Well, I'm not sure that we're having any disagreement of logic at all.  I, too, think that puppies and babies can do things which, if an adult had done them, would be sinful in a more meaningful way than having breached simple fealty.  

It's not for any difference in inference that we reach disparate conclusions, as far as I can see.

(November 17, 2018 at 2:49 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Well, I'm not sure that we're having any disagreement of logic at all.  I, too, think that puppies and babies can do things which, if an adult had done them, would be sinful in a more meaningful way than having breached simple fealty.  

It's not for any difference in inference that we reach disparate conclusions, as far as I can see.

Ah there is the difference Allow me to restate your words to clarify my position. I think that puppies and babies can do things which, if an adult had done them, would be sinful and is sinful to the puppy/baby as well. I'll check back in later, I have a previous engagement.

Exactly, since I posit a requirement of knowledge that we can be reasonably sure the pups and babes do not possess, then their moral status and considerations of desert will invariably arrive at different conclusions in each of their cases.  OTOH, sin as breach of fealty leaves nothing about the act, itself..to be sinful in the first place.  Two people could do the same thing, and if a god had only told one of them not to do it, it would be sinful for the one..but not the other - regardless of either's level of knowledge or if they were..in point of fact..the same person in two separate instances of the same act.

(November 17, 2018 at 10:01 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: The only problem I would have with this is the idea that there exists such a thing as direct perception independent of interpretation.  As Nietzsche said, “There are no facts, only interpretations.”  And that thought is underwritten by the observation that all observation is theory dependent, whether underdetermined by theory or not.  One might argue that such things as direct qualitative experience such as the color red do not suffer this flaw, but that would simply be shifting the source of interpretation from conscious to unconscious processes and constraints.  As Kant argued rather forcefully, our perceptions of the world are highly structured and not in any sense a mirror of reality.  So unless Adam and Eve were some sort of alien species, I don't see this suggestion as particularly tenable, though in some quarters, notably modern pragmatism, it may carry some weight.  But then again, that's just my interpretation of things.

Yes, very much agreed. And not just because I have to be civil.

What you describe is the human condition. The interpretation of the Bible that I mention is a kind of thought experiment, designed to make us wonder "what if"? 

If we had direct perception, what would the world be like? If language were essential and not contingent, how would things be different? If a perfectly good human existed, what would happen to him? 

And I don't think it makes all those things true or possible, but in practice it becomes a kind of challenge or limit-case. Like in epistemology class people mention God not because they believe in him, but because the concept is a marker for what full perception would entail. 

Nietzsche sees chaos behind our interpretations, which he likens to dream images. Blake, in a surprisingly similar structure, also says our normal perceptions are just images, but behind them is Oneness -- which is God.

I would expect the same things to happen to a perfectly good human that happen to any other human, personally.
(just the one that stood out)

(November 17, 2018 at 1:15 pm)John V Wrote: Maybe each person has a unique name connected with their essence.

You probably know... This is an important concept in esoteric systems, including Kaballah. 

It's thought that knowing the true name of something -- connected with its essence -- gives enormous power. So the true names of God or the angels are closely guarded secrets. 

I suspect that John the Divine knew about that. 

Although there is also the "he who has ears to hear" less magical version, in which some people are just spiritually ready to understand and others aren't. 

(I always feel that my cats' names are provisional labels they tolerate, while only they know their true cat names.)

Rumplestiltskin expresses the same contention.  It's interesting, I suppose...but perhaps it's a way of saying that a person who truly knows us has us at their command?

(November 17, 2018 at 6:52 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Rumplestiltskin expresses the same contention.  It's interesting, I suppose...but perhaps it's a way of saying that a person who truly knows us has us at their command?

No proof, of course, but I've always suspected that Rumplestiltskin was a kind of trickle-down of the Kabbalistic concept to a popular level. 

And your reading makes sense to me... The more we reveal, the more vulnerable we are.

It's unlikely, you'll find the name-as-power theme all over the world. It just seems to be an idea that resonates with us, like a bow. Multiple instances of parallel independent construction.

It's why I go by false names, and perhaps why Scratch himself is known by so many but none true.

(November 17, 2018 at 3:02 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Exactly, since I posit a requirement of knowledge that we can be reasonably sure the pups and babes do not possess, then their moral status and considerations of desert will invariably arrive at different conclusions in each of their cases.  OTOH, sin as breach of fealty leaves nothing about the act, itself..to be sinful in the first place.  Two people could do the same thing, and if a god had only told one of them not to do it, it would be sinful for the one..but not the other - regardless of either's level of knowledge or if they were..in point of fact..the same person in two separate instances of the same act.

I agree that knowledge would be required TO sin. Knowledge or intent with action. I am positing that sin itself is defined as disobedience to God. I believe I see where you are headed with that OTOH. If God told one person not to kill Timmy but told another to kill Timmy that it wouldn’t be sinful. If both people are following God’s will then neither one has sinned, IMO. Personal morality is subjective. I don’t define sin as subjective because I believe in an objective moral authority.