Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

Saying that religion is is the opium of the people doesn't sound particularly occultist to me compared

I didn’t say it did. I said that Marx was an occultist, and that there’s plenty of good evidence he was. Go and read his poetry (you’ll find it online), and you’ll know I’m telling you the truth. Or read Paul Kangor’s recent book on the subject, and you’ll find more than enough specific evidence to satisfy you. But brace yourself: the man was a walking horror show, and what he did and wrote is not easy to read.

For example, one of your forever favorite quotes....

Jesus: “Love your enemies, and do good to those who spitefully use you.”
But if one attempts to do just that, without having believed in Jesus as the son god one is doomed to hell nevertheless.

So God has provided a way for you to get into relationship with Him, and paid the ultimate price to purchase it, and you want nothing to do with Him?

And what did you think every place without the Father of All Good Gifts was going to be like? Yet it is the place you are choosing, and rushing toward with open arms and a scornful face, and then employing objective moral standards (which only can exist if there’s a God) in hopes of criticizing Him?

Hmmm….. My advice: think hard about what you’re doing, and what the chances are it will land you somewhere good.

Shouldn't we first establish whether or not what the Bible says is factual? I mean, some say stepping on a crack in the sidewalk is bad luck. Shouldn't we all refrain from stepping on cracks, you know, just in case it's true. I mean, can anyone prove it isn't?

That’s good sense, Gary. We should always establish the reliability of a source we’re considering taking seriously in some way. The Bible purports to be the word of God, and if it is, we should find that claim credible, based on what it contains. And we shouldn’t simply accept, “Well, you can’t prove it’s not” as some sort of credibility.

Where would you like to start?

[Immanuel Can]

Marx hated this way.

It messed up his way. And so he unequivocally condemned it. "The critique of religion," he said, "is the first of all critiques.” And again, “religion is the opium of the masses.” If men know of eternity, they will immolate their individuality, become ants, and join the ant project. So God must go, and go first.

Might I point out, that Marx was trapped by Christian background, to think of Christianity to be synonymous with "religion”.

Not quite. We know he knew Judaism, too. And he would hardly have been able to avoid knowledge of the existence of a bunch of other religions, too, even if perhaps he didn’t know their details: after all, Marx lived at a time when the British Empire literally spanned the globe. Unless Marx were terribly provincial and uninformed, he couldn’t have failed to know about things like Hinduism and Islam — or at least, that such existed. And he knew Satan. That much we certainly can glean from his biography. So we’d have to include occultism in the list of “religions” he knew.

So “trapped,” he could not have been — or if he was, it would be only a fault of willful ignorance. However, I think it’s fair to say that when Marx claimed “religion” was “opium,” Judaism and Christianity would have been the primary referents he meant. That’s what the evidence suggests, because it doesn’t seem he made any critique of any others.

If he knew of other religions that were centered around this life, this world, etc. would he have said the same thing?

Yes, I think so. But for other reasons. Any creed, ideology or belief that contested things like individual identity, the family, teleology, Materialism, his historicism, and so on, he would have had to combat.

But in regard to science, you see an interesting difference. Marx craved the cachet of “scientific Materialism” for his system. This is particularly because he lived in an ethos enchanted by the early achievements of science: so anything labelled “scientific” had a special authority and status automatically.

The irony, though, is that Marxists hate science. They also hate art and culture, for the same reasons. And primarily, its that Marx’s system was actually never anything close to scientific. Moreover, science uses tools like logic, evidence, tests, and proofs to confirm or disprove its pronouncements, and Marx and Marxism have no such strategies at their disposal; Marx was a rhetorician, not a scientist. And not only he, but also subsequent Socialists, have hated real science, because it yields results that undermine their narrative. They hate art, because it says things that are not politically correct. They hate culture, because it reinforces individualism. They hate facts, because they don’t all line up with the Marxist narrative. They hate the family, because it undermines their chances of turning children into State products. They hate all commerce, because it’s not State-owned, and it’s individualistic, hierarchical, and property-based. They hate all rich people, because the rich are successful and their status is unequal with others. They hate marriage, because it supports family structure…and they hate all forms of the status quo, all conservative institutions and elements, because to them, they all represent the resistant element to Socialist prophecies and plans of social engineering...

In other words, there are lots of things Marx had to hate. And this included ANYTHING, whether “religious” or not, that stood to expose his hokey system or question his narrative. So it’s quite likely that had some other “religion” appeared on the scene, Marx would have found one of these reasons to hate it. But as circumstances were, he had only to contend with two serious “religious” sources of opposition.

All religions represent answers to fundamental questions about the human condition. But not necessarily the same question and so of course, different answers. In other words, I would reply to Marx, you might be right that Christianity is the opiate of the people since its focus is otherworldly. But you have barely begun to make the case that RELIGION is the opiate of the people (any and all religions).

Well, as I was saying earlier, Marx’s concern was purely focused on the English situation, and perhaps the broader European one, but Western and industrial, absolutely. His hatred of “religion" — at least the instrumental reason for it, if not the deeper psychological one — was certainly that it undermined the collectivism, conformity and compliance to Socialism that Marx craved to see produced. It was inconvenient for his purposes. I don’t think he gave two hoots about any other “religions” one way or the other: they weren’t his problem, and weren’t in his way. But Christianity and Judaism certainly were.

[Belinda]

Marx hated this way.

It messed up his way. And so he unequivocally condemned it. "The critique of religion," he said, "is the first of all critiques.” And again, “religion is the opium of the masses.” If men know of eternity, they will immolate their individuality, become ants, and join the ant project. So God must go, and go first.

Might I point out, that Marx was trapped by Christian background, to think of Christianity to be synonymous with "religion”.

Not quite. We know he knew Judaism, too. And he would hardly have been able to avoid knowledge of the existence of a bunch of other religions, too, even if perhaps he didn’t know their details: after all, Marx lived at a time when the British Empire literally spanned the globe. Unless Marx were terribly provincial and uninformed, he couldn’t have failed to know about things like Hinduism and Islam — or at least, that such existed. And he knew Satan. That much we certainly can glean from his biography. So we’d have to include occultism in the list of “religions” he knew.

So “trapped,” he could not have been — or if he was, it would be only a fault of willful ignorance. However, I think it’s fair to say that when Marx claimed “religion” was “opium,” Judaism and Christianity would have been the primary referents he meant. That’s what the evidence suggests, because it doesn’t seem he made any critique of any others.

If he knew of other religions that were centered around this life, this world, etc. would he have said the same thing?

Yes, I think so. But for other reasons. Any creed, ideology or belief that contested things like individual identity, the family, teleology, Materialism, his historicism, and so on, he would have had to combat.

But in regard to science, you see an interesting difference. Marx craved the cachet of “scientific Materialism” for his system. This is particularly because he lived in an ethos enchanted by the early achievements of science: so anything labelled “scientific” had a special authority and status automatically.

The irony, though, is that Marxists hate science. They also hate art and culture, for the same reasons. And primarily, its that Marx’s system was actually never anything close to scientific. Moreover, science uses tools like logic, evidence, tests, and proofs to confirm or disprove its pronouncements, and Marx and Marxism have no such strategies at their disposal; Marx was a rhetorician, not a scientist. And not only he, but also subsequent Socialists, have hated real science, because it yields results that undermine their narrative. They hate art, because it says things that are not politically correct. They hate culture, because it reinforces individualism. They hate facts, because they don’t all line up with the Marxist narrative. They hate the family, because it undermines their chances of turning children into State products. They hate all commerce, because it’s not State-owned, and it’s individualistic, hierarchical, and property-based. They hate all rich people, because the rich are successful and their status is unequal with others. They hate marriage, because it supports family structure…and they hate all forms of the status quo, all conservative institutions and elements, because to them, they all represent the resistant element to Socialist prophecies and plans of social engineering...

In other words, there are lots of things Marx had to hate. And this included ANYTHING, whether “religious” or not, that stood to expose his hokey system or question his narrative. So it’s quite likely that had some other “religion” appeared on the scene, Marx would have found one of these reasons to hate it. But as circumstances were, he had only to contend with two serious “religious” sources of opposition.

All religions represent answers to fundamental questions about the human condition. But not necessarily the same question and so of course, different answers. In other words, I would reply to Marx, you might be right that Christianity is the opiate of the people since its focus is otherworldly. But you have barely begun to make the case that RELIGION is the opiate of the people (any and all religions).

Well, as I was saying earlier, Marx’s concern was purely focused on the English situation, and perhaps the broader European one, but Western and industrial, absolutely. His hatred of “religion" — at least the instrumental reason for it, if not the deeper psychological one — was certainly that it undermined the collectivism, conformity and compliance to Socialism that Marx craved to see produced. It was inconvenient for his purposes. I don’t think he gave two hoots about any other “religions” one way or the other: they weren’t his problem, and weren’t in his way. But Christianity and Judaism certainly were.

So what is the way forward for a Godly society------is private property a moral right or should private property be redistributed in the interest of
equality and fairness?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Well, that’s understandable: if one doesn’t believe in objective truth, one can’t say that anything at all is right or wrong, morally or even epistemologically.

I can indeed make statements about things that sure seem to be objectively true vis-a-vis “right and wrong” and all else. And I can certainly hope or wish that there are definitive, objective truths in this and all worlds. I can also see that there would be a tremendous advantage if such “objective truths” as pertain to human affairs universally were universally recognized as being objectively true. I can also make statements and declare that objective truths (in the human realm) exist and must be recognized as such …

… but the sad fact is that within the Earth-frame itself those “truths” that you state exist, do not in fact exist. Why? Because everything that you declare as being true (in respect to human conduct which is really what you are on about) derive from metaphysical principles. I.e. as defined moral imperatives that are not really “of the Earth” (nature) but are supernatural impositions insubstantially present.

People have to (let’s say) enter into the sphere of knowing where those absolute, universally true things are intellectually recognized as such. It is a intellectual world similar to pure mathematics. Certainly it is true “up there”, but it does not translate “down here” at all perfectly.

It is, however, useful and necessary to work with approximations of absolute truths. But one must be circumspect about one’s own certainties.

Certainty can be a trap and even a mental (and spiritual) disease.

I can indeed, nevertheless, make statements about what I feel is — or should be! — objectively true (again in the human realm). But I might not achieve agreement from those around me.

You have what at least appears to be an advantage. You can say “Ah ha! If you cannot agree that absolute truth exists, then you undermine any statement you make that purports to be truthful! I believe in absolute truth and therefore I can make definitive statements about what is true.”

But it is simply put just your assertion. Posturing I think. And it all depends on the supernatural Authority that you propose has set up these absolutisms.

[MikeNovack]

It has never been in the interest of Jews in Europe to make a point how different from Christianity. Quite the opposite.

Judaism does not conflict with "the project" (Marx's). For example, while the two largest kibbutz movements were secular, there some bibbutzim composed of orthodox/observant Jews. Because Judaism focuses on how we should properly live in THIS world, little concerned with some afterlife, inequality, social injustice, etc. matter. Look at the "prophets" books of the Bible.

As for being "trapped" in the sense I meant, look at the discussions here. How many of us here seem to equate religion with Christianity. If we have a forum topic "Philosophy of Religion" why >90% postings involving Christianity? We all know, intellectually, that there are a lot more religions out there, most with a completely different focus and philosophy. But that intellectual knowledge does not appear to make a difference. Christianity claims to be the only way, and many of us seem to be emotionally trapped by that assumption.

But even Christianity contains lines consistent with the Marxist project. Marx was primarily describing the UK, so lets look there. What in the theology and practice of the True Levellers would justify "opium of the people"? Wouldn't we rather perceive them as working toward the project? (to be sure, they were pre-capitalism, agrarian rather than industrial, but that's how the !7th Century was).

As a materialist, when Marx says "religion is the opium of the people" he means :religion as it is now mainly expressed in Europe, and since so dominant, Christianity. But by making the statement general (not explicitly including the "as currently being expressed") gets taken to mean "religion is necessarily the opium of the people. And that is clearly false, even considering just Christianity. Nothing prevents a resurgence of the "Diggers". Of course the state would put them down as it did before, just as the state was putting down secular leftists during Marx's time.

[Alexis Jacobi]

As for being "trapped" in the sense I meant, look at the discussions here. How many of us here seem to equate religion with Christianity. If we have a forum topic "Philosophy of Religion" why >90% postings involving Christianity? We all know, intellectually, that there are a lot more religions out there, most with a completely different focus and philosophy. But that intellectual knowledge does not appear to make a difference. Christianity claims to be the only way, and many of us seem to be emotionally trapped by that assumption.

Christianity, that is to say the Hebrew revelation synthesized with the Greek mind and synthesized with a wide range of perspectives and spiritual methods (Pagan), if I can express it that way, common in the first century, is foundational to the Occident. “It” — this vast range of — cannot ever be separated out of Occidental heritage, language, ethics, political forms, history, art and architecture.

It is not surprising that here on this forum the topic is continually present and (in a manner of speaking) “discussed”.

Unfortunately, no one but Immanuel has much background in this “synthesis” (though he is highly prejudiced by his limited, dogmatic slant) and they present themselves as being totally in resistance to our Protestant Evangelical (Dispensationslist) Bible-literalist and Jew wannabe …

Defining Immanuel properly and fairly remains however an important and necessary preliminary to actual discussion of what is, in fact, vital to the conversation, which tries to get off the ground and never quite can.

[Immanuel Can]

Might I point out, that Marx was trapped by Christian background, to think of Christianity to be synonymous with "religion”.

Not quite. We know he knew Judaism, too. And he would hardly have been able to avoid knowledge of the existence of a bunch of other religions, too, even if perhaps he didn’t know their details: after all, Marx lived at a time when the British Empire literally spanned the globe. Unless Marx were terribly provincial and uninformed, he couldn’t have failed to know about things like Hinduism and Islam — or at least, that such existed. And he knew Satan. That much we certainly can glean from his biography. So we’d have to include occultism in the list of “religions” he knew.

So “trapped,” he could not have been — or if he was, it would be only a fault of willful ignorance. However, I think it’s fair to say that when Marx claimed “religion” was “opium,” Judaism and Christianity would have been the primary referents he meant. That’s what the evidence suggests, because it doesn’t seem he made any critique of any others.

If he knew of other religions that were centered around this life, this world, etc. would he have said the same thing?

Yes, I think so. But for other reasons. Any creed, ideology or belief that contested things like individual identity, the family, teleology, Materialism, his historicism, and so on, he would have had to combat.

But in regard to science, you see an interesting difference. Marx craved the cachet of “scientific Materialism” for his system. This is particularly because he lived in an ethos enchanted by the early achievements of science: so anything labelled “scientific” had a special authority and status automatically.

The irony, though, is that Marxists hate science. They also hate art and culture, for the same reasons. And primarily, its that Marx’s system was actually never anything close to scientific. Moreover, science uses tools like logic, evidence, tests, and proofs to confirm or disprove its pronouncements, and Marx and Marxism have no such strategies at their disposal; Marx was a rhetorician, not a scientist. And not only he, but also subsequent Socialists, have hated real science, because it yields results that undermine their narrative. They hate art, because it says things that are not politically correct. They hate culture, because it reinforces individualism. They hate facts, because they don’t all line up with the Marxist narrative. They hate the family, because it undermines their chances of turning children into State products. They hate all commerce, because it’s not State-owned, and it’s individualistic, hierarchical, and property-based. They hate all rich people, because the rich are successful and their status is unequal with others. They hate marriage, because it supports family structure…and they hate all forms of the status quo, all conservative institutions and elements, because to them, they all represent the resistant element to Socialist prophecies and plans of social engineering...

In other words, there are lots of things Marx had to hate. And this included ANYTHING, whether “religious” or not, that stood to expose his hokey system or question his narrative. So it’s quite likely that had some other “religion” appeared on the scene, Marx would have found one of these reasons to hate it. But as circumstances were, he had only to contend with two serious “religious” sources of opposition.

All religions represent answers to fundamental questions about the human condition. But not necessarily the same question and so of course, different answers. In other words, I would reply to Marx, you might be right that Christianity is the opiate of the people since its focus is otherworldly. But you have barely begun to make the case that RELIGION is the opiate of the people (any and all religions).

Well, as I was saying earlier, Marx’s concern was purely focused on the English situation, and perhaps the broader European one, but Western and industrial, absolutely. His hatred of “religion" — at least the instrumental reason for it, if not the deeper psychological one — was certainly that it undermined the collectivism, conformity and compliance to Socialism that Marx craved to see produced. It was inconvenient for his purposes. I don’t think he gave two hoots about any other “religions” one way or the other: they weren’t his problem, and weren’t in his way. But Christianity and Judaism certainly were.

So what is the way forward for a Godly society------is private property a moral right or should private property be redistributed in the interest of
equality and fairness?

Well, the problem begins with the whole idea of “a Godly society.” For you see, if we conceive of that, then we make the very same mistake the Marxists make, in that regard — the belief that human beings can create heaven or utopia by some method of social reform. And we cannot. History shows, abundantly, we cannot. We never do. And the more we try to engineer something like “the Great Society,” whether religious or secular, the more people die.

A second problem is the belief that “property” is somehow the problem — that if we merely “redistribute” the “property,” then something like “equality and fairness” will somehow become possible. It never will, and never could, because people are too different, and the vicissitudes and irregularities of life may inequality and unfairness perpetual realities, at least for now.

"Aha!" you may cry, “you’re advocating quietism — or perhaps even the perpetuation of injustice and unfairness! You want us just to accept these things, and accept that the poor and suffering exist, and that the rich exploiters and greedy exist, and let them do their thing!”

I do not advocate that. In fact, I would insist it’s our sacred duty to alleviate things like poverty and to stand up to things like oppression wherever they exist; and to be kind and generous and to share. But unlike the proponents of “the Great State,” both the Theistic and the Atheistic, I maintain that all solutions are going to be worked out arduously and specifically, within the troubled warp-and-woof of this world as it actually exists — not magically solved by aspiring to the kind of world we do not have and cannot create — or by attributing to human nature a virtue or possibility that that nature simply does not have.

We can mitigate poverty, but we will never eradicate it. We can abate injustice, but it will raise its ugly head again, and have to be slain again. We can deliver mercy and justice, but cruelty and injustice are bound to return, so long as men and women are fallen and evil. If we try, as the “Great Society” types have so often tried, to bludgeon or murder our way out of these things, we will only create more evil. On the other hand, if we commit ourselves to plugging every leak in our leaking moral “boat” as we go, we may travel a very long way, and end up being better persons ourselves than we imagined we could be…and our society, if not perfectly just and equitable, will be far more just and equitable than it would be if we simply gave up or if we tried to make it become a “Great Society” in the cruel and wicked ways in which that project is conventionally tried.

The great advantage to this provisional strategy is that we do not become angry and vicious when we are faced with our inability to achieve heaven-on-earth. Instead, we see that failure as perpetual, recognize it, and rededicate ourselves to resolving it as best we can. But we do not become angry and vicious. This is much better than saying, “We have the plan for the perfect system — and if you don’t see it, we will kill you, because you’re holding us back from our heaven.” That is exactly what the Marxists always do: when their ideology fails, they become unbelievably vicious. But the same would happen for any Theistic-modeled project of the “Great Society” if it failed. In both cases, you get extraordinary cruelty, driven by an unrealistic idealization of what they suppose 'should have happened,' but did not.

Whatever we do, we must contradict the Marxist stupidity that says, “If we reform our society, we’ll create new men.” There are no “new men.” There are only the old men — fallen ones, sinners, who must be saved from themselves and reconciled to God in order to be any good for anything that really matters. And every limitation of power, every social reform, every law of justice we create is only a holding measure, a stop-gap to keep unregenerate mankind from perpetuating injustice and ultimately destroying itself.

And so it stands, until the Judge of All Things returns.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, that’s understandable: if one doesn’t believe in objective truth, one can’t say that anything at all is right or wrong, morally or even epistemologically.

I can indeed make statements about things that sure seem to be objectively true vis-a-vis “right and wrong” and all else. And I can certainly hope or wish that there are definitive, objective truths in this and all worlds. I can also see that there would be a tremendous advantage if such “objective truths” as pertain to human affairs universally were universally recognized as being objectively true. I can also make statements and declare that objective truths (in the human realm) exist and must be recognized as such …

But to what end? If you say, “Slavery is objectively immoral,” then the Southern plantation owner says, “I like having my slaves very much; and I believe that having them is objectively moral.” And then, what do you say?

… but the sad fact is that within the Earth-frame itself those “truths” that you state exist, do not in fact exist. Why? Because everything that you declare as being true (in respect to human conduct which is really what you are on about) derive from metaphysical principles. I.e. as defined moral imperatives that are not really “of the Earth” (nature) but are supernatural impositions insubstantially present.

I disagree, of course. And you’re simply trying to skip the most important question: which one of us, if either, is seeing the world as it really is?

It is, however, useful and necessary to work with approximations of absolute truths. But one must be circumspect about one’s own certainties.

This is only the same as to say, “We walk by faith, not by sight.”

Certainty can be a trap and even a mental (and spiritual) disease.

Can be. Not “always is.” It is true that certainty, when coupled with delusion, can be very wicked and toxic. But is there a case you can think of, in which somebody believed in the pure truth, with no matter what intensity of certainty, and it did him harm?

Indeed, the more certain one is of truth, the better off one is, and the better off one’s society is as well. The “circumspection” remains necessary only because you and I are fallible: not because either certainty or truth are bad.

I can indeed, nevertheless, make statements about what I feel is — or should be! — objectively true (again in the human realm). But I might not achieve agreement from those around me.

Something that you call “objectively true,” and yet is neither found in anybody else’s reality, nor have they any warrant for agreeing with it? How is that “objective,” since only you will ever imagine it, and it is not encoded in any form in objective reality?

You have what at least appears to be an advantage. You can say “Ah ha! If you cannot agree that absolute truth exists, then you undermine any statement you make that purports to be truthful! I believe in absolute truth and therefore I can make definitive statements about what is true.”

Well, I still have to be “circumspect,” as you say. I’m not God. But absent God, neither you nor I could make any definitive statements at all.

But it is simply put just your assertion. Posturing I think.

No, actually, I can defend it. In fact, I suggest the opposing side cannot even assail it. If God exists, objective morality is possible. But let us assume the opposite: can you provide even one moral precept that a secular person is morally obligated to follow? Just one. Only one. Whatever you want.

No secularist to whom I have ever spoken has been able to meet that test. But I would be fascinated to see what you might suggest, if you have anything.

And it all depends on the supernatural Authority that you propose has set up these absolutisms.

I heartily agree.

[promethean75]

"in that regard — the belief that human beings can create heaven or utopia by some method of social reform."

But that's not a reason a Christian can have to criticize Marxism simply because a) as a species, we have very siriusly advanced in the last 20,000 years so there's proof that we can and do 'get better', and b) you don't have a crystal ball.

Rather, the christian has to be critical of any progress because he believes the end days are coming, that a preordained horrible end to the world is part of the plan.

So you see, not only are they wrong and lacking faith in man but their own reasons for that lack of faith is is hidden from them... but nonsense nonetheless. A triple whammy. Just look at how screwy their reasoning and attitude is toward man and progress.

[Immanuel Can]

"in that regard — the belief that human beings can create heaven or utopia by some method of social reform."

But that's not a reason a Christian can have to criticize Marxism simply because a) as a species, we have very siriusly advanced in the last 20,000 years so there's proof that we can and do 'get better', and b) you don't have a crystal ball.

We get technologically more complex. That’s “progress.” But the moral nature of the human race has never changed; and there’s no historical evidence to suggest it has. Even our technology, it turns out, is only as good as our moral intentions: the same technology that brought us new medical scans brought us to the first potential of nuclear extinction. The technology that gave us genetic therapies also gave us COVID.

Rather, the christian has to be critical of any progress because he believes the end days are coming, that a preordained horrible end to the world is part of the plan.

On the contrary: everything in history shows that the Christian response is to alleviate evil wherever possible, for the very reason that the world is not trash, or a standing resource for exploiting, but rather the rightful property of God, and we only its stewards.

So you see, not only are they wrong and lacking faith in man

How ironic. The person who criticizes faith in God chastises us likewise for a lack of faith in man. Yet the evidence of what man has done is very apparent, and faith in man has been betrayed more times than any of us can count. I think the faith is perhaps misplaced.

Prom, before you tell Christians what you think they believe, hadn’t you better check to see if that’s actually what they DO believe? Or at least that their actions square at least a bit with your surmises?

[iambiguous]

The technology that gave us genetic therapies also gave us COVID.

"COVID-19 and its relationship to religious beliefs and practices has been a complex and widely discussed topic. For some, the pandemic led to spiritual struggles and questioning of faith. In other cases, it resulted in a strengthened religious belief, with people seeking comfort, meaning, and hope through their faith in the face of uncertainty and hardship." AI

Pretty much the same thing pertaining to all "acts of God". If one of them befalls you and your loved ones, you either sustain your faith in God's Will as ultimately revolving around His love, His mercy and His justice, or you have to accept that ultimately there is only the brute [and brutal] facticity of a universe unfolding for reasons we may never come to understand. Or that, in other words, there may well be no ultimate reason at all.

And where does "technology" fit in regarding the existence of all the other devastating viral epidemics that have devastated entire communities over the centuries.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_e ... _pandemics

Start here: https://youtu.be/iJwcLLdD-1w?si=eWoPq7jZXLYiMbQx

Most of us will watch this...truly, truly wanting there to be an entity like God to explain the terrible, terrible pain and suffering. To justify it...Divinely?

And I'm certainly one of them.

[Alexis Jacobi]

But to what end? If you say, “Slavery is objectively immoral,” then the Southern plantation owner says, “I like having my slaves very much; and I believe that having them is objectively moral.” And then, what do you say?

One problem, for you I think, is that the concept of slavery is nowhere fully or directly opposed in the Bible — except for a certain group who found the restraints placed on them intolerable and conceived of a divine power that liberated them. (This is all story though and not historical reality, I am sorry (for you) to say). The Hebrews, when set up in the Promised Land, held slaves (though regulations applied). That is my understanding anyway.

(A thorough anti-slavery ethic developed later is my understanding.)

I have thought through what is, in your apologetics, a favorite example with which to ensnare your interlocutor. The question must be presented like this: Is there ever, could there ever be, a situation in which enslavement of men could be moral? The answer is obviously yes, there certainly could be such situations. But “moral” would not necessarily mean that it (the condition) would be perfectly acceptable or without problematic aspects. It would depend on many different factors. Could be conditional enslavement. Or temporary.

Slavery, more often than not of war prisoners, was generally accepted as a justifiable alternative to outright slaughter. And curiously those who suffered that fate agreed. Better enslavement than death.

But really what you are trying to say is that you believe there is a god, a Divinity, that specifically and adamantly prohibits such a thing.

What I do believe however is that American abolitionists created highly emotional and also reasoned arguments against enslavement which “won the day” and established the rule that enslavement of men became intolerable when sometime before it was tolerated.

It is true, however, that if there is no Authority with the power to decide on such matters, and to punish those who violate the Law, that it will have to be decided by men themselves. How? By processes of reasoning and discussion and the establishment of laws. And laws that have consequences.

I believe that you think that if there were no god who made inviolable laws that man would be utterly lawless. That is simply not so.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I disagree, of course. And you’re simply trying to skip the most important question: which one of us, if either, is seeing the world as it really is?

Myself, obviously.

I can “see the world” both with and through the lens or filter that is installed in your mind; and I can interpose other lenses.

The world “as it is” is in these senses blank. Metaphysical pictures, through men, which arise in men as veritable imperatives, are not found in the world (of Nature).

I do believe that my way of seeing is more “real” than yours. More mature is perhaps a better way to put it.

This seems true as rain (as a way to see The World without metaphysical overlay):

And do you know what “the world” is to me? Shall I show it to you in my mirror? This world: a monster of energy, without beginning, without end; a firm, iron magnitude of force that does not grow bigger or smaller, that does not expend itself but only transforms itself; as a whole, of unalterable size, a household without expenses or losses, but likewise without increase or income; enclosed by “nothingness” as by a boundary; not something blurry or wasted, not something endlessly extended, but set in a definite space as a definite force, and not a space that might be “empty” here or there, but rather as force throughout, as a play of forces and waves of forces, at the same time one and many, increasing here and at the same time decreasing there; a sea of forces flowing and rushing together, eternally changing, eternally flooding back, with tremendous years of recurrence, with an ebb and a flood of its forms; out of the simplest forms striving toward the most complex, out of the stillest, most rigid, coldest forms striving toward the hottest, most turbulent, most self-contradictory, and then again returning home to the simple out of this abundance, out of the play of contradictions back to the joy of concord, still affirming itself in this uniformity of its courses and its years, blessing itself as that which must return eternally, as a becoming that knows no satiety, no disgust, no weariness: this, my Dionysian world of the eternally self- creating, the eternally self-destroying, this mystery world of the twofold voluptuous delight, my “beyond good and evil,” without goal, unless the joy of the circle is itself a goal; without will, unless a ring feels good will toward itself— do you want a name for this world? A solution for all of its riddles? A light for you, too, you best-concealed, strongest, most intrepid, most midnightly men?— This world is the will to power—and nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this will to power—and nothing besides!

[Alexis Jacobi]

But let us assume the opposite: can you provide even one moral precept that a secular person is morally obligated to follow? Just one. Only one. Whatever you want.

First, am I that “secular person”?

[Immanuel Can]

But to what end? If you say, “Slavery is objectively immoral,” then the Southern plantation owner says, “I like having my slaves very much; and I believe that having them is objectively moral.” And then, what do you say?

One problem, for you…

No, this isn’t for me. It only happens if one is a moral subjectivist, or if one insists that secular society can generate legitimate, objective morals just by wanting to. But it’s the real and central problem of secular morality.

Slavery, more often than not of war prisoners, was generally accepted as a justifiable alternative to outright slaughter. And curiously those who suffered that fate agreed. Better enslavement than death.

You’re changing the case. You’re excusing one evil by saying, “Well, at least it’s not as bad as this greater evil.” But more evil will not make less evil into no evil.

Go back to the actual case that was posed to you, please.

But really what you are trying to say is that you believe there is a god, a Divinity, that specifically and adamantly prohibits such a thing.

No, I didn’t ask that. All I asked is what YOU would do with those alternatives. I didn’t even mention anything I might want.

It is true, however, that if there is no Authority with the power to decide on such matters, and to punish those who violate the Law, that it will have to be decided by men themselves. How? By processes of reasoning and discussion and the establishment of laws. And laws that have consequences.

Laws without justification are just tyranny. It’s just power being used to force things to happen or not happen, but no question of moral rightness is being settled at all. In other words, there’s no morality being asserted — just power.

Unless you can answer the question. Have you got one precept, just one, that every secular person is morally obligated to follow? Can you suggest anything at all?

If you can’t, then I think even you have to concede that secularism is morally bankrupt — in the sense that it has nothing to tell us about good or evil.