Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

AJ wrote: Yes, it seems to be true: there is no *objective* basis for morals and moral systems. That is, if the natural world is taken as the model or the example. The world is amoral. Or, if there are morals and ethics they are of the sort that rule and dominate in the natural world.

Then there are none. Whatever "is," is 'good,' or 'not evil,' at least. It's all amoral.

Perhaps you have some sort of cognitive disorder? Are you incapable of reading what is clearly written and must you not-hear it and, worse, distort it?

I'll try it again:

If the world -- the world as it exists, the world of nature and natural systems -- is taken as a model then clearly there is no *morality*of a sort similar to the moral systems that human beings live through. The world of nature is amoral. It is not concerned about 'morals' it is only concerned with ecological balance. In fact the idea of *concern* is absurd when discussing nature. It only does. And the rules it conforms to are amoral.

Morals enter our human world through the human psyche. For there to be the moral and moralism there has to be a conscious, intelligent being to do the seeing, measuring and deciding.

(However, there does seem to be limited forms of proto-morality among some animal species. But that is another topic).

Good and evil, as far as I am able to tell, are not terms that can be applied to the function of natural systems.

Man enters the picture and sees a system (the world) that is terrifying in its amorality. At the end of the human road it is *the world* (amoral and unconcerned) that destroys and devours him as well. That, too, is a terrifyingly strange realization.

Man's awakening to his real circumstances provokes in man different existential questions. He sees that he is part-and-parcel of that terrible, merciless and amoral system. He arose in it, he is steeped in it. To operate in that world he must respond as that world demands. He cannot ask that that system *behave morally*. It cannot. It can only do what it does. Man is, in this obvious sense, stuck in a world that subsumes him.

Yet in the world of man, a world in which man's psyche is the major element, other possibilities are conceived. Here morality is conceived and defined. Is there a supernatural source for moral thought? Most religious systems believe that there is. I cannot think of one that does not. How that is conceived and explained varies. It is not monolithic.

You seem to say that morality comes not from man but from what you term 'god'. And you certainly refer to the lawgiving god whose name is Yahweh as the one who sets the rules, creates the commands, insists that the commands are obeyed.

That is all fine and good, as far as it goes.

My argument is only that other people, in other places and times, create moral systems, or if you wish divine them or intuit them in ways similar to that of the ancient Hebrews.

Thus moral systems are 1) parts-and-parcels of man's psyche insofar as it requires an intelliegnt psyche to be able to conceive of morality, and 2) they operate in the world of nature as *impositions* against the way that nature is (ruthless and amoral).

[Immanuel Can]

Well, God isn't exactly broadcasting his existence to everyone, including me...

But I did. And I did it because He told me to. So that's that.

Good grief.

It's true, though. I've told you.
So there won't be any saying you haven't been told.

[Gary Childress]

But I did. And I did it because He told me to. So that's that.

Good grief.

It's true, though. I've told you.
So there won't be any saying you haven't been told.

God told you to tell me that I'm going to hell for not believing in Yahweh? What were God's exact words to you concerning that? Can you at least paraphrase what the voice said without citing the bible? I don't believe the Bible is an entirely accurate interpretation of the divine so I'm not going to accept that as an answer.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You aren't at sea about this, Gary. You know what you need to know. We've been talking for some time now, and I've given you a bunch of the key verses.

If we imagine that one day, when we see God, "I didn't know" would constitute an excuse, it certainly won't in your own case.

You know. God can fairly say to you, "I told you everything you needed to know. You had that long conversation with one of my children by email. He told you all you needed to know in order to be saved."

And for those who knew less, He may ask less: but either way, that won't be your case.

You can know, you do know, you should know...So it's about what you now do with that knowledge. They days of pleading "I didn't know" are over. "God didn't tell me" is no longer your reason for disbelief.

What I find interesting when I examine the underhanded nature of these coercive ploys is that Immanuel, as a proxy for god, goes for the ultimate tool: psychological manipulation. It is the ultimate end of the *fire and brimstone* method of achieving conversion.

It's true, though. I've told you. So there won't be any saying you haven't been told.

Now, Immanuel declares that he really holds the hammer in this argument. "You were told" (by one of god's children no less!) "but you did not listen".

What I suggest is the following: see that Immanuel's argument reflects a truth in some senses. To discern what those senses are requires seriousness and effort. This is what I have been writing about. So what is needed is (as I say) to see Immanuel accurately as a religious fanatic while simultaneously not disregarding, let's say, the moral imperative which is realized by a conscious psyche in the process of being alive.

Immanuel wields the tool of a demiurgic god-concept, in my humble opinion. He does this with a concealed violence but it is violence nonetheless. It is immoral, too.

But there is a higher god-ideal. The demiurge is just the more convenient, if base and vulgar tool, that is used in a variety of different settings in our world today.

[Immanuel Can]

AJ wrote: Yes, it seems to be true: there is no *objective* basis for morals and moral systems. That is, if the natural world is taken as the model or the example. The world is amoral. Or, if there are morals and ethics they are of the sort that rule and dominate in the natural world.

Then there are none. Whatever "is," is 'good,' or 'not evil,' at least. It's all amoral.

I'll try it again:

If the world -- the world as it exists, the world of nature and natural systems -- is taken as a model then clearly there is no *morality*of a sort similar to the moral systems that human beings live through. The world of nature is amoral. It is not concerned about 'morals' it is only concerned with ecological balance. In fact the idea of *concern* is absurd when discussing nature. It only does. And the rules it conforms to are amoral.

I saw this. So far, you're right. So no further comment was necessary. I had already said the same thing.

Morals enter our human world through the human psyche.

Heh. No, that can't be the whole story. If it were, you might as well write, "Unicorns enter our world through the human psyche." That humans imagine things will not make them real, objective or true.

So that's not how the "enter." It's only how they are "recognized." They're already objective realities constituted by God.

But there's a prior question you've not thought of: why would a purely-material universe create a "psyche" that convinces some of its creatures of things that are simply illusory? Why would morality be part of our material-created psyche, since Materialism says it cannot refer to anything real?

For there to be the moral and moralism there has to be a conscious, intelligent being to do the seeing, measuring and deciding.

God fits that bill.

Good and evil, as far as I am able to tell, are not terms that can be applied to the function of natural systems.

So goodbye to Materialist, Physicalist or Naturalist morality, then. They refer to nothing objectively real.

Man enters the picture and sees a system (the world) that is terrifying in its amorality. At the end of the human road it is *the world* (amoral and unconcerned) that destroys and devours him as well. That, too, is a terrifyingly strange realization.

You swallow a lot in your mythologizing there.

Why should amorality "terrify" a creature that is, itself, nothing but a product of time and chance, the same indifferent forces that are said to create the universe.

Think harder: your analysis is too superficial. It needs an explanation of why ANY of this takes place.

You seem to say that morality comes not from man but from what you term 'god'.

It can come from nowhere else.

My argument is only that other people, in other places and times, create moral systems, or if you wish divine them or intuit them in ways similar to that of the ancient Hebrews.

Well, that's what C.S. Lewis said, and I think, rightly" that some "other people in other places" have only a part of the truth (say, their God-given instincts and conscience, and the obvious evidence of the natural world's orderliness), or have some intuitive knowledge of good and evil embedded in their God-created consciences. In fact, it's exactly what I would say: some men have partial knowledge, some have more, and only God has moral truth completely.

Thus moral systems are 1) parts-and-parcels of man's psyche insofar as it requires an intelliegnt psyche to be able to conceive of morality, and 2) they operate in the world of nature as *impositions* against the way that nature is (ruthless and amoral).

Well, what this would suggest is exactly what Romans 1 says so clearly. That because of what God has made men to be, and because of the natural world, ALL men know there's a God, and ALL know about morality; but some reject both.

[Alexis Jacobi]

AJ writes: Morals enter our human world through the human psyche.

Heh. No, that can't be the whole story. If it were, you might as well write, "Unicorns enter our world through the human psyche." That humans imagine things will not make them real, objective or true.

So that's not how the "enter." It's only how they are "recognized." They're already objective realities constituted by God.

But there's a prior question you've not thought of: why would a purely-material universe create a "psyche" that convinces some of its creatures of things that are simply illusory? Why would morality be part of our material-created psyche, since Materialism says it cannot refer to anything real?

As per normal you distort when you rephrase. Your re-phrasings are intentional distortions. It is an immoral habit!

I did not say it was *the whole story*, I pointed out that it requires a psyche, a soul, to perceive morals and morality. I also do not say that I think morality, and the metaphysical concepts or realities that stand behind them, are imaginary as in unreal. They are very real. But they do not exist in the natural, surrounding world. They come into our world through man.

And 'recognition' is certainly part-and-parcel of the soul's or the psyche's activity. Thus this is implied.

They're already objective realities constituted by God

They seem to be 'constituted' things or possibilities that have arisen within the manifestation of the world and the cosmos, and that has always been the very core of all my arguments. What man conceives, perceives, and imposes on the world and into the world are not *unreal things*. Though they have no objective existence in the sense of a locatable objectivity.

But they are certainly real.

My objection to you is that you are tied, perversely, to a specific system which is intolerant, domineering and 'imperialistic'. And you are rather obviously involved in rather raw uses of psychological manipulation which are extensions of that domineering and imperialistic mode of imposition. I vehemently oppose those things, and thus I oppose your actions and activities. And with good reason.

But there's a prior question you've not thought of: why would a purely-material universe create a "psyche" that convinces some of its creatures of things that are simply illusory? Why would morality be part of our material-created psyche, since Materialism says it cannot refer to anything real?

I did not have to think of it, you dolt, because it is not my argument! I am not defining or defending 'materialism' and I never have.

[Alexis Jacobi]

...

[Gary Childress]

Morals enter our human world through the human psyche.

Heh. No, that can't be the whole story. If it were, you might as well write, "Unicorns enter our world through the human psyche." That humans imagine things will not make them real, objective or true.

But it seems true that unicorns enter the world only through the human psyche. Horses are real because we can go out and touch one and listen to its sound. We can't seem to do that with God, not that that means there is no God but perhaps there is no Yahweh.

[Alexis Jacobi]

AJ wrote: Man enters the picture and sees a system (the world) that is terrifying in its amorality. At the end of the human road it is *the world* (amoral and unconcerned) that destroys and devours him as well. That, too, is a terrifyingly strange realization.

You swallow a lot in your mythologizing there.

Why should amorality "terrify" a creature that is, itself, nothing but a product of time and chance, the same indifferent forces that are said to create the universe.

Think harder: your analysis is too superficial. It needs an explanation of why ANY of this takes place.

Again, you cannot read clearly, or without a distorting bias, what I actually say and write. I suppose that man's awareness is part of or extends from the soul, and I also would suggest that the soul is connected to what is divine. This is a key statement and is what I have always asserted. You continually see me as the dread 'materialist' that you in fact are arguing against!

What I am saying is that there are alternatives to your specific religious structure. And that is what it is: a religious structure that, in you, produces fanaticism. Can you break out of it? Surely you can. It exists as a possibility. Will you? That seems unlikely.

And the question Why is all of this taking place is a very good one. It is the question that all should really ask.

Many different people, in different times and places, ask those questions. And all the answers that rise up can and in my view should be considered.

[Gary Childress]

Thus moral systems are 1) parts-and-parcels of man's psyche insofar as it requires an intelliegnt psyche to be able to conceive of morality, and 2) they operate in the world of nature as *impositions* against the way that nature is (ruthless and amoral).

Well, what this would suggest is exactly what Romans 1 says so clearly. That because of what God has made men to be, and because of the natural world, ALL men know there's a God, and ALL know about morality; but some reject both.

And of those who reject only Yahweh, they will go to hell? Why is that? I mean, is Yahweh even the name of God? I mean, what if his name is Arnold or Bob or something like that or Susan or Linda? I can't imagine that God would even have a name or sexual orientation and I can't imagine that God would command someone to sacrifice their son or kill every living creature on Earth except 2 of each kind. The God I believe in would also support free speech. He/she wouldn't be put off by being called a "jerk" for creating such a messed up world or anything else. And if God's only solution to fixing the world S/HE created is to destroy everything, then that's not satisfactory either. He made the mess, he can clean it up the right way. And the right way is to take out all the evil aspects of it FOR EVERYONE.

[Immanuel Can]

I pointed out that it requires a psyche, a soul, to perceive morals and morality. I also do not say that I think morality, and the metaphysical concepts or realities that stand behind them, are imaginary as in unreal. They are very real. But they do not exist in the natural, surrounding world. They come into our world through man.

Maybe you'd best just say what you mean.

Do you mean, "Man invents morality," or "Man discovers morality after he comes into the world, but it is already inherently present in the order of things?"

What man conceives, perceives, and imposes on the world and into the world are not *unreal things*. Though they have no objective existence in the sense of a locatable objectivity.

But they are certainly real.

The're "really illusions" you mean. That is, man imagines them, but they aren't there? That's what you mean?

I'm asking, not telling.

My objection to you is that you are tied, perversely, to a specific system which is intolerant, domineering and 'imperialistic'.

Well, also the truth is like that. You have to live with it. It does not compromise with illusions. It is intolerant of lies, domineers over falsehood, and "imperialistically" supplants all attempts to fend it off. I don't regard that as a stroke against it. I marvel that you do.

[Alexis Jacobi]

AJ writes: My argument is only that other people, in other places and times, create moral systems, or if you wish divine them or intuit them in ways similar to that of the ancient Hebrews.

Well, that's what C.S. Lewis said, and I think, rightly" that some "other people in other places" have only a part of the truth (say, their God-given instincts and conscience, and the obvious evidence of the natural world's orderliness), or have some intuitive knowledge of good and evil embedded in their God-created consciences. In fact, it's exactly what I would say: some men have partial knowledge, some have more, and only God has moral truth completely.

What CS Lewis said is not of great concern or high relevance to me or my arguments. To cut to the chase: the entirety of your argument revolves around your belief that there is only *one way* to come into relationship with what you refer to as 'god'. I put your entire concept in quotes because, in so many ways, I do not share it because I do not desire to share your imperiousness and your fanaticism.

In relation to you -- an Evangelical Christian fanatic -- one has to carefully sort you out. What you are, what you have tied yourself to, is in my opinion a sort of mental disease. So sorting through everything you say, though demanding and excruciating, is necessary.

And this largely explains my efforts here -- in relation to you.

[Immanuel Can]

But it seems true that unicorns enter the world...

They don't actually. Not one ever actually "entered" anything.

They appear only as delusions. And while delusions are really delusions, they are not reality.

[Gary Childress]

But it seems true that unicorns enter the world...

They don't actually. Not one ever actually "entered" anything.

They appear only as delusions. And while delusions are really delusions, they are not reality.

What qualies do unicorns have that Yahweh doesn't?

[Immanuel Can]

I suppose that man's awareness is part of or extends from the soul, and I also would suggest that the soul is connected to what is divine.

I would suggest that's wrong. The soul is disconnected from its rightful connection to the Divine.

And the evidence is that it thinks, desires and does evil.

You continually see me as the dread 'materialist' that you in fact are arguing against!

I actually don't. I see you as a pseudo-Vedantist. But you're not the only person here. Many more are Materialists, Atheists, skeptics, agnostics, Physicalists and other types.