I should have added, for this audience in particular, that the term 'libertarian free will' used in this article is a theological term of art and has almost no relation with the political philosophy of the same name (i.e., the 'classical liberalism' of yesteryear). To conflate them in the context of this article would be a category mistake.
This debate came up in Adult Sunday School today:
Far from being 'speculative nonsense,' getting this doctrine right (or wrong) can have significant impact on our heart-stance before the Lord in the face of deep suffering and loss.
if I don't get my fleece-lined-flannel on fast enough after a nice long cold plunge I become a very high-vibe individual
In tomorrow's Adult Sunday School, we'll finish up WLC 18 and cover [WLC](https://opc.org/lc.html) 19:
```
Q. 19. What is God’s providence towards the angels?
A. God by his providence permitted some of the angels, willfully and irrecoverably, to fall into sin and damnation, limiting and ordering that, and all their sins, to his own glory; and established the rest in holiness and happiness; employing them all, at his pleasure, in the administrations of his power, mercy, and justice.
```
(Deo Volente)
book arrived today. looking forward to it.
got pulled away but appreciated this interaction even though we disagree. just got zapper back up after about 3 days so sending a bit your way as thanks
hey nostr:nprofile1qqsrfud256c4pr0qh2elppkyh4dm676slpveg5wxu69vj40usdhre4spz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsz9mhwden5te0wfjkccte9ec8y6tdv9kzumn9wshsz9mhwden5te0wfjkccte9ehx7uewwdhkx6tpdshsv6utgk, is your #zapper down? getting an error trying to zap you
maybe I should go fix my #zapper, yeah?
some of these youts need a good zappin'
The Rocketeer (1991)
A stunt pilot comes across a prototype jetpack that gives him the ability to fly. However, evil forces of the world also want this jetpack at any cost.
https://archive.org/download/the-rocketeer/The%20Rocketeer.mp4
#action #adventure #sci-fi #film #movies #kinostr
Disney used to make good clean fun
Right. And when we played with "liquid silver" (i.e., _mercury_) in our bare hands in science class...
I wonder if there have been negative health effects from handling heavily dyed paper/plastic instead of (antimicrobial) silver and gold. We absorb a little bit of whatever we touch. Wacky? maybe
coffee is hot
sourdough is fresh
mmm, ahhh, G-to-the-M
⛈️
guess it's _indoor_ project day
It's like the 'upside down' version of the 'word of faith' movement -- "words create reality"
delusional is 💯
...but the one the vote-harders deserve? 😬
GM
#nicotine is not without risks, but can have therapeutic benefit for ADHD, Alzheimer's, MDD, Myocarditis, and even has anti-inflammatory effects given the right 'internal environment' (i.e., high pH).
(Just don't smoke it.)
#DYOR
She's not on nostr...but she did make sourdough...close enough. 😁
FEWER grains LESS salty
FEWER [quantity] LESS [quality]
FEWER [noun] LESS [adjective]
#harumph
it's a joke, don't
illegal to shoot bald eagles
love how windows is now all like 'wym? blue screen is totally normal'
friggin' #zapper down again
port 22 connection refused
then all ports closed
#umbrel
If I'm the guest, 100 to 1. But I wouldn't demand or even expect it of my guests--especially if they're from out of town. In which case, I still consider myself their host.
Welp, today's the big day. Fiat mine forcing the upgrade to Windows 11 on (their) asset.
Drop your best tips to minimize the agony below...zaps for good ones I can implement without ~sudo~ cough Administrative Privileges™...
#asknostr #windows #grimace
Ruling out those relevant facts of our existence is arbitrary, but sure, I'll give it a try.
The very word 'conception' means beginning. What is it the _beginning_ of? If left to follow its natural course, what will it become? Whatever it will be, it began to be that, at its _conception_.
If it's not alive, then why is it growing (metabolizing, etc.)?
If it's not a human, then what is it?
If it's not OK to murder (otherwise innocent) living humans outside the womb, how is it somehow OK to kill this (otherwise innocent) living human inside the womb?
Bro...if the elephant were _actually there_, then yes--I would have been ignoring and "denying" the elephant if I wasn't thinking of it. And certainly, if there was an elephant, it would be extremely relevant--don't you think? (And if there was an elephant, wouldn't you think me a little odd for having ignored something so obvious?)
Again: presuppositions. I gotta run. ✌️
Well, as I hope you are aware...a sperm is only one half of a human person, so no. Surely you know that people like me argue that human life begins at conception.
But a human is a human, no matter how small. And the smaller they are, the more in need of protection. On this point, I will not negotiate. Human dignity -- the dignity of each, individual person -- is one of the wonderful side effects of believing that we are made in the image of God.
I knew that's what you meant...I was making the somewhat facetious point that the initial assumption of where I live determines whether their jurisdiction "exists in my life."
It's that presupposition thing again. None of us are neutral.
No, the NAP apples to human persons as human persons: 1) to quote Rothbard, "The animals may have rights when they petition for them"; and 2) to quote that other eminent philosopher, Dr. Suess, "a person's a person, no matter how small." "Object permanence" is a very early stage of childhood development that a lot of pro-"choice"-ers seem to have missed: just because you cannot see it, doesn't mean it isn't there. Peek-a-boo! ;-)
Surely you don't mean that we can aggress against the mentally handicapped with impunity? Who gets to define the line between the capable and the incapable? Because, honstly, that last sentence reads like it's on a trajectory toward "useless eaters" having to "justify their existence" to the deciders - a la [George Bernard Shaw](https://www.bitchute.com/video/PK53hCbuScna/). Surely, you don't mean that?
I meant no offense. From my perspective, his existence (and, thus, his presence) is as ubiquitous as the very air we breath. So, hearing someone express disbelief in God sounds to my ear very similar to someone expressing disbelief in air (while making use of that very air to do so). Again: I meant no offense.
To answer your question, are we assuming that I _do_ live in Cambodia, or that I _do not_ live in Cambodia? (And isn't that rather the point?)
🤙🏻
Fair warning: Van Til is heaving sledding, to be sure. He "wrote in English, but he thought in Dutch." You might start with _The Defense of the Faith_ to ease into it, or _A Christian Theory of Knowledge_ if you want to jump in with both feet. I can't say for sure where that exact quote came from, but the thrust of it is scattered through many of his writings. I read a dozen(?) of his books, and they've rather blended together over the years.
Sure, in a pluralistic/classical liberal society, we don't have to agree _why_ we shouldn't lie, cheat, or kill--so long as we all agree that we shouldn't, then we can live peacably.
But when the question does turn to why--say, over a fine meal--we have to get 'back of' those assumptions. "Why do you believe that? How can you say that consistently? Etc." Many people can count very well, but they cannot _account_ for counting. Many can reason well (like Mises) but they cannot _account_ for the capacity to reason--where did it come from? What does it reveal? Etc. But when the plumber comes over, we don't discuss metaphsyics. He knows how to plumb and, for those purposes, that is enough.
I happen to believe that those who are most incapable of reasoning are the ones most susceptible to violence--and thus the NAP applies perhaps even more so to them. The strong should protect the weak--not unperson them.
Perhaps I've misunderstood your meaning.
I think metaphysics not only should but _must_ precede epistemology and ethics (and I'd put politics and economics in the larger category of ethics--i.e., "how should we treat one another?").
Denying God, you must agree, is an equally strong bias to start with?
Hm...that is intriguing. Going to try to order that book you recommended.
My apologies - I must be confusing you with someone else.
Yes, it's almost funny how close Rothbard comes at points. Almost like Jordan Peterson -- I don't accept it fully, but we should all live "as if" it's true. (Kinda sad, actually...why not just dive in to grace! What's so unappealing about the forgiveness of sins, anyway!?)
I'm not sure...I would have no North Star, no 'measuring stick' against which to test things--knowing that I myself am infinite and fallible. I don't mean to be trite or spin platitudes, but it's something quite like what C. S. Lewis said: "I don't believe in the sun because I can see it, but because by it I can see everything else." I really don't know the answer to that question otherwise, but I appreciate you asking it.
For the sake of argument, say that the God of the Christian Scriptures does exist--and has spoken. Shouldn't that influence...everything? I believe he does, and he has--so cannot justify leaving him _out_ of the equation. (In fact, I'd have a hard time justifying _equations_ at all--but that's beside the point.)
This is kind of the argument of _presuppositional apologetics_ -- no one argues from a position of 'neutrality.' We start with God, we end with God -- or we start rejecting him, and end without him too. At the top rung of every logical chain of argumetn is that principal starting point: God is, _therefore_... or God is not, _therefore_... Dostoevsky got at the heart of this when he said, "If there is no God, then all things are permissible."
Thank you. Will check these out. I'm very interested to ensure that my political and economic views are in alignment with, and flow from, my ultimate metaphysical and epistemological convictions--i.e., Christian Theism. I've heard that Hoppe was greatly influenced by Jurgen Moltmann (a Critical theorist), so I've been somewhat hesitant to jump in, but I'm wiling to hear him out. From what little I've heard, it sounds like his 'argumentation ethics' may even have some overlap with what -- in other circles -- we call _presuppositional apologetics_. But I could be way off on that.
That's been my take on Mises, too. I read quite a bit of Van Til (who was somewhat critical of Kant) before I read much of Mises, so that epistmological frame always stuck out to me as a problem.
BTW, nostr:npub1xnc64f432zx7pw4n7zrvf02mh4a4p7zej3gude52e92leqmw8ntqd43qnl, quick anecdote--do I remember correctly that you're a Roman catholic? Ironically enough, the guy who got me interested in Van Til (who is critical of Rome) back in about 2004 is an ardent, devout RC (and was my 'Best Man' at my wedding). We have a good laugh whenever I 'thank him' for that.