Haven’t those who reject morality just because of its religious roots ended up constructing another belief system

[promethean75]

"I've only registered one intellectually honest believer on this website. Are there more?"

How could one be a dishonest believer, though? Is that even possible?

If you mean to say that those with whom you disagree know they are in error and are being dishonest in maintaining their beliefs, I'd say that's logically impossible.

Instead, you just have honest people who are incompetent and can not be blamed for being so. Hardly a reason to call them dishonest.

[henry quirk]

If you are one - a Christian theist that is (I should read up), then the count is two.

I'm a deist. I like to think I'm consistently intellectually honest, but I know better.

You ain't no determinist that's for sure...

That's an understatement.

...so we can be bitterly unpleasantly divided over that.

Friendly enemies.

all sorts of nonsense

Same here. Natural rights, Thomistic hylomorphism, libertarian free will/agent causality, objective moral reality, direct realism, Reid's common sense, etc.

I talk to the former

I carry an hickory tire knocker when I walk in the morning (for dogs and such). We don't speak but do have a close relationship.

They put faith before reason and then say it's the other way around.

I find it hard, these days, to separate faith (intuition) and reason, hence: I'm not consistently intellectually honest.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

"I've only registered one intellectually honest believer on this website. Are there more?"

How could one be a dishonest believer, though? Is that even possible?

If you mean to say that those with whom you disagree know they are in error and are being dishonest in maintaining their beliefs, I'd say that's logically impossible.

Instead, you just have honest people who are incompetent and can not be blamed for being so. Hardly a reason to call them dishonest.

Yeah but the dishonesty is perichoretic, they helplessly know that they are lying for the truth, reaching without grasping but declaring the grasp. Why else would they be hostile about it? That's self hate for lying projected. And they reach fallaciously. And they must know. They're smart enough. So they must be in denial. They know they're lying, but it's for the truth, so it must be true. I always knew. Never lied. I wasn't smart enough. Logic does not come in to it, it's the tail end Charlie, post hoc of desperate, yearning false belief. Which is the proof. Thomism comes to mind. William Lane Craig, Alvin Platinga. All innocently lying. Just like Trumpistas at the other end of the scale.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

If you are one - a Christian theist that is (I should read up), then the count is two.

(i) I'm a deist. I like to think I'm consistently intellectually honest, but I know better.

You ain't no determinist that's for sure...

(ii) That's an understatement.

...so we can be bitterly unpleasantly divided over that.

(iii) Friendly enemies.

all sorts of nonsense

(iv) Same here. Natural rights, Thomistic hylomorphism, libertarian free will/agent causality, objective moral reality, direct realism, Reid's common sense, etc.

I talk to the former

(v) I carry an hickory tire knocker when I walk in the morning (for dogs and such). We don't speak but do have a close relationship.

They put faith before reason and then say it's the other way around.

(vi)I find it hard, these days, to separate faith (intuition) and reason, hence: I'm not consistently intellectually honest.

(i) Mozartian eh? 'ard atheist me. Otherwise. Hmmm. Spiegel im Spiegel. This can't go well. I became more deist than theist.

(ii) Nah HAH! Determinist me, including the determinism of quantum indeterminacy, chaos, the relativity of simultaneity.

(iii) Frenemy mine.

(iv) As matters of belief, one can only ask how one comes to believe? As I do not. Period. CWTBs notwithstanding. And my moral, political, economic beliefs; post-Christian ethics *. Do you know any of those beliefs as Coherent Warranted True Beliefs?

* Love and Compassion → Altruism and Empathy – The moral imperative to love one's neighbour justified through social cohesion and psychological well-being rather than divine command.

Justice → Moral Philosophy and Human Rights – The pursuit of justice would remain, but lean on principles from political philosophy and universal human rights rather than biblical authority.

Integrity → Honesty and Ethical Consistency – Truthfulness and integrity would be viewed as essential for trust and functional societies, rather than a reflection of God's nature.

Forgiveness and Grace → Restorative Justice and Reconciliation – The emphasis on forgiveness would persist, but in secular frameworks, it would be seen as beneficial for mental health and social harmony rather than a spiritual mandate.

Service and Sacrifice → Social Responsibility and Mutual Aid – Serving others would be encouraged based on principles of reciprocity, ethical duty, or existential fulfilment rather than Christian doctrines.

I'd buy that for dollar.

With a LOT of help from ChatGPT.

(v) I have an awesome knobkerrie which I walk with rarely. But might. I mean, it would be... lethal.

And the count is definitely at least 2.

PS I do believe that Jesus would be the most remarkable human being of his time and for all time if at least the Marcan gospel, or/and Quelle's, were true in natural essence; with good will to all, acting completely naturally. Where does he fit in your deism?

Ed. Oooh! Missed (vi). Don't get old.

(vi) I find it hard, these days, to separate faith (intuition) and reason, hence: I'm not consistently intellectually honest.

I beg to differ. How is that dishonest? Faith is the most powerful cart that can be put before the horse. It gives Frankl's search for meaning total fulfilment. That in itself is an argument for it! We are Intentionally meant, by existing, to have faith. That it is the horse. Lodestar focussed, homing in on absolute purpose.

My intuition is that that is not so. Is that, by reason alone, I have no warrant for faith. Nature warrants it not.

I suppose I could argue that your position shows perichoretic, innocent, honest dishonesty? You helplessly feel faith.

[ThinkOfOne]

Jesus Christ is the center of the gospel, it's true. But the gospel was preached both before and after Him by those who anticipated and followed Him. You'll find it in Scripture. Jesus Christ Himself quoted the OT prophets as authoritative, and Himself as their fulfillment; and both the disciples and Paul were personally comissioned as apostles by the risen Christ Himself.

What you're talking about is less than what Jesus Christ HImself talked about.

But you're also completely ignorant of Christian theology, apparently: which is why you accuse Christians of holding attitudes and dispositions they don't hold. You need to do some research.

Sorry...it's just the truth.

Note the way that they took a single sentence out of context from a post.

I've pointed out to you that I just trim out the nonsense and the stuff that might prove embarassing to my interlocutor, and focus on what has some substance. If that displeases you, I can easily take the air out of those things.

IC's accusation that I am "completely ignorant of Christian theology" is also false

Then I'm at a loss to see how you got so much wrong...and the Biblical record will set you straight on that.

There is no reasonably escaping the fact that Jesus emphasized the importance of HIS word and His word only.

Actually, there is...as I pointed out, and you ignored.

Jesus insisted, with regard to the Torah, for example, that not the tiniest mark of it would ever pass away, but rather all would be fulfilled (Matthew 5:18). He claimed, in fact, that everything in Moses and the Prophets was true (Luke 24:25-26). He also personally claimed that His disciples would continue His truth to the uttermost parts of the earth (Acts 1:8). So not only did Jesus Himself claim that the things He spoke weren't the only thing that matters or is true, but that failure to respect both the OT and the NT would be a failure to hear God's truth in its totality, or His intentions in their completeness.

Sorry: you're just dead wrong, and wrong according to Christ Himself. The very words you quote as the only ones you'll recognize are what condemns you on that. He declared the authority of the Old Testament and of the subsequent testimony of His disciples: and if you don't believe that, then you disbelieve Him, obviously.

Now; don't you wish you'd stopped short of asking me to spell all that out? But if you ask for it, you get it. It doesn't do any good to complain afterward.

Even more underhandedness from you. No matter how many times you get called on it, you continue with more of the same.

I've pointed out to you that I just trim out the nonsense and the stuff that might prove embarassing to my interlocutor, and focus on what has some substance.

Your attempt at "spinning" it as if you're trying to save me embarrassment is beyond the pale, when the reality is that you "trim out" what "might prove embarrassing" to YOU. Are there no limits to your deceitfulness?

Actually, there is...as I pointed out, and you ignored.

Jesus insisted, with regard to the Torah, for example, that not the tiniest mark of it would ever pass away, but rather all would be fulfilled (Matthew 5:18). He claimed, in fact, that everything in Moses and the Prophets was true (Luke 24:25-26). He also personally claimed that His disciples would continue His truth to the uttermost parts of the earth (Acts 1:8). So not only did Jesus Himself claim that the things He spoke weren't the only thing that matters or is true, but that failure to respect both the OT and the NT would be a failure to hear God's truth in its totality, or His intentions in their completeness.

Sorry: you're just dead wrong, and wrong according to Christ Himself. The very words you quote as the only ones you'll recognize are what condemns you on that. He declared the authority of the Old Testament and of the subsequent testimony of His disciples: and if you don't believe that, then you disbelieve Him, obviously.

Now; don't you wish you'd stopped short of asking me to spell all that out? But if you ask for it, you get it. It doesn't do any good to complain afterward.


I posted the following earlier:

The truth is that you not only don't believe Jesus, you don't even understand Him. Jesus repeatedly emphasized the importance of HIS words: "[His] sheep follow [HIS] voice"; "[HIS] true disciples abide in [HIS] word"; you will be judged by HIS word. Not the word of Paul. Not the word of the other NT writers. HIS word and His word only.

John 12
48The one who rejects Me and does not accept My teachings has one who judges him: the word which I spoke.

Note that Jesus explicitly states in John 12:48 that you will be judged by "the word which [He] spoke". That necessarily excludes the word of Paul, the word of the other NT writers, etc. In short it necessarily excludes the word of anyone other than Jesus. Also note that it is the "word which [He] SPOKE". That's past tense (Aorist Active Indicative). That also necessarily excludes whatever words that the NT writers claim that Jesus said after the crucifixion such as in Luke 24:25-26 and Acts 1:8.

You're also mistaken with Matthew 5:18. You claim that Jesus was speaking of "the Torah". What Jesus actually said was the "Law or the Prophets" which is not necessarily the same thing. There is too much that speaks against the idea that what Jesus had in mind was the Torah. As but one example:

Matthew 5
38“You have heard that it was said, ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.’ 39“But I say to you, do not resist him who is evil; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.

How does it make logical sense that Jesus would say of the Torah that "not the tiniest mark of it would ever pass away" and then immediately speak against what the Torah says? It's much more reasonable that Jesus was using the phrase "Law or the Prophets" as a proxy for the "will of God"? It's as if you are unaware that Jesus spoke in parables, that is Jesus used figurative language.

It's as I stated: You don't understand Jesus. In other words, you "reject [Him] and do not accept [His] teachings". Instead you embrace the teachings of those other than Jesus.

[Immanuel Can]

I pointed out, and you ignored.

No. I saw, and then I supplied the texts you were ignoring, showing that you were wrong all along. And now, you ignored that, and just recycled your old error.

Truth hurts, I guess. No apologies for that. You asked for it.

[ThinkOfOne]

I pointed out, and you ignored.

No. I saw, and then I supplied the texts you were ignoring, showing that you were wrong all along. And now, you ignored that, and just recycled your old error.

Truth hurts, I guess. No apologies for that. You asked for it.

The reality is that I did not "ignore that" as you claim. Nor did I "just recycle [my] old error". Unlike you, I actually addressed your points and showed in detail where you got things wrong.

All anyone reading this need do is read my earlier post to see how underhanded and deceitful you continue to be. In it I provided a detailed explanation of where you got things wrong. Which you underhandedly deleted from what you quoted from me. Just as you have been doing pretty much throughout our discussion.

[Lacewing]

No. I saw, and then I supplied the texts you were ignoring, showing that you were wrong all along.

All anyone reading this need do is read my earlier post to see how underhanded and deceitful you continue to be.

We know it well.

[Immanuel Can]

I pointed out, and you ignored.

No. I saw, and then I supplied the texts you were ignoring, showing that you were wrong all along. And now, you ignored that, and just recycled your old error.

Truth hurts, I guess. No apologies for that. You asked for it.

The reality is that I did not "ignore that" as you claim.

Then how do you explain the texts I gave you?

They disprove what you claimed, because while you disregard the OT and the apostles' testimonies, Christ Himself declared them the truth and commissioned them to proclaim those things. He said the OT told the truth about Him, all the way back to Moses; and He commanded His disciples to proclaim the gospel to the whole world, by His Spirit?

How can you claim you're obeying Christ's words, when He told you to regard the OT as the Word of God, and when He personally commissioned His apostles to continue teaching HIs doctrine? On what basis do you regard some of His words a sacred, but deny other of His words as sacred?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Do they say anything honest? Ah. It would appear that cannot apply. Sound and fury. How sad. And how cruel I feel.

[ThinkOfOne]

No. I saw, and then I supplied the texts you were ignoring, showing that you were wrong all along. And now, you ignored that, and just recycled your old error.

Truth hurts, I guess. No apologies for that. You asked for it.

The reality is that I did not "ignore that" as you claim.

Then how do you explain the texts I gave you?

They disprove what you claimed, because while you disregard the OT and the apostles' testimonies, Christ Himself declared them the truth and commissioned them to proclaim those things. He said the OT told the truth about Him, all the way back to Moses; and He commanded His disciples to proclaim the gospel to the whole world, by His Spirit?

How can you claim you're obeying Christ's words, when He told you to regard the OT as the Word of God, and when He personally commissioned His apostles to continue teaching HIs doctrine? On what basis do you regard some of His words a sacred, but deny other of His words as sacred?

On what basis do you regard some of His words a sacred, but deny other of His words as sacred?

Why are you pretending that I did not just explain that in the following? Why are you pretending that I haven't been explaining my position on that all along?

I posted the following earlier:

The truth is that you not only don't believe Jesus, you don't even understand Him. Jesus repeatedly emphasized the importance of HIS words: "[His] sheep follow [HIS] voice"; "[HIS] true disciples abide in [HIS] word"; you will be judged by HIS word. Not the word of Paul. Not the word of the other NT writers. HIS word and His word only.

John 12
48The one who rejects Me and does not accept My teachings has one who judges him: the word which I spoke.

Note that Jesus explicitly states in John 12:48 that you will be judged by "the word which [He] spoke". That necessarily excludes the word of Paul, the word of the other NT writers, etc. In short it necessarily excludes the word of anyone other than Jesus. Also note that it is the "word which [He] SPOKE". That's past tense (Aorist Active Indicative). That also necessarily excludes whatever words that the NT writers claim that Jesus said after the crucifixion such as in Luke 24:25-26 and Acts 1:8.

You're also mistaken with Matthew 5:18. You claim that Jesus was speaking of "the Torah". What Jesus actually said was the "Law or the Prophets" which is not necessarily the same thing. There is too much that speaks against the idea that what Jesus had in mind was the Torah. As but one example:

Matthew 5
38“You have heard that it was said, ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.’ 39“But I say to you, do not resist him who is evil; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.

How does it make logical sense that Jesus would say of the Torah that "not the tiniest mark of it would ever pass away" and then immediately speak against what the Torah says? It's much more reasonable that Jesus was using the phrase "Law or the Prophets" as a proxy for the "will of God"? It's as if you are unaware that Jesus spoke in parables, that is Jesus used figurative language.

It's as I stated: You don't understand Jesus. In other words, you "reject [Him] and do not accept [His] teachings". Instead you embrace the teachings of those other than Jesus.

Why don't you read what I wrote line-by-line? I'll walk you through it line-by-line if that's what you need. The parts in BOLD in particular explain the basis. I can add plenty more passages/verses that further show that I am correct.

As I explained near the beginning of our discussion, I advocate for the gospel preached by Jesus. For more detail on that read the following. I can provide even more detail if needed:

The core of the gospel preached by Jesus is contained in the parables, explanations of the parables, the Sermon on the Mount, passages where Jesus explicitly describes what is required to receive "eternal life" / "salvation" and passages where Jesus explicitly describes the Kingdom and what living in the Kingdom entails. In short, passages where Jesus is explicitly preaching the vision of His gospel.

[Immanuel Can]

The truth is that you not only don't believe Jesus, you don't even understand Him. Jesus repeatedly emphasized the importance of HIS words: "[His] sheep follow [HIS] voice"; "[HIS] true disciples abide in [HIS] word"; you will be judged by HIS word. Not the word of Paul. Not the word of the other NT writers. HIS word and His word only.

You would have to apply the same argument to Moses and the Prophets, if what you were saying were true: and that would mean you'd have to deny what Jesus said about Moses and the Prophets. So clearly, Jesus was not saying, "Listen to my words only up to the crucifixion, and nothing before, and nothing after"-- which is what you would have to believe. In point of fact, Jesus is not saying "Don't listen to Moses, the Prophets or the apostles; He's saying to those who were rejecting His word, "You should believe Me instead of disbelieving Me."

John 12
48The one who rejects Me and does not accept My teachings has one who judges him: the word which I spoke.

Note that Jesus explicitly states in John 12:48 that you will be judged by "the word which [He] spoke". That necessarily excludes the word of Paul, the word of the other NT writers, etc.

Same problem. Believing the Lord's words does not mean, "Don't believe the OT or the message I've given to my apostles. It just means, "Don't reject My word."

You're also mistaken with Matthew 5:18. You claim that Jesus was speaking of "the Torah". What Jesus actually said was the "Law or the Prophets" which is not necessarily the same thing.

You're wrong about this. You don't know that Jewish tradition uses the phrase, "The Law and the Prophets" for the whole Tanahk, in fact. In fact, Tanahk is composed of three Hebrew letters: T, N and K, which refer to Torah (Books of Moses), Nevi'im (the Prophets) and Ketuvim (other writings). And Jesus Himself quotes from all of these as authoritative, and all as referring to Him. Did you not realize, for example, on the road to Emmaus, He began with Moses and went through the OT, applying to Himself? There's Torah and Nevi'im. Did you not remember His affirmation and comparison to the prophet Jonah? Or His self-references to Isaiah? There's the Nevi'im. Were you not aware that His cry, "My God, My God..." on the cross is quoting of Psalm 22:1 from the Ketuvim?

Matthew 5
38“You have heard that it was said, ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.’ 39“But I say to you, do not resist him who is evil; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.

How does it make logical sense that Jesus would say of the Torah that "not the tiniest mark of it would ever pass away" and then immediately speak against what the Torah says?

That's easy. He's not speaking "against" it, but applying it.

Jesus is contrasting what perfect justice would require; but that He expected something else of His followers...an application of mercy, where before, justice simply demanded redress. As the fulfillment of the Law, He was describing how it was to be applied in the coming Kingdom. As the authority behind that Law, He had a perfect right to exposit its proper application to this new context.

You get the same thing when Jesus explains that He's the fulfillment of the Sabbath, another commandment from the Mosaic Law. He doesn't say that the Sabbath was evil and should never have been honoured; but rather that "the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." (Mark 2:27) Thus, he explains the proper context for understanding and applying the Law.

And if all that is not enough for you, try this: https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/st ... tament.cfm

Why don't you read what I wrote line-by-line?

I did, above. But I have to say, it wasn't much of a challenge. And as you can see, your interpretation would still mean you're ignoring some words of Christ and affirming others, not following all His words at all. So how is it that you think you can listen so selectively, if He has any authority with you?

[henry quirk]

Love and Compassion...Justice...Integrity...Forgiveness and Grace...Service and Sacrifice

I think, mebbe, we all spend too much time worryin' about doin' right and not enough about not doin' wrong.

Seems to me: we need to get the friggin' plank out of our own eyes before we start messin' about with the splinters in our neighbor's eye.

Where does he fit in your deism?

He doesn't. I can read my Jefferson Bible and admire his moxie, but I'd be a lousy Christian even by that Book's minimal standard. I won't turn the other cheek, you see.

Don't get old.

Too late. 62. Not ancient but not youthful and dewy either.

How is that dishonest?

Mebbe not dishonest, but certainly biased.

You helplessly feel faith.

No, not helplessly.

perichoretic

All-encompassing? If so: yeah.

[popeye1945]

What does it say? Is it even more of a non sequitur than your reply?

Why the obfuscation? The dishonesty?

At its core, the meaning of mathematics and arithmetic in relation to patterns is about structure, relationships, and predictability. Mathematics provides the language and tools to identify, create, and analyze patterns, revealing the underlying order within numbers, shapes, and natural phenomena.

Arithmetic—the foundation of mathematics—uses basic operations to define numerical patterns and sequences, forming the basis for more complex mathematical concepts. Geometry, algebra, calculus, and discrete mathematics further expand on these ideas, enabling discoveries in fields ranging from physics to computer science.

Ultimately, mathematics transforms patterns into knowledge, bridging intuition with logic. It allows humanity to quantify beauty, structure randomness, and innovate across disciplines. Every mathematical formula, equation, and calculation maps the universe’s intricacies into a form we can understand and manipulate.

Perhaps I am missing something here. Could you clarify what you're looking for?

Not possible. Just as it isn't for arithmetic to create order from chaos. For empty rhetoric to contain a proof.

You have never experienced creating order out of a chaotic circumstance, rearranging chaos and confusion to create order out of chaos. I suspect you are not dealing in good faith here.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

At its core, the meaning of mathematics and arithmetic in relation to patterns is about structure, relationships, and predictability. Mathematics provides the language and tools to identify, create, and analyze patterns, revealing the underlying order within numbers, shapes, and natural phenomena.

Arithmetic—the foundation of mathematics—uses basic operations to define numerical patterns and sequences, forming the basis for more complex mathematical concepts. Geometry, algebra, calculus, and discrete mathematics further expand on these ideas, enabling discoveries in fields ranging from physics to computer science.

Ultimately, mathematics transforms patterns into knowledge, bridging intuition with logic. It allows humanity to quantify beauty, structure randomness, and innovate across disciplines. Every mathematical formula, equation, and calculation maps the universe’s intricacies into a form we can understand and manipulate.

Perhaps I am missing something here. Could you clarify what you're looking for?

Not possible. Just as it isn't for arithmetic to create order from chaos. For empty rhetoric to contain a proof.

You have never experienced creating order out of a chaotic circumstance, rearranging chaos and confusion to create order out of chaos. I suspect you are not dealing in good faith here.

No you don't. You helplessly project your own bad faith.

Although as you've said it now, it must be true.

My being able to add to entropy, by making order out of chaos could never involve arithmetic.

Just as you can never demonstrate, but would rather die than acknowledge, that it could.

Oh and, er, that's that.

I pity you friend. What happened to you?