who will you talk to after you inevitably ignore everyone here? I mean, the only reason to talk is in disagreement as I can’t imagine what two people would discuss if they were in agreement with each other, but if you disagree, you invariably get pissed and not want to talk anymore. That seems a futile philosophy to hold… unless you’re depending on an eternal supply of new blood.

I’d like to see a debate where a resolution is reached. If that ever happens, I might print it out and frame it lol

I’m not ignoring you, I’m ignoring most of the ILP site. I read a few of the threads and I rarely post.

I saw that you posted in one of the threads about morality. Morality and ethics still interest me, but I have discussed it many times over the years and I don’t feel any desire to rehash old points. Therefore, I didn’t post in the thread.

A lot of the same topics come up all the time and a lot of the same arguments. I don’t see any reason to go there again and again.

I don’t know if I will respond to Karpel Tunnel. I read his posts (several times). I’m thinking about what he wrote.
I’m still not sure what to say about it. Honestly, it don’t seem reasonable to say that small business owners are not capitalists.

I also don’t appreciate his criticism of my posts. Maybe I want to figure out ‘capitalism’ before going on to discussing Christianity in general and the Sermon on the Mount in particular. Maybe I’m doing that outside of this thread, outside of posting responses to him.
But no, I’m supposed to being doing things in some special way which satisfies him.

I have a life outside of ILP. I talk to people IRL. I have other interests. There are many places to go on the internet.

I pretty tired of the arrogance and negativity. I remember an anti-natalism discussion where I was called “delusional” when I said that “life is good”. LOL.
The place is full of angry and depressed people. After a while, that drags you down. You gotta get away from it.

I’m more interested in ILP as a source of ideas rather than as a place for arguments and debates. For example, I had never heard of anti-natalism. I had never heard of some of the books which have come up in the discussions.

I don’t want to go through the effort of digging up the proof, but surely you remember specifically telling me that you’re not going to talk to me anymore, or something to that effect.

I can understand that.

Would both you guys agree that employers are probably more capitalistic (less economically social) than employees? Employees probably want laws and regulations that force the employer to be more economically social while the employer probably wants less laws and regulations that force him to do anything.

But then, by the same reasoning, the employer is a customer of his suppliers and therefore probably wants laws that protect his rights as well, but at the same time, he probably doesn’t want laws affecting his ability to take advantage of his customers.

That seems sensible to me. What do you think?

I don’t know what to say, but I do think the honesty is helpful.

Well, yes, but your same philosophy applies in those places as well. Taken to the extreme eventuality, you’ll have ignored everyone on earth if you could keep up with the birthrate.

I understand perfectly. I’m beatup every day I spend on message boards. No one ever quotes a post to say “Hey that’s great!”, nope, they say “Wow your stupid!” or they don’t say anything at all.

Yup. If I were really happy, I wouldn’t be here. I’m not looking for things when I’m content.

I suppose there is a time to listen and a time to talk. Talking about what I’ve heard is like digesting the ideas. After digestion, I get hungry again and go search for more ideas.

Christianity talks about equality and global brotherhood under God, funny how with Christians they do the exact opposite of everything they supposedly believe in.

“equality”?

“global brotherhood”?

“exact opposite”?

Whatever all that means. :confused: