Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

Red herring!

I knew you'd squirm. I just didn't know which "exit" door you'd try. Because you have no grounding for your own conception of justice, you try the "et tu quoque" strategy -- accuse the other of doing the same, and get out the back door by making him go on defense and forget his demand.

No such luck, AJ. Answer the question or run. Those are the options.

Your entire mode of argument involves Red Herrings in schools.

Those are the options according to you -- I understand that. But the option that I pursue is expressed as follows. It seems far more germain:

The imago that you live in relation to, which in my view imprisons you, and through which you oppress others, is a dying structure. In fact it is immoral and as I often say I believe you are immoral. You are not a moral man according to my definitions. Every day you hear from people that you are perceived as a liar, as devious and as dishonest. Yet you cannot hear!

You force me to turn back to the figure of Christ, both to the historical person, born of a mother and a father in this reality, as well as the metaphysical Jesus of Nazareth (a theological construction), and to try to re-envision Jesus, or rediscover Jesus, as perhaps he really was. I do not regard you as a 'disciple' of that Jesus! You must understand why I oppose you. If anything I regard you as being associated with a Satanic spirit (if I will be allowed to use such terms). You do not liberate, you enslave. You use violent mental and spiritual coercion to in efforts that attack the way that other people ground themselves in this world, in life, in reality.

Satanic spirit is a strong term (with metaphysical connotations) so I would modify it, for conversation's sake, to negative spirit or bad-faith spirit, etc.

I could also say "Deal with it or run. Which will you choose Immanuel?"

[Immanuel Can]

Red herring!
No such luck, AJ. Answer the question or run. Those are the options.

Your entire mode of argument...

No, no, AJ...answer the question. No "et tu quoque." Put on the table what you've got.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Red herring!
No such luck, AJ. Answer the question or run. Those are the options.

Your entire mode of argument...

No, no, AJ...answer the question. No "et tu quoque." Put on the table what you've got.

Tu quoque -- who you are, what you believe, what you try to convince people of, and why, and what structure this fits into -- is the core of everything that I do (write, think, propose) in regard to you.

So it is really a hic es tu . "Where are you"? That is why I often speak about our location.

This is what we are doing her, nincompoop! (That's non compos mentis BTW!)

[Immanuel Can]

Your entire mode of argument...

No, no, AJ...answer the question. No "et tu quoque." Put on the table what you've got.

Tu quoque...

No answer.

I understand why. You have none.

Not only that, nobody like you has any...or can have any. That's just how thoroughly wrong you are.

p.s. -- If you check, you'll find out that the Latin word "et" means, "and," and is thus entirely appropriate.

[Nick_A]

I would rather live in a free country than a dying country on the secular path to slavery by the educated elite caught up in their own ignorance and hypocrisy. Show me someone who knows how to use deductive reason beginning with our source and gradually devolving down to explain the human condition and I'll gladly listen.

Ah, then you do propose social and cultural activism and you do take a side in The Culture Wars.

I thought you’d divested yourself completely.

I don't oppose social and cultural activism but know it is impossible. The world hates it and must reject it. If a society could develop as Simone Weil describes it could be possible. Clearly it is not. It opposes the belief in secular superiority.

"The combination of these two facts — the longing in the depth of the heart for absolute good, and the power, though only latent, of directing attention and love to a reality beyond the world and of receiving good from it — constitutes a link which attaches every man without exception to that other reality.

Whoever recognizes that reality recognizes also that link. Because of it, he holds every human being without any exception as something sacred to which he is bound to show respect.

This is the only possible motive for universal respect towards all human beings. Whatever formulation of belief or disbelief a man may choose to make, if his heart inclines him to feel this respect, then he in fact also recognizes a reality other than this world's reality. Whoever in fact does not feel this respect is alien to that other reality also." ~ Simone Weil

Cave life makes this idea impossible so I concentrate on the potential for the individual to help himself through awakening and society as a whole

[Alexis Jacobi]

Not only that, nobody like you has any...or can have any. That's just how thoroughly wrong you are.

As I say, you reveal in what you think and say exactly where you locate yourself and where you reside.

You say "nobody like you has any...or can have any" . . . [idea about things, or value-set, or sense of spirituality, or genuine connection with divinity, or higher ideation, or moral sense or moral base, and on and on].

Your absolutism discredits everyone. But this is fitting with your declared, absolutist belief-system. You reveal it at every turn. So:

The imago that you live in relation to, which in my view imprisons you, and through which you oppress others, is a dying structure. In fact it is immoral and as I often say I believe you are immoral. You are not a moral man according to my definitions. Every day you hear from people that you are perceived as a liar, as devious and as dishonest. Yet you cannot hear!

You must say to yourself: "How thoroughly wrong they all are!"

And my assertion is that your attitude derives from the following:

And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.

What I am discovering (I do all kinds of adjacent readings as this forum conversation goes on) is that your brand of Evangelical Christianity has, in truth, been re-infected with the spirit of intolerance that is expressed in those terrifying OT quotes. It conceals a power-dynamic that is intolerant, intellectually corrupt, and aggressive. It has very little to do with 'building community' or joining people together in communication and, let's say, brotherhood (excuse that tacky term). You provide evidence that its purpose is to divide and nullify. This is why I said, months back, that you are not a constructive apologists for values -- Christian or other -- but one who inspires contempt.

You have actually redefined 'god' away from the sort of spirit that your own belovèd divine figure professed. But it must be said that even in the NT Gospels there conflicting statements (sayings attributed to Jesus that were written by a priest-class). The processes through which your brand of Evangelical Christianity became re-infected is one that can be researched and examined. But what is important to note is that as infection, as policy, the expression of it is very consequential in our world. Seeing the link between the distortions in the religious doctrines and the manifest effects -- that is what is needed. To see one sheds light on the other. The critique therefore of what you represent -- tu quoque -- is therefore an important undertaking.

On the other side or the other hand, I would not and I do not disavow or delegitimize the solid expression of Christian social values. But I am placed in a unique quandary. I feel little but contempt for you and real distain. But I would certainly 'work with' and even try to support Christians, and other religionists, who seek to preserve moral groundings of a traditional sort. And many traditionally oriented Christian groups are advocating for just that. Thus the Culture Wars are complicated indeed.

[Immanuel Can]

Not only that, nobody like you has any...or can have any. That's just how thoroughly wrong you are.

As I say, you reveal in what you think and say exactly where you locate yourself and where you reside.

Still no answer. Just distractions from having to answer the question at all.

And, I might add, a disproportionately long, verbose, windy response that adds no value at all. Do you get paid by the word?

Your absolutism discredits everyone.

That's the funniest thing you've said yet, AJ.

So MY "absolutism discredits" EVERYONE? I had no idea I had such power over public virtue! I feel very privileged to be the moral touchstone of everybody else.

Well, it's true that dogmatism can be "absolutist." But so is truth. Invariably. Whatever is the truth, it absolutely banishes other alternatives from possibility. That's awfully "absolute." Too bad.

Now, answer the question, or don't. I know what to think, either way. Here it is again, so you can't say, "What question?" and state blankly.

So now, where's your theory of moral objectivity, so essential to grounding your conception of justice, as Dworkin says? Or where is your defense of "what accounts for what," as Wolterstorff puts it?

[seeds]

Alexis wrote to Immanuel Can:
...I present you with a view of what *relationship* now entails. I do not present you with a god-image that is similar to the one you work with. I would likely speak in ways similar to Seeds who has presented the idea of one conceptual structure falling away but another, newer one, as not yet having come into full conceptual view. This follows from what I understand to be Nietzsche's declarations about the *death of god*.

The imago that you live in relation to, which in my view imprisons you, and through which you oppress others, is a dying structure. In fact it is immoral and as I often say I believe you are immoral. You are not a moral man according to my definitions. Every day you hear from people that you are perceived as a liar, as devious and as dishonest. Yet you cannot hear!...

...I would suggest to you that you are projecting when you call up the image of a Frankenstein god....

Well said, Alexis, especially the part about Mr. Con being "devious and dishonest" (which is precisely what compels me to address his twisted [anti-Christian] twaddle).

That just reminded me of a Biblical quote:

"...Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time..."

Furthermore, accusing him of "projecting" couldn't be more accurate.

For it is clearly obvious that this...

You have a knack for not answering the simplest of questions and just dancing around...

...is the epitome of projection.

And lastly, as an amusing sidenote for you and Harry Baird, allow me to copy and paste a slightly altered version of something I posted a long time ago in a different thread that seems appropriate for this one:

I’m beginning to wonder if we are being exposed to some kind of ongoing concoction of a university philosophy professor and his students who are in cahoots with the university’s computer instructors and psychology profs?

In other words, for purposes of academic research they have created a computer program consisting of a troll bot...

(in this case, a troll bot that calls itself "Immanuel Can")

...that is designed to doggedly resist and counter...

(in the most exasperating way possible)

...any and all assaults against the fanciful theory inscribed in its software.

Though I guess if nothing else, these unwinnable arguments against such an unscrupulous opponent (be it bot or actual human) helps us to clarify our own ideas on these issues.

But that's assuming we can survive the concussions and brain trauma from all of the head-to-wall banging.

Hopefully, when the experiment ends, we will each receive a check in the mail for our unwitting participation in this diabolical project (or at least a commemorative plaque).

So just take some deep breaths and always keep in mind that we might be arguing with a computer bot.
_______

So, whaddaya think? Is it human or bot?
_______

[Harry Baird]

Responding to multiple posts at once:

[Y]ou're avoiding facing the fact. But it will not go away. You can't legitimize your conception of "justice."

Again: the meaning of "justice" and its grounding are two separate questions. My argument relies only on the first: its standard, dictionary definition. You deny this so as to try to squirm your way out of that argument by perpetuating a red herring.

And again: if you think that the standard, dictionary definition of "justice" is legitimate, then there's no need for me to "legitimate" it; if you don't, then why not? Burden's on you, dude. I'm just using a word according to common usage. I don't have any burden to defend that.

You don't know what [justice] is; or if you do, you're not telling us.

My dear duplicitous fool, this accusation is beneath you. Pretty much everybody who uses the word knows what it means - or they wouldn't use it - and that of course includes me (and you). In addition, I have provided you with multiple dictionary definitions of "justice", and you're perfectly capable of looking up more on your own if that tickles your funny bone.

[Quoting Wolterstorff, p.35]

[...] The debate is not over whether or not there are natural rights... [...]

Right, so, the existence of justice (at least as a consequence of natural rights) is a given (not part of the debate), and thus there's no problem relevant to my argument. Your point, then?

[H]ere's Dworkin, p.8.

[...]We cannot defend a theory of justice without defending, as part of the same enterprise, a theory of moral objectivity.

Presumably, the book then goes on to defend a theory of moral objectivity. Its claim, then, would not be that moral objectivity is indefensible aka "illegitimate", and thus, its claim would not be that justice itself is "illegitimate". So, how is this at all relevant to my argument?

So now, where's your theory of moral objectivity, so essential to grounding your conception of justice, as Dworkin says?

Again: I explained it to you in detail in my initial spate of posting to this board many years back. We discussed and debated it at length in an involved exchange. I'm not going to reprosecute that case. If you need to refresh your memory, then feel free to return to that exchange to do so.

But again: this is in any case a red herring. My argument relies solely on the meaning of justice, not its grounding or theory.

So suddenly you're no longer going to maintain that every culture has your simple, dictionary definition of justice?

It's not "sudden". I wrote late in September that 'the argument works with a range of conceptions of justice that are reasonable and sane', and then a few days back that 'while there is some room for discussion as to what exactly "justice" entails, there is no sane, reasonable (dictionary) definition of justice in which infinite ("unimaginable") punishment for finite transgressions during a finite life is just.'

Both of those statements more or less explicitly affirm that given a standard, dictionary definition of justice, there are nevertheless sane and reasonable variations on how justice is more specifically conceptualised (and, I add, theorised about) between individuals and groups - but that all of them work for my argument, which only requires the broad, standard, dictionary definition.

If you think that, in general, they don't, then the burden's on you to explain how and why.

By the way, where in the Bible is justice defined and "legitimated"? C&V, please. Are you able to provide the very "legitimation" you accuse me of failing to provide?

I've already done so, but you forgot. I've said that "justice" Biblically speaking, is grounded in the character of God.

I don't see any Biblical quotes there, just an assertion of your own opinion. Again: where in the Bible is justice defined and "legitimated"? C&V please.

You in any case run afoul of Euthyphro's Dilemma here (despite proposing that you've solved it), but, again, we covered all of that in our historical exchange during my first spate of posting to his board, and, again, I'm not going to reprosecute that case.

God defines what "justice" is, just as He defines "love," "truth," "mercy," and any other fundamental concept you wish to interrogate. And he does so not arbitrarily, but on the basis of who He is, the fundamental Reality in the universe. So there's no higher court of appeal, and no other basis upon which any person can genuinely know what "justice" is.

[...]

[E]ven you would have to concede that IF my worldview were correct, THEN I would have provided you with adequate grounding for the right conception of "justice."

Nope: again, because, despite your sophistical attempt to avoid it, you run afoul of Euthyphro's Dilemma.

But, again: we hashed all of this out years ago, and I'm not interested in revisiting it.

I will accept any answer that makes rational sense on its own terms, given your professed worldview.

So, go back and read our historical exchange, and you'll find an acceptable answer.

Emphasis added:

So, here's a direct question to you, Immanuel Can: which of the two numbered possibilities above is the case? Only you can tell us.

(Who wants to estimate the odds that this question is skipped, snipped, and utterly ignored, as if it didn't even exist - or, at least, responded to in a shifty, indirect way which avoids explicitly choosing either option?)

Nobody bit, because we all knew how high they were - and so it came to pass.

What am I batting here in these predictions? Something like four from four?

Why, Immanuel Can, I do believe you're beginning to look a little deterministic.

None of this has any bearing that I can discern on the critique of the notion that there is a god who will eternally torture, with no reprieve, those who do not, cannot or will not believe.

You are mixing categories. It is a deceptive tactic.

Exactly. It's deception in God's name, which is, in effect, blasphemy.

[Harry Baird]

So, whaddaya think? Is it human or bot?

The agent seems to be in some sense rule-based, with one key rule being, "If a question is too uncomfortable, skip, snip, and totally ignore it."

That suggests "bot".

However, I'm skeptical that even very advanced bots could be as duplicitous as Agent IC is, so I'm instead gonna go with "fruitcake fundy".

[Harry Baird]

Creation is a living machine created by the necessity of transforming substances enabling the Father to experience itself.

Huh? You don't believe in a personal God, so how can "the Father" experience? Experience is subjective: that is, only subjects (persons) experience.

The Father doesn't punish anything but is responsible for the laws of creation. The process of creation is the responsibility of the Son.

Similarly: how can an impersonal being be "responsible"? Only intelligent, volitional, personal agents are responsible.

At the very least, you're being sloppy with language/concepts. At worst, your philosophy is incoherent.

[Harry Baird]

Show me someone who knows how to use deductive reason beginning with our source and gradually devolving down to explain the human condition and I'll gladly listen.

Do you claim to know how to do such a thing? If so, then please go ahead, and I'll try to understand, but not uncritically. In other words, please feel free to share your own deductive reasoning beginning with our source and gradually devolving down to explain the human condition.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

So MY "absolutism discredits" EVERYONE? I had no idea I had such power over public virtue! I feel very privileged to be the moral touchstone of everybody else.

Just as a very good life is evidence that humankind is capable of it, so a dishonest or stupid life is a sign that humans are capable of dishonesty of stupidity.

True, this forum is not "life". Self presentation is all there is here. I bet IC has more to recommend him than his posts here.

[Harry Baird]

I bet IC has more to recommend him than his posts here.

Belinda wins the "Best backhanded compliment of 2022 on PN" award, even though we're only partway through the year. Nothing's gonna top that.

[Nick_A]

Show me someone who knows how to use deductive reason beginning with our source and gradually devolving down to explain the human condition and I'll gladly listen.

Do you claim to know how to do such a thing? If so, then please go ahead, and I'll try to understand, but not uncritically. In other words, please feel free to share your own deductive reasoning beginning with our source and gradually devolving down to explain the human condition.

Where inductive reason begins with the comparison of parts, of details, to try and build the whole, deductive reason begins with the whole and verifies itself by the connectiveness of the parts within the ONE. Deductive reason in pursuit of wisdom begins with the ONE. If it doesn't make any sense to you as the source of existence, then there is no reason to continue.

https://iep.utm.edu/plotinus/

a. The One

The ‘concept’ of the One is not, properly speaking, a concept at all, since it is never explicitly defined by Plotinus, yet it is nevertheless the foundation and grandest expression of his philosophy. Plotinus does make it clear that no words can do justice to the power of the One; even the name, ‘the One,’ is inadequate, for naming already implies discursive knowledge, and since discursive knowledge divides or separates its objects in order to make them intelligible, the One cannot be known through the process of discursive reasoning (Ennead VI.9.4). Knowledge of the One is achieved through the experience of its ‘power’ (dunamis) and its nature, which is to provide a ‘foundation’ (arkhe) and location (topos) for all existents (VI.9.6). The ‘power’ of the One is not a power in the sense of physical or even mental action; the power of the One, as Plotinus speaks of it, is to be understood as the only adequate description of the ‘manifestation’ of a supreme principle that, by its very nature, transcends all predication and discursive understanding. This ‘power,’ then, is capable of being experienced, or known, only through contemplation (theoria), or the purely intellectual ‘vision’ of the source of all things. The One transcends all beings, and is not itself a being, precisely because all beings owe their existence and subsistence to their eternal contemplation of the dynamic manifestation(s) of the One. The One can be said to be the ‘source’ of all existents only insofar as every existent naturally and (therefore) imperfectly contemplates the various aspects of the One, as they are extended throughout the cosmos, in the form of either sensible or intelligible objects or existents. The perfect contemplation of the One, however, must not be understood as a return to a primal source; for the One is not, strictly speaking, a source or a cause, but rather the eternally present possibility — or active making-possible — of all existence, of Being (V.2.1). According to Plotinus, the unmediated vision of the ‘generative power’ of the One, to which existents are led by the Intelligence , results in an ecstatic dance of inspiration, not in a satiated torpor ; for it is the nature of the One to impart fecundity to existents — that is to say: the One, in its regal, indifferent capacity as undiminishable potentiality of Being, permits both rapt contemplation and ecstatic, creative extension. These twin poles, this ‘stanchion,’ is the manifested framework of existence which the One produces, effortlessly (V.1.6). The One, itself, is best understood as the center about which the ‘stanchion,’ the framework of the cosmos, is erected . This ‘stanchion’ or framework is the result of the contemplative activity of the Intelligence.