Religion
Related: About this forumCliven Bundy: God Told Me To Fight 'Civil War' Against Feds
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/03/cliven-bundy-iap-god-civil-war-_n_5646121.htmlAP
Posted: 08/03/2014 6:17 pm EDT Updated: 08/03/2014 6:59 pm EDT
BUNKERVILLE, NV - APRIL 24: Rancher Cliven Bundy speaks during a news conference near his ranch on April 24, 2014 in Bunkerville, Nevada. The Bureau of Land Management and Bundy have been locked in a dispute for a couple of decades over grazing rights on public lands. (Photo by David Becker/Getty Images)
ST. GEORGE, Utah (AP) — Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy claims the April confrontation between the federal government and his armed supporters was part of an age-old spiritual battle between good and evil.
Bundy, a Mormon, told an Independent American Party gathering in St. George, Utah, on Saturday that God provided him personal inspiration in the showdown over cattle in Bunkerville, Nevada, about 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas.
"The Lord told me ... if (the local sheriff doesn't) take away these arms from federal agents, we the people will have to face these arms in a civil war. He said, 'This is your chance to straighten this thing up,'" Bundy said, according to The Spectrum of St. George (http://bit.ly/1pRx8nq ).
The U.S. Bureau of Land Management backed down in the standoff, citing safety concerns. Bundy's allies subsequently released the 380 cattle collected from the range during a weeklong operation.
more at link
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
bravenak
(34,648 posts)God didn't say 'pay your bills', he said 'start a civil war'. Yeah right.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)because he is very likely going to prison for quite a while.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Everyone else does and they seem to depend on it. He'll be in good company with all the other people that god told to do stupid things. They can help each other figure out that it had nothing to do with god.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)However, I tend to think his beliefs may be driven more than his greed than his faith.
Perhaps he will really see the light while inside.
One of the deadly sins, right? Yes, he needs reflection.
Downwinder
(12,869 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)He cherry picks what he thinks will appeal to his unibrowed, mouthbreathing knuckle dragging troglodytes. He didn't have a problem with the part about God "ORDERING" his sorry ass to "FIGHT" some civil war BUT that other stuff about giving to Caesar what belongs to Caesar , NOT lying, NOT stealing, not so much, huh, clivey? This sorry assed moron wouldn't last 5 minutes in a paintball war, let alot a hot shooting civil war.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)
Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)He's not psychotic, imo he's just a sociopath.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)was a lot of stuff like "render unto Caesar..." "Blessed are the peacemakers..." and pay your bills.
But he chose to ignore those parts.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)What a farce.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)The sooner the better.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)that's just me.
phantom power
(25,966 posts)
riqster
(13,986 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)On what basis would his claim be rejected?
I mean, if the rest of us are supposed to take the idea that God exists seriously, why should we not take this guy seriously when he says God told him something? Can God not communicate with people?
(I'm looking for something a little more substantive than "well... well... God just wouldn't!"
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)They say, respectively, that you will know false prophets by their fruit, and that whoever does not love doesn't know God, because God is love.
Also, 1 Thessalonians 5:21, which says: test everything, hold to the good.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)That's a mighty vague and subjective criteria you just proposed.
2 Kings 2 23:25
That says that Elisha (prophet) called on God to have a bear maul and kill a few dozen children for calling him names... and God apparently thought "good idea my prophet!" and we got a bunch of dead kids.
So what exactly is our criteria for judging "fruit" here... if not God and his prophet's own track record from the bible?
Also, I was unaware one had to be a prophet in order to hear God... as I have often been told I'm supposed to be listening harder for him and I'm almost certain that when those instructions are offered the implication is not that I am a prophet.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)how did you know which passage to offer me as a challenge to said criteria?
-
And in the Bible, someone becomes a prophet by hearing from God, rather than needing the status of a prophet first in order to then hear from God.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...how any person could possibly have written that post and thought it was a legitimate response to the problem presented. To paraphrase your response...
"Oh this is a problem? Well if it's a problem how did you know how to show me it was a problem? AHA! Checkmate!!!"
You could not possibly have been serious writing that nonsense. Yes, it is a vague and subjective criteria. Anyone can decide ANYTHING is a good or a bad "fruit" depending on their own personal biases. And if you try to appeal to general popular consensus I think you'll find "have bears maul dozens of children to death for calling you names" gets mostly "bad fruit" votes but there it is right in the bible... a prophet doing exactly that. Which makes it ridiculously clear that the criteria you have provided for recognizing a 'true prophet' is useless.
So you might look at Bundy and think "he's making all kinds of crazy statements and is a general all around gun toting conspiracy minded crackpot. Clearly that is bad fruit, and he is not a Real Prophet! And at the same time you have flocks of idiots running to his ranch with guns ready to rise up against the government because oh gosh what a heroic figure Mr gun toting lunatic conspiracy theorist is!!! The Lord is truly with him!
Vague. And. Subjective.
Completely Useless.
And I repeat, I am quite sure that all the people always telling me I don't try hard enough to listen to God are not telling me I should be making a more earnest attempt to be a Prophet of the Lord.
So I repeat my question now, can any believer tell us exactly what justification there is, if we're supposed to take the idea that God exists seriously, for concluding that said God didn't talk to Bundy? Besides just declaring that he must not have because Bundy is saying things you don't like?
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)then they are doing it wrong, aren't they? People misusing moral standards doesn't turn them all into subjective opinions.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)You have provided no alternative to them deciding based on their personal biases. As I have already pointed out.
Which is, you know, the problem. That the criteria you provided was vague and subjective and useless BECAUSE it relied on peoples purely personal judgement calls.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)Let me ask you this: how did you decide that what Bundy was doing was wrong? How did you get beyond your own subjective, personal opinion (if you think you did)? If you didn't, how is your opinion any better than those of his supporters?
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Judgement calls are BY DEFINITION not objective.
If it was an objective evaluating criteria it would not require a judgement call.
"Let me ask you this: how did you decide that what Bundy was doing was wrong? How did you get beyond your own subjective, personal opinion (if you think you did)?"
I didn't. That he did something wrong was my personal opinion. Just like whether or not he did is also your personal opinion, and everyone else's personal opinion. THAT'S THE FREAKING POINT. You are appealing to subjective judgments as the justification for evaluating an objective claim (whether or not a deity exists and, consequently, whether it communicated with someone).
That. Doesn't. Work.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)I thought we were assuming for the sake of argument that God existed, and then arguing over whether it was possible to tell true revelations from false ones.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)It is, implicitly, an argument over whether God exists.
The explicit form of that argument is pointing out that if we were to grant, for the sake of argument, that said God did exist then believers have no coherent means to differentiate between legitimate and bullshit claims about what said entity wants or does... thus illustrating the silliness of the initial claim and the ridiculous things it leads to if one were to actually take it seriously.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)are not the same claim, nor does "God exists" entail "God has given us personal revelation." Also, "God has given us personal revelation" doesn't entail "Human beings will have 100% perfect recognition and understanding of God's personal revelation".
And finally, denying the existence of objective moral standards DOES entail "there is no such thing as moral progress" because there would be no possibility of comparing moral claims. "Abolishing slavery was good" would have exactly the same standing as "Abolishing slavery was bad". And since I am confident that abolishing slavery was good, I must also accept the entailed claim that there is an objective standard to enable that comparison.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)I'm perfectly aware they're not the same claim.
"nor does "God exists" entail "God has given us personal revelation."
I Do Not Care. What I do care about is if you accept the former claim then you have no means of evaluating the latter. And thus there is no basis upon which to reject Bundy's claim that he did receive such personal revelation.
"Abolishing slavery was good" would have exactly the same standing as "Abolishing slavery was bad"."
With whom would it have the same standing? (Not with me)
"And since I am confident that abolishing slavery was good, I must also accept the entailed claim that there is an objective standard to enable that comparison."
And what objective standard would that be? Or did you miss that you're kind of skipping past that part?
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)Potential solution: deny that God told him to.
Obstacle: proving that God did not tell him to.
Further solution: refuse belief in existence of God altogether.
Am I correct that this is your plan? If so, let's explore an alternate question: what if we didn't deny Bundy's claim immediately? Could we still deny him moral standing? Perhaps:
Bundy: God told me to declare war on the federal government
Me: Ok, but why'd you listen? Do you do everything everyone tells you to do?
Bundy: No, but God is good (in fact he is supremely good), and so God's commands are good, and so I follow them.
Me: So the reasoning goes: If God told you to do it, then it is good?
Bundy: Yup, that's right!
Me: But we can also logically say the reverse: "if it is not good, then God did not tell you to do it."
Bundy: well, yes, that's so.
Me: then if I can logically demonstrate that your plan to declare civil war on the federal government is not good, then that would also disprove your claim that God told you to do it.
Thus, the means of evaluating Bundy's claim to personal revelation: evaluating the morality of his proposed action, which is why I've been discussing reasons for believing it is possible to objectively evaluate morality. If you reject the idea that it is possible to objectively evaluate morality, you would indeed leave no means of evaluating Bundy's claim, and no alternative but to deny belief in the existence of God (which actually wouldn't help you at all, now that morality is a matter of personal, subjective opinion. Bundy could just ignore your opinion on what he should do, and you would have no argument against him, as I explain below). So no, I haven't been avoiding the issue, I've been approaching it from a different angle.
-
Under your formula "abolishing slavery was good" is just your personal, subjective opinion. As such, it has the same standing as Bob's subjective, personal opinion that "abolishing slavery was bad". You wouldn''t change your moral standing in the least if you switched to Bob's opinion. Morality becomes similar to taste preferences, and nobody is a better or worse person based on their personal tastes.
-
I didn't miss that I was skipping that part, but I can establish the existence of the moral standard first, and then discover the substantive content of that standard through reflection on the various moral beliefs I hold, reason, and experience. It's a process.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Goal: we do not want to allow Cliven Bundy moral standing to declare civil war on the Federal government based on the claim: "God told me to"
Potential solution: deny that God told him to.
Obstacle: proving that God did not tell him to.
Further solution: refuse belief in existence of God altogether.
Am I correct that this is your plan?
I don't have a "plan", I was pointing something out... but close enough.
If so, let's explore an alternate question: what if we didn't deny Bundy's claim immediately? Could we still deny him moral standing? Perhaps:
Bundy: God told me to declare war on the federal government
Me: Ok, but why'd you listen? Do you do everything everyone tells you to do?
Bundy: No, but God is good (in fact he is supremely good), and so God's commands are good, and so I follow them.
Me: So the reasoning goes: If God told you to do it, then it is good?
Bundy: Yup, that's right!
Me: But we can also logically say the reverse: "if it is not good, then God did not tell you to do it."
Bundy: well, yes, that's so.
Me: then if I can logically demonstrate that your plan to declare civil war on the federal government is not good, then that would also disprove your claim that God told you to do it.
All fine, except the fact that I'm quite confident you can't actually do that last part in any way that would not end up establishing a moral standard that would define plenty of things the bible claims the prophets did in the name of God were also bad and thus the bible is lying about God telling them to do things.
And, to be clear, whatever standard you ended up establishing would still be a result of your own subjective evaluations. As you yourself even make clear although you appeared not to catch the significance of the statement:
"I didn't miss that I was skipping that part, but I can establish the existence of the moral standard first, and then discover the substantive content of that standard through reflection on the various moral beliefs I hold, reason, and experience. It's a process. "
If the content of the standard you end up landing on requires you to rely on evaluation of your personal beliefs to decide if you consider it to be valid or not, that's subjective. Someone else coming along doing the same thing reflecting on *their* personal beliefs is going to easily land on a different conclusion about what the content of this moral standard is.
Objective standards are totally independent of individuals personal beliefs.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)Only a problem for someone who grants equal weight to every scripture passage and reads every passage as intending to report facts. In this post, I highlighted a liberal Christian approach that doesn't do those things.
Objective standards are totally independent of individuals personal beliefs.
You're confusing the general origin of objective standards with how awareness and understanding of them grows in individual minds. The general origin is independent, awareness/understanding of them will necessarily grow subjectively.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)"You're confusing the general origin of objective standards with how awareness and understanding of them grows in individual minds. The general origin is independent, awareness/understanding of them will necessarily grow subjectively."
All you're doing is declaring that after going through this completely subjective process the answer you personally land on is your discovery of some objective moral standard.
But someone else following your same process relying on their reflection on their personal beliefs is just as easily going to arrive at a different answer for what that standard is. And they can just as easily declare that whatever they came up is their discovery of some objective moral standard. So you do this and you land on your answer for what is moral and what isn't and you declare "Aha! I have determined that the actions Bundy said God told him to do are immoral, and thus could not have come from God!
And Bundy does the exact same thing, and says "Aha! I have determined that the actions I said God told me to take are moral, and thus are completely consistent with being God's commands!"
And you have zero basis upon which to dispute the point, beyond saying you say he's wrong and he says he's right. Because you're appealing to a subjective process.
Just declaring the final outcome of your subjective moral valuations to be objective doesn't make them objective any more than if Bundy declared that his moral judgments were objective makes *them* objective. They're not.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)One of us has done the process incorrectly, and is either unaware of their mistake or is refusing to admit that they deliberately subverted the process. Just as the existence of creationist denial doesn't annul evolution, mistake or trickery doesn't annul the existence of objective moral standards.
And if the standard is "solving the problem", your solution fares worse. Not only can Bundy ignore your refusal to believe in God, he can ignore any other arguments you make because they are just your subjective opinion. He has his own opinion, why would he need or want anything to do with yours?
At least with my method, he could be asked to demonstrate his objective basis for believing his proposed action is good. On yours, he doesn't have to demonstrate anything at all.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)One of us has done the process incorrectly, and is either unaware of their mistake or is refusing to admit that they deliberately subverted the process.
... which once again you can provide no justification for that goes beyond "because I said so" due to the fact that you are unable to provide any objective reference point any person could possibly use to impartially evaluate whether one or both of you did so.
Reducing the entire exercise... *still*... to nothing more than you saying you're right because you say so, and Bundy or anyone else saying the exact same thing.
Which is what happens when you're dealing with purely subjective judgement calls.
And I believe you have lost sight of what the problem is... that being a complete and total inability to differentiate between fraudulent and legitimate claims to having received divine revelation *if you believe God exists to impart said revelations*.
My worldview presents me with no problems to solve here beyond what to do about the crazy person ranting about magical beings giving him direction in life. (Answer, let law enforcement deal with dangerous ranting crazy person)
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)that he's being incoherent (for example, by treating others in ways other than he would like to be treated), or that his reasoning leads to results that end up using people purely as means to an end, which is improper because human beings are not tools (a la Immanuel Kant). If my position is logically superior to his, then I've succeeded in my objective demonstration.
-
Unless he has the power to declare that you are the crazy one, and law enforcement hauls you off instead. That's what happens when morality becomes purely subjective opinion: it becomes an exercise in power.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)(for example, by treating others in ways other than he would like to be treated)
First, I don't think you can establish that since he can quite easily say he would want others to "rise up against TYRANNY!!!!!" as well. Since that's his view of things.
Second, you would first have to establish that "treat others as you wish to be treated" was, rather than your idea of a good moral guideline, some kind of requirement of logic. Good luck with that.
or that his reasoning leads to results that end up using people purely as means to an end,
First... in what way? He would almost certainly respond that "THROWING OFF THE SHACKLES OF A TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT!!!!!" was in no way using people as nothing more than a means to an end.
Second, same problem as above. Please explain how you would show that NOT using people as a means to an end is a requirement of logic such that if you were to demonstrate he was using people as a means to an end that would then establish he was being logically inconsistent???
And just in general, you do an awful lot of stating hypothetical ways you might be able to justify your position but never actually following through and doing it. I would think that would suggest something to you.
Unless he has the power to declare that you are the crazy one, and law enforcement hauls you off instead. That's what happens when morality becomes purely subjective opinion: it becomes an exercise in power.
No, morality is and will always remain nothing but a subjective value judgement.
*Law enforcement* is an exercise in power, based on the application of objective and codified rules of behavior agreed upon by societal consensus (be those rules moral or not)
Two different things. Although people do tend to muddle them up quite a bit.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)to be paid for use of the land it owns on behalf of the people. Bundy wouldn't accept anyone ducking out on a bill he sent them with cries of "tyranny." And "treat others as you wish to be treated" is a demand for consistency, which is at the very heart of logic. Instead of respecting the humanity (and by extension their existence as rational people entitled to reasonable behavior from him) of the people in whose name the government owns the land, by paying for what he has taken from them, he is insisting that they have no right to expect payment, that their rights can be trampled on. He then contradicts himself every time he opens his mouth to ask for his rights to be respected. That contradiction undermines the morality of his position, and the claim that it came from God, in one fell swoop.
*Law enforcement* is an exercise in power, based on the application of objective and codified rules of behavior agreed upon by societal consensus (be those rules moral or not)
Two different things. Although people do tend to muddle them up quite a bit.
What is the difference between "standards" and "rules of behavior"? I ask because you already announced the means for determining objectivity:
Objective standards are totally independent of individuals personal beliefs.
But when it comes to "rules of behavior", suddenly a pile of subjective opinions can become "objective" when they are all collected together! And if the social consensus changes the next day, the next week, the next year, a new pile of subjective opinions will become objective. If we adhere to your old standard, the laws become as subjective as the opinions that formed them, and what obligation does Bundy have to follow multiple subjective opinions on equal standing with his?
But if we adhere to your new standard, the "objective and codified rules of behavior agreed upon by societal consensus" in the South used to be Jim Crow. Which was worth more, that or Martin Luther King Jr's "subjective opinion" that those laws were unjust, and by what standard can we decide that question, if everything beyond the law is just subjective opinion, as you insist?
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)"His so-called tyranny is the fact that the government expects to be paid for use of the land it owns on behalf of the people..."
...and I think that. But that's not the point. The point is HIS perception of the situation. If you can't convince him he's wrong about the government being the bad guys in this then your appeal to "treat others as you would wish to be treated" is pointless and ineffective. Because in HIS view he's already doing that! In HIS view public land means the public and NOT the government owns it and therefore charging for it's use is wrong.
He's an idiot, but that's not going to make it any easier for you to convince him you're right and he's wrong on a MORAL judgement by appealing to logic.
You really have a difficult time handling this whole subjective value judgement concept don't you?
"What is the difference between "standards" and "rules of behavior"? I ask because you already announced the means for determining objectivity: "
There is absolutely no difference whatsoever between "standards" and "rules of behavior"
What I said is there is a difference between subjective moral judgements (or standards or rules) and objectively defined LAWS used as rules for behavior.
Because moral value judgements are made by individuals, and laws are written down, rigorously defined, and then applied to everyone equally whether they agree with them or not. Any one act can be either right or wrong to any given individual person based on how they view the situation, but how they view the situation doesn't alter whether the act is *legal*.
You can think stealing bread to feed a kid is an immoral act of theft. You can think stealing bread to feed a kid is a moral and compassionate act. The morality of the act is highly subjective and dependent on your personal viewpoint. But theft remains theft which is illegal REGARDLESS of your personal views on the morality of the specific act. Which makes *that* an objective rule of behavior. It is illegal totally independent of your personal view on whether any specific instance was right or wrong.
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)ignorant hypocritical audience. A Belated Welcome to DU, Htom Sirveaux...RIGHT GLAD TAMEETCHA!! 
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)Cheers!
KansDem
(28,498 posts)
Turbineguy
(37,332 posts)God was too busy advising that fuckhead.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)After all the SCOTUS opened the door to such absurdity.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Bundy just might be grandstanding to his fans in hopes of receiving donations to pay his defense attorney.
It just couldn't be anything as ordinary as that, could it?
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)any idiot can be a preacher.
Maybe he should get together with the Duck Dynasty clan.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
Fix The Stupid
(948 posts)How does that make any sense?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Fix The Stupid
(948 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)
Fix The Stupid
(948 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Gee, I wonder why.
pinto
(106,886 posts)Bizarre.
