What had happen' was.....: FacePlant - Epic Fail: Tisk Tisk, Johnny P Response #18a
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Saturday, November 19, 2011
FacePlant - Epic Fail: Tisk Tisk, Johnny P Response #18a
- For pete's sake. I've read twenty odd lines, and you don't stop saying complete crap.
A lot of those first 20 lines were quoting you, Johnny P. That must of been the problem. But I thought that I was really clear about what was what I said and what you said. Go figure.
""You ought to play chess tomorrow at three" makes feck all sense unless you load a prostasis in there. That was my point. It is no different with morality unless you want to equivocate on the word 'ought'.
It makes since if someone commanded you to do it."
That is consequentialist ethics / might is right. You are being good because someone told you to. How the hell is that doing something good out of an intrinsic ought? You have no idea what you are talking about.
You still haven't explained why that's a problem, yet but you will try further along. . Oh you might try to weasel out and say you are not saying that consequentialist ethics is wrong, but you wouldn't be that dishonest would you?
Again and again. And again.
I deleted my last post by ending here, but I feel generous.
Ought you be generous? Intrinsically?
"See the trolley problem or the inquiring murderer problem.
Okay, so Johnny P is not going to meaningfully respond. Big surprise. "
If you don't even know what the trolley problem is, then you really do have no right to comment on morality. You should not need me to spell it out for you. Go and read about it. Heck, start with wiki.
I did not say that the "trolly problem" was meaningless. I'm saying that just trotting it out without a context is meaningless. Without that I have no reason to assume you know what you are talking about. By the way saying that I have no right to comment on morality is just your silly opinion and valueless according to Ryan anyway. And following is where this particular comment gets confusing. Johnny P must have had a problem copying and pasting. He said the following
"This is just shameful. WE don't habe to understand the hows and whys of God to understand that he is operating under moral consequentialism. He derives the value of his morality (value ethics etc) from the outcome. This is PATENTLY obvious.
And then my response follows with the above paragraph following it. Let me try to help the reader out by marking where the two statements are. Mine are in red and italicized.
I think we are definitely talking past one another. The value of what God does and allows is whatever God says it is and we don't have sufficient logic or understanding to judge them because we don't know what the outcome in its fullness will be. The problem you seem to have is that this makes God immoral in some way is stupid because you don't know what the outcome will be and you don't know any of the other possible outcomes. And before you try to side step this by hiding behind the idea that you are not saying God is immoral or non-existent, you have to explain just what point are you trying to make because it would follow that you should just get saved and be a Christian because you have no reason not to. This is just shameful. WE don't habe to understand the hows and whys of God to understand that he is operating under moral consequentialism. He derives the value of his morality (value ethics etc) from the outcome. This is PATENTLY obvious.
And then Johnny P just pastes what I wrote again.
I think we are definitely talking past one another. The value of what God does and allows is whatever God says it is and we don't have sufficient logic or understanding to judge them because we don't know what the outcome in its fullness will be. The problem you seem to have is that this makes God immoral in some way is stupid because you don't know what the outcome will be and you don't know any of the other possible outcomes. And before you try to side step this by hiding behind the idea that you are not saying God is immoral or non-existent, you have to explain just what point are you trying to make because it would follow that you should just get saved and be a Christian because you have no reason not to."
My goodness, that says it all. You REALLY don't understand. I am not saying God is 'immoral'. I am saying that morality is defined by consequences, and not intrinsic value. Ie objective morality is either:
1) non-existent
2) value-less
Now here is the point, I think. First he did do what I asked him not to do and claim that he's not saying that God is immoral. But let's skip that a second. The Morality in the Bible is not just defined defined by consequences. Earlier in the exchange I brought up the account of Joseph in Genesis. Johnny P probably didn't read that part given that he says my posts aren't worth reading or responding to yet he sure seems to go on responding to parts of them. Joseph's life turned out well despite all the evil dealt to him but does that make it moral that his brothers sold him into slavery and lied to their father Jacob about his death? No. Does it make it moral that Potiphar's wife tried to seduce Joseph and then lied on him saying that he tried to rape her? No. No where does the Bible try to condone these acts of evil although all of them lead to Joseph saving the known world from starvation. That is an example that belies Johnny P's argument. - November 19, 2011 1:12 PM
- This, as I have said, and by your own admission (if you investigated your belief) is exactly what God does. He commits acts which are morally good. However, not intrinsically (the flood). so how do you define moral value if not in the objective intrinsic value? By the consequences. Hence consequentialism.
Nope. The flood was not evil. God was well within his rights to send the flood and save only those He saved.
Now the only sensible manner in which to do this is through happiness. There should then follow, and you are right in this, good debate as to what that entails as it 'can' be nebulous. However, it has the brilliant quality of being axiomatic, which makes it ideal as a motivator for morality.
Again who's happiness would you use to judge that?
All said, you've really got to understand this point, and it seems to have gone over your head like a large marquee.
Happiness is a poor measure. You still never defined what you mean by whose happiness should be in view to determined what is morally right or morally wrong.
Thus, claiming objective morality a) exists and b) is grounded by god means you have to jump through hurdles, the biggest of which is that God clearly acts on consequences.
Um,. the Bible says that God acts on His own will and purpose. Try again. - November 19, 2011 1:12 PM
- God and only God can can act as a standard to ground whether or not a personal opinion is correct
No, mmcelhaney.blogspot.com fully acts as a standard supporting my opinion that you are a complete moron.
That has nothing to do with proving that your personal opinion is correct or not. Sounds like a desperate ad hominem attack however. Congratulations.
perhaps you should delete it and try again.
I'm not surprised you couldn't understand his post, but for a guy who pretends to be an apologist and armchair philosopher, you really should have been able to. It's pretty straight forward.
The comment I thought that should be repeated was the butchered copy and pasting from Johnny P in the comment marked November 19, 2011 1:12 PM. It's above in case you are lost.
-
November 19, 2011 1:20 PM
- "But it was Justice that is why it was right. If not than capital punishment is immoral. Why can't God be free to have mercy on whom God wants and justly punish those God chooses to punish them, in the way God chooses to punish them."
Again, proof that you don't understand the point. I couldn't care about justice etc. These are red herrings to valuing morality. You are simply not dealing with the point.
Johnny P has missed the point. You can't have "happiness" as I would define it without Justice. Without Justice and mercy, morality has no value. I can state that if you are free to state your opinion that Justice is irrelevant.
"No, as A Christian, I would argue that God was right."
Goodness. sheesh. Look, by saying he was right, you are inferring a moral ought. rather than just empty and meaningless assertion, you have to agree that God had rationality behind the rightness, otherwise it is random. How is this rightness valued? BY THE CONSEQUENCES!!! Deal with the issue, please.
You seem under the mistaken thought that I'm saying that the consequences are irrelevant. I'm not. I'm saying that we don't know God's rationality but it's not just consequences because that would mean that all the means involved in reaching those conclusion are also moral and we know that's irrational because then God wouldn't care about what we do in order to reach His consequences. Given your Biblical illiteracy you might not know this but there are many places where God allows rival nations to oppress Israel and God took credit for it because of their disobedience and immorality. Yet God punished these very nations for these offenses yet He used them to chasten Israel. No it's not just about the ends justifying the means. You keep arguing a straw god.
"Given that you are blind to the major detail that everything that God does is correct and perfect is why you are don't understand."
AAAARRRGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!! Stop being wilfully dense. It doesn't matter that I don't know God's motivations, as long as he has some (ie not random). If he is not doing it for the intrinsic value (ie it's a GREAT THING to kill loads of people and animals, woo hoo!), the value must come from the consequences of the action.
The value does not always equal the consequences. The value is whatever God says it is.
Look, to put it closer to home for you, take Jesus. Jesus' sacrifice on the cross served a greater good than the the intrinsic value of a death on a cross. This is the basis of consequentialism. consequentialism is not a good bedfellow to objective morality.
Was Jesus dying on the cross a good thing? Was it correct? Just because a good outcome expresses itself does not mean the means by which it was done is good and moral. The moral standard God has given us is objective relative to us, not God and based on who God is not what we like or what makes us happy. - November 19, 2011 1:25 PM
- "Johnny P, you have so many people agreeing with you?"
Do you think any rational thinkers other than Ryan and myself (some kind of masochistic torture, reading your posts) come here?
Can you prove they're aren't? That's a very arrogant and insulting statement against the hundreds of people who come to my blog everyday from all over the word. If it were anyone else saying something like that I'd say is was an "argument" beneath them but it fits you perfectly. One of the reasons why my blog loads as it does is that I have several pieces of code tracking such things. You sure are clueless and ignorant.
"That doesn't seem very apparent that you have studied anything and formed a worldview, given you say you haven't declared it and left me to guess."
Again, I have made no declaration of morality. We are dealing with your morality. I am not saying mine is right, or mine is x, y, or z because that would provide a red herring for you to go off and post until the cows come home without feeling the need to defend your own account. My moral ethics can come later once we've bottomed out what YOU think. And I don't think yours is rationally held. Or at least, if you are right, it's for all the wrong reasons. (ie you don't really know how or why you are right). But you're not right anyway! :)
I've been very clear about what I say morality is and why I hold my positions. You say you can't be bothered to read my whole posts so I doubt you are even capable of understanding my arguments. I am confident that your moral ethics don't answer or have more consistency than a Biblical world view.
"So, you are or are not saying that morality is grounded? In what?"
Again, to define my morality would take, as with much philosophy, a good deal of ink. Let's look at yours first. Let's not shift the burden of proof.
So in a word, Johnny answers "No".
"If you assign a moral action the value of being 'good' or 'really good', you must also define your system of value.
You first. "
Oh my god.
You sure don't have a moral problem irreverently invoking God's title. And here I thought you said He doesn't exist.
You've actually just tried to shift the burden of proof. "The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. "
You have made several claims and assertions and have not backed up any of them.
"What no hyperlink? Are we back to that?"
If you can't copy and past a line then there is no hope for you. It's far less effort (in totality) than a hyperlink html code. Fact.
Given his botched comment earlier today, I wouldn't question my abilities if I were Johnny P. A single click is always the least effort. FACT.
In sum, the faceplant is all yours for not really understanding the philosophy of morlaity, and for committing another fine array of fallacies.
At least I can type "morality". Thanks for again illustrating what a Faceplant reads like. - November 19, 2011 2:01 PM
What had happen' was.....: FacePlant - Epic Fail: Tisk Tisk, Johnny P Response #18
FacePlant - Epic Fail: Tisk Tisk, Johnny P Response #18
Well, looks like I struck a couple of nerves. Johnny P and Ryan Anderson return...with no sign of improvement. I've decided to try to present their "arguments" in a little different format this time to show exactly who wrote what. My additional comments are in red.
- Sweet bejesus, this is painful. Look, first of all, I really (and I mean this genuinely and non-offensively) would go away and read a book on morality, or study it to some depth because you are coming out with clanger after clanger that shows you don't really know what you are talking about.
Considering that you have yet to correctly present the Christian worldview and successfully argue against what the Bible says,. seems to me might want to actually read the Bible.
I'll ignore all the juvenile stuff about html etc.
You mean it's true?! I thought so.
Right, I have only read the first section and that was enough to make me want to cry with exasperation.
So you didn't read the response and you are going to make one of your own. Well, no surprise there.
OK:
"Again, Ryan, Johnny P and others want the freedom to decry and whine about evil and suffering but have no reason to explain why it's bad. How do you know it's bad? Why would it be wrong for someone to walk up to you, kill you, and take everything you have?"
The burden of proof is on you. YOU are the one claiming that morality is grounded in God. I have made, so far, no such indication as to my personal view on morality.
So, you too chicken to make a stand on morality and what it is? I get it. If you don't make a claim, you think you can just lob criticism without having to expose your own bankrupt ideas. Lots of fear in you. You can say whatever you want, pretend that you have not made a claim, and hide behind the charge that the burden of proof isn't on you.
Like other posts of yours, you suppose things of me which are irrelevant since you do not understand that in making a positive claim like 'morality can only be grounded in God", you are the one that has to explain the why things are bad in that context. You are doing a classic shifting of the burden of proof.
It's not irrelevant. If you disagree that morality is not grounded in God, then you must be grounded it in something. At least Ryan Anderson is honest to admit that he doesn't ground his morality in nothing more than his own opinion - as frightening as that may be. He' wrong, but as least he's consistent in his error.
"The video conceded that it was. The video ineptly argued that you can have morality without grounding it in God."
You are making claims of morality, so aside from what the video says, in order to defend those assertions that you made in your comments to the video, YOU have to show how morality is grounded.
The video conceded that Morality is grounded. Given that the post was about the video, what you want should be in another post. Which I am planning to write. I thought you understood how these things were supposed to go, Johnny P.
You also did not show how moral deontology is not valid. You have not done so. 56.3% of philosophers believe in moral deontology. given that only some 14% of philosophers are theists, that leaves a huge tranche of philosophers, who spend their lives studying this, believe in moral realism.
And you just sweep it away with a crappy assertion. Nice. You make a great philosopher. And before you deny that you are a philosopher, to which I would agree, don't go making wide-ranging and ill-though-out philosophical remarks and conclusions.
Johnny P, where have I asserted that moral realism is not true? I haven't.
"So Johnny P partly disagrees with the video and some philosophers who believe that there are moral outghts."
I believe there can be moral oughts, or oughts about morality, but they are not intrinsic. Semantically, it is incoherent.
Finally, a statement about what Johnny P really thinks he believes. However, I still see an "ought" as something that was commanded and decreed by a higher authority. If you believe you are obligated for "moral oughts" who said you were?
"You ought to play chess tomorrow at three" makes feck all sense unless you load a prostasis in there. That was my point. It is no different with morality unless you want to equivocate on the word 'ought'.
It makes since if someone commanded you to do it.
"So you mean under certain circumstances I'd ought to murder you and take all you have? You sure? When? I don't think it would ever be right under any circumstances."
See the trolley problem or the inquiring murderer problem.
Okay, so Johnny P is not going to meaningfully respond. Big surprise.
"For example, why was it wrong for terrorists to fly airliners into the World Trade Centers in 2001? They didn't think it was wrong, that is why they did it. They were wrong. What makes it correct for you to say that they ought not had done so? I'm still waiting for you or someone to ground their answer in more than your opinion because then you have to explain why your opinion is better than theirs. "
They were wrong because their God does not exist, and for many other reasons that would take much explaining (universally subjective morality based on logic and knowledge etc). If their God exists as they claim, then they have good reason to believe it is morally OK.
You are in a similar position in deriving ideas of morality from a book which you rather arbitrarily assign more charity to than any other book.
I'm not in a similar position as the Terrorist at all, if the Bible is true and the God who revealed it actually exist. You have failed to prove that and even pretend that you are not trying to say that the Bible is wrong and that there is no God. You argue against a straw god, not the God of the Bible. Nice try in finally trying to answer a question.
- November 19, 2011 4:37 AM
- "We are not on God's level. He is the grounding and definition of what is and is not moral. Just because you don't always know why God has acted as He has does not make His action suspect or immoral because you do not know what all the reasons are. You might not like that. You might like to be able to hold God to a standard that you understand given that He is holding us to standard which you try to deny but agree to much of the time anyway. However, that doesn't work very well does it?"
This is just shameful. WE don't habe to understand the hows and whys of God to understand that he is operating under moral consequentialism. He derives the value of his morality (value ethics etc) from the outcome. This is PATENTLY obvious.
I think we are definitely talking past one another. The value of what God does and allows is whatever God says it is and we don't have sufficient logic or understanding to judge them because we don't know what the outcome in its fullness will be. The problem you seem to have is that this makes God immoral in some way is stupid because you don't know what the outcome will be and you don't know any of the other possible outcomes. And before you try to side step this by hiding behind the idea that you are not saying God is immoral or non-existent, you have to explain just what point are you trying to make because it would follow that you should just get saved and be a Christian because you have no reason not to.
You have even argued this in talking about the Noah's flood. Is the act of killing all humanity bar 8 and all animals bar a few morally good? On its own, no.
But it was Justice that is why it was right. If not than capital punishment is immoral. Why can't God be free to have mercy on whom God wants and justly punish those God chooses to punish them, in the way God chooses to punish them.
But a Christian would argue, given the knowledge of all the consequences, adn given a greater good to come from it, it is morally benign.
No, as A Christian, I would argue that God was right. And God would be just as right if he did the same thing today, but God has chosen to do something different.
THIS IS MORAL CONSEQUENTIALISM. I don't need to know the finer details - in fact, you claim we can't know them (we are not at God's level) - fine. However, THAT THERE ARE BENIGN CONSEQUENCES means that the value of a moral action IS NOT INTRINSIC BUT IS DERIVED FROM THE CONSEQUENCES.
Given that you are blind to the major detail that everything that God does is correct and perfect is why you are don't understand.
I'm going to leave it here. I'll read the rest of your tripe later. Please do some reading, and please understand the arguments put against you. Look, not even Marino seems to rush to your defence but seems more comfortable commenting on your 'hilarious' videos.
Johnny P, you have so many people agreeing with you? hmmm...I still hear crickets it's so quiet. Oh and why don't you make an argument that makes a substantial claim to respond to.
Anyone with a passing interest in moral philosophy (and I have studied it) will know of these issues.
That doesn't seem very apparent that you have studied anything and formed a worldview, given you say you haven't declared it and left me to guess.
It is not good enough to say THAT something is moral, but one has to say HOW it is moral. That moral value must be judged in some way. This is the job of moral philosophers. This is why utilitarianism and suchlike exist - so that morality can be quantified, grounded and understood.
So, you are or are not saying that morality is grounded? In what?
If you assign a moral action the value of being 'good' or 'really good', you must also define your system of value.
You first.
For a good article on the circularity and logical incoherence of appealing to God as the grounds to morality, see here:
http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/FDoesMoralityDepend.htm.
What no hyperlink? Are we back to that?
- November 19, 2011 4:38 AM
- Ryan Anderson said...
- I didn't say that anyone isn't entitled to your personal opinion. I'm saying that without a standard, your opinion is meaningless and no more true than any other conflicting opinion.
Simple yes or no question. In your opinion, can god only and only god act as a standard to ground personal opinions?
Ryan, that's not simple. That is not even correctly framing the question. God and only God can can act as a standard to ground whether or not a personal opinion is correct - its value and meaning - not determining whether or not you can have a personal opinion which I'm sure in many ways contradicts God.
- November 19, 2011 4:59 AM
- Oh, and sorry about your loss. This must be hard for you to take.
Not hard at all. An experiment was made that seems to agree with the CERNS results that neutrinos were observed traveling faster that the speed of light. More tests will be made and not all the of scientist involved agree that this is conclusive. So I wouldn't get all happy about proving me wrong yet. I can't blame you for being excited about proving me wrong given that you have failed so often and yet seems to be your only form of entertainment.
- November 19, 2011 5:20 AM
What had happen' was.....: FacePlant - Epic Fail: Tisk Tisk, Johnny P Response #17
Faithful Thinkers: Thanksgiving, Evolution, and Design
Thanksgiving is a holiday that I see has lost a lot of its meaning in American society. I remember being taught that Thanksgiving was a time to stop and thank God for everything that he has bestowed upon us (be it material goods, health, understanding or anything- even suffering).
It seems quite difficult to do such a thing when America has abandoned belief in a personal God who affects our lives or has abandoned belief in God completely. I would hope that I would be able to see people at least showing gratitude to each other for something, but I don't even see that anymore. Instead, I see people calling it "Turkey Day", almost in an effort to remove the idea of being thankful to anyone for anything- which is a direct logical conclusion of America's narcissistic materialism ("its all about me").
I totally agree with him on the whole article. You can read the whole thing at the following link. However, I thought that the graphic he used (above) is most telling. Notice how at no time, does the turkey stop being a turkey!!!
Faithful Thinkers: Thanksgiving, Evolution, and Design
Friday, November 18, 2011
FacePlant - Epic Fail: Tisk Tisk, Johnny P Response #17
Well, Johnny P is back bringing his weekly faceplant with him. I'd thought it would be worth making another post given the many comments Johnny P made and that Ryan Anderson inadvertently attempted some kind of "tag team" action. Didn't really help but just added to the fail. My comments will be red and italicized for past comments I made being responded to. Johnny P's "thoughts" will be in black and Ryan Anderson's will be purple..
"Do you have any realization how bankrupt that is?"
Johnny P replies
Argument from Desire.
My desire or your's or Ryan Anderson? Remember what Anderson's argument was: If he had been born a Nazi, he agree that Hitler was right and that there is no reason or way to define whether or not Hitler's, or others like his, are right or wrong. Who's making an argument from desire again?
"you'd have no reason above your own predilection to defend your right to exist."
Where do rights exist? What are rights? How do you establish their objective existence condition?
eg http://www.guardian.co.uk/
"The video defined all the questions you had. The point was that you were supposed to watch the video."
I have watched the video, as I have many of QualiaSoup's vids. I was, however, commenting on you comments. You seem rather good at building straw men.
Why would I restate or argue against points already agreed to and conceded in the video on which I was commenting? The Straw men are your own, Johnny P.
"If morality is not grounded, then how do you conclude that my meaning of "ought" is wrong?"
Firstly, you have to prove it is grounded, and prove that 'being grounded' makes any sense.
The video conceded that it was. The video ineptly argued that you can have morality without grounding it in God.
Secondly, it is a non sequitur to say that because it is grounded it develops an ought.
So Johnny P partly disagrees with the video and some philosophers who believe that there are moral outghts.
Especially since I have already set out the point that you cannot, linguistically speaking, have an intrinsic ought. If is defined by the context, although the apodosis [Johnny P later admits that he used the wrong word here] is usually hidden / assumed.
So you mean under certain circumstances I'd ought to murder you and take all you have? You sure? When? I don't think it would ever be right under any circumstances.
"No, you know what I meant. Wait you might be too stupid to know the context of what I meant."
This really shows that you are the stupid one, but try and get away with it by attacking others for being stupid. It's a cheap and disingenuous trick.
So, it's okay to insult me and question my mental faculties, education, and sanity but I can't question yours or express my opinion? I understand. I disagree but I understand why you would resort to that. Can't blame you. That's all you have.
I raise the point that you need to have the apodosis in order to make sense of a conditional phrase - if...then (ought). I show this by using an example. Yes, most people would make sense of the sentence "You ought to put oil in your car" and this is because they are understanding a hidden apodosis of "If you want your car to work properly".
I'd take for grant it that you would want to be able to substantiate your opinion when there are others who disagree with you. For example, why was it wrong for terrorists to fly airliners into the World Trade Centers in 2001? They didn't think it was wrong, that is why they did it. They were wrong. What makes it correct for you to say that they ought not had done so? I'm still waiting for you or someone to ground their answer in more than your opinion because then you have to explain why your opinion is better than theirs.
You calling me stupid just shows you don't understand the point.
So you are saying my opinion is wrong? How do you know? Can you demonstrate that I am wrong about your level of intelligence?
That being you cannot have a free-standing ought.
Assertions, anyone?
There is always an if. Usually, in moral terms, it revolves around happiness.
That is a pathetic place to ground morality. Who's happiness? The oppressor's happiness? The oppressed? How do you expect to quantify that? September 11, 2001 made the terrorists and Jiihadists happy, does that mean the terrorists acted morally?
This is even true for religious types. It can be argued that happiness is derived by getting into heaven or avoiding hell. Thus the oughts have a clear consequentialist dimension.
Ahhh...here is the disconnect,. In Christianity, if you think that it's primarily about avoiding hell, you don't understand what you are rejecting. While there is a consequential dimension for sure that does not determine "oughts". Somethings ought to be done or not done no matter the context or circumstances.
I'm sure you've considered this all in your wide-ranging and highly in depth opinions on morality.
The real question is are you so far gone that don't see how bankrupt your opinions on morality are because they are certainly opinions divorced from reality.
Johnny P had said:
"The value of morality is derived by consequence."
To which I had replied
Prove that.
Check the bible. If you can't understand this from the accounts of the Old Testament, then get back to me or do some reading on morality. Oh, and just be careful the next time you tell me, in debate, that all the suffering in the world can be accounted for the fact that we don't know the mind of God and it must be serving a greater good / purpose. Only because, with those views, you and every other Christian admit that God is a moral consequentialist. Prove it? God has ample times.
We are not on God's level. He is the grounding and definition of what is and is not moral. Just because you don't always know why God has acted as He has does not make His action suspect or immoral because you do not know what all the reasons are. You might not like that. You might like to be able to hold God to a standard that you understand given that He is holding us to standard which you try to deny but agree to much of the time anyway. However, that doesn't work very well does it? You tend to seem to hate a god that I would definitely say does not exist. Your straw god. It's more than just God asks or commands anything expedient at the time, there really are reasons why God allows or decrees the things he does. Think of Joseph - betrayed by his brothers, sold into slavery, falsely accused of attempted rape, imprisoned for years in Egypt, and finally becoming second only to Pharoah, but when he reflected on those experiences he came to the following conclusion.
18 His brothers then came and threw themselves down before him. “We are your slaves,” they said.
19 But Joseph said to them, “Don’t be afraid. Am I in the place of God? 20 You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives. 21 So then, don’t be afraid. I will provide for you and your children.” And he reassured them and spoke kindly to them.- Genesis 50:18-21
"What's really worthless is your analysis because your arguing against the wrong God - one who is like you instead of the God in the Bible."
Oh dear. I couldn't give a shit what god I am arguing against.
If you are not arguing against the God of the Bible, then your arguments are even more worthless here than I thought.
If an entity commits any act for the eventual consequences it derives, then he is carrying out moral consequentialism. Go and research the Trolley Problem - morality 101. It is why Absolute Morality is untenable. While you're at it, look into the Inquiring Murderer as a criticism of Kant's Categorical Imperative (ought).
So what? Is Johnny P arguing that moral consquentialism is wrong or immoral? How does that make God monsterous? What is your point? That does not mean that God cannot tell us what we ought to do or what we ought not to do.
"No, but even you should be able to follow the hyperlinks"
Do you know how long it takes your blog pages to load? It's fricking annoying. It is not my computer. As Ryan says, it is across multiple high performance computers.
Oh, we are back to whining about how slow my blog is on your computer? Don't like it? Don't read it. Doesn't help your argument at all.
"This puts a physically illustration to just how much of bankrupt failure yours and Johnny P's arguments really are"
And yet, Dr William Lane Craig continues to win debates. LOL. Maybe Johnny P should debate him, since he seems to think he can clearly do better. Now that would be funny. Embarrassing for you, but still quite entertaining.
They are logically valid, but unsound arguments. All writers use badgers' guts for pens. Jimmy is a writer. Jimmy uses badgers' guts for pens. Is logically valid, but utter shite.
Now that's a "professional" assessment. Obviously it's wrong because of the premise that all writers use pens, let alone badgers' guts. None of the premises in the Moral Argument or the KCA are nearly as faulty. Go ahead and take your best shot. Better folks than you have tried.
So don't throw mud at people in an attempt to refute them when you need to look more closely at your own reasoning and understanding of the topic.
I haven't thrown mud, your arguments dumb enough without my help.
In case you can't be arsed to read up, I'll do the work for you:
In a giving mood are we? Must be the Christmas season. Watch now how Johnny P, quotes from a source(s) and provides no documentation or authorship for several paragraphs he probably pasted from his Google searches.
When debating morality and ethics with Christian theists, scorn is often poured on secular ethicists who adhere to moral disciplines that are not grounded in God. Usually, these moral approaches are consequentialist in nature. In other words, moral actions are defined by the consequences they deliver as opposed to the intrinsic morality of the action itself. The ends justify the means. As an example, such an approach might well be utilitarianism. Though this appears in many guises (for example, act and rule utilitarianism), it basically dictates that a good action is one which derives the most ‘good’, or happiness, as a consequence.
I don't think that it has anything to do with trying to optimize human happiness. Why don't we see what God says about this: There are several scriptures that deal with this very question, but let's just look at one of them.
4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace 8 that he lavished on us. With all wisdom and understanding, 9 he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment—to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ.
11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory.- Ephesians 1:4-12
This passage explains that God is in sovereign control and that he is acting according to what he has purposed, not according to the happiness of humanity. More of Johnny P's Straw god.
Theists claim that good acts are good intrinsically, and the basis for this goodness is the nature of God himself. Now, I do not want to get into the vagaries of Divine Command Theories but suffice it to say there are many good arguments against such positions.
What might they be? Would be nice if Johnny P had provided the reference and quotation marks.
What is important to understand, however, is that God is not a moral absolutist; he is, at least extremely often, a moral consequentialist. In other words, God does not (again, at least very commonly) believe that actions are right or wrong, regardless of their consequences or the contexts in which the actions take place, but derive their rightness from their context or consequences.
The proof for this is unbelievably commonplace. We could start with the sacrifice and death of Jesus.
Jesus voluntarily substituted Himself for us to have the wrath of God poured out on himself for sin. And given that Jesus is God incarnate (Trinitarian doctrine), the objection further fails.
But there are far more obvious acts (or omissions). Take Noah’s flood. The death of all of humanity bar eight, the death of billions of animals and ecosystems, would strike many as being ‘not good’.
No it was just judgement. Just because God has chosen to give us more grace than God gave them does not mean that God acted immorally. God is free to punish or extend mercy to whomever God chooses whenever God chooses.
Many could argue that such an action (enacted by God) is intrinsically bad. However, God nevertheless enacted this destruction. Why? Because there was a greater good that would come from it – there has to be or God cannot be labelled all-loving. The end justifies the means. God is being a consequentialist.
God defines and purposes both mean and ends...that's missing from consideration.If the point is that God is acting in the best interest of what He has created to bring glory Himself, I don't see the reason for the objection. You can say you don't like it and/or that you don't trust God to do what is best for you, but if Christianity is correct, it doesn't matter what you or think about what God decides to do or how God decides to do it.
Let’s look at God allowing the 2004 tsunami, allowing the Holocaust, the floods, volcanoes, fires, other tsunamis and every single natural disaster since the beginning of time... In fact, by God allowing every single bit of suffering, every single death, that has ever happened to any human being or animal since the Big Bang (or Genesis Creation) we can see that on every single occasion God has been consequentialist. The consequences of every single piece of suffering must (if God is all loving, powerful enough to have it otherwise and knowledgeable enough to know how to have it otherwise) outweigh the intrinsic ‘badness’ of the action.
And this is bad because? Is the problem that to Johnny P, and this person he plagiarized, it follows that God is not benevolent? Really? The argument is that all of this will lead to the most good and we don't know if the most good could be accomplished any other way, do we? What we do know, God's plan to bring about the greatest good includes some short-term pain and suffering for people now. So?
18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.- Romans 8:18-21
So either God (or the theist) believes that actions are not intrinsically good or bad, or the consequences of the actions are more important than the intrinsic value of the actions.
False dilemma.
Thus, even if intrinsic moral values exist as well as consequentialism, it seems that consequentialism trumps intrinsic moral value every time suffering is allowed to happen.
Short-sighted due to limited cognition
Therefore, the next time you get into a debate about morality with a theist and they try to denigrate secular consequentialism, demand that they explain such a criticism in light of God’s ubiquitous reliance on the virtue of consequentialism himself.
Well given that God decrees and orders means and ends, I wouldn't conclude that God is relying on anything else.
Marcus, if I ever thought you thought my opinion carried any weight, then I would know I was doing something drastically wrong.
And yet, Ryan, keeps giving his opinion.
And dummy, Californian = a quality. Vile = a quality.
Californian is a description and not a quality. "Vile" is a value judgement not just a description. Did you ever take an English class while your were "learning" Kione Greek?
Johnny P; as an atheist, please make sure you cease and desist from using any adjectives ever, if you ever become a theist (or does it specifically have to be the COGIC sect?) you may begin using adjectives again.
Actually you both need to learn how to use adjectives correctly. And for the record, there are many denominiations and sects that have born-again Christians in them, Ryan. Don't get mad because you were never one of them and don't know what you speak of. Jesus still loves both of you.
Thanks to Marcus for the heads up.
You're welcome. Hopefully this helped clear up your confusion.
I know Ryan, it's hilarious in the sheer enormity of his naivety.
"you can't honestly and consistently refer to our attitude as "vile" because you have no basis to ground or define what is "vile". You are the one constantly arguing that morality doesn't need an objective basis. "
Nope, I'm saying that the moral value that it's vile to post a boy falling on his face has not basis without an objective standard. Without the standard, it's just your opinion verses my opinion and a waste of time arguing about.
You are not, Ryan, entitled to a personal opinion unless it is verified as sufficiently metaphysically grounded by the Great Arbiter of Language, Marcus. Only he shall decree the veracity of conceptual claims of individuals to ensure they are, in fact, directly correlative to the inspired objective mind of God.
I didn't say that anyone isn't entitled to your personal opinion. I'm saying that without a standard, your opinion is meaningless and no more true than any other conflicting opinion.
You cannot think or speak, Ryan, unless it is exactly in accordance with the thoughts and words of the Almighty.
And so the crock of crap continues.
Correction: Apologies, on re-reading an earlier post, I used 'apodosis' when I meant 'prostasis'.
Apology accepted. Doesn't improve your arguments, however.
Also,
As Thomas Wren said in Moral obligations: action, intention, and valuation, writes:
“The moral ought is like technological oughts in that it has to do with means toward an end. These include not only external means, which are tools, and immanent means, which are actions, but also, and just as unavoidably, means one step removed from action and which are moral virtues.
Finally a viable citation. Doesn't rebutt what I already have written above, but nice try.
The search for justification is, so to speak, a hunting expedition for a “lost prostasis”. This is true of attempts to justify any attempts to justify non-imperative, moral or non-moral; it is also true of attempts to justify non-imperatives that are practical principles or value judgements, since, as we have seen from Hare, the assent to a value-judgement – a judgement in which a practical principle is formulated – entails assent to a correlative imperative.
Thus nothing said so far counts as a justification for moral imperatives qua imperatives. Such as justification, if it can be given, would provide a prostasis appropriate to the imperative “Be moral”. Or to put it more simply, it would be the answer to the supremely important transmoral metaethical questions, “Why be moral?”
Well why? And how do you know what "moral" is without justification given that not everyone you come in contact with may agree with you?…
Perhaps what is expressed in such sentences by the word “ought” is closer to a descriptive or structural law than to a prescriptive or commanding one.”
(p. 83-94)
Descriptive? So there is no need to justify protecting the weak? What about persecuting and oppressing the weak? We must not just ask "Why be moral?" but also "Why not be immmoral?" I find nothing in Ryan Anderson's or Johnny P's worldviews and subjective opinions to answer such question, yet they cling to moral values and deny the binding of them. Most definitely another faceplant.
What had happen' was.....: FacePlant - Epic Fail: Tisk Tisk, Johnny P Response #16
“Christ the Fraud” and the problem of evil as per the Science Club of Long Island | True Freethinker
“Christ the Fraud” and the problem of evil as per the Science Club of Long Island | True Freethinker
the a-atheism blog: Richard Dawkins: "I am ashamed of my university!"
the a-atheism blog: Richard Dawkins: "I am ashamed of my university!"
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Answering Muslims: Hezbollah Using Prostitution (Muta) for Recruitment
Answering Muslims: Hezbollah Using Prostitution (Muta) for Recruitment
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
It makes since if someone commanded you to do it."
That is consequentialist ethics / might is right. You are being good because someone told you to. How the hell is that doing something good out of an intrinsic ought? You have no idea what you are talking about.
You still haven't explained why that's a problem, yet but you will try further along. . Oh you might try to weasel out and say you are not saying that consequentialist ethics is wrong, but you wouldn't be that dishonest would you? "
This really is another example of your naivety. It makes sense if someone commands it. So if I command you to steal from Peter, would you do it? No. Not on it'd own.
Why would I not listen to you? You are not God. You didn't make me and I have no reason at all why I have to listen to you. There is no "ought".
But if the object being stolen was the cure for cancer that he was keeping hidden, then it would be morally right based on the consequences.
I'm not sure if that's moral. Stealing is stealing. The end does not always justify the means.
This is the theory behind 'Just War', too, though it is a lot more complex. Also, as with God etc, if the consequences of doing something is complicated by pain of death, or joy of heaven, then motivation for an act is again affected. You are in danger of a simple might is right here - a divine command theory issue.
So what is wrong with divine command theory? Death is nothing, other than the fact that we don't want to die. It's at most an inconvenience if there truly is a heaven and you are in Christ. The sting of death is gone....not that you won't die....but now there is no need to fear death.
"Ought you be generous? Intrinsically?"
Whici is why I gave a personal opinion - I feel generous.
I DON'T say consequentialist ethics is wrong. I argue that it is the reality of moral actions. I argue that because God shows consequentialist ethics to be the arbiter of moral value in his actions, then one of two things happens:
1) objective morality does not exist
2) objective morality exists but its value is worthless as it is ubiquitously trumped in favour of the value of the consequences.
This seems to be something you struggle to get.
Still gnawing away at that bone are we? Did you not read my examples from the Bible about how God's actions are not just valued by the good consequences?
No. No where does the Bible try to condone these acts of evil although all of them lead to Joseph saving the known world from starvation. That is an example that belies Johnny P's argument."
No no no no. This shows you just don't understand the philosophy of morality. The morality of Potiphar's actions are defined how? By the intrinsic value of the actions themselves? Or by the context leading on to the consequences.
No, Potiphar's wife's (get the story right) actions were not wrong by the context. There are no context where lying on someone about rape a good thing.
Look, to spell this out, let's refer to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
"Suppose that someone were to ask you whether it is good to help others in time of need. Unless you suspected some sort of trick, you would answer, “Yes, of course.” If this person were to go on to ask you why acting in this way is good, you might say that it is good to help others in time of need simply because it is good that their needs be satisfied. If you were then asked why it is good that people's needs be satisfied, you might be puzzled. You might be inclined to say, “It just is.” Or you might accept the legitimacy of the question and say that it is good that people's needs be satisfied because this brings them pleasure. But then, of course, your interlocutor could ask once again, “What's good about that?” Perhaps at this point you would answer, “It just is good that people be pleased,” and thus put an end to this line of questioning. Or perhaps you would again seek to explain the fact that it is good that people be pleased in terms of something else that you take to be good. At some point, though, you would have to put an end to the questions, not because you would have grown tired of them (though that is a distinct possibility), but because you would be forced to recognize that, if one thing derives its goodness from some other thing, which derives its goodness from yet a third thing, and so on, there must come a point at which you reach something whose goodness is not derivative in this way, something that “just is” good in its own right, something whose goodness is the source of, and thus explains, the goodness to be found in all the other things that precede it on the list. It is at this point that you will have arrived at intrinsic goodness.[10] That which is intrinsically good is nonderivatively good; it is good for its own sake. That which is not intrinsically good but extrinsically good is derivatively good; it is good, not (insofar as its extrinsic value is concerned) for its own sake, but for the sake of something else that is good and to which it is related in some way. Intrinsic value thus has a certain priority over extrinsic value. The latter is derivative from or reflective of the former and is to be explained in terms of the former. It is for this reason that philosophers have tended to focus on intrinsic value in particular."
So under what circumstances is it okay for a woman to lie on you about raping her?
By this, you should have realised the implications of the question, philosophically speaking. Why be good? In order to be good? Ie, because it has intrinsic value? This is what moral objectivists would like to argue. But it is difficult. It becomes mere assertion that 'being good' has intrinsic value. We can see that from the biblical accounts, and from everyday experience, we derive the moral value in an action from the consequences, which is usually seen in some context of happiness. This is because happiness, unlike goodness, is nonderiviative. You stop asking 'why' too early, and are satisfied with 'because it's good'. My argument is that that is not good enough. Just being good to be good is a mere tautology that I find meaningless.
There is a great thought experiment to explain this:
God comes to you and tells you there are transcendent, unconditional moral oughts.
That's because He did. And Johnny P has chosen to try to ignore God.
Just imagine that in this world all the things you ‘ought’ to do, from a moral point of view (a moral ought), happen to cause unfathomable pain, suffering and injustice and will land you up in hell where you will experience eternal torment. And just imagine that in this world, all the ‘ought nots’ happen to promote peace, health, happiness and justice and will ultimately land you in heaven where you will have eternal bliss alongside your Creator.
Imaginary for sure because that doesn't match the transcendent and unconditional moral oughts that are given to us in the Bible. Back to Johnny P's "straw god."
What course of action would you take – how would you live your life? Would you adhere to these transcendental moral oughts.
Again this thought experiment does not parallel reality at all and is based on really stupid premises because it does not match the God we see in the Bible - unless you admit that you are not arguing against the God of the Bible.
This shows that our lives are not bound by unconditional, transcendental moral oughts but by rational oughts.
That is assuming you can tell what causes unfathomable pain, suffering and injustice - infallibly and exhaustively. You can't.
Our choices and our behaviour is informed by rationalisations depending on the circumstances we wish to actualise. Whether a god exists or not, a world in which transcendental moral oughts exist would be indistinguishable from a world in which only rational oughts exist. Therefore, not only can moral oughts be seen as trivial, but they also have little practical value. It does nothing to give our moral claims a more solid foundation.
I doubt the human capacity to determine what rational oughts really are rational. I think a good example is the fact that people sin as long as they think they can get away with it and rationalize their actions.
Saying that we need transcendental, intangible unconditional moral obligations in order to have objective moral facts is the same as saying we need transcendental, intangible, medical obligations in order to have facts about medical health.
Not really. There are many things that are wrong but you would never know it unless someone told you it was wrong. For example what if you stole things and no one ever stopped you, how would you know that it was wrong?
Morality is the science of maximising social and societal wellbeing just like medicine and nutrition are the science of maximising physiological wellbeing. Moral facts, just like medical facts, exist. There are empirically moral and empirically immoral things that we can do.
You can't know medical facts without searching them out. And they are true no matter what your opinion about them are. Morality is similar in that way. If you don't know what the maximal society's well-being is, how do you determine it given that there are others in that society who will and do disagree with you? Sounds like you need an objective standard to me.
If your moral philosophy is completely divorced from real world issues of happiness and suffering, if morality has nothing to do with the pursuit of maximising wellbeing. If it truly has no stake whatsoever in actualising an ideal circumstance in this life or the next….
then what bloody use is it?
Yes, I've heard Dr Michael Shermer and Dr Samuel Harris make similar arguments. It wasn't any better then either.
I think it's because William Lane Craig is more generous that I. I mean he wins his debates without quoting the Bible and I guess he doesn't want to make it a total blow out. I use the Bible because if you are going to critique Christian ethics and Morality - which are supposed to be coming from the Bible - of course the Bible must come up.
The problem with the bible is that it does not explain its philosophy. It doesn't give you a deductive argument that tells you how morality is grounded in god and so on. It is assertion after assertion, and your biblical extracts are useless in such a debate.
Before you discuss if the Bible's philosophy is correct or not, one must understand what it says and Johnny P hasn't demonstrated that he does.
We are not discussing biblical exegesis.
If you wanna discuss what Christians believe and why, you bet we are discussing Biblical exegesis. Wow! Talk about a faceplant.
I'd be happy to discuss Matt 27 as non-factual (perhaps even poetic, as Licona would argue) etc. I love discussing biblical exegesis.
Bring it.
But it has no place in these discussions, and the sooner you realise this, the better. You would get NOWHERE in a philosophy department or philosophical essay trotting out random quote after random quote.
The historicity of Matthew 27 does not have a place here, but there are many passages that do if you are going to talk about God and why he allows what He allows and why. Without looking at that how do you expect to know what we say about God and Morality?
How does Potiphar's wife tell us whether morality is transcendental and objective. At best it can only assert something from a faux position of authority. What you need is a Christian philosopher, such as Richard Swinburne, to philosophical extricate the basic tenets, and treat them philosophically - creating syllogisms and the like. And even Swinburne gives way to consequentialism:
"It is... permissible to use someone for the good of others if on balance you are their benefacto..." (Providence and the Problem of Evil, 1998, p. 233)
Johnny P's missed the point. Not surprising. Not to contradict Dr Richard Swineburne but the Bible tells us that God meant for everything that happened to Joseph, including being enslaved, and lied on as being an attempted rapist, and falsely imprisoned, to happen. And none of those things were good. Why can't you see that?
Now if you want to get into it, Swinburne declares God is consequentialist (that he can harm people for the good of others), but is allowed to be on the basis of his authority.
I would not agree that God is a "consequentialist" but he is right God can allow people to be harmed for the good of others, but it's not just for the good of others but for their own as well - all couched in God's own foreknowledge and authority.
"Nope. The flood was not evil. God was well within his rights to send the flood and save only those He saved."
Oh good god, it's like arguing with a child. You are either being wilfully ignorant, or you really are this ignorant. How many times do I have to say? How do you quantify the flood was not evil?
God does not do evil. God sent the flood because the people were wicked and would not repent even though Noah preached to those people 120 yrs and they still didn't repent. The flood was not evil, it was justice. We are no better than they, but God has chosen to extend mercy. Better take advantage of it while you still can.
On what basis do you value the morality? Everyone else in the world values this by the consequences. If no good came from it, and it was merely destructive for the sake of being destructive - would it be good? Take it out of context. Now put it back in. God 'ought' to exact justice, start over and save those he did. It was right, no, that he did this? Or was it wrong?
If it was right, how do judge this rightness?
It was right because sin must be punished. And God can do what ever He wants whenever He wants. He made the world. It's His. Why should He not do with it as He chooses? We can't judge God anymore than the cow can judge you for killing it for food.
It really seems you haven't got a clue what you are talking about. Please, do yourself some favours and think before you write. All these people you seem to be appealing to in some kind of immature rhetorical game, can surely see that you are a moral newbie.
I have not seen anything from Johnny P that leads me to think he knows anything about God or what Christians believe about Him. To make it worse, he refuses to be corrected about where he is wrong.
You've put your fingers in the moral flame and got burnt. Go away and learn from this. read some books. Don't just assert crappy point after crappy point and then throw in a bible quote. I could throw in a Qu'ran quote. so what. Unless it has valid philosophical argumentation, it is not relevant. It does not have valid philosophical argumentation.
Says, Johnny P. YuckYuck.
"Again who's happiness would you use to judge that?"
Wahey!!
The first good question you have asked. This has merit. Once we have bottomed out whether objective morality makes sense, then we can see what the alternatives are, and whether they stand up to scrutiny.
And?
"Happiness is a poor measure. You still never defined what you mean by whose happiness should be in view to determined what is morally right or morally wrong."
Again, a good point, for which there are many answers. However, again, we need to look at objective morality first, then look at utilitarian ethics. Otherwise you will be muddying the waters and putting up smokescreens.
I'd settle for a single answer.
"Um,. the Bible says that God acts on His own will and purpose. Try again."
This is brilliant. Sooo funny. Everything you say is shocking. You say he acts on his own purpose, but don't see the purpose as having a moral dimension!!!! Either his purpose is morally benign or morally malign! In which case, where is the moral value grounded and how?
I never said that God's purposes have no moral dimension. God only does Good, however he does get good consequences out of bad means. That's clear. And without explaining how you know what "Good" is and what "Bad" is, you're wasting time.
Justice and mercy supervenes on happiness or morality itself. Why be just or merciful. these are moral actions!!! You can't derive to just or merciful and end there. These are deriviative values!
God is just and merciful. And without God we can't adequately define and understand what these mean. Many times people act as though justice and mercy are mutually exclusive. I'd be more careful if I were you. Justice is more empirical. I would not call it a moral action. If like binary code. Zero for wrong. 1 for right. If God judged us all without mercy and only justice, we are all be deserving of hell. It's nothing personal outside of the sins we have committed. Mercy is holding back the judgement we deserve. It's dependent on the qualities of the one granting the mercy, not the one who gives mercy. Johnny P might need to think more deeply about this.
This is great:
"At least I can type "morality""
Wow. What a clincher. We all make typos, I make many since I type very quickly and am usually angry with you. Sticks and eyes, Marcus. You use 'must of been' - an elementary grammatical mistake; using who's instead of whose and so on.
What a terribly juvenile way to end your thoroughly inept critique.
Guess Johnny, Can't take a joke. Oh well. I wonder if by "inept critique" he might be referring to his whole thing of saying the Bible is irrelevant but wants to talk about what Christians believe? Hmmm.
Seriously, Marcus, go and read a book on moral philosophy. Do us all a favour.
Better arguments from you, Johnny P would go a long way as well as better understanding what the Bible actually says.
I guess Ryan Anderson, didn't get the joke either. oh well. Tough room.