God and Unconditional Love


Recommended Posts

Frank writes:

If someone rightfully owns something at the time of its theft, what do events prior to the theft have to do with it?

You answered your own question. Whether or not the possessions were rightfully earned are the events prior to the theft.

If a gold coin rightfully belongs to you, you deserve it. If it belongs to someone else, he deserves it.

Yes.

Other than to determine rightful ownership, prior events have no bearing on who should be in possession of the coin.

The prior events are what determine rightful ownership.

If true, this is excellent news. But how would we know this? How could I possibly know that the person who stole my bicycle from my front porch will have something of equivalent value stolen from him? How would I know that people who practice thievery are themselves always victimized by theft? Do, say, Obama and Biden get robbed more frequently than I do?

You can know by virtue of exactly the same moral law which applies equally to the consequences of your own actions.

On the other hand, you rightly deserve to have your home broken into and your gold stolen when you have acquired it by dishonest means.

If not that, it will be lost in some other way, because no one can retain wealth without first possessing the virtue to honestly earn it.

"A fool and his money are soon parted."

Glad to hear it. By the way, when was FDR (or any of his tax-paid henchmen) robbed of the gold that he ordered confiscated from American citizens who rightfully held it?

They were not robbed.

They granted the government their sanction to be its victims by being stupid enough to actually hand their gold over to the government.

You won't understand this because of how you live, but I'll say it anyway. The government is not the enemy. It has to answer to exactly the same moral law that you do...

... and because it is under the same law, it can only govern people who fail to govern themselves.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Frank writes:

If someone rightfully owns something at the time of its theft, what do events prior to the theft have to do with it?

You answered your own question. Whether or not the possessions were rightfully earned are the events prior to the theft.

If a gold coin rightfully belongs to you, you deserve it. If it belongs to someone else, he deserves it.

Yes.

Other than to determine rightful ownership, prior events have no bearing on who should be in possession of the coin.

The prior events are what determine rightful ownership.

Very well. I did not understand why you wrote, "That would all depend on the nature of the sequence of events prior to the theft." The sentence you were responding to was, "So if someone takes something that rightfully belongs to you, he doesn't deserve it." Rightful ownership was one of the givens in the case.

If true, this is excellent news. But how would we know this? How could I possibly know that the person who stole my bicycle from my front porch will have something of equivalent value stolen from him? How would I know that people who practice thievery are themselves always victimized by theft? Do, say, Obama and Biden get robbed more frequently than I do?

You can know by virtue of exactly the same moral law which applies equally to the consequences of your own actions.

I had asked how we could know that "People who get by taking from others, get taken from by others who get by taking from others." Your response is to tell me that the moral law applies to me as well as to the thief. But this answer merely repeats your earlier assertion that a law of repercussions for wrongful actions is in force. It does not provide any evidence for the assertion. Furthermore, since I have never stolen a bicycle myself, I can hardly look to my own experience to know that the thief of my bicycle from 50 years ago has met with unpleasant consequences.

On the other hand, you rightly deserve to have your home broken into and your gold stolen when you have acquired it by dishonest means.

If not that, it will be lost in some other way, because no one can retain wealth without first possessing the virtue to honestly earn it.

"A fool and his money are soon parted."

Glad to hear it. By the way, when was FDR (or any of his tax-paid henchmen) robbed of the gold that he ordered confiscated from American citizens who rightfully held it?

They were not robbed.

They granted the government their sanction to be its victims by being stupid enough to actually hand their gold over to the government.

You won't understand this because of how you live, but I'll say it anyway. The government is not the enemy. It has to answer to exactly the same moral law that you do...

... and because it is under the same law, it can only govern people who fail to govern themselves.

Greg

But in many cases, gold was not freely handed over. Consider this case:

[A] New York attorney, Frederick Barber Campbell, had on deposit at Chase National over 5,000 troy ounces (160 kg) of gold. When Campbell attempted to withdraw the gold Chase refused and Campbell sued Chase. A federal prosecutor then indicted Campbell on the following day (September 27, 1933) for failing to surrender his gold. Ultimately, the prosecution of Campbell failed, but the authority of the federal government to seize gold was upheld, and Campbell's gold was confiscated.

So I don't know what you mean by "grant their sanction." What was Campbell supposed to do? Assemble a gang of armed men to hold up the bank where his gold was stored? Then there is this case:

Gus Farber, a diamond and jewelry merchant from San Francisco, was prosecuted for the sale of thirteen $20 gold coins without a license. Secret Service agents discovered the sale with the help of the buyer. Farber, his father, and 12 others were also arrested in four American cities after a sting conducted by the United States Secret Service. The arrests took place simultaneously in New York and three California cities, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland. Morris Anolik was arrested in New York with $5000 in U.S. and foreign gold coins. Dan Levin and Edward Friedman of San Jose were arrested with $15,000 in gold. Sam Nankin was arrested in Oakland. In San Francisco, nine men were arrested on charges of hoarding gold. In all, $24,000 in gold was seized by Secret Service Agents.

In what way did Farber "grant sanction"?

So I repeat, when was FDR robbed of the gold that he ordered confiscated from American citizens who rightfully held it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David writes:

If you actually care about the question you are asking, you will need to expend some fairly considerable effort on questions not only such as whether God exists, but what his characteristics might (or might not) be.

That approach is doomed to futility because the answer to the question of God cannot be arrived at through intellectual effort. It can only be answered by the objective moral reality of your own life. In fact, the question of God isn't even for you to answer. It is for God to answer. And when God answers, reality is so obvious the freaking rocks cry out. I tell you, it's a real forehead slapper. The only question you'll ask then is:

Why didn't I see this before?

When you know, you know...

...and when you don't, you don't.

It's as simple as that.

Greg

No, Greg, the rocks don't freaking cry out. If the rocks freaking cried out, it wouldn't really be faith, would it?

Also, you really shouldn't quote others and omit parts of their statements, such as you did with my statement above, without at least using an ellipses to show that you have omitted parts of those statements. This is not only common courtesy to those you are quoting, but also to the reader as well.

I know you fashion yourself as something of the last word about all things God on this forum--but have you considered the possibiity that your arguments in favor of God are simply a circular form of question begging, and that such circular question begging gives far too little credit to actual arguments in favor of a belief in God, or Christianity for that matter?

While Joseph Smith was in prison in rural Missouri in the mid 19th century, he claims God spoke very directly and specifically to him--specific words, specific instructions, more or less gave him a playbook-- and one result of that communication is a large group of people we now call Mormons. My suspicion is that you are not one of those Mormons. But there are millions Mormons in the world, and they are Mormons because of an argument--and one that pushed them in the direction Latter Day Saints, as opposed, say, to the Jehovah's Witnesses--not because of "the objective moral reality of [their] own lives"--whatever that means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, the only reason to argue with an irrationalist is to highlight the irrationality, not to change his mind. In Greg's case to begin to make sense of him merely substitute "reality" for "God" whenever he mentions Him. Thus God's love would mean what you get when you act in accordance with reality and your own God (reality) given nature. You will still be left with a lot of crudity and illogic but sometimes good advice as to personal conduct. Greg tries to be consistent but he sometimes fails and covers it up with specious (contradictory) comments like a cat working out in a litter box. I don't think he consciously knows what he's doing, I think he's as honest as he can be and no troll, ironically, but there's no depth or need for depth in his asseverations or room for ratiocination which he 100% avoids and the rest of us implicitly beg for when answering him, even if we agree with him.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, the only reason to argue with an irrationalist is to highlight the irrationality, not to change his mind. In Greg's case to begin to make sense of him merely substitute "reality" for "God" whenever he mentions Him. Thus God's love would mean what you get when you act in accordance with reality and your own God (reality) given nature. You will still be left with a lot of crudity and illogic but sometimes good advice as to personal conduct. Greg tries to be consistent but he sometimes fails and covers it up with specious (contradictory) comments like a cat working out in a litter box. I don't think he consciously knows what he's doing, I think he's as honest as he can be and no troll, ironically, but there's no depth or need for depth in his asseverations or room for ratiocination which he 100% avoids and the rest of us implicitly beg for when answering him, even if we agree with him.

--Brant

Brant:

I believe that makes 2 seperate wise things you have said this week. Points well taken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, the only reason to argue with an irrationalist is to highlight the irrationality, not to change his mind. In Greg's case to begin to make sense of him merely substitute "reality" for "God" whenever he mentions Him. Thus God's love would mean what you get when you act in accordance with reality and your own God (reality) given nature. You will still be left with a lot of crudity and illogic but sometimes good advice as to personal conduct. Greg tries to be consistent but he sometimes fails and covers it up with specious (contradictory) comments like a cat working out in a litter box. I don't think he consciously knows what he's doing, I think he's as honest as he can be and no troll, ironically, but there's no depth or need for depth in his asseverations or room for ratiocination which he 100% avoids and the rest of us implicitly beg for when answering him, even if we agree with him.

--Brant

Brant:

I believe that makes 2 seperate wise things you have said this week. Points well taken.

But I've made 20 posts so far!

--Brant

grump

I think Greg uses "God" for His moral gravitas and a locus for focus as "reality" is so diffuse (and needs a lot of thinking)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frank writes:

I had asked how we could know that "People who get by taking from others, get taken from by others who get by taking from others." Your response is to tell me that the moral law applies to me as well as to the thief.

Yes. All it takes is a little introspection into your own life to see the obvious.

But this answer merely repeats your earlier assertion that a law of repercussions for wrongful actions is in force. It does not provide any evidence for the assertion. Furthermore, since I have never stolen a bicycle myself, I can hardly look to my own experience to know that the thief of my bicycle from 50 years ago has met with unpleasant consequences.

You either see for yourself the objective reality of moral law operating in your own life, or you don't. It's not my job to try to convince you.

I can only state what is obvious to me:

The consequence of your failure to see the objective reality of moral law is to be perpetually angry at others, blaming (unjustly accusing) them for what you perceive as you being treated "unfairly". Hey, if you want to exist with that toxic attitude corroding your insides like acid... go for it. But while you will continue to exist, you will not live.

But in many cases, gold was not freely handed over. Consider this case:

[A] New York attorney...

There is the answer to your complaint right in front of your own eyes! :laugh:

Gus Farber, a diamond and jewelry merchant from San Francisco, was prosecuted for the sale of thirteen $20 gold coins without a license.

In what way did Farber "grant sanction"?

Gus granted sanction not for selling goid coins, but by being in business without getting a license.

So I repeat, when was FDR robbed of the gold that he ordered confiscated from American citizens who rightfully held it?

Again, the American citizens were not robbed. To be robbed is when possessions are taken without compensation.

First, they were paid in in exchange for the gold, negotiable legal tender at the rate of $20 an ounce.

Second, they were stupid enough to voluntarily make that exchange with the government which immediately afterwards valued the gold at $35 an ounce. Had they kept it, they would have enjoyed the potential profit instead of the government.

"But money demands of you the highest virtues,

if you wish to make it or to keep it."

--Ayn Rand

Moral: The world is filled with people who have failed to acquire virtue.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, the only reason to argue with an irrationalist is to highlight the irrationality, not to change his mind. In Greg's case to begin to make sense of him merely substitute "reality" for "God" whenever he mentions Him. Thus God's love would mean what you get when you act in accordance with reality and your own God (reality) given nature. You will still be left with a lot of crudity and illogic but sometimes good advice as to personal conduct. Greg tries to be consistent but he sometimes fails and covers it up with specious (contradictory) comments like a cat working out in a litter box. I don't think he consciously knows what he's doing, I think he's as honest as he can be and no troll, ironically, but there's no depth or need for depth in his asseverations or room for ratiocination which he 100% avoids and the rest of us implicitly beg for when answering him, even if we agree with him.

--Brant

Brant:

I believe that makes 2 seperate wise things you have said this week. Points well taken.

But I've made 20 posts so far!

--Brant

grump

I think Greg uses "God" for His moral gravitas and a locus for focus as "reality" is so diffuse (and needs a lot of thinking)

Brant:

Look at it this way: people who bat .300 in the Majors end up in the Hall of Fame. You were thus only 4 wise posts away from having contributed Hall of Fame level wisdom.

As it is (batting .100), you will likely never make it out of A ball, and can look forward to a fine career in the auto or insurance sales business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David writes:

No, Greg, the rocks don't freaking cry out.

Not yet...

If the rocks freaking cried out, it wouldn't really be faith, would it?

Exactly right.

I'm not talking about faith.

I'm talking about knowing.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David writes:

No, Greg, the rocks don't freaking cry out.

Not yet...

If the rocks freaking cried out, it wouldn't really be faith, would it?

Exactly right.

I'm not talking about faith.

I'm talking about knowing.

Greg

You might want to crack open your Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, the only reason to argue with an irrationalist is to highlight the irrationality, not to change his mind. In Greg's case to begin to make sense of him merely substitute "reality" for "God" whenever he mentions Him. Thus God's love would mean what you get when you act in accordance with reality and your own God (reality) given nature. You will still be left with a lot of crudity and illogic but sometimes good advice as to personal conduct. Greg tries to be consistent but he sometimes fails and covers it up with specious (contradictory) comments like a cat working out in a litter box. I don't think he consciously knows what he's doing, I think he's as honest as he can be and no troll, ironically, but there's no depth or need for depth in his asseverations or room for ratiocination which he 100% avoids and the rest of us implicitly beg for when answering him, even if we agree with him.

Brant:

I believe that makes 2 seperate wise things you have said this week. Points well taken.

But I've made 20 posts so far!

--Brant

grump

I think Greg uses "God" for His moral gravitas and a locus for focus as "reality" is so diffuse (and needs a lot of thinking)

Brant:

Look at it this way: people who bat .300 in the Majors end up in the Hall of Fame. You were thus only 4 wise posts away from having contributed Hall of Fame level wisdom.

As it is (batting .100), you will likely never make it out of A ball, and can look forward to a fine career in the auto or insurance sales business.

Heh, heh. I sell options, do option spreads and will trade forex next year.

--Brant

fly an airplane and ride a horse and drive an 18-wheeler--can't swim worth a damn--and brag, all with only two standard deviations (up?/down?) off average intelligence (which is better than my Dad did with six [up])

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moralist writes, "Yes. All it takes is a little introspection into your own life to see the obvious."

As I have said, since I have not been a bicycle thief myself, no amount of introspection can show me that the person who stole my bicycle ended up being “taken by others.” As useful a mode of thinking as introspection is, it does not produce clairvoyance; I have no way of going back in time or peering through walls or great distances to see that the person with my bicycle got his comeuppance.

Moralist writes, "You either see for yourself the objective reality of moral law operating in your own life, or you don't."

The operation of moral law in my own life in no way establishes how it operates in the lives of others. The fact that I respect the rights of my neighbors offers no clue as to whether thieves, frauds and thugs get what they deserve for their misdeeds.

Moralist says that I have failed to “see the objective reality of moral law.” On the contrary, along with Ayn Rand I recognize the existence of a discoverable moral law that is based on man’s nature and that is independent of laws created by the state. See "Man's Rights."

When he writes, "The consequence of your failure to see the objective reality of moral law is to be perpetually angry at others, blaming (unjustly accusing)," I have no idea what he is referring to. I brought up the example of the thief of my stolen bicycle only to show that there is no way to know that this thief was himself “taken” or victimized by others. I brought up the U.S. government's criminalizing of gold ownership for the same reason. Are these the "unjust" accusations he has in mind? They are in fact perfect examples of what he in Post #7 calls the "immoral person who takes what he does not rightfully deserve to possess."

“Objective reality” is a realm that can be perceived by more than one person. If the inevitable consequences of an immoral action are ill effects on the perpetrator, it should be a simple matter to show that this is a universal phenomenon with volumes of evidence from objective reality to offer in support. Yet I see no indication that Mobutu Sese Seko, Saparmurat Niyazov, François Duvalier, Kim Jong-il or any of dozens of other evil dictators suffered even slightly from running long-term, state-enforced kleptocracies.

Moralist says, “It’s not my job to try to convince you.” That is certainly one thing that his arguments effectively demonstrate.

Moralist quotes Wikipedia "[A] New York attorney..." and then writes, "There is the answer to your complaint right in front of your own eyes!"

What complaint of mine is he referring to and how exactly does this quotation answer it?

He says gold dealer “Gus [Farber] granted sanction” by “being in business without getting a license.” Actually, the charges against him were based not on the absence of a business license but a license from the Secretary of the Treasury to sell gold, a license permitted to only a few traders. See http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usagold.com%2Fgildedopinion%2Fgoldregs.pdf&ei=5fZ8U835L8GFqgaY4YLoCw&usg=AFQjCNH7BZAumO0kjyaLb8Q1d8WAqsBQwg&bvm=bv.67229260,d.b2k Gus Farber would certainly not have been granted a license to carry on the domestic gold coin sales he engaged in. In fact, seeking such a license might only have brought unwanted federal attention to his business.

More importantly, the very fact that Farber did not seek a license would bolster the case that he did nothing to grant the government sanction to steal his gold.

But all this is beside the central point. I brought up the example of Farber to show that there is no evidence in the historical record to demonstrate that as a result of his Executive Order 6102 FDR suffered ill consequences for his thievery or was taken by thieves himself. If anything, FDR, his family, and his cronies only prospered from his several terms in the White House.

Clearly, Farber’s gold coins were immorally confiscated with complete disregard for his property rights. No action on Farber’s part showed a lack of virtue or merited the loss of thousands of dollars in coins that were rightfully his. If conducting business without a license is a real crime (i.e., one with a victim), one shouldn’t have to pay a fortune as a penalty. The fact that the President and his minions were able to seize a businessman’s inventory and suffer no legal or financial repercussions demonstrates that there is no automatic righting of wrongs or just deserts in the real world.

And as for those that did turn in their gold, they acted under duress. A relative of mine who worked as a door-to-door gold confiscator in the 1930's told me that his instructions were to threaten people that if they did not now submit to the fixed, low price trade-in of coins for inflatable dollars, their homes would be searched and their gold taken with nothing given in return. There is nothing "voluntary" about this kind of negotiation.

Let me add one more point. There were many Americans who secretly kept their gold coins despite Executive Order 6102. Yet because of FDR’s criminalizing of real money, these gold owners were unable to legally and publicly use their assets to engage in trade and investments or protect themselves from inflation. They were denied full access to their rightful property. Where is the evidence that FDR endured negative consequences for his actions in depriving decent people of their ability to use money?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David writes:

You might want to crack open your Bible.

Those are nice verses about faith. But I already told you I'm not referring to faith at all. I'm talking about knowing.

Jesus:

"The person who has My commands and keeps them is the one who really loves Me; and whoever really loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I too will love him and will reveal Myself to him. I will let Myself be clearly seen by him and make Myself real to him."

Clearly, He is not talking about faith here... but rather when faith is displaced by reality.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant writes:I think Greg uses "God" for His moral gravitas and a locus for focus as "reality".
I didn't create moral law so it's not "my gravitas". I only exercise my own free choice to live by it just like anyone can exercise their own free choice not to.
is so diffuse (and needs a lot of thinking)
The objective reality of moral law is anything but "diffuse" when it gives you the smack up the side of your head you deserve. The trick is to pay attention of the subtle gentle taps on the shoulder before they become smacks. We can choose to learn the easy way or the hard way. But no matter which way......we will learn. :wink:Greg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant writes:

Heh, heh. I sell options, do option spreads and will trade forex next year.

While everyone is busy betting on Red and Black...

...no one sees Green Double Zero coming. :wink:

I highly recommend "The Black Swan", by Nassim Taleb. I'm in the middle of it right now, and it is positively riveting! Nassim was a hedge fund manager as well as a derivatives trader, and is presently an adviser to the International Monetary Fund.

He just ~might~ cause you to see trading in a completely new light.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frank writes:

The operation of moral law in my own life in no way establishes how it operates in the lives of others.

Ok, Frank. :smile:

You have just clearly defined your view and have shown exactly how it differs from my view. There is nothing further to discuss on this topic as you already have exactly what you deserve in your life as the consequence of your own view just as I do for mine.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David writes:

Also, you really shouldn't quote others and omit parts of their statements, such as you did with my statement above, without at least using an ellipses to show that you have omitted parts of those statements. This is not only common courtesy to those you are quoting, but also to the reader as well.

Sorry for that, David...

It was a parenthetical insertion I removed so as not to cloud your original point with the added personal comment.

I know you fashion yourself as something of the last word about all things God on this forum--but have you considered the possibiity that your arguments in favor of God are simply a circular form of question begging, and that such circular question begging gives far too little credit to actual arguments in favor of a belief in God, or Christianity for that matter?

Very perceptive... they most certainly are circular question beggars, for each person to decide whether or not to ask for themselves. It's not up me to answer the question of God for others. It's up to God to answer that question Himself.

There is no argument to make, because no one could ever be convinced to change their view by mere words on a monitor. Instead I simply state I know God exists. To me, God is not an abstract article of religious faith. He is a literal reality in my life.

While Joseph Smith was in prison in rural Missouri in the mid 19th century, he claims God spoke very directly and specifically to him--specific words, specific instructions, more or less gave him a playbook-- and one result of that communication is a large group of people we now call Mormons. My suspicion is that you are not one of those Mormons.

You're suspicion is correct. I'm not only "not one of those Mormons", I'm not a Mormon at all. This is not to disparage Mormons, as I know some fine upright "Latter Day Saints" (I even love that term :smile: ) as well as good and decent Jehovah's Witnesses, but I'm not one of them either. I've worked for an order of Nuns for decades, yet I'm not a Catholic. I also work for a local Chabad Rabbi, yet I'm not a Jew.

What is the ONE common quality ALL these people with such diverse religions share:

~MORAL VALUES~

It is decent peoples' actions which make this world good... not their beliefs.

But there are millions Mormons in the world, and they are Mormons because of an argument--and one that pushed them in the direction Latter Day Saints, as opposed, say, to the Jehovah's Witnesses--not because of "the objective moral reality of [their] own lives"--whatever that means.

"Objective moral reality of your own life" simply means the just and deserved consequences you yourself set into motion by your own actions.

In my experience, real life is more convincing than all the wordy arguments in the world. :smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg:

I hope you realize you are using an argument to try to show why arguments are not necessary for a belief in God, but, that aside, I have two serious questions--and I don't mean them to come across as dismissive:

1. Do you know of any other person (let's exclude your wife here) who has come to a belief in God by way of the path you are describing?

2. Is there an actual Christian denomination that holds the theological views you have described here on OL?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now