What politicians need to understand about the Crucifixion

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

There's a world of difference between being incapable of mastering basic wisdom and choosing not to.

Perhaps making sensible choices requires a modicum of wisdom

realitykeeper

Anthracite wrote: »

Clearly most people are incapable of mastering basic wisdom. Again, isn't this really the fault of who or whatever made them mostly incapable?

If the nails you buy aren't up to the job of holding your house together, you don't blame the nails, you blame the people who made the nails.

Ah but you forget even a small child can master basic wisdom and people invariably get even wiser with age. So why do they ignore their own wise council and choose to be foolish you may ask. Simple, they are blinded by the 7 deadly sins. The devil is the source of much of the confused thinking in this world but at the end of the day, people choose their own destiny.

People must take responsibility.

Anthracite

realitykeeper wrote: »

Ah but you forget even a small child can master basic wisdom and people invariably get even wiser with age. So why do they ignore their own wise council and choose to be foolish you may ask. Simple, they are blinded by the 7 deadly sins. The devil is the source of much of the confused thinking in this world but at the end of the day, people choose their own destiny.

People must take responsibility.

Well firstly I would dispute your notion that there is such things as 'basic' wisdom.

What is basic wisdom? How is someone to know that what you call basic wisdom is actually wise?

Finally, and most importantly, if we are prone to making bad choices, who made us that way? Who made us in such a way that it's so hard to 1. see and 2. make the correct choices?

We come back to the child given the car keys by a parent. Sure, the child has free will. Do we blame the child for crashing the car?

Nick Park

Anthracite wrote: »

We come back to the child given the car keys by a parent. Sure, the child has free will. Do we blame the child for crashing the car?

If the child is of a legal driving age, then, no, the parent is not to blame for the car crash. If your child, being old enough to drive, chooses to ignore basic instructions, drives too fast, and then crashes, of course we blame the child rather than blaming you as a parent.

Of course, you could prevent your child from ever hurting themselves by falling off a bike, crashing a car, or overdosing on drugs. All you have to do is keep them under lock and key all the time. But most of us, as parents, see it as more loving to give our children freedom as they grow - even with the risk that entails.

realitykeeper

Anthracite wrote: »

Well firstly I would dispute your notion that there is such things as 'basic' wisdom.

What is basic wisdom? How is someone to know that what you call basic wisdom is actually wise?

Finally, and most importantly, if we are prone to making bad choices, who made us that way? Who made us in such a way that it's so hard to 1. see and 2. make the correct choices?

We come back to the child given the car keys by a parent. Sure, the child has free will. Do we blame the child for crashing the car?

Basic wisdom overlaps with common morality e.g. stealing is both unwise and immoral. You know this because your childhood guardian told you but there are other sources of wisdom e.g. the book of Proverbs. Other books which enrich one`s wisdom can be found in any good bookshop.

You are not prone to making bad choices. You are prone to temptation which is why God gave you will power. If something tempts you, just use your will power to resist. Simple.

The child has not reached the age of reason but you have, so no excuse will do.

Cabaal

Anthracite wrote: »

We come back to the child given the car keys by a parent. Sure, the child has free will. Do we blame the child for crashing the car?

Didn't you read above?
we blame the devil apparently

Cabaal

realitykeeper wrote: »

The child has not reached the age of reason but you have, so no excuse will do.

How do you decide the age of reason exactly?

Is it 18 or some other number society just picks? In Japan it could be 21 for example. If you go by the age of sexual consent then in many country's its 15 or 16, until 2011 or so it was 12 in the Vatican for example.

So what age is the age of reason?

realitykeeper

Cabaal wrote: »

How do you decide the age of reason exactly?

Is it 18 or some other number society just picks? In Japan it could be 21 for example. If you go by the age of sexual consent then in many country's its 15 or 16, until 2011 or so it was 12 in the Vatican for example.

So what age is the age of reason?

For most kids, about 4. Well before they make their first Holy Communion. You see, you don`t have to be 18 to know that stealing, for example, is wrong.

Nick Park

Cabaal wrote: »

If you go by the age of sexual consent ... until 2011 or so it was 12 in the Vatican for example.

A nice Catholic bashing headline figure, but not actually correct.

In the Vatican, local laws are overruled by canon law. Canon law states that all sex outside of marriage is illicit, and that marriage cannot be contracted before the age of 14 (for females) or 16 (for males).

Therefore, prior to 2013, the age of consent in the Vatican was 14 for girls and 16 for boys.

Sorry to debunk a popular atheist urban legend.

Anthracite

Nick Park wrote: »

There's a world of difference between being incapable of mastering basic wisdom and choosing not to.

Here's the bit where your argument falls down Nick: you are saying they make a bad choice. I agree. They lack the wisdom to make a good choice.

Whose fault is that?

Anthracite

realitykeeper wrote: »

Ah but you forget even a small child can master basic wisdom and people invariably get even wiser with age. So why do they ignore their own wise council and choose to be foolish you may ask. Simple, they are blinded by the 7 deadly sins. The devil is the source of much of the confused thinking in this world but at the end of the day, people choose their own destiny.

People must take responsibility.

Who created the 7 deadly sins?

Nick Park

Anthracite wrote: »

Here's the bit where your argument falls down Nick: you are saying they make a bad choice. I agree. They lack the wisdom to make a good choice.

Whose fault is that?

If you believe in free will, rather than determinism, then it is their fault that they lack wisdom. According to the New Testament (and this is the Christianity Forum, after all) if you lack wisdom, then all you have to do is ask for it.

Nick Park

Anthracite wrote: »

Who created the 7 deadly sins?

Evagrius Ponticus usually gets the credit. One of those 4th Century desert fathers, anyway.

Anthracite

Nick Park wrote: »

If you believe in free will, rather than determinism, then it is their fault that they lack wisdom. According to the New Testament (and this is the Christianity Forum, after all) if you lack wisdom, then all you have to do is ask for it.

So...Asking for wisdom is the wise thing to do?

Do you see the problem here?

Anthracite

Nick Park wrote: »

Evagrius Ponticus usually gets the credit. One of those 4th Century desert fathers, anyway.

And who created the concept of sin?

Nick Park

Anthracite wrote: »

So...Asking for wisdom is the wise thing to do?

Do you see the problem here?

I see two problems here.

1. You are creating a false dichotomy, as if the only options were having no wisdom, or having perfect wisdom so as to always do the right thing. In reality, of course, we all have a measure of wisdom.

2. You are engaging in sophistry, arguing a position that you don't really believe. You don't really believe that people are not accountable for their poor choices, due to their innate lack of wisdom.

Let me ask you a question. An authority figure sexually abuses a child in their care. Should they be held accountable for their actions? Or do we just say, "ah, sure, it's not their fault that they don't have enough wisdom to make better choices"?

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

An authority figure sexually abuses a child in their care. Should they be held accountable for their actions? Or do we just say, "ah, sure, it's not their fault that they don't have enough wisdom to make better choices"?

Nah, just move him to a different parish

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

Nah, just move him to a different parish

As a non-Catholic, I agree. Or move him to a different school, or a different football club, or a different swimming club.

Either way, those who moved paedophiles around and let them continue are only culpable if we accept that we bear moral responsibility for our own actions, rather than bleating that we can't help ourselves because a big bad God never gave us enough wisdom to make better choices.

And this demonstrates how blind dogmatic faith, even of the atheist variety, ends up dropping its adherents into logical and philosophical crap. Someone wants to attack the concept of God, so they argue against free will, create an argument that we bear no moral responsibility for our actions because we weren't given enough wisdom, and end up absolving paedophiles and their enablers from any culpability. Priceless.

Cabaal

realitykeeper wrote: »

For most kids, about 4. Well before they make their first Holy Communion. You see, you don`t have to be 18 to know that stealing, for example, is wrong.

4? so everyone would know all this around 4 years of age?

Anthracite

Nick Park wrote: »

I see two problems here.

1. You are creating a false dichotomy, as if the only options were having no wisdom, or having perfect wisdom so as to always do the right thing. In reality, of course, we all have a measure of wisdom.

2. You are engaging in sophistry, arguing a position that you don't really believe. You don't really believe that people are not accountable for their poor choices, due to their innate lack of wisdom.

Nonsense. The false dichotomy is saying that people should be wise, though not made wise, or go to hell.

Nick Park wrote: »

Let me ask you a question. An authority figure sexually abuses a child in their care. Should they be held accountable for their actions? Or do we just say, "ah, sure, it's not their fault that they don't have enough wisdom to make better choices"?

Unlike the Catholic Church, I believe people in authority should be punished for their crimes. Other posters believe that God created sexuality, sin, temptation, the whole shebang - in which case, who is to blame, the sinner, or the creator of sin?

realitykeeper

Cabaal wrote: »

4? so everyone would know all this around 4 years of age?

Yes by 4, people know the basic differences between right and wrong. You know there is an interesting flaw in the human condition. Knowledge tends to accumulate over the generations but human wisdom does not seem to accumulate. This makes wisdom relatively easy to master, it is a simple subject but also the most underrated which is why mistakes are repeated again and again by each generation. By contrast, the wheel only had to be invented once.

antiskeptic

Anthracite wrote: »

Nonsense. The false dichotomy is saying that people should be wise, though not made wise, or go to hell.

I think the idea is that people are equipped with enough wisdom (intrinsically and through watching their own and others experiences in exercising choice) to understand the directions they are going in. And to have a choice whether to seek to alter course. The terminus' for both options being heaven and hell.

Other posters believe that God created sexuality, sin, temptation, the whole shebang - in which case, who is to blame, the sinner, or the creator of sin?

I don't the posters who believe that God created sin, temptation (unto sin) are Christians. Certainly God created an environment where own will could bring about these things but that's a different, one-step-removed kind of responsiblity.