Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

I am not concerned right at this moment in defining, nor locating, a judge or the Judge.

You should be, because without it, your term "moral" is rendered circular and vacuous again.

But it's an interesting admission, coming from you..."moral" needs a judge, a legitimative basis of some kind. On that, we agree.

Who was the judge? And who was the Judge?

Secularly, that is, speaking without God in view, there was nobody who had a right to judge...not even the collective.

For we do not even have so much as an axiom, "The collective has the right to judge." They may have had enough power, physical, social or other, to humiliate him or even punish him. But they did not have any right.

We have, secularly, no moral axioms at all to rely on at all. They're all made-up, all artificial, and none is durable or defensible.

Circular? Vacuous?

Both. All you've said is, "The collective get to judge, because I think the collective gets to judge."

It couldn't be more empty.

[Immanuel Can]

But man is merely an animal,

I don't think anybody actually believes that.

I believe it. I admit that I put man apart from all other animals, but that is because I belong to the same species.

Then isn't it time you got over any such delusion?

Similarly to how I think of my own country as being special among all other countries, as, no doubt, you do.

I don't.

If I am being subjective, I honestly do think that man is just one of many species of animal that inhabits the Earth.

Then his moral responsibility is zero. If he thinks otherwise, it's a delusion he'd do well to get over.

If they did, they'd believe also that mankind had no moral duties at all. So they couldn't even argue that man had any special duty to, say, "conserve the planet." After all, we don't ask foxes and rabbits to do such things.

I don't believe that mankind does have any moral duties in an objective sense, but most men feel they have moral duties, and that is sufficient to influence their actions.

You mean they fool themselves.

Human beings are able to empathise with one another,

That's contingent, and in an indifferent universe, makes no hay.

There must be times when you come up against a moral issue that falls outside of anything the Bible is able to guide you on.

Not really. Between precept and principle, it's pretty well comprehensive. If you read the Sermon on the Mount, for instance, you see that principle (or commandment) alone does not nearly exhaust the realm of the moral. There's much more to it. I doubt a hundred lifetimes would exhaust that.

Well, you don't HAVE to. Remember? You have no duties. So you can behave in ways that others regard as "moral" when you want to, and then be as "immoral" as you find it useful to be when they're not watching.

Yes, I could be dishonest about quite a few things when, for example, I am engaged in an argument with you, and you would have no way of knowing it, but I'm not. What on earth is preventing me, I wonder.

Secularly? Nothing. Nothing but your squeamishness about it. But Theistically? You have a conscience, and as a decent chap, don't easily violate it.

That's the thing about the impersonal universe: it lets you do whichever you please. That's one of its great attractions.

The impersonal universe is a fact that I have no control over, but whether or not I choose to use it as an excuse is something within my control.

Of course. But you have no duties to it if you don't.

For the same reason a child cannot be without a father. Because God exists, and man, despite his delusions of self-sufficiency, actually does need God, or he's dead.

That conclusion isn't something you would expect an atheist to agree with, is it?

It's the truth. One can agree with it or not, but it stays around.

The human race is not a child, and it doesn't have a father.

The human race is not self-sufficient, nor self-created, and not eternal. And like a good child, requires a relationship with its Creator, or it really starts to go very wrong...as you see now.

Moral duty? But what moral duty can you possibly actually have? If there's no God, how can you "owe" anybody, whether your neighbours or the authorities, to get a shot, or do anything else?

Well, if there is a God, how am I supposed to know whether he wants me to get jabbed or not?

Moral decisions, in the Christian life, are not premised on mere commandments, but in the dynamics of one's living relationship with God. I can't tell you whether you should or not; but God can.

I suppose they can force you, or guilt you into it, if you're inclined to that. But would you actually be a "bad" person if you simply refused? For that matter, would it be "bad" to cough into grandma's face, while COVID positive?

Are you seriously saying that the only reason to have concern for another's well being is if God wishes it?[/quote]
I'm saying the opposite: that absent God, you've got no reason to be particularly concerned, morally speaking, about anything. You do what you want to do. Again, that's one of the attractions of Atheism...in principle, it means freedom from the moral. Whether or not you act on that, personally, is up to you; but from an Atheist perspective, you're not objectively a better or worse person, whatever you do.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I'm saying the opposite: that absent God, you've got no reason to be particularly concerned, morally speaking, about anything. You do what you want to do.

This is simply false. We have all sorts of reasons to be concerned about all sorts of things — even in a ‘no-god world’ to quote someone near and dear.

One could — in a no-god world — feel toward the end if one’s days either great remorse or great satisfaction for how one lived, what one achieved, and for what one left behind.

No matter what is the ultimate truth (if god exists and how divinity exists) not a great deal changes for a thinking being schooled in (say) our traditions.

But in a no-god no-consequence universe — yes, the universe cannot care. And as Brother Dubious points out it has greater concerns to focus on.

This is not to be taken to mean that I, Master Alexis, believe it is a no-god world. However it is apparent that men can act in accord with defined ethics and morals and not be concerned about god.

but from an Atheist perspective, you're not objectively a better or worse person, whatever you do.

Flatly false. False through and through.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm saying the opposite: that absent God, you've got no reason to be particularly concerned, morally speaking, about anything. You do what you want to do.

This is simply false. We have all sorts of reasons to be concerned about all sorts of things — even in a ‘no-god world’ to quote someone near and dear.

Not in such a world. In such a world you may care about whatever you wish to care about, and ignore whatever you wish to ignore. But there's no objective moral status for either choice...and the same is true in all matters.

One could — in a no-god world — feel toward the end if one’s days either great remorse or great satisfaction for how one lived, what one achieved, and for what one left behind.

But whatever one "feels" it will be a delusion. For there is neither a right nor a wrong to how one lived, and one is not morally better or worse for having made any choice. One just "feels" one way or another. That's the end of it.

...it is apparent that men can act in accord with defined ethics and morals and not be concerned about god.

This is the same to say, in a secular way of thinking, that men and women can be inconsistent, emotionally-motivated, and irrational, even in the absence of any objective justification. No surprise there.

but from an Atheist perspective, you're not objectively a better or worse person, whatever you do.

Flatly false. False through and through.

Oops. You forgot the argument to support that claim.

[Harbal]

I believe it. I admit that I put man apart from all other animals, but that is because I belong to the same species.

Then isn't it time you got over any such delusion?

I have no reason to think I will.

I don't believe that mankind does have any moral duties in an objective sense, but most men feel they have moral duties, and that is sufficient to influence their actions.

You mean they fool themselves.

A moral compulsion that I experience feels more real to me than one you tell me I should have. And I can live with fooling myself if the alternative is being fooled by you.

There must be times when you come up against a moral issue that falls outside of anything the Bible is able to guide you on.

Not really. Between precept and principle, it's pretty well comprehensive. If you read the Sermon on the Mount, for instance, you see that principle (or commandment) alone does not nearly exhaust the realm of the moral. There's much more to it. I doubt a hundred lifetimes would exhaust that.

I can see how offloading the responsibility for your moral conduct onto someone else could make things easier, but I don't think I could subdue my conscience sufficiently to be able to do that.

The impersonal universe is a fact that I have no control over, but whether or not I choose to use it as an excuse is something within my control.

Of course. But you have no duties to it if you don't.

Except for any duty that I impose upon myself. You might think that only God given moral duty has any validity, but I don't think that.

Well, if there is a God, how am I supposed to know whether he wants me to get jabbed or not?

Moral decisions, in the Christian life, are not premised on mere commandments, but in the dynamics of one's living relationship with God. I can't tell you whether you should or not; but God can

Which amounts to my still having to struggle with moral decisions, but God getting the thanks.

I'm saying the opposite: that absent God, you've got no reason to be particularly concerned, morally speaking, about anything.

But God is absent, yet I still do have moral concerns, so it seems a reason isn't actually necessary.

that's one of the attractions of Atheism...in principle, it means freedom from the moral.

It's not a matter of attraction. I would have to believe something that I don't believe in order to not be an atheist. And I can assure you it certainly does not mean freedom from the moral. It makes morality more demanding when you have to take responsibility for it yourself.

[Immanuel Can]

A moral compulsion that I experience feels more real to me than one you tell me I should have. And I can live with fooling myself if the alternative is being fooled by you.

Wouldn't it be better not to be fooled at all? In which case, whatever you believe and practice would have to rationalize correctly with what you believe is true. If there's a God, then it's wise to consider morality. No God, no morality required. But it's how your worldview informs you that makes the one or the other choice rational.

I can see how offloading the responsibility for your moral conduct onto someone else could make things easier, but I don't think I could subdue my conscience sufficiently to be able to do that.

In a God-less world, there's no reason to either to think one has "moral responsibility," nor any explanation for the cries of that thing called "conscience." Neither, one can only conclude, refers to anything objectively real.

The impersonal universe is a fact that I have no control over, but whether or not I choose to use it as an excuse is something within my control.

Of course. But you have no duties to it if you don't.

Except for any duty that I impose upon myself.

Well, one can "impose" any delusion on oneself one wishes, of course. But there's a better explanation: maybe your moral sense is telling you there actually is something real you should be concerned about.

Well, if there is a God, how am I supposed to know whether he wants me to get jabbed or not?

Moral decisions, in the Christian life, are not premised on mere commandments, but in the dynamics of one's living relationship with God. I can't tell you whether you should or not; but God can

Which amounts to my still having to struggle with moral decisions, but God getting the thanks.

It means you no longer struggle alone, and no longer struggle in a worldview that tells you there's nothing real for you discern...and hence, no real answer.

I'm saying the opposite: that absent God, you've got no reason to be particularly concerned, morally speaking, about anything.

But God is absent, yet I still do have moral concerns, so it seems a reason isn't actually necessary.

An Evolutionist would have to believe that's just a fault of your own character...you're not as realistic as you should be, and are perhaps plagued by qualms you've inherited from your socialization or from the Christian past.

But he couldn't think your moral concerns are acutally moral concerns...they'd only be residual delusions of some kind.

Not that I agree with that, of course.

I would have to believe something that I don't believe in order to not be an atheist.

Yes, you would.

It makes morality more demanding when you have to take responsibility for it yourself.

Heh. I don't think it does. It simply makes it optional...and not referential to any objective realities.

[attofishpi]

I dedicate the following turgidity to Belinda....

1. Judaism does consider the coming of the Messiah as a person, an 'annointed one', consideration of this entity as God incarnated in person form is irrelevant. (Jesus is not entirely considered God incarnate by many Christians, and I don't think he ever stated he was in the Gospels...not beyond probably saying something like the Father is in me, cas in certainly is in all of us GOD).

Jesus is considered god incarnate by Christianity generally. If there are exceptions they are irrelevant. Other proposals were considered heretic. The moshiach will also be a man but not an incarnation of god.

Is there anything stated in the NT that would justify the claim that Jesus was the incarnation of God, if not then it is relevant.

Attofish: 2. Perhaps Jesus opposed elements of what Judaism had become, I doubt he opposed ALL of its 'construct'. That Orthodox Jews believe that Judaism 'construct' at the time was PERFECT, and would not be criticised in any way by their Messiah is rather short sighted.

I'd suggest that Jesus can be seen in a few different ways. One, similar to a fictional figure in a novel. In the novel (the Story) the incarnated god of the Jews comes down and expresses near-total dissatisfaction with what his flock had achieved. In the Story he comes meekly. Because he is (apparently) weak he is easily destroyed. Ah but god is more tricky than those devilish ones imagined! Killing him does a number of mysterious and magical things. One, the temple constructed by god's instruction is struck with an expression of divine wrath:

And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Typically, this rending of the cloth is interpreted as indicating that with Jesus' 'perfect sacrifice' that now there is no cloth or veil separating man from atonement -- no mediators are now required. God took back (I guess one would say) the power of mediation that had been given to his servants who were obviously found to be not only inadequate but fundamentally opposed to 'god's plans'.

And therefore with this action taken by god himself Judean religious authority was overturned. God himself overturned it. The implications are extensive. Note that E Michael Jones (a radical Catholic) says that it was 'at the foot of the cross' when Jews thereby became eternal rebels. The (novelistic) logic is easy to see: if you opposed god's entry into the world to recover the lost sheep and restore the Earth (i.e. the Jewish mission), then it stands to reason that you are out of communion with god and, in fact, god's enemy.

What I am trying to explain is not *reality* necessarily but Story and Story's implications. There are further implications: the Exile.

Jesus is said to have said: As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Jesus predicted it 37 years before it happened. Herod Agrippa II and his sister Bernice, who heard Paul’s testimony at Caesarea (Acts 26), tried hard to prevent it, as did the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (our main source of first-century information). But the fall of Jerusalem and the burning of the Temple in A.D. 70 happened nevertheless, and it was a catastrophe with almost unparalleled consequences for Jews, Christians, and, indeed, all of subsequent history. It compelled a whole new vector for synagogue (not Temple) Judaism, it submerged the Jewish homeland for the next 19 centuries under foreign domination, it helped foster the split between church and synagogue, and it set the stage for rampant prophetic speculation about the End Times that continues to the present day. Few episodes in history have had that sort of impact.

In a novel you have to follow *implications*. Who burned the Temple? Who is the author of the Exile? But everything hinges on *who* is doing the interpreting. Here for example is the Jewish version (according to Chabad.org)

The Roman Empire brought the final blow for Jewish sovereignty in Israel and the final exile for the Jews, one that has lasted for nearly 2,000 years and has not yet ended.

The Jewish people during that time were split into four factions: the Pharisees, Sadducees, Sicarii and Zealots. Some of these groups began rebelling against the mighty empire.

The Emperor Nero saw this as treason and sent his best general, Vespasian, along with his son, Titus, and 60,000 Roman soldiers to quell the revolt.

Finally, in the year 3829 (69 CE), an oppression that started with heavy taxes ended with mass murder. The Jewish people were butchered and slaughtered, their homes ransacked and the Holy Temple burnt to the ground. And since then, the Jewish people have been persecuted and exiled.

Here is the Jewish definition of Moshaich:

The Messianic Era will be ushered in by a Jewish leader generally referred to as the Moshiach (messiah: Hebrew for "the anointed one"), a righteous scion of King David. He will rebuild the Holy Temple in Jerusalem and gather the Jewish people from all corners of the earth and return them to the Promised Land.

Very interesting, and thanks for the history lesson. This interests me: "Finally, in the year 3829 (69 CE)"

This 3829 I assume is what the Jewish calendar year would indicate? If so, what was the significance of the year 'zero'.?

Atto writes: So Orthodox Jews believe any Messiah from God (who created ALL men) would be exclusive to them.

You need (we need) to see things as those who define the interpretation of these prophetic visions see them. To do this we have to step aside. If you define a god who is the creator of everything and the owner of everything, and if that god gives *authority* to a specific people for a specific mission, you then have to define what that mission is and what the end result is supposed to be, right? Is there an alternative? The implication is that god ownes destiny. Fate is god's possession. Again the implications are extensive.

Sure, but what is the specifics of the "specific mission" per Judaism? Was it what the Jews were to spread their interpretation of God's will via what was instructed to their prophets?

Atto writes

: 3. So let me get this right. Jesus, considered Christ and forming predominantly Christian nations, one of which assisted the Jews by assuring them a place to live, establishing Israel...and now these Jews ARE able to reconstruct the temple are still not satisfied that Jesus was the Messiah! Perhaps they were impatient and thought the Messiah was going to start laying stones and mortar (again, rather short sighted of them).

Here you enter difficult territory. You are referring to Zionism and the ways and means that the Zionist project led to the reestablishment of a Jewish state in the Holy Land. To understand Jewish Zionism it is necessary to understand Christian Zionism which, in certain senses, predated it. In the simplest terms the storyline goes like this: If man (people) take 'push to shove' and precipitate the Return of the exiled Jews to Israel, that will (to put it vulgarly) jumpstart the process of god's reclaiming of the Earth and establishing a 'holy kingdom' with its political center in Jerusalem.

All of these things were 'predicted' in prophetic scripture.

Atto writes: Hang on! What's the "Jewish mission"?

This is precisely what I have just been talking about.

So what I say is: to understand Immanuel Can here in this thread, he who defines himself as the ultra-true and the really-true Christian, you really have no choice in the matter but to understand the *structure of belief* that is inherent in Judaism.

Yes, I understand that (The comparison to fundamentalism of orthodoxy)

Sorry, I am only able to use a tablet atm, so rather difficult with large posts, I may miss stuff - but I see you have explained this specific mission- as creating a planet Holy under God, with Jerusalem as the planets capital...right?

Now what is interesting is to consider the following: If one 'believes' in the core tenets of Judaism, and if one sees these re-expressed or perhaps clarified is the term (?) in Christianity, then it is not hard to understand that one is, through one's belief, actually a participant in the creation of the Story. And to create the Story is to engineer the fate through a sort of participatory enactment.

Now let's consider -- in contrast -- those who do not believe. One has to consider the 'plank' (the platform) of those who have arrived at non-belief. No god. No overseeing intelligence at least not the Christian one. A very different unfolding therefore of world history. The catastrophic Jewish and Christian 'vision' is thereby opposed -- but what replaces it? Is it actually even possible to eject oneself from this Vision? Is it possible to extricate oneself (that is Occidental man and all who are brought into the fold of belief which means 'the global south') from the consequences of prophetic unfolding?

See how strange and interesting this becomes?

Yes. I think all religious people of some form of 'holy' scripture should not accept everything within scripture as fundamentally true, UNLESS...somehow this scripture was provided in the handwriting of God himself! (I think you know what I mean)
That everyone of any religion surely knows that man himself wrote the contents of scripture via prophetic interpretation of visions\voice renders the content of scripture not perfectly accurate as to God's command.

[tillingborn]

The thing you cannot admit is that if there were no creationism, there would be no "Evolutionism"

Oh, I can admit that, alright. If there were no God, there'd be no Atheism, too.

Could you explain the logic by which you arrive at this conclusion?

[Harbal]

Wouldn't it be better not to be fooled at all? In which case, whatever you believe and practice would have to rationalize correctly with what you believe is true. If there's a God, then it's wise to consider morality. No God, no morality required. But it's how your worldview informs you that makes the one or the other choice rational.

No, I don’t believe our impulses to behave morally should be checked for rationality before we act on them.

In a God-less world, there's no reason to either to think one has "moral responsibility," nor any explanation for the cries of that thing called "conscience." Neither, one can only conclude, refers to anything objectively real.

But the disagreeable sensation I experience when I go against my conscience is real.

Well, one can "impose" any delusion on oneself one wishes, of course. But there's a better explanation: maybe your moral sense is telling you there actually is something real you should be concerned about.

Like the delusion that there is a God, for example? Your view of morality seems to be centred around pleasing God, rather than concern for other human beings. Even if God did exist, I would still say you had your priorities wrong.

An Evolutionist would have to believe that's just a fault of your own character...you're not as realistic as you should be, and are perhaps plagued by qualms you've inherited from your socialization or from the Christian past.

But he couldn't think your moral concerns are acutally moral concerns...they'd only be residual delusions of some kind.

Well, I don’t live my life in accordance with what Evolutionists believe or think.


I think that morality should be practiced for its own sake, and that it is its own reward. You seem to have the view that pleasing God is the reason for practicing it. You also seem to think it matters which one of those reasons we choose for behaving morally, whereas I don’t. I think my reason is more credit worthy, but as long as we do behave morally, I don’t think our reason for doing it is too important.

You might not think that is a rational view, but I think that would be to its credit, and I am satisfied with it. However, it seems to me that if everyone behaves morally, ethically and with respect towards each other, life will be a better experience for everyone, including me, so if we insist on a rational reason before we practice morality, let it be that.

[tillingborn]

Eliminating God from the universe maximizes what they want: moral freedom for humanity, and open license for human manipulation to do anything it wants to do...including through the methods of science, but not at all limited to them. The human race in general wants to believe it has no moral responsibility and will never give account to God, and so that's great incentive for embracing Atheism, and Atheism needs an alternate narrative of how things came about -- absent God, of course. Evolutionism is the flavour of the day.

So we can practice abortion, euthanasia or eugenics, or call men "women," or sexually exploit or even murder our children, or manipulate other people as much as we want, or declare ourselves "masters of our own fate" without fear, or expect the future to bend to our will and none other, if we can only find a way we can bring ourselves to believe there's no God. That's Evolutionism's huge gift -- and curse.

Have you thought this through?
If it is only your fear of God that prevents you from doing all those things, you confess to being a dangerous lunatic that needs to be controlled.
If you are not a dangerous lunatic, you admit that your sense of morality is independent of God.

[attofishpi]

It also begs the question as to who is keeping God in check where morality is concerned.

[Belinda]

I'm saying the opposite: that absent God, you've got no reason to be particularly concerned, morally speaking, about anything. You do what you want to do.

This is simply false. We have all sorts of reasons to be concerned about all sorts of things — even in a ‘no-god world’ to quote someone near and dear.

Not in such a world. In such a world you may care about whatever you wish to care about, and ignore whatever you wish to ignore. But there's no objective moral status for either choice...and the same is true in all matters.

One could — in a no-god world — feel toward the end if one’s days either great remorse or great satisfaction for how one lived, what one achieved, and for what one left behind.

But whatever one "feels" it will be a delusion. For there is neither a right nor a wrong to how one lived, and one is not morally better or worse for having made any choice. One just "feels" one way or another. That's the end of it.

...it is apparent that men can act in accord with defined ethics and morals and not be concerned about god.

This is the same to say, in a secular way of thinking, that men and women can be inconsistent, emotionally-motivated, and irrational, even in the absence of any objective justification. No surprise there.

but from an Atheist perspective, you're not objectively a better or worse person, whatever you do.

Flatly false. False through and through.

Oops. You forgot the argument to support that claim.

Immanuel, you are obsessed with your need for certainty. People who can tolerate uncertainty are more likely to know reality.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Let's try to recapitulate what has gone on here and what goes on in order to achieve some clarity. My assertion is that the core issue, the real issue here, has to do with the 'capacity to think freely' and the fact that here, on this forum, and certainly on this thread, those who opine here show themselves, time and again, constrained under imposed systems that render them incapable of free thought. What is this essentially? It seems to me it is the coercive result of systems of politically correct thinking that have been successfully installed in all of us. It is like an invisible restraining force. My understanding is that it developed out of the American occupation of Europe in the aftermath of the Second World War. It is a complex thing, no doubt, but it was then that the arch-evil and devilishly demonic figure of *Adolf Hitler* as created -- by necessity really -- and as a psychological tool to, well, control thought.

What I find curious is that -- again essentially -- the antithesis of Immanuel's utterly indoctrinated Christian position; the chief opposing figure; the horror that will result unless one kneels before Jesus -- is either Hitler or Stalin (these can be interchanged freely).

But then examine what Iambiguous is saying -- again essentially. It takes a mere second for him to resort to bringing out in full Nazi regalia the Dread Figure der Führer. Doing so any conversation is immediately brought to a halt. The slightest deviation from an expression of standardized ideology (I would equate this with Americanism in a non-positive sense) will bring down those accusations of which we are all aware.

How strange it is then that this has become blended with a sort of general Christianesque consensus. That is to say that Americanism is a sort of psychological, ideological but also existential-spiritual position which is necessary to install in oneself or one will find one's own self *beyond the Pale*. It is both an active social constraint and at the same time an internal mechanism that one imposes on oneself. And that is what Jonathan Bowden refers to when he speaks of *a European grammar of self-intolerance*. It is something imposed, surely, but then we become the agents who maintain it. I submit for general review my own case: merely by mentioning the possibility of entertaining thought about contemporary issues that have been made to seem utterly reprehensible that I called down the Progressive-Left equivalent of the Thought Police. Do they recognize themselves as such? Heavens no. They feel themselves to be 'agents of righteousness' and their activism takes the form of assigning a demonic miasma and simultaneously shutting down the possibility of conversation. It is really that simple.

But who is the best exemplar of this sort of thought control? It seems to me fair to say that it is Immanuel. Why? Well let's be frank. He does not have an intellectual position. He has a belief-position that was determined beforehand. He has simply agreed to accept it -- and to defend it like the proverbial junk-yard dog. He pretends to defend ideas with *reasoning* but the material he deals in was established prior. He literally 'parrots' his Christian belief position. It iis impossible to *reason* with him because the System demands absolute adherence to its pre-defined tenets. One small deviation, giving in on one point, places the entire System in danger of folding inward. So no matter what the internal structures are defended. But the absurd thing is that Immanuel will not (because of embarrassment?) come out and state directly, unequivocally, what he really does believe. It becomes an absurd, a futile, never-ending game. Whack-a-mole.

So what happens when a form of Protestant Evangelical religiosity, which is really to say something quite a bit more, is the established mode of seeing the World? Yet we know that this is the case. We know for example that every one of the last American presidents -- especially George Bush the younger (who is an emblem of it) -- embodies this worldpicture. It is a vague one, that is true, as if all its elements lurk in the background invisibly, and yet it is a determining one. It is unfair to say though that only 'those over there' subscribe to it. No, rather we are all 'subsumed' into it. It is a question of degree. It is akin to the perceptual water in which the citizen-fish swims. Can he see the water? Is he capable of analyzing that in which he is subsumed? If he is incapable of this -- who is capable of it?

[Alexis Jacobi]

It also begs the question as to who is keeping God in check where morality is concerned.

His elder brother of course -- the First Born.

[phyllo]

Let's try to recapitulate what has gone on here and what goes on in order to achieve some clarity. My assertion is that the core issue, the real issue here, has to do with the 'capacity to think freely' and the fact that here, on this forum, and certainly on this thread, those who opine here show themselves, time and again, constrained under imposed systems that render them incapable of free thought.

Do you claim to be thinking freely?

Aren't you constrained by a different set of assumptions, experiences and reasoning?