Tyler H

I don't understand; how could anything or anyone be inconsistent with what it or he is? Regardless, you've just defined justice as God. If God is justice, how do we know that? Coke is it. What is "it"? Coke. It's a meaningless tautology. So holiness is perfect morality? What is morality? We must have a standard in order to ensure He meets it right?

It's important to make the distinction, because a nation is not a thing making decisions, creating property, or acting on reality - individual people are doing that. People use concepts to shift the consequences of their actions to abstractions in order to escape said consequences.

Correct. The individual people exist; the concept family, which describes the relationship the individuals have with each other, does not exist. That example is comprised of people making decisions with their own property and agreements with regard to each others actions with said property - the concept owns nothing. I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be embezzlement anyway, but regardless embezzlement is not reality, that's another concept describing actions and decisions made by people. If you can't distinguish the difference between things that exist in reality and concepts then I'm not sure how we can continue this discussion.

Welcome Mr. M.O.M.

Could you define justice and holiness for me please?

Thanks @shirgall. Sorry, I just saw I hadn’t responded to this.

There are plenty of justifications to take the job, the state doesn’t leave us much choice in the world. This is a personal decision that I think, for whatever that’s worth, you should make based upon what you expect your conscience will let you live with. It sounds like you would not feel comfortable if something you did increased the psychological ease with which someone else could murder or the death count they would generate. We know there are quite a bit of civilian casualties. I think from what you’ve said if you had any other option you would prefer that; have you exhausted every other possibility?

Oh, so he’s a sadist who likes to show off then? He created sentient beings in order to make them suffer, and this displays justice and holiness?

Formation is not a term that only relates to physical, tangible existence. Ideas are formed, conclusions are formed, friendships are formed- all abstract concepts. Second, I don’t know where you are getting that I said something that exists requires individual actors or requires direction, a rock has neither of those properties. Defining existence as material (and I would add the space between) is only contradictory if you include the first two statements, which I wouldn’t. I know a nation has the first two properties, and not the third. Kind of the point. Forget the semantics. There is a difference between that which is material and that which is conceptual. That’s the distinction I’m pointing out.

Ok, what is your understanding of my definition?

What is your definition of existence?

Who said anything about impossibility? I'm talking about things that exist in reality, things that occupy physical space. Numbers, the scientific method, mathematical equations; all these abstract concepts have requirements, yet do not exist in material space. Supports my position, not yours. Remove the individual actors and the abstract concept has no ability to claim or exercise ownership, because it does not exist, proving the individual actors are ones exercising their ownership.

Uh, no. The nation is a title, the individuals claim and exercise ownership. You conveniently disregarded addressing the point that a nation doesn't exist, and therefore can't own anything. I'll concede that point. However, it would be the exception not the rule.

But there is unlimited demand for money isn’t there? The demand for tickets is set by what the ticket allows access to and how many people desire that access. It seems like you’re comparing apples and oranges.

So how could we make women property if they own themselves?

But the abstract entity created by the individuals has absolutely no ability claim ownership nor exercise that ownership without the direction of the individuals by whom it was created. Corporations, nations, governments, they do nothing, they do not exist in reality. The individuals in control of the abstractions do. The individuals alone exercise and transfer ownership based upon the agreed upon rules, not the abstraction. It’s not an assumption. It’s an argument based on the definition of property and existence. You haven’t disproven the position because in order to do that you would need to point out to me this thing called a nation which makes use of property without human interaction. Even if we were to disregard all of that, the nation is still formed on the violation of property and could not claim property justly based on that alone.

What is your understanding of property and how it is derived?

Oh, my bad. No need for philosophy everyone, shut it down. Wikipedia’s got us covered. A nation is is an abstract concept, not something that actually exists and therefore doesn’t even have the most basic prerequisite for laying claim to anything.

@Phuein How is death evil?

I’m sad to hear of your troubles my friend. I hope maybe I can provide some help. Stef has said that the false self is the part of our personality that is adapted to threats, and no longer consciously recognizes the adaptation or the threat. If our parents threaten us with hell when we are a children, we can’t tell them how immoral they are being. If we object to their threats the abuse will likely escalate; a risk we, as a children dependent upon our parents, cannot take. During our evolution such an objection would likely result in gene death. The defensive decision we make as children is to praise our parents for their immorality in order to ameliorate the abuse. This reversal of what we naturally see as injustice must become a constant state of mind in order to limit the abuse we suffer. The defenses become part of our personality as we grow up until the knowledge we once had of the immorality we suffered is buried in our subconscious and all that lives on is the story we told ourselves to make it through each day. It’s good for us, they abuse us because they love us, we were bad children. To reveal the true self buried beneath our defenses we must first correct the story, then feel the original pain of being lied to and told what was evil was the good. By the definition of the term. If you have a choice, then there is more than one option. If there was no possibility of performing any other action than the one performed then there was no choice. If there is a choice then you had the opportunity before making the choice to choose differently, if you couldn’t have then it wasn’t really a choice. I say this with all due sympathy, and I’m sure there is an area where this will occur (or is occurring) for me as well, but this is a fairly simple logical argument that, if you are failing to understand, may indicate an area to explore in yourself. What was your capacity to make choices like as a child? What was your experience of your parents choices? Explore your relationship with choice and you may find something to help you achieve self knowledge. How would you feel about calling in? It’s been a long time since this kind of material has been discussed on the show. I think it could help you, and many other listeners as well.

Nations don’t exist. How can something that doesn’t exist claim ownership?

What do you think it means if you remove religion and your family is suddenly "untied"?

@J.L.W No, the problem is the initiation of the use of force. The problem is the government waving a gun in everyone’s face so they have to use a currency they would never utilize otherwise. The problem is the mitigation of risk through the socialization of costs brought on by theft, and a people indoctrinated, indoctrination paid for with their own stolen money, to think that very theft is virtuous. The problem is murdering millions of people for no reason so a select few can get rich through military contracts. The problem is the social acceptance for the use of force as a legitimate means of achieving their own desired end. Democracy is the true war of all against all. Until the world gets that the problem is the initiation of the use of force the cycle will continue.

I want to know how Zeus would hold onto lightning. Did he have a special glove? Does he make the lightning himself, or did he have to go collect it and put it in a lightning bag?

Yeah, let’s not concern ourselves with truth, let’s just stumble about blindly ascribing century old ethical principles pretending they’ll somehow lead to a future different than the present they have already provided. If Stef agreed with you you’d still be wrong. And just because he momentarily disregards your delusions and holds back on attacking the disgusting abuse all religions perpetrate against children while he focuses on the threat the left currently presents doesn’t mean he is even remotely backing Christian “philosophy”.