Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

OK, let's label it Mdivine. I am saying suppose there were an M not divinely sanctioned, call it Msecular. And suppose Mdivine(situation, choice of action) = Msecular(situation, choice of action). In other words, Msecular never gives a different judgement right or wrong. I don't give a damn if you say "but that's only pragmatic sameness". We're not discussing how the come to always give the same result, just whether they do or not.

Well, I’m not following your “algebra” here. I mean, I’m not grasping how the substitution of these vague placeholders for real-world specifics is going to help us know any answers. It seems to me that they just fog the field, and leave us both susceptible to mental mistakes. It’s too high a level of abstraction for us to recognize in it how people actually think and act, in the moral sphere.

I’ll try and make this real-world, if I may. Let us say that a Secular person and a Theist agree on a moral conclusion. Let’s make it simple: let’s say, “Thou shalt not steal.” We shall leave aside the question of what constitutes stealing, and take a clear case, just to keep things simple again. Let’s say that by “Thou shalt not steal,” what both mean is that you can’t take somebody else’s legitimate property without their permission, and treat it as your own disposable asset.

To try to answer your question, then, (assuming I’m grasping your point), you are asking if the Theist and the Secularist are capable of both agreeing that stealing is wrong. And the answer is, yes, they are. (As an aside, if you’re wondering if they can come to different conclusions, yes, that is also possible.)

So I’m denying your suggestion that my allegation is that

...there could be no Msecular such that it always gave the same answer as Mdivine.

Under the same conditions, with the same understanding of what constitutes stealing, it is possible for both to agree that stealing is wrong.

But here’s what I am saying — not the thing you were supposing me to be saying, but the real thing I’m saying. The Theist can say WHY stealing is wrong. The Secularist cannot. He may choose to act just as morally-correctly as the Theist is acting. But he may not, as well. Either way, there is no resource of information in his Secularism that can explain to the Secularist why it would be right to choose one of those options, and to reject the other one. For the Secularist, operating by no more than pure Secularism, there is no explanation of why one action is moral, and its opposite is immoral.

If there is a moral compass to be had, he’s dropped his in the mud and can’t find it. By accident, or by preference, he may end up doing the right thing, anyway, like a man stumbling along without a compass might plausibly end up heading true north by accident, or because the horizon happened to look more appealing to him in that direction. He maybe even will stumble in that direction (and this happens more often than not) because the society in which he was raised did once have a compass, and so socialized him to sense true north was roughly in the right direction. So he feels in his bones he should do the right thing, though he cannot check the compass anymore to confirm he’s on the right track.

And if he goes wrong, there’s nothing in Secularism to tell him he’s gone wrong.

That’s what I’m saying.

[Alexis Jacobi]

One thing I have gathered as a personal reward from association with your acute, fanatical perspective, is quite the opposite of what I assume you desire to achieve: religious conversion.

My intentions are more modest than you think. My job is only to carve out a space in which the truth of the matter can find opportunity to be considered. What you and others do with that, well, that’s between you and God. My job is done, then.

I question the integrity of your intentions then. Simply put you alienate everyone you enter into debate with. If I have a “job” it is to find a way to talk about “metaphysical essences” (Weaver spoke of “metaphysical dream” and I would correct him to “metaphysical vision”.

What you end up achieving reminds me of a message in Robert Frost’s poem Directive:

I have kept hidden in the instep arch
Of an old cedar at the waterside
A broken drinking goblet like the Grail
Under a spell so the wrong ones can't find it,
So can't get saved, as Saint Mark says they mustn't.

After all your argumentation, supposedly in “good faith”, you always remind the recalcitrant that soon they will spend eternity in hell.

You say “My job is done” and I suggest you deceive yourself. But obviously your error is in too rigid fundamentalist fanaticism. It is inconceivable to you that any other person, anywhere on the planet, could arrive at the same metaphysical principles and live in accord with them.

You level a curse against them but say “Oh not my curse, it is God’s curse”.

No one can go along with you!

And yet, more and more people do. Statistically, according even to Secular sources, the world’s never been more “religious,” and there have never been as many Christians alive as there are today.

That is not a solid argument, IC. And you know it. And it is beside the point here, among a post-Christian audience. Those across the Global South that take shelter in Christian community, and resort to forcing themselves to believe impossible tales laden with metaphorical content but non-truth-based, will eventually have to come to understand that the step they took may not have established a firm base.

You are dealing here with people who cannot, intelligibly, and indeed in integrity, believe all over again epic stories of parting seas, of Adams & Eves in Gardens, deceiving snakes, and so much else. You will never reach your audience through demands that they perform some really really odd gymnastics which, somehow, you yourself managed.

Any challenge to you, ipso facto, is in your head “denial of Jesus”.

Here it is again:

So for “no one,” I suppose you must mean yourself. And I can accept that. It’s your choice. The last thing I’d do is compel you, even if I could. Your right of choice is sacred. If you are aware and accepting of the consequences, well, that’s as much as one can do.

[Gary Childress]

Right. So long as you’re living in the “straw house” of belief that Secularism can answer the question, you’re merely deluding yourself. Interestingly, I’ve pointed out that it’s easy to test, and you just refuse to employ the test. So perhaps one can’t go forward until that’s resolved.

So what is your evidence that if there is no God, then morality doesn't exist?

I’ve given it repeatedly: do the test. If you can defeat it, you win. If you cannot...

What "test" is that?

[Dubious]

How the Bible and Christianity Copied Pagan Myths...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0s-UpNCdXGg

[Alexis Jacobi]

What "test" is that?

Name one moral axiom that is as solid and comparable to anyone of the Commandments given bu revelation.

The “secularist”, according to IC, has no comparable base. And so any moral imperative is contingent, relative, unstable and non-solid.

His view is that if there is no supreme (supernatural) authority with the power to either reward or punish, no secularist (atheist I take it) can define morals. It all depends on his whim or temporal mood, you see.

[Gary Childress]

Confucius apparently didn't say much about there being any God or gods, but he did believe in a cosmic moral order and was influential in Chinese moral teachings and social harmony. I wonder how he could possibly think those things on his own? According to IC, God must have come to him and told him what right and wrong are and how to wipe his butt. Otherwise, we humans are just idiots and don't know anything. Or maybe that's more a description of IC.

[Gary Childress]

What "test" is that?

Name one moral axiom that is as solid and comparable to anyone of the Commandments given bu revelation.

The “secularist”, according to IC, has no comparable base. And so any moral imperative is contingent, relative, unstable and non-solid.

His view is that if there is no supreme (supernatural) authority with the power to either reward or punish, no secularist (atheist I take it) can define morals. It all depends on his whim or temporal mood, you see.

Is there something wrong with, "Do unto others as we would like to be treated by others"? The Golden rule has been around since before the Bible and was mentioned by Confucius. That seems like common sense to any human being when we put our minds to it. I mean, is "obey the Sabbath" somehow "solid"? Every time a Christian joins the Army, he's putting himself in a position to violate "thou shalt not murder". Is all it takes is something written down on a page in a book someone wrote to make something "solid"? What is meant by "solid"?

[MikeNovack]

I’ll try and make this real-world, if I may. Let us say that a Secular person and a Theist agree on a moral conclusion. Let’s make it simple: let’s say, “Thou shalt not steal.” We shall leave aside the question of what constitutes stealing, and take a clear case, just to keep things simple again. Let’s say that by “Thou shalt not steal,” what both mean is that you can’t take somebody else’s legitimate property without their permission, and treat it as your own disposable asset.

To try to answer your question, then, (assuming I’m grasping your point), you are asking if the Theist and the Secularist are capable of both agreeing that stealing is wrong. And the answer is, yes, they are. (As an aside, if you’re wondering if they can come to different conclusions, yes, that is also possible.)

So I’m denying your suggestion that my allegation is that

...there could be no Msecular such that it always gave the same answer as Mdivine.

Under the same conditions, with the same understanding of what constitutes stealing, it is possible for both to agree that stealing is wrong.

But here’s what I am saying — not the thing you were supposing me to be saying, but the real thing I’m saying. The Theist can say WHY stealing is wrong. The Secularist cannot.

Wow, you must not be interested in complex moral questions. You really should look at my "algebra". We are always judging a choice of action with a situation. I'm assuming the judgement to be made based on ALL of the rules, not some one of them devoid of the context of the situation. Nor do I have to justify any of the rules of the secular system individually.

You really intend "Thou shalt not steal" means the choice of action "steal" is morally wrong regardless of the situation? You really think I could not come up with any of a number of situations where you would conclude the choice of action "steal" is right. That's why my "algebraic" pair. It's NOT rule => choice of action but situation + rule => choice of action. " Thou shalt not kill" would be easy too. I must admit might take me some time to come up with one for adultery. INTERESTING moral questions have rules in conflict no matter whether your moral system is divinely sanctioned or secular.

But I fear you aren't going to get it unless I give you an example situation. In a remote area, no cell service, a several car accident. The owner of a car still functional is not badly hurt but unconscious (cannot be asked for permission). Another person has been badly cut up by broken glass, bleeding to death. Can't just leave tourniquets in place. Your car is not drivable. Is stealing the still operational car to rush the dying person to medical help right or wrong? Discuss.

[Immanuel Can]

So what is your evidence that if there is no God, then morality doesn't exist?

I’ve given it repeatedly: do the test. If you can defeat it, you win. If you cannot...

What "test" is that?

Name one moral axiom Secularism requires of you.

[Immanuel Can]

I’ll try and make this real-world, if I may. Let us say that a Secular person and a Theist agree on a moral conclusion. Let’s make it simple: let’s say, “Thou shalt not steal.” We shall leave aside the question of what constitutes stealing, and take a clear case, just to keep things simple again. Let’s say that by “Thou shalt not steal,” what both mean is that you can’t take somebody else’s legitimate property without their permission, and treat it as your own disposable asset.

To try to answer your question, then, (assuming I’m grasping your point), you are asking if the Theist and the Secularist are capable of both agreeing that stealing is wrong. And the answer is, yes, they are. (As an aside, if you’re wondering if they can come to different conclusions, yes, that is also possible.)

So I’m denying your suggestion that my allegation is that

...there could be no Msecular such that it always gave the same answer as Mdivine.

Under the same conditions, with the same understanding of what constitutes stealing, it is possible for both to agree that stealing is wrong.

But here’s what I am saying — not the thing you were supposing me to be saying, but the real thing I’m saying. The Theist can say WHY stealing is wrong. The Secularist cannot.

Wow, you must not be interested in complex moral questions.

Now, now, Mike…play nice.

On the contrary, I think “complex moral questions,” as you call them, demand precision.

Nor do I have to justify any of the rules of the secular system individually.

That’s because there’s no such “rules,” and no “secular system” to warrant any.

You really intend "Thou shalt not steal" means the choice of action "steal" is morally wrong regardless of the situation?

I said the opposite, actually. I recognized the complexities of situation, but for the point of answering your question straightforwardly, suppositionally eliminated those variables. Otherwise, it would not have been possible to answer that question in a straightforward way.

But if you recall, I was responding to a case in which you asked me if Secularists and Theists could arrive at the same moral conclusions. I said they could.

" Thou shalt not kill" would be easy too.

That’s because it’s “Thou shalt not murder” quite a different proposition from mere “killing.”

I must admit might take me some time to come up with one for adultery.

Oh, sure you could. People come up with rationalizations for that one all the time. Just say, “Who said marriage vows have to be kept?” and Secular assumptions will have no response.

In a remote area, no cell service, a several car accident. The owner of a car still functional is not badly hurt but unconscious (cannot be asked for permission). Another person has been badly cut up by broken glass, bleeding to death. Can't just leave tourniquets in place. Your car is not drivable. Is stealing the still operational car to rush the dying person to medical help right or wrong? Discuss.

Which axiom are you wishing to address? “Thou shalt not drive badly?” “Thou shalt not let people bleed to death?” “Thou shalt not rescue a man in his own car?” I don’t honestly see that any “stealing” is involved in that situation at all…are you planning to keep the man’s car afterward?

But it really doesn’t matter. Secularism has no moral information for us on what one should do in that situation.

[Gary Childress]

I’ve given it repeatedly: do the test. If you can defeat it, you win. If you cannot...

What "test" is that?

Name one moral axiom Secularism requires of you.

I've already stated that Secularism in and of itself doesn't say anything about morality. "There is no God" doesn't tell us what is right or wrong any more than "there is a God" does. We humans use our thinking capacity to come up with moral axioms or imperatives that make practical sense to us and write them down on paper. Is that not how it usually works?

[Immanuel Can]

My intentions are more modest than you think. My job is only to carve out a space in which the truth of the matter can find opportunity to be considered. What you and others do with that, well, that’s between you and God. My job is done, then.

I question the integrity of your intentions then.

I guess that’s on you.

After all your argumentation, supposedly in “good faith”, you always remind the recalcitrant that soon they will spend eternity in hell.

Hmm. Well your opinion is not shared by all…not even by some of the most ardent Atheists. I’m reminded of Penn Gillette’s words:

“I’ve always said that I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. I don’t respect that at all. If you believe that there’s a heaven and a hell, and people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life, and you think that it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward—and atheists who think people shouldn’t proselytize and who say just leave me along and keep your religion to yourself—how much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?

“I mean, if I believed, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that a truck was coming at you, and you didn’t believe that truck was bearing down on you, there is a certain point where I tackle you. And this is more important than that.”

Do you really think this is a popularity contest? It’s about truth, and the kind of truth that really matters. And it’s about doing good for people, whether they choose to accept it or not.

And yet, more and more people do. Statistically, according even to Secular sources, the world’s never been more “religious,” and there have never been as many Christians alive as there are today.

That is not a solid argument, IC.

Actually, it is. And you’ll find it is, if you check.

[Immanuel Can]

What "test" is that?

Name one moral axiom Secularism requires of you.

I've already stated that Secularism in and of itself doesn't say anything about morality.

Then you recognize the truth of what I’ve said.

[Dubious]

What "test" is that?

Name one moral axiom Secularism requires of you.

I've already stated that Secularism in and of itself doesn't say anything about morality. "There is no God" doesn't tell us what is right or wrong any more than "there is a God" does. We humans use our thinking capacity to come up with moral axioms or imperatives that make practical sense to us and write them down on paper. Is that not how it usually works?

Secularism has no reference to a mandated morality as such, but requires moral standards nevertheless to structure itself as a society, a viable collective, as attested to by its laws. It's even possible to define Christianity, among other religions, as becoming more secular the more integrated and established they become as a political entity. What this implies is that secularism, as a coordinating force, must precede what may eventually become anchored, veritably immune to change, the near perennial dictatorship of some sacred script which time and entropy have long made obsolete.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I've encountered this before in extremist believers, including myself; projecting sacred, divine, revealed, absolute, objective morality in fear of personal moral collapse. It's used to justify every form of harm and unfairness immorality in the name of other morality. Piety, self righteousness, judgmentalism always ensue. Irreligious believers, e.g. communists, fascists, environmentalist and gender ideologues, alt. right conspiracy theorists etc, do exactly the same.

The ultimate inadequacy of Christian morality, in its founder, in his misanthropy and damnationism, degeneratively worse in his followers, embodied here egregiously in IC, is rational, scientific proof of its carnality: it's entirely natural. All religion is, all beliefs are.