Is morality objective or subjective?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Christianity is, in many ways, a child’s and a woman’s religion.

Why do you say that?

For a set of varied reasons. One, Christianity -- here I mean the religion that developed in Europe which is termed Greco-Christianity -- is an amalgamation of many different views, speculations, theories, projections, philosophical ideas and mythological phantasies that were common in the 1st century. The religious philosophy that became Christianity coalesced around that time. It is therefore (to express it in one way) a 'confusion of ideas' and an attempt to bridge all of them by including all of them in one degree or another. I am pretty certain that none of this is of interest to you but you did ask.

My impression, when I have studied the origins of Christianity, is that in one sense it could be seen as a bold, masculine set of choices. By 'masculine' I mean determined by decisiveness, by deep considered thought, by an analysis of the situation and the setting of the will to follow a given course because it is best (if not necessarily the easiest). It has seemed to me, when reviewing the early days, that to *take the Christian cure* and to submit oneself to a rigorous self-purification process, within a larger, surrounding community, could be seen as a 'masculine choice'. However, Christianity was a movement that thrived among the lower classes. And these are not *thinking people* nor the class that thinks. And later, when Christianity developed into a social and cultural form, it effected itself through seeking and demanding *submission* to it. In this sense it *sought women* who, instead perhaps of thinking things through themselves (to the degree that people then could do so), surrendered their will to a more powerful will of a group movement.

The idea of a man *surrendering himself* to this figure named Jesus is, also, an idea that I regard as suspect. It is one thing to conceive of a heroic figure (heroic in the classical sense) whom you emulate but another thing to surrender your will to that entity. It is a feminine trait to surrender to a superior will. A man does not, or should not, ask surrender of any man. I do not deny hierarchy but in a *real hierarchy*, and one in a close-knit community, it is improper that a strong man ask a weaker man to debase himself. If anything a man should realize the superiority of an idea (or some behavior) and choose to embrace it -- in his way and according to his lights.

I suppose it is because the early Christian groups were extended families that, naturally, women (and children) had to be incorporated. In a sense the religion was adapted to the family-unit. But in some sense the entity of the Church demands that all disciples, all followers, behave like women: bowing their heads, kneeling, giving signs of submission. It also should not be put to the side that one of the principal iconographies of the (early) Church (Catholicism) is that of Mary and the baby Jesus. So in that sense it is, literally, *the mother and child religion*.

The figure of Jesus Christ is in no sense a *capable man of the world*. He is not a warrior, a soldier, an organizer, nor even really a leader. I mean not in any of that sense related to *affairs of the world*. The figure of Jesus does not combine with any terrestrial, masculine role that I can think of except, naturally, a priest or possibly a teacher. And because he never had anything to do with woman -- no wife, no lover (that I am aware of) -- he is, again, outside of the real affairs of this world. He is in many senses more womanly than manly.

Naturally, I am speaking of two different *Jesuses*: one being the real historical figure, if indeed there was one, who actually lived and breathed. But the other is the Jesus of religious invention: the contrived figure, the necessary Jesus. The figure that has been created in man's imagination and over historical time. This is not a truly masculine figure (in my view).

Well, there you have a few ideas. To sum it up the Jesus figure, as such, is not very relevant as a prototype of what I myself can emulate. If you have read much or any of what I write you would know that my critical position has proceeded farther. If I had myself to visualize or invent an avataric figure (Jesus is an "avatar of God") for our present time I am not sure how I'd go about it. In a weird sense I see Nietzsche, for all his failings and foibles, as embodying manliness that I can emulate. He was, of course, a somewhat sick weakling, but he definitely seemed to be on the right track in so many ways.

[Immanuel Can]

There have always been thinkers who have understood that science is putting the world into a human context.

Well, that manifestly isn't really possible, since science, understood as the scientific method, didn't exist until Bacon. It was only with the rise of science that people even began to conceive of a methodology that might be purified of the human element. Before that, it was just understood that all methods were human methods.

But the arrival of science changed that. For the first time, it really seemed like there was a "foolproof" kind of method possible...if only we could purify the element of the knowing subject out of the process. And people naive to the methodology and impressed by the rapid achievements of technology through the Industrial Revolution began to suppose that we had hit a true "enlightentment," in which such lofty goals as an absolute science might be achievable -- if not immediately, in theory, and later.

There's a parallel with the current rhapsodizing about AI. Some people truly talk in messianic terms about what AI could possibly mean to human history and potentials. And no doubt, AI does promise some great and some awful things. But people tend to project hopes beyond the scale of what the technology in question can actually deliver, just as they overestimated the scientific method's potential purity from human taint.

How do human beings, you for instance, manage to escape their "biases, predispositions, particular interests, and so on" when they are doing religion?

Polanyi's point is that you never really do "escape" your role as a human investigator. You always bring, along with your methods, your own disposition and interests. Along with that, things like bias can come, to be sure, especially if the investigator is not humble and alert to their possibility. And that's what Polanyi seems to campaign for: not the denigration of science, but rather its performance as a duly humble and self-aware kind of activity.

If you understand Polanyi's point, you will appreciate it applies to you as much as anyone. In your investigation, the investigator is you.

Oh, beyond question. I agree. But it doesn't trouble me, since I have a firm grasp of the many ways in which the scientific method has always been a "human" method...so it changes nothing, really. I wasn't illusioned about that, so I can't be disillusioned about it.

Being humble doesn't give you any advantage, except in the Socratic sense that you understand you 'know' nothing for certain.

It actually gives one a huge advantage. It reminds one to check one's knowledge carefully, because we are always capable of making a mistake. There's nothing quite so likely as to make our science go wrong as hubris.

What does it mean for your assertion that:

I find that a pretty clear claim, I think. But okay, I can illustrate.

Try to define "palomino." But try to do so in a way that keeps it clear that a palamino is not just not a beagle or a wardrobe, but is also not a shire, or an appaloosa, or a rahvan, or a unicorn, or whatever else. A good definition will include precisely the characteristics that make a palomino a palomino, and eliminate all the other possible confusions with other types of horse.

So is it a specific breed? Can it mate with other horses? What would the foal be?

Good questions: and the more of them a definition answered, the more "technical" the definition is. But for most people's purposes, the knowledge that a palomino is a tan-coloured horse with a lighter mane and tail would be all they would care about; so that's all a "general" dictionary (Oxford is an example: that's pretty much all it says, except that they came from the southern US) would have to bother to include.

...how do you define words which are not simply a list of characteristics? Science, for instance.

Well, science is defined as a particular disciplined methodology, the characteristics of which can be listed. So that doesn't seem a very difficult example. Do you have something more complicated you could offer, where using characteristics would be problematic? It's pretty much what dictionaries do: to restate the identity of a thing through synonyms and descriptions of characteristics...

How do dictionaries escape human biases?

That's my point: they don't.

All dictionaries reflect the nature of their intended audience. General dictionaries are designed to make sense to a general audience; technical dictionaries are designed to provide the kind of vocabulary and details that technical experts need. General folks don't understand technical subjects in the depth or to the degree that experts do, and don't want to be burdened with technical explanations they don't understand. Technical experts don't find superficial definitions useful for their more technical purposes. So unsurprisingly, all dictonaries are biased to the interests of their anticipated audiences.

And, being human products, even basic definitions are up for review and revision constantly. Human beings make mistakes, or fail to put things precisely, or the nature of the area of knowledge they're describing changes between editions. So defining is an ongoing process...were it not, we'd have been one-and-done with Johnson's dictionary https://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/bl ... ictionary/, the first of the kind.

P.S. -- Here's the Oxford quick dictionary on the topic of "Atheism." Would you say they got it perfect, or do you have an issue with their definition?

atheism

Quick Reference

The theory or belief that God does not exist. The word comes (in the late 16th century, via French) from Greek atheos, from a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’.

[Immanuel Can]

If only one religion among 4000 religions is right then it means that the rest are the work of Satan.

That's pretty good logic.

But the truth is a bit more subtle, because truth and falsehood also get mixed into various religions. And that makes sense, because nobody would believe in a religion that was literally 100% false...it wouldn't fool anybody, would it? So whatever is false in various religions, there is also some truth mixed into it...and the most potent religions will be the ones that have the greatest proportion of truth, but falsehood on some key points.

Why should I believe that that single religion is not the work of Satan?

There's no reason why you ought not to suspect that, and to make a judicious search to find out if that's true. Every religion, Christianity included, ought to be up for inspection.

Do you mean verses 20-30 of chapter one?

I don't.

OK, I read Mark 3:20-30. What is your point?

We've come through some cycles and lost your original question, then. Go back to your original question, and I think it will be clear.

Actually, it does not matter to me where I would go after my death.

Really? Well, you're on a different side of the discussion from Jesus, apparently. He said, "What will it profit a man, if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul, or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?" Good questions. Eternity is a very, very long time.

Living eternally even in Heaven is a trap to me. You get used to things after a long time. You cannot have a sense of wonder... You know it simply becomes very disturbing for an intellectual being, a human, for example, to live such a long time without anything to intellectually entertain.

Those are the liabilities of earthly life. We have no conception of what eternal life will be like, but boring is not one of the words that we ought to use.

I think the truth is that we are mistaking the beginning of an important story for the whole of the story. And the main plot hasn't yet even really begun. God's purpose in calling out a people to Himself is a bit mysterious to us right now, but you can be sure He hasn't done it for no reason at all. And the God who made everything that's fascinating to us, even in this fallen and sick world, is surely not going to run out of ideas, is He?

We are told a few things about that time, but mostly we are told we have to wait in order to understand it as we need to. As 1 Cor. 2:9 says, "eye has not seen and ear has not heard, And which have not entered the human heart, All that God has prepared for those who love Him.” That's because they're beyond what a limited, fallible human heart can even conceive...which is very good news, actually. If all we had to look forward to in eternal life was a kind of "more of the same," then I think you'd have a point -- that would be rather sad.

I know Jesus. He is a Good. I know Satan as well. He is Evil. I don't understand why should I prefer Jesus over Satan and vice versa.

If you know both, then you wouldn't have to ask. But the Bible says that Satan self-presents as an "angel of light," sometimes, so one can be fooled into thinking that evil is not really evil.

However, my advice is that you start talking to Jesus, the Good, and stop talking to Satan, the Evil. And, in fact, if you start talking to the Good, you'll find there's no other choice...the Evil will have to go. You'll see.

[bahman]

If only one religion among 4000 religions is right then it means that the rest are the work of Satan.

That's pretty good logic.

But the truth is a bit more subtle, because truth and falsehood also get mixed into various religions. And that makes sense, because nobody would believe in a religion that was literally 100% false...it wouldn't fool anybody, would it? So whatever is false in various religions, there is also some truth mixed into it...and the most potent religions will be the ones that have the greatest proportion of truth, but falsehood on some key points.

True. False and truth are mixed in religions. We have to critically think about each religion and find out what is false and what is true.

Why should I believe that that single religion is not the work of Satan?

There's no reason why you ought not to suspect that, and to make a judicious search to find out if that's true. Every religion, Christianity included, ought to be up for inspection.

I agree.

Really? Well, you're on a different side of the discussion from Jesus, apparently. He said, "What will it profit a man, if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul, or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?" Good questions. Eternity is a very, very long time.

Living eternally even in Heaven is a trap to me. You get used to things after a long time. You cannot have a sense of wonder... You know it simply becomes very disturbing for an intellectual being, a human, for example, to live such a long time without anything to intellectually entertain.

Those are the liabilities of earthly life. We have no conception of what eternal life will be like, but boring is not one of the words that we ought to use.

That is in fact a benefit of earthly life, you have a sense of wonder, and you look for truth, ... You cannot have a sense of wonder or look for the truth once everything is revealed to you!

I think the truth is that we are mistaking the beginning of an important story for the whole of the story. And the main plot hasn't yet even really begun. God's purpose in calling out a people to Himself is a bit mysterious to us right now, but you can be sure He hasn't done it for no reason at all. And the God who made everything that's fascinating to us, even in this fallen and sick world, is surely not going to run out of ideas, is He?

Well, that depends on whether the knowledge is limited or not. If knowledge is limited then we will be surely trapped in Heaven and there is nothing that God can help with.

We are told a few things about that time, but mostly we are told we have to wait in order to understand it as we need to. As 1 Cor. 2:9 says, "eye has not seen and ear has not heard, And which have not entered the human heart, All that God has prepared for those who love Him.” That's because they're beyond what a limited, fallible human heart can even conceive...which is very good news, actually. If all we had to look forward to in eternal life was a kind of "more of the same," then I think you'd have a point -- that would be rather sad.

Well, I think we chose the earthly life in the past after being bored with life in Heaven or Hell. I remember that I was thinking of life on Earth concluding that we chose life here. I then had a vision of our Father, the Deity who takes care of life on lower worlds, and He gave me a plus as a sign of agreement with my thoughts. You know, life in the lower worlds has an advantage and disadvantages. The same applies to higher worlds!

I know Jesus. He is a Good. I know Satan as well. He is Evil. I don't understand why should I prefer Jesus over Satan and vice versa.

If you know both, then you wouldn't have to ask. But the Bible says that Satan self-presents as an "angel of light," sometimes, so one can be fooled into thinking that evil is not really evil.

However, my advice is that you start talking to Jesus, the Good, and stop talking to Satan, the Evil. And, in fact, if you start talking to the Good, you'll find there's no other choice...the Evil will have to go. You'll see.

I know that I break Satan's heart if I reject Him. So no I won't reject him despite all troubles that He did put in my life.

[Immanuel Can]

True. False and truth are mixed in religions. We have to critically think about each religion and find out what is false and what is true.

Right. We never loose our responsibility to be discerning about that.

Living eternally even in Heaven is a trap to me. You get used to things after a long time. You cannot have a sense of wonder... You know it simply becomes very disturbing for an intellectual being, a human, for example, to live such a long time without anything to intellectually entertain.

Those are the liabilities of earthly life. We have no conception of what eternal life will be like, but boring is not one of the words that we ought to use.

That is in fact a benefit of earthly life, you have a sense of wonder, and you look for truth, ... You cannot have a sense of wonder or look for the truth once everything is revealed to you!

Who told you everything would be revealed to you? In the Christian conception of things, only God has complete knowledge. But there's an important difference between having all knowledge open to you and having all knowledge already. It's only the latter that would be boring; the former would be hugely exciting.

Picture it this way: you're swimming in a vast ocean of knowledge. You can swim in any direction you like, for as far as you choose to swim. You'll never run out of ocean...of interesting things to explore, learn, think about, work on, and so on. But you don't know the entire ocean, because its infinite...it cannot be known completely. Nothing is forbidden you or closed off from you; no matter how long you swim, there will always be more interesting things to discover and do. But you don't have it all, all at once. You explore. You invent. You create. You do. You live.

I think the truth is that we are mistaking the beginning of an important story for the whole of the story. And the main plot hasn't yet even really begun. God's purpose in calling out a people to Himself is a bit mysterious to us right now, but you can be sure He hasn't done it for no reason at all. And the God who made everything that's fascinating to us, even in this fallen and sick world, is surely not going to run out of ideas, is He?

Well, that depends on whether the knowledge is limited or not.

God's knowledge is, by definition, infinite.

I know that I break Satan's heart if I reject Him.

He hasn't got one. Don't let him fool you. Only God is love.

[bahman]

True. False and truth are mixed in religions. We have to critically think about each religion and find out what is false and what is true.

Right. We never loose our responsibility to be discerning about that.

Yes, we are responsible to do that.

Those are the liabilities of earthly life. We have no conception of what eternal life will be like, but boring is not one of the words that we ought to use.

That is in fact a benefit of earthly life, you have a sense of wonder, and you look for truth, ... You cannot have a sense of wonder or look for the truth once everything is revealed to you!

Who told you everything would be revealed to you? In the Christian conception of things, only God has complete knowledge. But there's an important difference between having all knowledge open to you and having all knowledge already. It's only the latter that would be boring; the former would be hugely exciting.

So God must be bored! Isn't He?

Picture it this way: you're swimming in a vast ocean of knowledge. You can swim in any direction you like, for as far as you choose to swim. You'll never run out of ocean...of interesting things to explore, learn, think about, work on, and so on. But you don't know the entire ocean, because its infinite...it cannot be known completely. Nothing is forbidden you or closed off from you; no matter how long you swim, there will always be more interesting things to discover and do. But you don't have it all, all at once. You explore. You invent. You create. You do. You live.

But we cannot have doubt there. Could we? Moreover, how could you be sure that the ocean is infinite? Do you have an argument for it?

I think the truth is that we are mistaking the beginning of an important story for the whole of the story. And the main plot hasn't yet even really begun. God's purpose in calling out a people to Himself is a bit mysterious to us right now, but you can be sure He hasn't done it for no reason at all. And the God who made everything that's fascinating to us, even in this fallen and sick world, is surely not going to run out of ideas, is He?

Well, that depends on whether the knowledge is limited or not.

God's knowledge is, by definition, infinite.

Where is your argument?

I know that I break Satan's heart if I reject Him.

He hasn't got one. Don't let him fool you. Only God is love.

I think we can become Godly as well. It is not a simple task though especially when you are dealing with Satan. Why don't you open yourself to everything? That is maybe the only way to see Jesus!

[Harbal]

Christianity is, in many ways, a child’s and a woman’s religion.

Why do you say that?

For a set of varied reasons. One, Christianity -- here I mean the religion that developed in Europe which is termed Greco-Christianity -- is an amalgamation of many different views, speculations, theories, projections, philosophical ideas and mythological phantasies that were common in the 1st century. The religious philosophy that became Christianity coalesced around that time. It is therefore (to express it in one way) a 'confusion of ideas' and an attempt to bridge all of them by including all of them in one degree or another. I am pretty certain that none of this is of interest to you but you did ask.

It's true that I don't find religion, and its "metaphysics", as fascinating as you do, but I wouldn't have asked if I weren't interested. You said Christianity was a religion for women and children, and I once heard it described as a religion for slaves. I assume that was because the promise of eternal paradise later on makes it easier to put up with a miserable existence in the present. I know you think me soulless, but my upbringing and background was such that I was never touched by any kind of religion, so I have little insight into the experience of those who are involved in it. And that is something I do not regret in the slightest.

[Immanuel Can]

True. False and truth are mixed in religions. We have to critically think about each religion and find out what is false and what is true.

Right. We never loose our responsibility to be discerning about that.

Yes, we are responsible to do that.

That is in fact a benefit of earthly life, you have a sense of wonder, and you look for truth, ... You cannot have a sense of wonder or look for the truth once everything is revealed to you!

Who told you everything would be revealed to you? In the Christian conception of things, only God has complete knowledge. But there's an important difference between having all knowledge open to you and having all knowledge already. It's only the latter that would be boring; the former would be hugely exciting.

So God must be bored! Isn't He?

You'd have to ask Him. I've never been God. But I suspect that "bored" is not a category into which he ever falls. He seems, rather, to be infinitely creative. I would think it would only be a human being who had run out of things to be interested in who would ever be "bored," and I don't see that that is a state that eternity will ever put us in.

Picture it this way: you're swimming in a vast ocean of knowledge. You can swim in any direction you like, for as far as you choose to swim. You'll never run out of ocean...of interesting things to explore, learn, think about, work on, and so on. But you don't know the entire ocean, because its infinite...it cannot be known completely. Nothing is forbidden you or closed off from you; no matter how long you swim, there will always be more interesting things to discover and do. But you don't have it all, all at once. You explore. You invent. You create. You do. You live.

But we cannot have doubt there.

What would you want doubt for?

Well, that depends on whether the knowledge is limited or not.

God's knowledge is, by definition, infinite.

Where is your argument?

I didn't make it as an argument. I merely pointed out the definition of God. Being the Supreme Being and the First Cause of everything, we know that there cannot possibly be a more knowledgeable entity than that; everything else is bound by time and space, but God is not.

I know that I break Satan's heart if I reject Him.

He hasn't got one. Don't let him fool you. Only God is love.

I think we can become Godly as well.

Godly, yes: but not become God. We can share his moral attributes, if we trust Him and He enables us to start doing that. As the Bible says,

"...He has granted to us [who believe in Him] His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become [u}partakers of the divine nature[/u], having escaped the corruption that is in the world..." (2 Peter 1:4)

Why don't you open yourself to everything?

For the same reason that you don't leave your front door open all the time; that if you do, then anything can come in.

What about that duty to be discerning that we talked about above? Have you forgotten that? We have to judge things carefully, because not everything that's out there is good. That's the point.

[bahman]

Right. We never loose our responsibility to be discerning about that.

Yes, we are responsible to do that.

Who told you everything would be revealed to you? In the Christian conception of things, only God has complete knowledge. But there's an important difference between having all knowledge open to you and having all knowledge already. It's only the latter that would be boring; the former would be hugely exciting.

So God must be bored! Isn't He?

You'd have to ask Him. I've never been God. But I suspect that "bored" is not a category into which he ever falls. He seems, rather, to be infinitely creative. I would think it would only be a human being who had run out of things to be interested in who would ever be "bored," and I don't see that that is a state that eternity will ever put us in.

I think He is bored! He knows everything even our destinies.

Picture it this way: you're swimming in a vast ocean of knowledge. You can swim in any direction you like, for as far as you choose to swim. You'll never run out of ocean...of interesting things to explore, learn, think about, work on, and so on. But you don't know the entire ocean, because its infinite...it cannot be known completely. Nothing is forbidden you or closed off from you; no matter how long you swim, there will always be more interesting things to discover and do. But you don't have it all, all at once. You explore. You invent. You create. You do. You live.

But we cannot have doubt there.

What would you want doubt for?

Well, the excitement after finding out what is the truth! You have doubts if you don't know the truth. I rather would be in doubt and find things myself rather than something give me the truth.

God's knowledge is, by definition, infinite.

Where is your argument?

I didn't make it as an argument. I merely pointed out the definition of God. Being the Supreme Being and the First Cause of everything, we know that there cannot possibly be a more knowledgeable entity than that; everything else is bound by time and space, but God is not.

Well, we need to agree that knowledge is infinite otherwise we can discover everything on our own.

He hasn't got one. Don't let him fool you. Only God is love.

I think we can become Godly as well.

Godly, yes: but not become God. We can share his moral attributes, if we trust Him and He enables us to start doing that. As the Bible says,

"...He has granted to us [who believe in Him] His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become [u}partakers of the divine nature[/u], having escaped the corruption that is in the world..." (2 Peter 1:4)

God commanded us to love even our enemy! I don't think that we have to be in Heaven to look Godly. We can even be Godly in this world.

Why don't you open yourself to everything?

For the same reason that you don't leave your front door open all the time; that if you do, then anything can come in.

What about that duty to be discerning that we talked about above? Have you forgotten that? We have to judge things carefully, because not everything that's out there is good. That's the point.

Yes, Satan is Evil, but that does not mean that what He does is wrong!

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, we are responsible to do that.


So God must be bored! Isn't He?

You'd have to ask Him. I've never been God. But I suspect that "bored" is not a category into which he ever falls. He seems, rather, to be infinitely creative. I would think it would only be a human being who had run out of things to be interested in who would ever be "bored," and I don't see that that is a state that eternity will ever put us in.

I think He is bored! He knows everything even our destinies.

Well, I think that's highly unlikely. An infinitely creative being has no such limitations as we have. And you pegged the real problem earlier -- that limitedness leads to boredom: it's only when all the options are exhausted that life becomes boring. In any case, we surely have to be cautious about imagining that our human experience transfers neatly to that of God.

But we cannot have doubt there.

What would you want doubt for?

Well, the excitement after finding out what is the truth! You have doubts if you don't know the truth. I rather would be in doubt and find things myself rather than something give me the truth.

Don't worry: human beings are not all-knowing. If that were a problem for God (and I'd say it's not, even for him) it's certainly not going to happen to us.

Well, we need to agree that knowledge is infinite otherwise we can discover everything on our own.

We are finite. That will do it.

I think we can become Godly as well.

Godly, yes: but not become God. We can share his moral attributes, if we trust Him and He enables us to start doing that. As the Bible says,

"...He has granted to us [who believe in Him] His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become [u}partakers of the divine nature[/u], having escaped the corruption that is in the world..." (2 Peter 1:4)

God commanded us to love even our enemy! I don't think that we have to be in Heaven to look Godly. We can even be Godly in this world.

I didn't say we had to wait for heaven. God's interested in starting His work with us right now.

Yes, Satan is Evil, but that does not mean that what He does is wrong!

It kind of does, actually. That's kind of the meaning of "evil." It's "wrong."

[nemos]

It kind of does, actually. That's kind of the meaning of "evil." It's "wrong."

If there was no hell with the lord of hell, what would happen to sinners, who would do the dirty work?
If god represents perfection, then he can no longer improve or develop ... of course I'm not a god, but it would be quite tasteless to me.

[bahman]

What would you want doubt for?

Well, the excitement after finding out what is the truth! You have doubts if you don't know the truth. I rather would be in doubt and find things myself rather than something give me the truth.

Don't worry: human beings are not all-knowing. If that were a problem for God (and I'd say it's not, even for him) it's certainly not going to happen to us.

So you agree that doubt is a good thing?

Godly, yes: but not become God. We can share his moral attributes, if we trust Him and He enables us to start doing that. As the Bible says,

"...He has granted to us [who believe in Him] His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become [u}partakers of the divine nature[/u], having escaped the corruption that is in the world..." (2 Peter 1:4)

God commanded us to love even our enemy! I don't think that we have to be in Heaven to look Godly. We can even be Godly in this world.

I didn't say we had to wait for heaven. God's interested in starting His work with us right now.

But to start becoming holy you have to love all God's creatures so you need to open yourself to all, good or evil!

Yes, Satan is Evil, but that does not mean that what He does is wrong!

It kind of does, actually. That's kind of the meaning of "evil." It's "wrong."

Haven't you wondered why God set Satan free to do His job? That should be a part of God's plan to keep us in such a state, ignorance!

[iambiguous]

"The three main religions classified as missionary religions are Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam, while the non-missionary religions include Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and Hinduism. Other religions, such as Primal Religions, Confucianism, and Taoism, may also be considered non-missionary religions." wiki

In fact, those like Jehovah Witnesses and others who practice their door-knocking ministry are sometimes ridiculed for doing so in, for example, movies.

But I've always respected them for doing so. They really are committed to saving souls. And it's not like anyone is forced to interact with them.

From my own uniquely prejudiced frame of mind, IC seems far removed from an actual heart-felt commitment to God. It all comes off instead as largely cerebral.

Really?

All I can do here is to imagine this: if I somehow gained access to what I believed was substantive and substantial proof that the Christian God does in fact exist and truly did believe that all those who do not accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior will be "left behind" one day...destined for Hell...how would I be posting here?

What would be my priority?

On the other hand, yeah, this is a philosophy forum and this is the "ethical theory" board. So, sure, I may well be the one who is out of sync here.

But ever and always I come back to the whole point of religion...to provide mere mortals with moral commandments on this side of the grave in order to attain immortality and salvation on the other side.

Is there anything else that even comes close to that is terms of discussions about God?

So, mixed in with the didactic, philosophical stuff, I would be driven to focus as much attention on the fact of the Christian God's existence. If, as with IC, I really and truly did believe it was a fact.

By the way, nothing yet from the Reasonable Faith folks. I left them my email address as well. I'll keep you posted. Maybe Craig himself will come on board here. After all, he has written an article about God in Philosophy Now.

[Immanuel Can]

It kind of does, actually. That's kind of the meaning of "evil." It's "wrong."

If there was no hell with the lord of hell,...

Point to where there's any "lord of hell" in the Bible, and I'll answer.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, the excitement after finding out what is the truth! You have doubts if you don't know the truth. I rather would be in doubt and find things myself rather than something give me the truth.

Don't worry: human beings are not all-knowing. If that were a problem for God (and I'd say it's not, even for him) it's certainly not going to happen to us.

So you agree that doubt is a good thing?

I wouldn't necessarily have understood "doubt" that way, but the fact of our human limitedness means that there are always going to be things we don't know yet.

God commanded us to love even our enemy! I don't think that we have to be in Heaven to look Godly. We can even be Godly in this world.

I didn't say we had to wait for heaven. God's interested in starting His work with us right now.

But to start becoming holy you have to love all God's creatures so you need to open yourself to all, good or evil!

Actually, the opposite is true. "Holy" means "set apart to sacred uses." To be "holy," then, is NOT to be like all creatures, but to be specially "set apart" from them. Nor is being "holy" to fail to discern when something is "unholy," which is the opposite. It's to be dedicated to God, not to all that is ungodly. And so it requires discernment...just as "religions" do.

Haven't you wondered why God set Satan free to do His job?

I have. But the fact that God has brought good out of an evil situation (or person) doesn't mean that evil is suddenly made good. Things can come to ends they personally never intended, and bad things can be overruled by God to produce a good result. But evil remains evil, and good remains good.

And God's plan for us is not ignorance, but knowledge of Him.