Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

But that would imply that you, Harbal, have some sort of sense of what man needs, what a soul needs, or what is more likely that you do not believe in any of that and, also likely, that you have not ever really sat yourself down to think these things through in any sense at all!

I don't have much interest in what man needs, to be honest, but, as much as it may surprise you, I have put thought into what I need for the purposes of my own existence. It isn't a project that I anticipate ever completing. I have come to some conclusions, but I haven't constucted any sort of coherent picture, and I don't mind that. Of course I have been influenced by the thoughts and ideas of others, but wherever I end up, I intend to do my own navigating; I'm not interested in following anyone else's map.

It seems to me that you are trying to exert some sort of influence here, but I haven't put too much thought into where you are trying to go with it. All I can tell you is that you are not having any influence on me.

No, to think I am trying to influence you is a mistake. I am interested in *offering explanations* that describe things, our reality, contemporary society, the condition we are in, in accurate terms. It is a sort of exercise. But it is also fun. It is fun and interesting to understand causal events.

I offered a comment and some information as to how Platonic philosophy was incorporated into Catholic philosophy and ritual. I am unsure how this could *influence* you or anyone. But here we are talking about Christian concepts, and certainly IC is working those angles (of salvation and damnation, and making strict assertions) and so all of this fits in to the larger conversation.

But the issue of *influence* is interesting though. I am reminded of the Chinese Book of Changes (I-Ching) and Hexagram 61: Influence:

Pigs and fishes are the least intelligent of all animals and therefore the most difficult to influence. The force of inner truth must grow great indeed before its influence can extend to such creatures. In dealing with persons as intractable and as difficult to influence as a pig or a fish, the whole secret of success depends on finding the right way of approach. One must first rid oneself of all prejudice and, so to speak, let the psyche of the other person act on one without restraint. Then one will establish contact with him, understand and gain power over him. When a door has thus been opened, the force of one's personality will influence him. If in this way one finds no obstacles insurmountable, one can undertake even the most dangerous things, such as crossing the great water, and succeed.

But it is important to understand upon what the force inner truth depends. This force is not identical with simple intimacy or a secret bond. Close ties may exist also among thieves; it is true that such a bond acts as a force but, since it is not invincible, it does not bring good fortune. All association on the basis of common interests holds only up to a certain point. Where the community of interest ceases, the holding together ceases also, and the closest friendship often changes into hate. Only when the bond is based on what is right, on steadfastness, will it remain so firm that it triumphs over everything.

I am interested in the IDEA of influence certainly in moral and ethical senses and the way that influence spreads. I am interested in the break-downs in communication, or social cohesion and intellectual cohesion, that lead to impasses and cultural frustration, and I definitely believe we are in a time of increasing disunity. These are conditions in which *war* occur. Those wars have begun.

[Harbal]

I think the book can only possibly get reverence because people don't read it.

Substitute condemnation for reverence and you could say something similar about Satanic Verses.

[Immanuel Can]

I think the book can only possibly get reverence because people don't read it.

Substitute condemnation for reverence and you could say something similar about Satanic Verses.

There's a whole story about that...I'm not sure how much anybody knows of that.

Shahab Ahmed, Ph.D. 1999.

"One of the most controversial episodes in the life of the Prophet Muhammad concerns an incident in which he allegedly mistook words suggested by Satan as divine revelation. Known as the Satanic verses, these praises to the pagan deities contradict the Islamic belief that Allah is one and absolute. Muslims today—of all sects—deny that the incident of the Satanic verses took place."

[Alexis Jacobi]

If there's no God, no objective moral truths, and no reality to right and wrong (beyond what we arbitrarily assign to it) then there's no moral duty. And that means that ethics is a fake area of study... as credible as unicorn-tending, as an academic discipline.

Yet I never have said any such thing nor would I. But I do understand the strict function of your binary mode of seeing. There is no part of what you say that I do not understand. It is that I think that your notion of God, and the way that you wield it, is part of social and political machination.

The issue of the 'consequences' that a given soul will have to face and live with is not and never has been nor will ever be something that is removed from my consideration. Your mistake is a) in dealing with a coercive psychological system and a rather perverse apologetics (Hebrew idea-imperialism as I call it), but 2) that I do not believe that your binary pattern, your imposed system, accurately describes what is and what will be.

You are doing here that you always do: you begin to argue against me as if I am your dreaded atheist-enemy. This obviously fits into your simple division: either/or. I see things with a great deal more nuance.

How could you even have come to understand that I do not take moral duty into consideration? or that I consider ethics a 'fake' mode? You are having an argument against phantoms of your invention.

I have come to realize that you likely do not read with seriousness or consideration what people write. That is the core defect of your limited grasp. But this is the main error of idea-imperialism. It makes one blind. You cannot hear for all that you have ears! That is a misfortune.

[henry quirk]

Some people writing here seem *lost* in their own narrow perspectives and they simply do not have any sufficient platform to have ideas or opinions of much relevance or importance (Harbal and Henry are two good examples).

What is my perspective, AJ?

[Immanuel Can]

If there's no God, no objective moral truths, and no reality to right and wrong (beyond what we arbitrarily assign to it) then there's no moral duty. And that means that ethics is a fake area of study... as credible as unicorn-tending, as an academic discipline.

Yet I never have said any such thing nor would I.

You mean, you would never say, "There is no God," or "Morality is not objective," or what?

...you begin to argue against me as if I am your dreaded atheist-enemy.

There are, perhaps, many things that deserve dread. But "Atheists" are not one of them...and as for you, I just don't find your theorizing well-formed. That doesn't make me your "enemy," and certainly does not occasion "dread."

How could you even have come to understand that I do not take moral duty into consideration?

You're reading badly again...or just thinking badly, maybe.

I never said you do not believe in moral duty. Maybe you do...irrationally. I said that if you believe there's no God, then taking moral duty as real makes no sense for anybody anymore. Nothing in such a worldview rationalizes moral duty.

See the difference?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Con dinero baila el perro

Some people writing here seem *lost* in their own narrow perspectives and they simply do not have any sufficient platform to have ideas or opinions of much relevance or importance (Harbal and Henry are two good examples).

What is my perspective, AJ?

Have you made a contribution to my Learjet 60 fund?

[henry quirk]

Have you made a contribution to my Learjet 60 fund?

How much you need, and, where do I send the cash?
I'm always happy to help out a brother in need.

And...

Some people writing here seem *lost* in their own narrow perspectives and they simply do not have any sufficient platform to have ideas or opinions of much relevance or importance (Harbal and Henry are two good examples).

What is my perspective, AJ?

[Alexis Jacobi]

You mean, you would never say, "There is no God," or "Morality is not objective," or what?

Here you are beginning your typical twisting methods. You rephrase what you suppose or wish someone to say to accord with your devious manipulation of what they actually do say. Because you are fundamentally devious and dishonest it is not really possible to interchange with you.

And this, once again, shows a negative effect of Hebrew Idea-Imperialism. What I say is what I said (and what I regularly say).

I never said you do not believe in moral duty. Maybe you do...irrationally. I said that if you believe there's no God, then taking moral duty as real makes no sense for anybody anymore. Nothing in such a worldview rationalizes moral duty.

It is not a question of *maybe*. To assign *irrationality* is once again a tactic of dishonest apologetics. You have invested in the *imperious* mode to which I refer.

The fact is that you are deeply invested in a wide range of real irrationalities. You yourself. I suggest that you turn your attention to yourself. You define an irrational god-concept. But that is because of a deep investment in it, but also in the deviousness and dishonesty that it provides you. You can do not-so-good things but from under a cloak of asserted goodness.

You operate like a con-artist and a fraud. This is why I use these harsh terms.

[Belinda]

You say "one day" which indicates the judgement event will be temporal not eternal. To assign the judgement event to one day in time leaves the question of what will happen after the judgement event.

Fortunately, guessing is unnecessary. Jesus was very explicit. Matthew 25:31-46. You can read it yourself.

Here is a plainer , shorter version from Mark.

3

3 Be on guard! Be alert[a]! You do not know when that time will come. 34 It’s like a man going away: He leaves his house and puts his servants in charge, each with their assigned task, and tells the one at the door to keep watch.

35 “Therefore keep watch because you do not know when the owner of the house will come back—whether in the evening, or at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or at dawn. 36 If he comes suddenly, do not let him find you sleeping. 37 What I say to you, I say to everyone: ‘Watch!’”

Of course you don't know when that time will come! That 'time' is the eternal now which is as close to you as your skin, and is as Spinoza says "sub specie aeternitatis" . "Watch" refers to perpetual awareness of eternal good, truth, and beauty.
The parables of Jesus have this special virtue, that they are intelligible to people who understand symbolism and allegory and also to those who are literal-minded.

[Immanuel Can]

You mean, you would never say, "There is no God," or "Morality is not objective," or what?

Here you are beginning your typical twisting methods.

It can't be. It's a question, not a claim. You can answer truthfully.

I never said you do not believe in moral duty. Maybe you do...irrationally. I said that if you believe there's no God, then taking moral duty as real makes no sense for anybody anymore. Nothing in such a worldview rationalizes moral duty.

It is not a question of *maybe*.

Well, if you say so...I'm not to know that. Maybe you do, maybe you don't. You alone would know.

To assign *irrationality* is once again a tactic of dishonest apologetics.

Bad thinking, again.

"Irrational" simply means "does not rationalize with other things the person believes." And that's quite true, if you believe there's no God, or morality is not objective, then, rationally speaking, you have undercut any warrant you might have for believing in morality. That's a statement of fact, not an insult.

Try to be less thin-skinned, AJ. You're not being attacked. Your viewpoints are being interrogated. That's very different. It's what we do, in philosophy.

And the rest of your last message is obviously just foaming-mouthed ad hominems. And sorry: I can't really be bothered with that stuff.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Try to be less thin-skinned, AJ. You're not being attacked. Your viewpoints are being interrogated. That's very different. It's what we do, in philosophy.

And the rest of your last message is obviously just foaming-mouthed ad hominems.

Pu-leeese. Stop the horseshit. You do not *do philosophy*. You do religious fanaticism.

And sorry: I can't really be bothered with that stuff.

I can't imagine how you could entertain it as a serious critique, given your predicates.

[henry quirk]

Some people writing here seem *lost* in their own narrow perspectives and they simply do not have any sufficient platform to have ideas or opinions of much relevance or importance (Harbal and Henry are two good examples).

What is my perspective, AJ?

[Harbal]

if you believe there's no God, or morality is not objective, then, rationally speaking, you have undercut any warrant you might have for believing in morality. That's a statement of fact, not an insult.

I don't believe there is no God, I simply don't have a belief that includes his existence. But all is not lost: I have found a way to think of morality, or the priniple of it, as being objective, albeit that I may be the only one who thinks of it in such a way. Morality is objective in the sense that it exists within the human psyche. The human being is programmed with the capacity and propencity for adopting a system of morality. This is so obvious that it accounts for the fact that it never occurs to those of us who have no vested interest in resisting that thought to even bother putting it into words, which is why we don't have those words readily available when called upon to produce them.

I'm sure you will be as pleased as I am, IC, that we have at last been able to show that morality has a firm existence independent of God. So it turns out that God is not the source of moralit; he just likes to meddle in it a bit.

[Belinda]

if you believe there's no God, or morality is not objective, then, rationally speaking, you have undercut any warrant you might have for believing in morality. That's a statement of fact, not an insult.

I don't believe there is no God, I simply don't have a belief that includes his existence. But all is not lost: I have found a way to think of morality, or the priniple of it, as being objective, albeit that I may be the only one who thinks of it in such a way. Morality is objective in the sense that it exists within the human psyche. The human being is programmed with the capacity and propencity for adopting a system of morality. This is so obvious that it accounts for the fact that it never occurs to those of us who have no vested interest in resisting that thought to even bother putting it into words, which is why we don't have those words readily available when called upon to produce them.

I'm sure you will be as pleased as I am, IC, that we have at last been able to show that morality has a firm existence independent of God. So it turns out that God is not the source of moralit; he just likes to meddle in it a bit.

Harbal, I think your way to think of morality is like that of St Augustine who said evil is absence of good.