Christianity

[Alexiev]

If subjectively, one likes Marx or Stalin so much that he kills a thousand Kulaks, does that mean what he did was right? After all, he chose it, on the basis of his subjective preferences...

Same with Inquisitors who torture and kill heretics becauae they subjectively believe the bible -- or witch hunters, for that matter. They choose their subjective preference for the Bible (and their reasonable interpretation of it). Does that mean they were right?

By the way, since all laws are coersive and violent,

Oh, that’s a bit unfair. Some laws, in fact, are anti-violent. Thou shalt not murder comes to mind: how can “not murdering” be construed as “violent”?

But perhaps you mean that all man’s laws are enforced by the use of power. That would be true enough.

Man's laws -- and God's -- are enforced by violence. Souls are cast into hell. They don't choose to go. Of course some laws have a net effect of reducing violence, but they all make us (the electorate supporting the rule of law) guilty of coersive violence. Is that utopian? If not, can God rule a utopia? What would "rule" or "law" mean in a perfect world? Why would it be necessary?

[Greatest I am]

"If not, can God rule a utopia? What would "rule" or "law" mean in a perfect world? Why would it be necessary?"

The laws are there to guide our reckless children and unruly children.

The Bible states that adults, knowing good from evil, should have us judge all things, including our Gods, and hold to the good.

Somehow most end adoring a genocidal and evil God.

Go figure.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Immanuel has the ultimate Cat Bird’s Seat: he has extracted a Perfect Jesus who, by definition, did never sin. And he says : Only those who act as Jesus did will I allow you to define as Christian. Thus, he can sweep the field of all groups, sects, historical Christian movements — except his Ideal Christian. This gives him the broadest powers to call to task all Christians throughout history, if it pleases him, and if it works in his overall argumentation.

He takes hold of the stance of Secularism as being incapable of laying down Ten Commandments, which is certainly true. But Occidental secularism derives from that dread Christian culture which Immanuel can roundly criticize and reject since only his Ideal Christian he considers valid.

Christian morality is based solely on the 10 Commandments. (You certainly could not construct a morality or an ethics from the Jewish Tanach! (Everyone misbehaves!)

What Immanuel’s so-called Secularism can do is to approximate moral codes. But it is as Gary says: these are defined not by Divine Command but through intellectual moral processes. But what they arrive at, obviously, can never be Supernatural Commands. Secularism places emphasis on an array of sources as it mulls over value and morality.

Immanuel’s core objection is, simply put, that they likely do not resort to the 10 Commandments. This invalidates them completely.

And he must necessarily reject all other and any other competing Supernatural or Metaphysical ethics and moralities of all other cultures. Only the Christian is right, has the sole proper grounding. That’s it. End of conversation. True Christian fundamentalism.
___________________

My view is that when Nature is seen as it is, that one cannot conclude but that it is absent any morality comprable to the 10 Commandments. That’s what makes “secularism” as groundless as it is. Its model, even if it doesn’t wish to see it, is Nature. I.e reality. What is manifest around us.

The issue is that universal adherence to a moral system like the 10 Commandments — or really any religion-based moral system — is totally impracticable at scale. No state or nation can behave like Jesus. But conceivably a solitary man could or might.

[Immanuel Can]

People know the difference between what is right and what is wrong and must work that out between each other and that is difficult to do in a totalitarian society or one that gives special privileges to some members over others.

Wait. What part of Secularism gives you warrant to assume that totalitarianism is “wrong”?

The part where many of us suffer for no good reason under a dictatorship that ignores our needs.

Where does Secularism claim that your needs matter at all? Secularism doesn’t have a view of that, either.

There are no absolute, 100% infalible or correct moral axioms.

And your basis for this conclusion is…?

The fact that my freedom to wave my fist ends where your nose begins.

Is that a reliable moral axiom, or just a cute phrase you’ve heard? What’s the warrant for it, from Secularism?

Do you not agree that moral axioms have limits at which point they are no longer perfect guides?

The problem’s not with the axiom, necessarily. It’s the tangled circumstances of application that present the challenge. But without the axiom, you don’t even know which direction is up, morally speaking, and have no hope of finding the right application, in any circumstances. Secularism won’t help.

All moral rules have exceptions and it's something that needs to be negotiated and history and practical results give us the data to make judgements for those negotiations.

But there are no criteria in Secularism for making such “judgments” and “negotiations.” It doesn’t tell us what to “negotiate,” or how to “judge” what is better or worse.

Secularism isn't a religion

That depends. If by “religion” one only means, “something one believes,” then yes, it’s that.

and makes no claim either for or against morality.

Right.

However, as I've shown life is still more beneficial for all where all observe moral rules.

Who gets to define “beneficial”? Some people end up in jail because of moral rules. How does it “benefit” them to be afoul of rules that are just made up, and have no objective grounds behind them at all? That seems a hard case to make.

That’s the problem with man. He doesn’t live up to moral standards…not even his own, in many cases. And this is the attraction of Secularism/subjectivism: it lets him tell himself he’s always right, merely by dint of the fact that he’s doing what he wants to do.

Unfortunately, it also robs him of all rational knowledge of morality. That’s a tough exchange.

What is your evidence that morality wouldn't exist without God?

We’ll get to it. Right now, the important point is the realization that it doesn’t exist without God. So a rational person really has a choice: first, abandon morality and become a moral Nihilist, as Secularism would imply; secondly, become a hypocrite — keep insisting Secularism/subjectivism is true, but force self or others to conform to rules one secretly believes are illegitimate and arbitrary; thirdly, consider God.

So we have to “pick a horse and ride it,” so to speak. But the middle one’s just dishonest, so maybe we can rule it out, too…assuming we’re prepared to think dishonesty is wrong. And again, Secularism will not tell us that being a hypocrite is wrong.

[Immanuel Can]

If subjectively, one likes Marx or Stalin so much that he kills a thousand Kulaks, does that mean what he did was right? After all, he chose it, on the basis of his subjective preferences...

Same with Inquisitors who torture and kill heretics becauae they subjectively believe the bible

Well, that’s impossible, actually. There’s nothing in the Bible that would permit the Inquisition. In fact, the Inquisition was hardest not against Muslims, but against dissenters against Catholicism — a lot of people have never heard that, but it’s statistically easy to verify.

By the way, since all laws are coersive and violent,

Oh, that’s a bit unfair. Some laws, in fact, are anti-violent. Thou shalt not murder comes to mind: how can “not murdering” be construed as “violent”?

But perhaps you mean that all man’s laws are enforced by the use of power. That would be true enough.

Man's laws -- and God's -- are enforced by violence. Souls are cast into hell.

No, actually; they choose to go there, or not; and their choice is honoured. There are people here who are signalling their choice at the present moment, in fact. I hope they’ll change their minds, if they’re making the wrong one; but if they don’t, should God disrespect their individuality, shut down their choice, and deny them what they have freely embraced as their eternal destiny? It’s hard to see why. If individuality, freedom and choice are moral values — and I would say they’re essential to humanity, to individuality and to selfhood — then how can God honour them and permit individuals to make choices, while refusing people any choice about being with Him or not?

But of course, having freedom, choice and individuality is not just a benefit (although it is that), it’s also a responsibility. Having freedom means you accept the natural consequences of your own choice. There’s no freedom without choice, and none without natural consequences.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Man's laws -- and God's -- are enforced by violence. Souls are cast into hell. They don't choose to go.

Immanuel has an interesting rhetorical trick about this. God cannot “cast into hell” because God is wholly good.

Those who end up in hell are in a place effectively chosen by themselves. God didn’t punish them, their punishment came as a result of their own choices. Hell is a “No-God Place”.

Naturally, he fails to include the fact that anyone who did find themselves in a place similar to traditionally described hell, would instantly regret anything they had done that put them there. And obviously a merciful God would let them cook there awhile but would provide them with an escape route.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You chose this place. I honor your choice.

But I didn’t understand. I made terrible choices. Please …

I will not! I just told you: you chose this.

I have never felt desolation like this. It is living agony! I cannot bear it. I cannot!

Not my problem. Now, I turn my back on you. I no longer hear your cries of pain.

Please! PLEASE! Show me a way out! I … cannot bear this.

But you must. And it is not temporary. For all Eternity you will suffer there! And you will witness and know the Supreme Joy you could have had! Suffer then …

Help me, please, I beg you. Give me a way to get out of this! Please. PLEASE!! Let me be annihilated!!!

::: silence :::

[MikeNovack]

I am getting more and more puzzled. You seem to be saying that a secular moral code cannot be coherent. Cannot have a sensible, rational basis. That is a different matter than you just claiming "not backed by the authority of divine sanction". You claim never to have seen a secular system of morality that could explain itself.

Would a bibliography help you? Standard philosophical texts from before Christianity like Aristotle, Plato, etc. Or post the start of Christianity, some by people presumably Christian, others not, Enlightenment through to the modern era. I mean, look at the forum name you go by. How about Kant. How about Hume. How about Bentham. How about philosophers from the 20th Century.

[Immanuel Can]

I am getting more and more puzzled. You seem to be saying that a secular moral code cannot be coherent. Cannot have a sensible, rational basis.

Yes, that is correct. I’m pointing out that there’s no rational connection between Secularism and ANY moral point at all.

So, for example, you cannot find a middle term that would get somebody from:

Premise 1: Secularism/subjectivism is true.

to

Conclusion: Therefore, morally, you/we all ought to X.

No matter what X is taken to be, Secularism will not offer any logical connection to it.

Would a bibliography help you?

There is no bibliography that will provide that middle term, either.

Standard philosophical texts from before Christianity like Aristotle, Plato, etc. Or post the start of Christianity, some by people presumably Christian, others not, Enlightenment through to the modern era. I mean, look at the forum name you go by. How about Kant. How about Hume. How about Bentham. How about philosophers from the 20th Century.

I warrant you that I could add names to this list, and many; and I’ve read them all. But they don’t offer what you suppose that they do: a bridge between secularism/subjectivism and a moral imperative. They do, however, try to warrant moral injunctions on some basis; but whatever they pick, it invariably turns out to be gratuitous. For example, Kant’s belief that a “categorical imperative” derivable from various things — one of which, he said was the intrinsic “end” value of human beings — he could never justify. Bentham and Mill looked to the pain-pleasure sort of principle, but could never explain how pain was immoral or pleasure moral (and it wouldn’t be hard for you to find countercases, of course). I could go down the whole list, and give you a bunch more you’ve probably never even heard of, and show you the same thing. Nobody knows how to connect Secularism to even one moral axiom.

And probably, nobody ever will. But I’d be interested to see if anybody ever could.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Immanuel! My beloved! How goes it down there in the Mortal Coil?

Well, Lord. I try to do Your Work among the stranded denizens of Philosophy Now.

How is that going?

Not so good, Lord. No one seems to understand … the critical importance …

Few receive the message. But Immanual, I have an issue I wanted to consult you on.

Me, Lord? How can I possibly help you?

Someone is beseeching me from hell. She begs me for a way out. You know how strict I am but … I can feel her pain. When I thinknof Eternal Anguish my heart feels her pain … What would you recommend, Immanuel?

Lord, such a choice is not mine to make!

But consider the justice of it. Is it just?

Is is what she chose, Lord, right? She is now living the eternal consequence of her choices!

But that … that is what I cannot square. I am a God of mercy. I feel merciful. Can’t I provide her with an out? Isn’t that just?

You will contradict yourself!

How? Explain.

Take force example those I preach to on PN — they mock me! And they mock you. Isn’t it your will that they suffer?

Have you told them of the suffering they are choosing right now?

I have! Always.

(Thinking)

You get a sense where this is going of course.

[Immanuel Can]

Man's laws -- and God's -- are enforced by violence. Souls are cast into hell. They don't choose to go.

Immanuel has an interesting rhetorical trick about this. God cannot “cast into hell” because God is wholly good.

Well, “good” includes two polarities. One is mercy, of which God has an abundance, and offers it freely. But the other polarity is justice; God does not allow evil to win. And any thinking person will quickly realize why He has to be both: if He’s not merciful, He’s not good; but if He is not just, He is not good either.

What you’re looking for, then, is a God who both saves sinners and yet also judges sin. And guess what we have?

The offer’s on the table. The choice is open, and yours. On what side of God’s righteousness will you choose to stand? How is your relationship to the Great Judge? If you choose the justice instead of the mercy, then you’re "without excuse," as Romans 1 says.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I will burn your toxic ass on the pyre of kindling that you collected, m’boy!

Once you are pinioned upbthere, and once I toss the match — that’s it for you, bub.

God is obviously on my side!

[Alexis Jacobi]

What you’re looking for, then, is a God who both saves sinners and yet also judges sin. And guess what we have?

He is known as “Immanuel Can” and my Heavens is he a trip!

[Gary Childress]

Wait. What part of Secularism gives you warrant to assume that totalitarianism is “wrong”?

The part where many of us suffer for no good reason under a dictatorship that ignores our needs.

Where does Secularism claim that your needs matter at all? Secularism doesn’t have a view of that, either.

Of course, secularists have needs. They have needs for safety and security as much as religious people do. Secularism still dictates that people's needs must be addressed in order to live better lives. You're not even thinking your questions through.

And your basis for this conclusion is…?

The fact that my freedom to wave my fist ends where your nose begins.

Is that a reliable moral axiom, or just a cute phrase you’ve heard? What’s the warrant for it, from Secularism?

OMG!! I'm sorry, I can't deal with ignorance as pathetic as yours. You aren't reading or comprehending a thing I am typing. You keep harping on the same problem. Secularists can't have morality because why? I used that example as one of several pointing to where moral axioms can conflict with one another. "We ought to be free" conflicts with "we ought not harm someone else without just reason" if one gives one axiom or the other unmitigated authority. Are you not understanding that?

Do you not agree that moral axioms have limits at which point they are no longer perfect guides?

The problem’s not with the axiom, necessarily. It’s the tangled circumstances of application that present the challenge. But without the axiom, you don’t even know which direction is up, morally speaking, and have no hope of finding the right application, in any circumstances. Secularism won’t help.

OMG!! You're repeating my very point and saying I'm wrong about it!!

But there are no criteria in Secularism for making such “judgments” and “negotiations.” It doesn’t tell us what to “negotiate,” or how to “judge” what is better or worse.

Secularism isn't a religion

That depends. If by “religion” one only means, “something one believes,” then yes, it’s that.

Religion is not just a belief. It's the belief in a sentient creator. Do you wish to hold to the idea that all beliefs amount to "religion"? If I believe the Earth orbits the Sun, is that a "religious" belief?

and makes no claim either for or against morality.

Right.

However, as I've shown life is still more beneficial for all where all observe moral rules.

Who gets to define “beneficial”? Some people end up in jail because of moral rules. How does it “benefit” them to be afoul of rules that are just made up, and have no objective grounds behind them at all? That seems a hard case to make.

AGain, we all define "beneficial". If something benefits one party but is detrimental to another, then the one it is detrimental to is going to protest and raise a stink, causing friction and society unrest that ultimately harms everyone in society except perhaps a few sheltered people who live in gated communities or something.

That’s the problem with man. He doesn’t live up to moral standards…not even his own, in many cases. And this is the attraction of Secularism/subjectivism: it lets him tell himself he’s always right, merely by dint of the fact that he’s doing what he wants to do.

Unfortunately, it also robs him of all rational knowledge of morality. That’s a tough exchange.

What is your evidence that morality wouldn't exist without God?

We’ll get to it. Right now, the important point is the realization that it doesn’t exist without God. So a rational person really has a choice: first, abandon morality and become a moral Nihilist, as Secularism would imply; secondly, become a hypocrite — keep insisting Secularism/subjectivism is true, but force self or others to conform to rules one secretly believes are illegitimate and arbitrary; thirdly, consider God.

That's the stupidest statement I've heard in a long time. You're not going to explain your evidence that there is no morality without God until I've agreed that there's no morality without God. Spare me the idiocy, IC. I can't take much more of it from you.

So we have to “pick a horse and ride it,” so to speak. But the middle one’s just dishonest, so maybe we can rule it out, too…assuming we’re prepared to think dishonesty is wrong. And again, Secularism will not tell us that being a hypocrite is wrong.

No one takes hypocrites seriously, why should they? You're demanding that one person allow another person to knowingly dick them over. People know when something isn't fair. Hypocrisy undermines all rules. You can't say, "you shouldn't kill someone" and then turn around and kill someone yourself and expect someone watching to think it's fair for you to make rules that you don't follow.

[Gary Childress]

IC, you've got it fixated in your brain that there can be no morality without God, and that's all she wrote. No one can reason with you because you repeat the same thing over and over, even after someone explains why a secularist can participate meaningfully in the moral sphere.