putting religion in it's proper place

[Immanuel Can]

To me, morality is just a political expediant we require for practical reasons.

Then there's no way to legitimize it, Scott. That would mean you'd have to say that all morality was really a deception by the powerful over the powerless, or the way the weak keep the strong from doing what they want. Nietzsche thought that.

But it would mean that if you and I see through that, then there's no longer a way to justify any moral statements at all...and things like rape, predation, murder, paedophelia, genocide, and so on, would be merely "politically inexpedient at this time," but not wrong or evil.

They would share with you the belief in something fixed about what is 'good' versus 'bad'. I differ in that I say that there are too many competing issues that prevent ALL people from agreeing.

Why does "agreeing" make any difference? If something is objectively true, one doesn't pretend "agreement" changes anything. One doesn't have to "agree" with the law of gravity.

Altruism is often sought by atheists who still believe in universal morals but is in error if it cannot be DEDUCTIVELY proven and requires to be consistent for ALL situations equally.

Why? Why "equally?" In an Atheist world, who says it cannot be "unequal"?

The dilemmas that exist suggest to me that the religious persons like yourself who question this about athiests are valid concerns to me.

Well, don't worry about me...it's not the "persons who question" who are any matter for "concern." Nor are even the questions they raise the problem. The problem is that Atheism is capable of being questioned in this way...and has no answers. That's what should really concern you.

That is, I disagree with laws that demand authoritarian control on things that are about one's personal freedoms of expression.

Yes, as do I.

I favor the traditional "liberalism": to be free to behave as one wants so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others to do the same.

As do I. I would even go further, and say that a right of free conscience is sacred.

Todays liberal movement consists of even athiests who favor cultural law making, something that to me is 'religious' in nature.

It does seem that there are a lot of Atheists around today who are wanting to dictate cultural laws, political views, and even speech-codes. I agree...that's a problem. There is something deeply "religious" in the negative sense, about such Atheists. They are comparable, in many cases, to the acolytes of a cult...no more capable of independent thought or reflection than any programmed cultists are.

I'm glad you're not attracted to their ranks, Scott. Good for you. Classical liberalism is much better than the "large-L" Liberalism we're getting today.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not sure what you are not accepting of this idea.

Something very simple.

Logic does not require "replicability," only a quality called "validity." You could "replicate" a faulty syllogism, and it would still be faulty. So "replicability" is no criterion of logic.

Secondly, if you "replicate" an experiment, that does not prove it conclusively...it only increases the probability that it will be correct. That's also simple, and also uncontroversial in the Philosophy of Science.

I personally separate 'science' from 'logic'

You should.

Science is empirical and probabilistic; logic is either formal, in which case it has to do with validity and not probability, or informal, in which case it's probabilistic but not empirical.

However, all three have roles to play in the production of reliable knowledge.

One has to be comfortable with the distinctions between these terms to see how obvious all that is.

[Scott Mayers]

First off, the meaning of a "gnostic" is descriptive, not specific to any particular religion.

You are both right and wrong about that, Scott. "Gnostic" can be an adjective, it's true. As such, it can get attached to different ideologies.

But it was also a set of distinct religious orientations that predate even Christianity in age. We have evidence for that, not the least of which is the Bible itself. But there are also pre-Christian Gnostic texts.

Secondly, the formalizing of the Catholic church when setting up their 'official canon' did not approve of sources that permitted free thought.

It was actually the establishment of the Catholics as the official "church" by Constantine that created that. Do you know that history? I do.

The Gnostics were any class of people who believed that knowledge is HIDDEN in the context of written sources that evolved into religions.

Well, no. The Gnostics were their own thing, really. They didn't "evolve" into other religions. However, they did sometimes corrupt other religions, and syncretize with some religions. One could, in fact, argue that the whole Eastern orientation to religion is deeply "gnostic," so long as one keeps that small "g."

Note that the source 'Gnostic Christian' sources were removed from acceptable canonical works permitted because they tended to reveal their 'secular' roots and that they themselves evolved from many different past peoples.

No, no...that's a sort of "Dan Brown" historiography. It's fiction, not truth.

You can tell when you run into those kinds of stories about Gnosticism because they're so neat, so tidy, so one-thing...which has been totally unlike the real history of Gnosticism. It's history is extremely messy and complex, because of the many ways its been involved in other things.

The 'socratic' style...

...was definitely not gnostic. Gnostic teachers do not "give away" their secrets, and they certainly don't draw them out of their students. They hold their gnosis to be a kind of elite "illumination" that is only suitable for the "Englightened ones," to whom you must turn if you want to have any idea about "the Truth," as the Gnostics hold it to be.

You are wrong about their existence as post-Paulian Christianity.

Eh? I said neither of those things. In fact, I pointed out that they are definitely pre-Pauline, and definitely non-Christian. We know that for sure.

The evolving transfer of original Christianity to become authoritarian-led was threatened by the 'freethinking' activity of those demonstrating different sources that made people doubt the authorities power on the 'Church' as it became politicized.

Dan Brown history: not how it happened at all.

To be fair, let me suggest you don't go to pro-Catholic sources, nor to the pro-Gnostic scribblings of Dan Brown or the other fictionalizers. Let me suggest a look at the (secular) historical sources for the movement. You'll find it's very diverse. For example, the Manichees or the Techgnostics have not believed what the Cathars are alleged to have believed, and none of them believed all the same things the pre-Pauline Gnostics seem to have believed. They have quite different mythical cosmologies, ethics, alleged histories, and so on.

There's actually a lot to know there -- but anytime you hear somebody say something like "at one time, all Gnostics believed X," you can be pretty much guaranteed you're dealing with fiction, not history there.

As for the Dan Brown stuff...it's just nonsense. Sorry. There are whole volumes debunking that.

I don't know the people you are associating to me and don't want to know. If you have a problem with opinion on what is a SPECIFIC history, I cannot argue with you other than to say that no history is deductively provable. To stick with "gnostic" (lower 'g') when you interpret those you don't approve of capitalizing it.

What I CAN say is that if we are to RE-constuct what might have been, we have to assume back then has people as equally intellectual as today, even if they lack the infrastructure and technology to assure accuracy or precision that we do today.

So...there was a subset of society who, like today, were in doubt about religious imposition upon OTHERS. As such, things like the origin of the Catholic Church, were political institutes that have as equal likelihood of manipulation that exists today in politics. But unlike our Internet today which makes it hard to censor, the limit of widespread common readership being restricted to materials that are destructable, it is more likely than not that whatever is historically true is not what we can determine by ONLY the 'winners' of the wars.

Given we see people tearing down statues of people we come to dislike IN OUR DAYS, what is the likelihood that the record we have of the ancients is accurate let alone precise to what occurred specifically or not?

What we know collectively (between you and I) is that the "New Testament" of what you call "Christianity" is dependant necessarily upon the "Old Testament" of Judaism. Yet why are YOU not Jewish instead? If you deny modern Judaism in contrast to Christianity, I'd like to see you first try to disprove the validity of that relative parent religion before expecting us to trust the HUMAN factors that devolved Judaism to your present faith. You cannot expect that anyone should NOT question those who CAN easily make some religion when we see many cults today still founding new religions today with questionable behavior. And many will later evolve out of any origins to also become some future religion that dismisses the 'bad' but keep the 'good', destroy the remnants of the old heresies by purging what is not liked but demanding others accept what you want others to percieve you to be in light of what is 'good'.

Hmmm....given the fact that we are witnessing in this day and age that people still demand we not 'sterotype' them for the negative factors, yet demand oppositely that we ONLY see the stereotypes that are deemed 'good', .....

...that we accept positive inheritance individually yet think it also okay to pass on the bad inheritances (debt) onto society as a whole...

These examples to me suggest that it is more reasable to doubt those making extraordinary claims about our origins regardless of their non-replicability and makes being an athiest more reasonable than to adopt some mythical (and shoud I say, 'mystical'?) beliefs under the banner of some political body of one's religious institutes.

If you think it reasonable to believe, then....


...perhaps I am possibly your God, pretending to be an athiest, to test whether you can have faith in me or not!? If you don't believe me, that is YOUR CHOICE and the consequences will have to be something that you will have to expect in the end.

[Scott Mayers]

I'm not sure what you are not accepting of this idea.

Something very simple.

Logic does not require "replicability," only a quality called "validity." You could "replicate" a faulty syllogism, and it would still be faulty. So "replicability" is no criterion of logic.

Secondly, if you "replicate" an experiment, that does not prove it conclusively...it only increases the probability that it will be correct. That's also simple, and also uncontroversial in the Philosophy of Science.

I personally separate 'science' from 'logic'

You should.

Science is empirical and probabilistic; logic is either formal, in which case it has to do with validity and not probability, or informal, in which case it's probabilistic but not empirical.

However, all three have roles to play in the production of reliable knowledge.

One has to be comfortable with the distinctions between these terms to see how obvious all that is.

I keep telling you that NOW, "inductive logic" is a part of "logic". The formal logic is the mechanism; induction is used to DETERMINE that mechanism from where we are.

If I cannot repicate a miracle recorded by some author two millenia ago that doesn't prove VALID using real deductive mechanisms we have today, then unless those authors were mistaken or simply making up stories, I CAN 'replicate' many ways that DO demonstrate how people lie and defraud others in this day and age, which DOES suggest the likelihood that the records we get from the ancients cannot be trusted as 'authoritative' truths about nature itself.



But I live here today and now and am telling you that I am your God! I told you who I am. Do you believe me or are you denying me?

[Immanuel Can]

I don't know the people you are associating to me and don't want to know.

Well, there is a lot of mythology built up around Gnosticism, especially since the 1960s or so. Some of what you said about Gnostics smacked of that. If it didn't come from there, that's probably good. But Dan Brown's novels have probably done as much as anybody to mess up people's historiography regarding the Gnostics.

So...there was a subset of society who, like today, were in doubt about religious imposition upon OTHERS.

Perhaps. But those were not the Gnostics.

Given we see people tearing down statues of people we come to dislike IN OUR DAYS, what is the likelihood that the record we have of the ancients is accurate let alone precise to what occurred specifically or not?

On the other hand, there is an absurd level of cynicism about history since the rise of postmodernism. While it's true to say we don't nearly know as much as we want to know, and that sometimes the stories we get were merely chosen by the winners, it's not true at all to suggest we know nothing reliable from history, or that we'd be wise to chuck the whole thing in the ashcan.

There's a great deal we DO know. And we know more, and more reliably, once we have evidence in hand...particularly manuscripts that tell us what people thought, or how they thought about it. The Gnostics, we now know a fair bit about, especially since the Nag Hammadi discoveries.

What we know collectively (between you and I) is that the "New Testament" of what you call "Christianity" is dependant necessarily upon the "Old Testament" of Judaism.

Not quite. But there's something to that. There's certainly a continuity between the OT and the NT, and that NT is very much an extension from the themes of the OT. But the NT is a document in its own right, and quite an extensive one. Moreover, if any set of documents in human history have been carefully examined by the very best scholars, it's those ones.

Yet why are YOU not Jewish instead?

In a sense, I am. After all, I've given my life to follow a Jewish carpenter from Galilee.

If you deny modern Judaism in contrast to Christianity,

Deny? In what sense?

The modern rabbis will themselves tell you exactly what the sticking point is. I'm a Gentile, not a Jew by birth, and I follow Messiah Jesus. They regard the following of Jesus the Messiah as being a break with their kind of Judaism, even were I genetically Jewish. So the "denying" is not on my end -- I'm quite delighted to own my debt to Judaism, in fact. I owe ancient Judaism a debt I cannot repay.

You cannot expect that anyone should NOT question those who CAN easily make some religion when we see many cults today still founding new religions today with questionable behavior.

Quite the opposite: I'm most earnest that they should question what they see and hear. Absolutely. And I'm most earnest that people should know the difference between cultic abuses and genuine Christianity...absolutely. But I would go even farther...I would say I would wish that every Christian would question his own belief intensively, on a continuous basis, to refine his understanding of what it really means to follow Jesus Christ.

If you think I have any patience for authoritarian, unthinking "religion," I can assure you I have none.

If you think it reasonable to believe, then....

I do.

...perhaps I am possibly your God,

Heh. I have my suspicions you're not. No offence, but that's a pretty high standard.

I'd settle for you being somebody I know and like -- even when you happen to disagree with me. But to become the Supreme Being...well, I commend your ambition, if not your chances of success at that.

[Immanuel Can]

I keep telling you that NOW, "inductive logic" is a part of "logic". The formal logic is the mechanism; induction is used to DETERMINE that mechanism from where we are.

You happen to be incorrect about that, though. Formal logic and inductive logic (and perhaps abductive logic) are different practices. See... https://www.livescience.com/21569-deduc ... ction.html

If I cannot repicate a miracle recorded by some author two millenia ago that doesn't prove VALID using real deductive mechanisms we have today,

There are two mistakes in this statement, Scott. One is the suggestion that deductive logic is how we would test miracles. Another is the use of the word "valid," which in logic refers to form not content. A third, if I were picky, would be the use of the word "proof," which is really rightly reserved for things like mathematics.

But the relevant point of the moment is this: a "miracle" by definition is not replicable. That's no stroke against one, since nobody gave us any guarantees that unique events cannot happen. Nor does it suggest we should believe in a miracle, just because it's unique. But it means that "replication" is a useless test for miracles -- IF (and I say "if" here, to honour your view) a miracle has happened.

For example: is it reasonable to suppose that the lack of people resurrecting today should count against the claim that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead? If the Christian explanation were that Jesus Christ was a mere human being, and that he raised Himself, then it probably should...at least inductively. For ordinary men, by ordinary means, do not resurrect at all.

But since the Christian understanding is that Jesus Christ was uniquely raised by God the Father, we would have no reason at all to suspect it ever ought to happen quite that way again. In fact, if it did, that very fact would count against its status as a miracle: for miracles are unique events.

So a miracle stands on its uniqueness. And any test for the same must fit the kinds of tests one can apply to unique events. "Replicability" is definitely not one such.

[attofishpi]

So?

If "evIl" turns out to be a noun too, how does that help your case?



From Oxford:

noun
noun: evil
profound immorality and wickedness, especially when regarded as a supernatural force.

Here's a sentence with "evil" as a noun: "Try as they might, the few remaining good Democrats could not get the profound evil out of their party."

I disagree.

With me? Or with Oxford?

Clearly with both of U!

The word 'evil' should be seen as nothing more than a WORD that DESCRIBES things (NOUNS)

.

"Should be?" "Should be?"

But it isn't, and historically, never has been. Common usage is entirely against that "should."

Now, there must be some reason why you think it "should" go that way, despite it never having done so. So why do you think "evil" cannot possibly be a noun (contrary to what usage says) and "should" only be an adjective?

Because my good chap, I learned in primary school that a noun is a: person, place or thing. NOT an attribute of a person a place or a thing.

Anyone can explain why 'evil' exists in the context of wo\men doing evil things.

Well, it's reasonable to suppose that perhaps no human being working strictly on his intuitions is going to be able to do it, because it's too complicated. But if there is a God, He surely knows. And He can explain.

What's complicated about labeling a rapist evil and understanding what motivated them to commit such an atrocity?
Seems desire outweighed any empathy.

Again..are you of the opinion that there is indeed a 'supernatural force' of evil?

[Scott Mayers]

I don't know the people you are associating to me and don't want to know.

Well, there is a lot of mythology built up around Gnosticism, especially since the 1960s or so. Some of what you said about Gnostics smacked of that. If it didn't come from there, that's probably good. But Dan Brown's novels have probably done as much as anybody to mess up people's historiography regarding the Gnostics.

So...there was a subset of society who, like today, were in doubt about religious imposition upon OTHERS.

Perhaps. But those were not the Gnostics.

Says you. You are still imposing your definition of a specific subset of people that the Christian Catholic organ did not approve of. Those Nag Hammadi scrolls were hidden and only survived by luck to the dry environment of Egypt (beyond the kindling the discoverer reduced much of it to before recognizing its value.)

Given we see people tearing down statues of people we come to dislike IN OUR DAYS, what is the likelihood that the record we have of the ancients is accurate let alone precise to what occurred specifically or not?

On the other hand, there is an absurd level of cynicism about history since the rise of postmodernism. While it's true to say we don't nearly know as much as we want to know, and that sometimes the stories we get were merely chosen by the winners, it's not true at all to suggest we know nothing reliable from history, or that we'd be wise to chuck the whole thing in the ashcan.

There's a great deal we DO know. And we know more, and more reliably, once we have evidence in hand...particularly manuscripts that tell us what people thought, or how they thought about it. The Gnostics, we now know a fair bit about, especially since the Nag Hammadi discoveries.

Like I just said, a lot of it went up in smoke. But the surviving remnants were not welcoming and interpreted by most of your Christian community as myth, simply for not liking the idea that Mary Magdalene was implicitly an equal among the crowd of Jesus, and may have had more intimate associations with him.

What we know collectively (between you and I) is that the "New Testament" of what you call "Christianity" is dependant necessarily upon the "Old Testament" of Judaism.

Not quite. But there's something to that. There's certainly a continuity between the OT and the NT, and that NT is very much an extension from the themes of the OT. But the NT is a document in its own right, and quite an extensive one. Moreover, if any set of documents in human history have been carefully examined by the very best scholars, it's those ones.

I always found it odd that Christians begun on the New Testament with ignorant dismissal of the Old, as though God had some imperfection of mind and changed it.?? [/quote]

Christianity was a movement that intially extended the stricter Judaism to include non-Jews. For Jews in the follow-up world after the destruction of the temple, had, like the gnostics, buried the history of their own in those 'new' testament stories in a way that permitted acceptance of them in a world that didn't approve of them in Roman-ruled territories in the diaspora. This evolved to be interpreted more real as the philosophy of inclusion was welcoming to non-Jews.

But the 'old' testament was NOT of some insane god that suddenly had an epiphany that his ways were wrong, as is implicit in the 'new'.

Yet why are YOU not Jewish instead?

In a sense, I am. After all, I've given my life to follow a Jewish carpenter from Galilee.

So you intentionally missed the point by finding something 'positive' to say like it is significant? In a way I too am also 'Jewish' because I am certain to have some ancestor related to them too or that related to someone prior to them that we are both related to. What has that got to do with the point that Christianity's "New" testament was meant to imply that "old" was nullified? It suggests that this 'god' was an imperfect human-like person who made mistakes and opted to toss out all that he believed himself to be beforehand.

If you deny modern Judaism in contrast to Christianity,

Deny? In what sense?

The modern rabbis will themselves tell you exactly what the sticking point is. I'm a Gentile, not a Jew by birth, and I follow Messiah Jesus. They regard the following of Jesus the Messiah as being a break with their kind of Judaism, even were I genetically Jewish. So the "denying" is not on my end -- I'm quite delighted to own my debt to Judaism, in fact. I owe ancient Judaism a debt I cannot repay.

I am already aware that Christianity is dependant upon Judaism. You are not recognizing the significance that modern Jews still have not become 'Christians.' You felt that you were authoritative with better insight than I for NOT being Christian. Yet you don't respect this of the present Jewish holy children of God who still only recognizes the 'old' story?

You cannot expect that anyone should NOT question those who CAN easily make some religion when we see many cults today still founding new religions today with questionable behavior.

Quite the opposite: I'm most earnest that they should question what they see and hear. Absolutely. And I'm most earnest that people should know the difference between cultic abuses and genuine Christianity...absolutely. But I would go even farther...I would say I would wish that every Christian would question his own belief intensively, on a continuous basis, to refine his understanding of what it really means to follow Jesus Christ.

If you think I have any patience for authoritarian, unthinking "religion," I can assure you I have none.

But you place the religious person above the non-religious (athiest) as though you are 'superior' and consistent thinkers?

Hey, look at that guy who prayed to God and won the lottery! WOW, that MUST be true because it is what I WISH reality COULD be like! He must be more wise than the dumb athiest who, in his pessimistic hatred of others, points out that all the 14 Million other people who bought a ticket and prayed did NOT get their wish! Damn! You're right. How wise the religious person must be over the retarded person who faces reality...who negatively sees someone naked when they have clearly been applauded by the crowd for his most gracious attire!!

If you think it reasonable to believe, then....

I do.

So you think it is MORE 'reasonable' to pretend that if you wish X to be true, you have more rationality than the non-theist who unfortunately recognizes they have to get X by being realistic (as he also has to do it alone for not being a recognized member of the Faith-party)?

...perhaps I am possibly your God,

Heh. I have my suspicions you're not. No offence, but that's a pretty high standard.

I'd settle for you being somebody I know and like -- even when you happen to disagree with me. But to become the Supreme Being...well, I commend your ambition, if not your chances of success at that.

So you are now being blasphemous! Yet you fail to believe in me even while I am telling you directly who je suis? You are shaming me for speaking out of the crowd that your leader is naked (without substance)?

Hmm, sounds familiar!? I went through this before and no matter how I tried to express to people that I did NOT say that I was a King but that the very idea of worshipping anyone you think is 'superior' (like a King) is without substance! ....like a 'god'! ...like ANY 'superior being'!

I risked my own welfare standing up in the crowd to speak what I thought was so obvious but still got crusified for NOT pretending like the rest of you. I was NOT a believer in the King's superior essence, the belief that the majority bowed in high respect to for being able to prove that he was so favored by Nature that he demonstrated his superiority of wealth and power by wastefully dumping very rare and expensive wine on himself instead of savoring it like the rest of us peasants who can't afford such extravagence (ie, 'annointed'). Instead of getting nods of approval, my own family turned away from me and let me hang! And all the cowards who were afraid to side with me out of fear of retribution by the 'real' superior being that the King represented, permitted me to be a scapegoat by clearing the way for the King to see me in the crowd. You all let the King discover who insulted him even though you all agreed because it is better that one man get sacrificed than it is for the King to purge the whole crowd instead. I get it. Sure, I'll be the brave one to speak up and say that I don't believe in him nor his New invisible wardrobe.

Isn't THAT is what it means to be an 'athiest'? I risk my own honesty by people who think it more important to defer respect to authorities who prove their worth for DEMANDING faith of the man-king's flock.

Still doesn't remind you of anything? Don't worry, I won't be nominated to be a King in my lifetime. I'm not a 'believer' in things I cannot see! I know,...how stupid, right?

But I'm sure that once the life has been drained from me, my 'spirit' will re-arise....like those King's New Clothes...and then I'll be respected afterthefact and admired just like the real man-King I doubted was legit when I was alive!

[Scott Mayers]

I keep telling you that NOW, "inductive logic" is a part of "logic". The formal logic is the mechanism; induction is used to DETERMINE that mechanism from where we are.

You happen to be incorrect about that, though. Formal logic and inductive logic (and perhaps abductive logic) are different practices. See... https://www.livescience.com/21569-deduc ... ction.html

I did not remotely imply they ARE the same. I don't consider 'abduction' a logic. It is an extension of scientific procedure intent on actually trying to do JUST the opposite of what you are thinking:...assert that logic has MORE, not less parts. I disagree with it as distinct. The deductive/inductive distinction is mutually exclusive and exhaustive as members of the class, "logic".

If I cannot repicate a miracle recorded by some author two millenia ago that doesn't prove VALID using real deductive mechanisms we have today,

There are two mistakes in this statement, Scott. One is the suggestion that deductive logic is how we would test miracles. Another is the use of the word "valid," which in logic refers to form not content. A third, if I were picky, would be the use of the word "proof," which is really rightly reserved for things like mathematics.

But the relevant point of the moment is this: a "miracle" by definition is not replicable. That's no stroke against one, since nobody gave us any guarantees that unique events cannot happen. Nor does it suggest we should believe in a miracle, just because it's unique. But it means that "replication" is a useless test for miracles -- IF (and I say "if" here, to honour your view) a miracle has happened.

For example: is it reasonable to suppose that the lack of people resurrecting today should count against the claim that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead? If the Christian explanation were that Jesus Christ was a mere human being, and that he raised Himself, then it probably should...at least inductively. For ordinary men, by ordinary means, do not resurrect at all.

But since the Christian understanding is that Jesus Christ was uniquely raised by God the Father, we would have no reason at all to suspect it ever ought to happen quite that way again. In fact, if it did, that very fact would count against its status as a miracle: for miracles are unique events.

So a miracle stands on its uniqueness. And any test for the same must fit the kinds of tests one can apply to unique events. "Replicability" is definitely not one such.

No, you are borrowing the emotional inflection about what "miracles" are deemed when accepted rarely. Given the happen to be rare only points out the inability to attempt to 'prove' them in light of the ridicule that would occur should more of them be officially pronounced.

Is it a miracle that one unique person could possibly win the lottery at an odds of 1/14 million? (lotto 6/49 types for these odds) Somebody is going to win. And the certainty is about 1/4 of all such lotteries...(meaning that SOMEONE will likely win with relatively high odds in only a few draws for the jackpot.)

[Immanuel Can]

The word 'evil' should be seen as nothing more than a WORD that DESCRIBES things (NOUNS)

.

"Should be?" "Should be?"

But it isn't, and historically, never has been. Common usage is entirely against that "should."

Now, there must be some reason why you think it "should" go that way, despite it never having done so. So why do you think "evil" cannot possibly be a noun (contrary to what usage says) and "should" only be an adjective?

Because my good chap, I learned in primary school that a noun is a: person, place or thing. NOT an attribute of a person a place or a thing.

"A person, place or thing, or idea," if your primary school taught you correctly. Abstract nouns are also nouns, you see. But that's not the point. The point is that your primary school should have taught you also that "evil" can be a noun. You might not like that, but it's how it is.

So I just wanted to know why, contrary to Oxford, contrary to common usage, you felt so determined to make "evil" merely an adjective; and I offered you an opportunity to expand on that as necessary.

Interested in explaining? Or not?

[Immanuel Can]

I don't know the people you are associating to me and don't want to know.

Well, there is a lot of mythology built up around Gnosticism, especially since the 1960s or so. Some of what you said about Gnostics smacked of that. If it didn't come from there, that's probably good. But Dan Brown's novels have probably done as much as anybody to mess up people's historiography regarding the Gnostics.

So...there was a subset of society who, like today, were in doubt about religious imposition upon OTHERS.

Perhaps. But those were not the Gnostics.

Says you.

No, says the data.

You can find a ton of religious writings by the Gnostics, and I have a bunch of it on my shelves here. One thing for sure: they weren't proto-free-thinkers. But they do have this in common with the Atheists: that they hate the God who created this world. That's about the only point of contact, though.

The Gnostics, we now know a fair bit about, especially since the Nag Hammadi discoveries.

Like I just said, a lot of it went up in smoke.

It seems it did: or decayed, as the vast majority of ancient manuscripts of all kinds also did. But we have quite a bit now.

But the surviving remnants were not welcoming and interpreted by most of your Christian community as myth, simply for not liking the idea that Mary Magdalene was implicitly an equal among the crowd of Jesus, and may have had more intimate associations with him.

That's "Dan Brown" history. Sorry.

Why the Catholics didn't like the Gnostics was for different reasons than the apostle Paul didn't like them. But the Catholics also killed my ancestors in the biggest religious massacre in human history, so I don't think you can safely put me in the Catholic camp.

I always found it odd that Christians begun on the New Testament with ignorant dismissal of the Old, as though God had some imperfection of mind and changed it.??

It's the other way around, actually.

Christians view themselves as the normal and intended extension out of the OT. For a Christian, Jesus is the Jewish Messiah for which the OT looks and the modern rabbis still hope. But mainline Judaisms have rejected Christianity.

Did you know that you are considered a Jew and eligible for repatriation to Israel if you are any of the various sects of Judaism? Did you know you're still automatically a Jew if you're an agnostic, an Atheist or even a Satanist? But did you also know that you can be 100% verifiably Jewish by birth, but don't qualify for citizenship if you're a Messianic Jew?

So which way does the rejection go? Is it really that Christians "dismiss" the OT? Or is it that modern Judaism rejects Christianity?

In point of fact, Christians read, value and celebrate the OT. You'll find that Christian Bibles include the OT, Christians read from the OT, and Christians regard the OT as authoritative, just as Christ did. But they see the OT as having its meaning and fulfillment in Jesus Messiah. Most Jews today do not.

Christianity was a movement that intially extended the stricter Judaism to include non-Jews.

The Jews thought Christianity wasn't strict enough...you can see that in Galatians, for example.

You are not recognizing the significance that modern Jews still have not become 'Christians.'

I don't think it IS significant of anything. It was prophesied actually, so I would have more reason to be worried if it were not so.

In any case, some have, actually. And more will. But it will not be by force, but by personal, spiritual conviction.

But you place the religious person above the non-religious (athiest) as though you are 'superior' and consistent thinkers?

No, I have not campaigned for "the religious person." I don't even know who that would be. But this much I'll grant you: that I see no way that Atheist can be articulated as rational and consistent. Even Nietzsche couldn't manage it.

But if you know somebody who can make Atheism rational, why not just show that it is? That would be a simple solution to the problem.

So you are now being blasphemous! Yet you fail to believe in me even while I am telling you directly who je suis? You are shaming me for speaking out of the crowd that your leader is naked (without substance)?

Heh. Well, we'll see.

My point is not to irritate you or agitate you, Scott. I remain under the impression we're having a friendly conversation. If it leans a different way for you, feel free to stop for now, and we can continue when you feel perhaps a little less cynical. I'd rather keep this civil.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't consider 'abduction' a logic.

I've always been skeptical of it, too.

No, you are borrowing the emotional inflection about what "miracles" are deemed when accepted rarely.

Not at all.

When somebody says, "That's a miracle," would you expect they mean, "That happened to me yesterday and the day before, as well"?

Given the happen to be rare only points out the inability to attempt to 'prove' them

Let's see if that is true.

What would be, to use your words, a "proof" for the Red Sea crossing?

The existence of modern Israel? No, that wouldn't work, because that says nothing about the Red Sea. How about some evidence of a slavery of Jewish people in Egypt? No, that would only prove that Jews were in Egypt, not that God parted the Red Sea. What about the archaeological finding of bits of Egyptian armaments at the bottom of the Red Sea? No, for that would merely be inductive evidence, and might be explained another way...such as an Egyptian ship accidentally dumping armaments, or some such thing.

Would the fact that the Red Sea doesn't routinely part suggest there was a Red Sea miracle? No, for if the Red Sea did routinely part, that would, by definition, not be a miracle. A miracle is, by definition, not a regular natural phenomenon.

So, Scott...what would be the evidence you would accept that God parted the Red Sea and led Israel across? If you say that the evidence is lacking, you must surely know what evidence is lacking...so what evidence would it be, that you would be expecting to see if the Red Sea miracle has happened, but that you are not seeing?

Now, I'm not saying you have to believe God parted the Red Sea, Scott...and certainly not that the fact that you can't find a disproof would ever imply that it happened. What I'm saying is only this: IF (notice I say "if") such a miracle had happened, the lack of present ability to reproduce the action would not be an argument against it having happened. In fact, if you and I could reproduce it, it would imply it was not a real "miracle" at all. For you and I are not God.

That's my point.

[Greatest I am]

My theory? I'll tell you right after somebody gives me the Atheist theory of that.

Deal, even though I am not an atheist.

Eve was...

Wow. You didn't even get it right for one word. That's pretty remarkably off-point.

Do I even need to point out to you that Atheists don't believe in "Eve"? So "Eve" cannot form any part of their explanation of Evil.

Irrelevant.

Read it all.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

e
'Evil' is a word that is variously used according to the social and inter-subjective context in which it is used.

In the context of this discussion 'Putting religion in its proper place' there is actually a theological Problem of Evil. If you do not know what that is you should inform yourself about the nature of it.

I do not have that problem of evil, as shown in that long post.

Do you see all human to human evil as being forced on us by evolution and having to compete?

Is it a natural pruning of the least fit of us?

Regards
DL

[Immanuel Can]

Deal, even though I am not an atheist.

Eve was...

Wow. You didn't even get it right for one word. That's pretty remarkably off-point.

Do I even need to point out to you that Atheists don't believe in "Eve"? So "Eve" cannot form any part of their explanation of Evil.

Irrelevant.

Hardly.

You said you'd speak for Atheists. You didn't.

I'm not asking you what you think, therefore; I'm asking Atheists what they think. It was an act of purest optimism on my part to have taken you seriously when you said you'd try to speak for them in the first place. It was maybe too optimistic.