Is morality objective or subjective?

[Alexis Jacobi]

AJ wrote: The historical antipathy between the two sections had a long and prior history — decades. To understand that antipathy requires a careful and nuanced approach.

That perspective, that frame of mind ….

To understand the perspective of those who have studied the long-standing antipathy between the sections.

Not many people have that perspective.

Clear now?

[Immanuel Can]

I suppose that's fair...

You seem remarkably comfortable with a God who is more offended by people who don't believe in Him, than people who abuse children. I would find that very difficult to reconcile. How do you manage?

I don't think these things "trade off" the way you describe. One who harms children is certainly under the judgment of God. But so too is the one who refused to honour God as God. (Romans 1) The supreme good of man -- and of children, too -- is to know God. One who harms a child may well have committed an equivalent blasphemy against God, since he may well have harmed that child's means to know God...abuse is notoriously traumatic in all kinds of ways.

So we'll have to wait and see what God adjudicates in each case. If you 're asking me to judge based on the merely hypothetical, then "No, thanks."

[Immanuel Can]

No, that's what subjectivism automatically entails...I think it's misguided. But it sure does explain why subjectivists cannot suggest a single moral precept they can make stick. They've got no basis.

There is no ‘moral precept’ that can be made to stick universally.

We'll see. I think there is.

[Immanuel Can]

Do try to speak plainly. I'm finding your obvious obfuscation unimpressive, and it's entirely unhelpful to the cause of truth.

Be patient with yourself, Immanuel.

It's your manner I'm impatient with. You seem to delight in obfuscation...but underneath it, I can see how little you actually have to say. It's a trick you'll have to try on somebody of lower intelligence, I suppose. To me, it just makes you look like an academic "pick me" girl, wanting everybody to attribute to you a level of understanding you simply do not have.

[Alexis Jacobi]

AJ wrote: No one today could defend slavery, it is simply too hot of a topic.

Immanuel, I meant in our Occidental world. There is no one I’ve come across defending or desiring to reestablish slavery. In our culture, and to us, the idea is inconsiderable.

But I have read that various forms of slavery do exist in other places.

[Alexis Jacobi]

We'll see. I think there is.

Of course you do!

[Alexis Jacobi]

It's your manner I'm impatient with.

I have 50 times more sound reasons to be impatient with you. Yet I am as patient as time … or as the sea!

Stop fretting over nothings!

[Alexis Jacobi]

The supreme good of man -- and of children, too -- is to know God.

When you make that statement it is because you are ensconced in a specificity all your interlocutors are aware of — and which most are opposed to.

But taking the perspective of men in other times and traditions, “knowing god” can mean varying things, and things contrary to what you mean.

And too your declaration is seen as empty and valueless to those for whom “God” is not a legitimate referent.

[Dubious]

The supreme good of man -- and of children, too -- is to know God.

To know god is to understand a vacuum in which everything commences...god as crucible.

[Immanuel Can]

The supreme good of man -- and of children, too -- is to know God.

To know god is to understand a vacuum in which everything commences...god as crucible.

Ummm...no. Not in Christian thought. Maybe in Gnostic lore.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I think you're projecting your own short-comings and making up delusional stories and then congratulating yourself.

You’ve got it ass-backwards. I start with self-congratulation and then move seamlessly to the delusional stories. Finally, I arrange everything neatly and then project my shortcomings to the four winds.

[Dubious]

The supreme good of man -- and of children, too -- is to know God.

To know god is to understand a vacuum in which everything commences...god as crucible.

Ummm...no. Not in Christian thought. Maybe in Gnostic lore.

Christian thought is both medieval and ancient and of no use to the modern world. Everything wears out eventually, even the most steadfast beliefs.

[Immanuel Can]

Christian thought is both medieval and ancient and of no use to the modern world.

Umm...the Medieval Period is generally recognized as being from the 5th Century to the 15th. So you're not even close. And the so-called Modern period went from then to the 1900s, maybe around 1960 or so. So you just named one unrelated era, and a now-defunct one.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Christian thought is both medieval and ancient and of no use to the modern world. Everything wears out eventually, even the most steadfast beliefs.

It really seems to depend on how it is taken, and how it is lived. Even if you considered the Christian picture as thoroughly invented or contrived, in a postmodern sense you might say “So what?” and develop a life practice dedicated to its idealisms.

No use to the modern world? Even if one considers it phantasy-based it can hardly be considered useless. There are hundreds of millions who are practitioners of it.

If taken as a way of developing a relationship to Self — in a Jungian/Hermetic sense — there is no end to its “utility”.

Such ideas are likely to appall IC whose Christianity is presented as rational realism. That inclines him to biblical literalism which is anathema to some.

Myself, when Isis appeared as a spiritual fountain of shimmering light and invited me in — well just imagine how my perspective changed!

[Dubious]

Christian thought is both medieval and ancient and of no use to the modern world.

Umm...the Medieval Period is generally recognized as being from the 5th Century to the 15th. So you're not even close. And the so-called Modern period went from then to the 1900s, maybe around 1960 or so. So you just named one unrelated era, and a now-defunct one.

Umm...I don't think it advisable to take a history lesson from someone who still believes Adam & Eve were the beginning of it!

Definition of MODERN in the context used...

a: of, relating to, or characteristic of the present or the immediate past : CONTEMPORARY

b: of, relating to, or characteristic of a period extending from a relevant remote past to the present time

...according to which I'm right on target.

So, to repeat: all this biblical bullshit has become thoroughly non-sequitur to the MODERN WORLD and merely serves as a disruptor to all the dolts who still believe the bible or Koran is the word of god!