Since I supported his statement as perfectly accurate, I feel obliged to respond at least for myself. What I told Cosmosdan applies here. The essence is revealed by the aesthetic. Those who value goodness pursue it, and the road they’re on leads to God. Those who value evil pursue it, and the road they’re on leads away from God. Therefore, we judge ourselves merely by pursuing what we treasure. As Jesus said, “Where your treasure is, there your heart is also.”
Yeah… I see that. That brings me to something else that began to dawn on me a few years ago and has been developing ever since.
This is one of my favorite verses and I think expresses what you’re talking about here. His word is that living spirit that speaks to us from within. You have expresses that as well. Our ability to hear, listen and follow isn’t always constant. What we sense as true will change as we invite, open and surrender, and then have the courage to follow. We understand what love and truth require of us gradually as we surrender. So, if we are true to ourselves in our heart of hearts we are on the path of goodness and edification.
Who can judge that but ourselves and God, and as you said God does not judge.
IMHO neither God or Christ condemn us for those choices but we, through denial and suppression of that call, or acceptance and surrender {which are unique for each of us} set the dynamics in motion.
Does that make sense?
Of course. I see what you are saying and I agree. It still puzzles me in dealing with degrees and appropriate response. Do we excuse the damage done by alcoholics in calling it a disease? How do we respond in defense of ourselves to abhorrent behavior and still walk a path of peace and forgiveness? We are called to be transformed IMHO. What are the boundaries of that transformation within a lifetime? I suppose that’s off subject.
Perhaps you have explained something that’s been puzzling me. Posters very often drop the second S in responding to me. There must be something about my screen name that prompts the mind to do that for some. Funny.
This is what I was trying to get at. The NT does speak clearly about actions. Jesus refers to fruits of the spirit. When Jesus was questioned about the source of his own actions he replied. “can’t you tell by what’s being done? Can’t you tell acts of compassion and mercy when you see them?”
The true motive behind the actions aren’t always easy to judge but as a society we must try to discern them. I think the nature of our judgement as a culture plays a big role in setting the path for our society. How much do we expect of ourselves and those around us? How much do we excuse?
I believe in forgiveness but not in being stupid. I do wonder where the balance lies. We have an obligation to protect citizens so we do the best we can at making those type of judgement calls. I believe someone truly repentant wants to make restitution as much as possible. A lot of that has been weeded out of our justice system. In the case certain crimes restitution is impossible and the issue of recurrence becomes the main concern. I do think we can offer those paying their debt to society a chance to do something positive. Even if we decide they have forfeited their right to total freedom we can still treat them with compassion.
We do judge and will continue to do so. That is part of our exercise of wisdom, compassion, mercy, but also justice. I think we experience this in small ways in our day to day lives and relationships.
Amen to that 
Well, this I agree with - using God metaphorically, of course. It’s too bad the signposts on this road aren’t better, since I’m sure some who think they’re on one road are actually on another - and repent and regret it when they can finally see their destination.
Yes. Very much so.
Could be. The beauty of it is that we don’t have to worry about their road. We’ll judge no one but ourselves. If we are following what we treasure above all else, then we’re on the right road. Not everyone values edification or the agent Who facilitates it.
You’re quite right. Jesus talked about that in the NT as well. Actions were the gauge he asked us to use rather than religious ceremony, words, or class structure. I think finding our way is part of the process. That’s why we should be cautious when judging others. I wonder if the problem is the signposts not being clear or our stubborn refusal to heed them.
I didn’t miss quote you at all, I wrote down on paper your direct translation of essence,I referto your post#274.
As for Tristram Shandy I do not believe he was infallible.He can be wrong as both you and I can be.
Are you saying Cannot, means Must? If I cannot go back to being 12 again does that mean I must?
You sound like a very intelligent person,and I believe you want essence to be,with out being in existence.
Monavis
Sorry the post # was 265.
Monavis
Lib just bolded it for you and you still can’t see it. The term was
cannot not be. A second not…see. So the term cannot not be means must.
I apologize I will admit you said" cannot not be",but if essence is a thing then you must admit it exists or it is non-existent so existence must proceed essence.
Monavis
I’m afraid that doesn’t make sense. Let A be essence. Let B be existence. You’re saying that A -> (B OR NOT B) -> B -> A. It is an assertion with no fewer than four logical knots: tautology, circularity, begging the question, and confirmation of the antecedant.
I still disagree, it doesn’t make sense to me to say essence doesn’t exist as I understand your meaning; it means it may become something.An idea for an invention may become something ,yet again it may not. And an idea requires a mind( or something first) whether it is real or imaginary.
Monavis
What idea? Why are you going on about ideas? I’m reminded of record writing on the old C-64. The 8 kilohertz processor was too fast for the 78 rpm outboard disk drive, and so to write a record to a file reliably, you had to issue a position command twice, just in case the first one got missed.
It seems to me that you are using essence to mean an idea or thought that came before existence. what something will( or may) become is not yet in existence. Even if it will come into existence it still cannot be something until it exists. As an example of what I mean, Your parents or grandparents may have hoped for the day you would be conceived,but until then you were non existent. Had another sperm met a different ova you would not be, but someone different would have taken your place,depending on if your parents procreated with each other or some one else at that moment you were conceived.
Monavis.
Well, of course not. Here’s what I explained before, and let me try again in more detail because you do seem honestly to be attempting to get this. Maybe it will make more sense this time. If nothing else, even if you disagree with me, I’d like for you to understand what I am in fact saying. I think that there are two stumbling blocks for you.
One obstacle that I think is throwing you off is the confusion of two things: (1) a statement that is a copula, and (2) a statement that is an existential claim. Let me illustrate these for you.
(1) Copula
a. John is our town drunk.
b. God is love.
c. Socrates is a character in Plato’s dialogs.
(2) Existential
a. John is an alchoholic.
b. God is omnibenevolent.
c. Socrates is a figment of Plato’s imagination.
The copula statements are statements of identity. They are equivalent to the statement A is B. The existential statements are claims about the nature of something’s existence. They are equivalent to A exists as B. The reason it is important to make the distinction is because English uses “to be” (I am, you are, he is, etc.) for both.
When we say that essence is this or that, we do not mean to make an existential statement because essence does not exist. And this brings me to the second obstacle. You seem to be dead set against the notion that a thing may be spoken of without existing. You’re commiting an error called “substantive denial of a positive ontological proposition”. In other words, by negating a thing, you are asserting its possibility. That’s the exact problem with hard atheism. While “it is possible that God does not exist” is a legitimate (though misguided, in my opinion) existential statement, its cousin, “it is not possible that God exists” is not. It is the same error. Denying the modal possibility confirms the existential possibility — that is, the “not” moved from “exist” to “possible”. Leaving two “nots” certainly doesn’t help for obvious reasons.
We can (and do all the time) speak of things that do not exist. Your tendency to somehow impune those things as something less than existing things is nothing more than a bias. What you do is keep expressing that bias, but you do not argue it. If you think that a thing must exist to have significance, then you should explain why — just as I have explained to a fare-thee-well the opposite, that existence is trivial and essence is all that matters.
Let’s look at these statements. First of all, I absolutely agree that the concept of something can precede its existence - except in some unusual cases. However, I think the way the cases above are written might be confusing to some, due to the limitations of English and Lib’s desire to not be as wordy as I like to be.
John is our town drunk / John is an alcoholic
Clearly, John is not identical with “our town drunk” forever. Thus it should be rewritten “John is currently our town drunk.” But “town drunk” is a tag for a certtain set of characteristics. So, I think this should really be rewritten as “the tag of our town drunk currently applies to John.” It is possible that there are two town drunks, so “John and Frank are our town drunks” seems perfectly valid - which shows that John does not have to be uniquely equivalent to “our town drunk.”
“John is an alcoholic” means both that John is an element of the set of alcoholics, and that the characteristic “alcoholic” applies to John. Saying John exists as an alcoholic just doesn’t seem right to me, since it seems to imply an exclusivity that isn’t there. John exists as other things also, such as a husband. Now, how would you categorize the sentence “Jake Barnes is an alcoholic?”
God is love/** God is omniscient**. I think this is a better example, since if I get Lib’s view correctly (which I hope I do after all this time) his definition of god involves god being identified with love, so the statement makes sense. For the second, some people think omniscience is a required characteristic of god, so it makes no sense to say [non-God] is omniscient, or God is not omniscient. The statement is true by definition, and God is the only element in the set of omniscient beings.
In the third example, the first statement is verifiable, the second is not. Besides that, I’m not sure of the difference. A character may or may not be an existent person, but even a character supposedly a person is not the same as that person, as any reader of historical fiction knows. A character is expressed as words on a page, or images on the screen, while a figment is expressed as some set of states in the brain. Are these really all that different?
So, a great set of examples. I was just about to declare this thread over, but I got drawn back in. Curse you!
Those criticisms and clarifications seem valid to me, Voyager. I appreciate your taking the time to share them. Regarding the difference in number (3), the copula identifies Socrates the dialogian as opposed to say, Socrates our neighbor’s cat. The existential claim makes an assertion about the nature of Socrates’ existence.