God and Man

[rtwngAvngr]

Not necessarily.

A duty is by definition binding. Hence, if it's not binding, it's not a duty. I won.. What'd I win?

 

[5stringJeff]

And this is where I just don't get it. Why does he want us to be in awe/fear of him/her? Why does he/she want us to partially understand him/her? As a non-believer, my cynacism kicks in. I find any explanation that seems forthcoming too convenient, because it is usually of the "who are we to question" etc. IOW, nobody knows, and this is the bit that I find frustrating.

Again, the reason for our awesome fear of God is not because of an arbitrary decree. It stems from the nature of God and the nature of mankind; God, being infinite in goodness, power, and wisdom and unbound by the constraints of distance and time, ought to be shown awe by mankind, which is finite in all of its ways.

Likewise, the reason that we cannot fully understand God is not that we shouldn't, or that God just doesn't want us to. Because God is an infinite being, understanding God would take infinite understanding. However, only an infinite being could have infinite understanding. Therefore, only God can ever truly, fully understand Himself. However, mankind is able to partially understand God; moreover, God is able to communicate with His creation in such a way to allow understanding.

 

[Phaedrus]

A duty is by definition binding. Hence, if it's not binding, it's not a duty.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=duty

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=purpose

You have yet to make the connection between duty and purpose. There isn't one. You can feel duty bound to fulfill your purpose, but thats just you. You might feel there's an implied connection, but it isn't inherent. Simply saying something doesn't make it so.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=duty

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=purpose

You have yet to make the connection between duty and purpose. There isn't one. You can feel duty bound to fulfill your purpose, but thats just you. You might feel there's an implied connection, but it isn't inherent. Simply saying something doesn't make it so.

YOu threw up this derivative discussion when someone tried to actually anwer your question.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Charity isn't a purpose, mayhap benevolance is, but that seems like the wrong word as well. Most certainley we have a duty to be charitable, but whether we embrace it or not is up to our own volition. For me, purpose implies more than duty or obligation.

"Good will towards men" seems to me the best examplar of what I think your going for. If I'm wrong please correct me, but I just don't see charity as purpose. A selfless life isn't necessarily a life without self. And if there is an independent self, there must be independent purpose.

Look how full of crap you are. You can't get the concept of being charitable as a purpose? Or you have to call it something else so you can feel superior about it? You're a fraud.

 

[Phaedrus]

What are you trying to say? I am honestly confused, as nothing you reply with seems to address the issue. Where do you see a connection between duty and purpose? What is the problem with what I've said? What are you saying? Proper nouns please.

 

[Phaedrus]

You can't get the concept of being charitable as a purpose?

I'm using Kant dumbass, I stated it above, I'll only take abuse from a shithead such as you for so long. Charity does not pass the Categorical Imperative, only "Good Will" does. Stop banding insults and pay fucking attention before you open your mouth.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I'm using Kant dumbass, I stated it above, I'll only take abuse from a shithead such as you for so long. Charity does not pass the Categorical Imperative, only "Good Will" does. Stop banding insults and pay fucking attention before you open your mouth.

You'll take it as long as I say. You're an intellectual fraud.

And if there is an independent self, there must be independent purpose.

Why? That sounds like something you pulled out of your icehole. Think of people who work at wal-mart. They're separate people, yet have the same purpose in the context of wal-mart, to help customers, ring products and stock shelves. Different people, with the same purpose. Get it?

 

[dilloduck]

I'm using Kant dumbass, I stated it above, I'll only take abuse from a shithead such as you for so long. Charity does not pass the Categorical Imperative, only "Good Will" does. Stop banding insults and pay fucking attention before you open your mouth.

whats the difference between charity and good will---you seem to a hell of an issue with the word 'charity'.

 

[Phaedrus]

Think of people who work at wal-mart. They're separate people, yet have the same purpose in the context of wal-mart, to help customers, ring products and stock shelves. Different people, with the same purpose. Get it?

There you go again, using poor analogies and making assumptions. The purpose of life is different from the purpose of a job. And just because people arrive at their own purpose independantley doesn't mean they arrive at different purposes.

You have yet to address how duty and purpose are connected, which is the meat of the issue. You also haven't justified why I'm a fraud. To repeat, saying something doesn't make it so. Watch, I can say you are mature, rational, and make well thought out arguments.

 

[dilloduck]

There you go again, using poor analogies and making assumptions. The purpose of life is different from the purpose of a job. And just because people arrive at their own purpose independantley doesn't mean they arrive at different purposes.

You have yet to address how duty and purpose are connected, which is the meat of the issue. You also haven't justified why I'm a fraud. To repeat, saying something doesn't make it so. Watch, I can say you are mature, rational, and make well thought out arguments.

To address how duty and purpose are connected may be YOUR purpose on this thread but that does not mean it is anyone elses.

 

[Phaedrus]

My issue with charity stems from "Catcher in the Rye" and Kant. It's an issue of existential Authenticity, but my main point is charity is an action, and actions aren't purposes. They are the means to an end, not an end in itself.

 

[dilloduck]

My issue with charity stems from "Catcher in the Rye" and Kant. It's an issue of existential Authenticity, but my main point is charity is an action.

To be an active charitable person isn't a purpose?

 

[Phaedrus]

No, the purpose there isn't defined. Charity is merely an action. To what end are you being charitable?

 

[Phaedrus]

To address how duty and purpose are connected may be YOUR purpose on this thread but that does not mean it is anyone elses.

He tried to dispute my point, and then refused to address his disputation.

 

[dilloduck]

No, the purpose there isn't defined. Charity is merely an action. To what end are you being charitable?

You apparently are looking for something related to a state of being that one attains by committing ones self to a "cause".

 

[Phaedrus]

You apparently are looking for something related to a state of being that one attains by committing ones self to a "cause".

Possibly, but I'm trying to limit this discussion to certain vocabulary. In a sense of the word, yes. I think my previous explanations are better than what you are proposing here, however.

 

[dilloduck]

Possibly, but I'm trying to limit this discussion to certain vocabulary. In a sense of the word, yes. I think my previous explanations are better than what you are proposing here, however.

I'm aware that you and Loki are doing you best to restrict this discussion to fit your purpose and you discount posts that don't fall within the parameters you have set. To claim that trying to be a giver is not a purpose is hogwash.

 

[dilloduck]

Your quote-

For me, man as an individual provides his own subjective purpose.

It would appear that you allow man to provide his own pupose but at the same time you discount him when he says "My purpose is to be charitable".

 

[rtwngAvngr]

There you go again, using poor analogies and making assumptions. The purpose of life is different from the purpose of a job. And just because people arrive at their own purpose independantley doesn't mean they arrive at different purposes.

You have yet to address how duty and purpose are connected, which is the meat of the issue. You also haven't justified why I'm a fraud. To repeat, saying something doesn't make it so. Watch, I can say you are mature, rational, and make well thought out arguments.

So an independant purpose isn't a differrent purpose. Ok. It could mean the same purpose arrived at differently. Really I brought up this whole distinction to make fun of you, but you obviously didn't get.

So to sum up.

1. You're an ass.
2. You don't accept charity as a purpose because of some word games.