Christianity

[MikeNovack]

But this raises a second question: and that is, it may be the case that I believe in a Creator God, and that only that God is a candidate to orient the moral project of the creature. Fair enough. But how do I know what the will of the Creator is?

And the answer is that I would not…unless God had revealed it to us. And this is where the real bone of contention will appear: is the Bible the Word of God, or is it not? If it is, there’s no problem in deriving the basic axioms of morality or law; but if it’s not, then we’re all in an unsolvable situation of not being able to know what is moral and what is not —ironically, the very situation into which Secularism would precipitate us all.

Right, READ the Bible, read and understand.

Your problem is ignoring the second version of creation, or rather reading it and interpreting in a peculiar way (not necessarily you personally but your religion). It's NOT primarily about "the origin of sin" but about becoming human (not remaing just one of the animals). Part of that becoming human is gaining the knowledge to make moral judgements. In other words, according to my interpretation, the origin of sin only because without that knowledge it is impossible to sin. Animals can't sin.

Eve's eating the fruit not a sin because she hasn't yet eaten the fruit. Same for Adam. Shall we discuss Eve's giving the fruit to Adam? She now knows, is capable of sinning. But if you treat all of the laws as true from the beginning, she has a classic moral problem of laws in conflict plus what god has done to her nature. She is forbidden to lie down with a beast (until Adam has eaten the fruit, he remains one). And she is cursed by god with a desire for the man. Discuss, in terms of Eve's situation, what is the right course of action.

I am saying, in this account, god put the tree of knowledge in the Garden, made moral knowledge available to humans. Yes told us not to take it, but we did. You are acting as if this account not there, as if god chose to retain being the only possible source of moral judgement. Remember god's question to Adam and Eve "who told you that you were naked?" << how come you can make moral judgements >>

[Martin Peter Clarke]

What is your certain god?

In my view the only way to talk about inscrutable things is through intimation or perhaps indirect reference.

I regard the “doctrines” of Christianity as vessels whose symbolic meaning can be, let’s say, extracted and put to use. I suggest that there is a “decoder ring” (excuse the playful reference) which can be used to extract what is meant.

This thread has been going on for years now. And I have always been clear, and I state periodically that “I am here for my own purposes”. So I set my sights on extracting what I need from a peculiar, difficult and challenging historical juncture that, for various reasons, attracts those who participate here like moths to a flame.

The question “What is your certain god?” is I think in your case fairly put as a statement “There is no certain god”. In fact, even if I did send up some poetic formula as an “answer” (it is possible to communicate through such poetry) you know as well as I that you do not believe there is any such thing. You seem to have come down from such “drugged awareness” and I gather that you were once a sort of believer (with fanatical tendencies)(?) (If I have read you correctly).

The Essence of what Immanuel is on about is what interests me. This junkyard dog does not really under what he guards but his ferociousness defines him as it also imprisons him. To get to the Essence this dog must be tranquillized. Then the ‘guarded realm’ can be explored.

Fair enough, thanks Alexis. Another man who puts his name to his words. Good luck! I will only approach empty, second and third rate claims of superior morality, which are correlated with religious imperialism, clinically, and orthogonally or obliquely.

[Immanuel Can]

But this raises a second question: and that is, it may be the case that I believe in a Creator God, and that only that God is a candidate to orient the moral project of the creature. Fair enough. But how do I know what the will of the Creator is?

And the answer is that I would not…unless God had revealed it to us. And this is where the real bone of contention will appear: is the Bible the Word of God, or is it not? If it is, there’s no problem in deriving the basic axioms of morality or law; but if it’s not, then we’re all in an unsolvable situation of not being able to know what is moral and what is not —ironically, the very situation into which Secularism would precipitate us all.

Right, READ the Bible, read and understand.

Well, if that’s what God has to say to us, don’t you suppose we’d be wise to take receipt of the communication? And if we simply refuse, does that imply that God has failed HIS side of the equation?

Your problem is ignoring the second version of creation, or rather reading it and interpreting in a peculiar way (not necessarily you personally but your religion). It's NOT primarily about "the origin of sin" but about becoming human (not remaing just one of the animals). Part of that becoming human is gaining the knowledge to make moral judgements. In other words, according to my interpretation, the origin of sin only because without that knowledge it is impossible to sin. Animals can't sin.

I’m not “ignoring, “ Mike: I didn’t know you believed any such thing, and you’ve only just now said you do. But thanks for sharing. It helps me to understand where your questions are coming from, and to respond (hopefully) in a way you find more on-point.

I’m very familiar with the discourse of “becoming human.” It’s heavy in such diverse places as Marx, Heidegger and Sartre, in particular, and somewhat in Hegel and Nietzsche, too…I don’t mean that only Fascists and Communists believe such things, but I’m not aware of the idea of “becoming human” predating them by much. Correct me, if you find something that hails from earlier. I’d be interested. (I think you might find something in Gnostic thought, perhaps.)

But to me, it doesn’t make a lot of sense. What IS one before one (allegedly) “becomes human”? An ape? A zygote? A type of zombie? And if “nature” makes us one of those, what gives us the special power and privilege, unlike the animals, of magically reconstituting ourselves as some new creature? When did Nature first bestow this marvelous propensity to escape our own natures? And who gets to set the criteria for when we have magically transitioned from a pre-human to a genuine human? Who’s writing the test? Does Nature care? That seems unlikely.

If “gaining the knowledge to make moral judgments” is part of that package, you’d expect that we’ve have some warrant or basis for it, wouldn’t you? I mean, it would be odd for Nature to somehow instil in us an ability that had no relation whatsoever to objective reality, and “require” it of us for our survival? Nature wants us to be deluded? None of that seems to me to make one lick of sense. But more importantly, we’re still 100% without any backing from Nature as to why we should accept some “moral” axioms, and reject others. So the people who are pushing this narrative, whether it’s Marx or Sartre, or whoever, owe us a whole lot more explanation than I’ve ever seen from them before we give them any credence at all.

But if you treat all of the laws as true from the beginning...

I’m sorry…I missed something: which exact “laws” are you referring to?

Discuss, in terms of Eve's situation, what is the right course of action.

Well, since I already don’t believe the Marxist or Sartrean idea of “becoming human,” I don’t see a problem. Adam’s a man, not an animal.

I am saying, in this account, god put the tree of knowledge in the Garden, made moral knowledge available to humans. Yes told us not to take it, but we did.

It wasn’t “the tree of knowledge,” actually. Check the text: it was “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. In other words, it was moral, not general knowledge that was interdicted. (I note you seem to realize this in that you also call it “moral knowledge”: good for you, because you’re correct.) And yes, human beings were told not to take it, and did.

You are acting as if this account not there...

Not a bit. We haven’t so far even talked about it. But that’s hardly my fault, and not yours, either. It’s never come up until now.

But let’s explore that. Why did God tell man not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? I have ideas. And we can discuss it as a narrative, even if you don’t believe in the particulars. So let’s accept that you don’t believe it literally, and just talk about what it is designed to tell us about God, man and the moral situation. Fair enough?

Can I start with the first question? I’ll propose that it should be something close to, “Why did God even make that tree?” That would be a good first starting point. But if you prefer a different question, I’ll go with it. Where would you like to start?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

But this raises a second question: and that is, it may be the case that I believe in a Creator God, and that only that God is a candidate to orient the moral project of the creature. Fair enough. But how do I know what the will of the Creator is?

And the answer is that I would not…unless God had revealed it to us. And this is where the real bone of contention will appear: is the Bible the Word of God, or is it not? If it is, there’s no problem in deriving the basic axioms of morality or law; but if it’s not, then we’re all in an unsolvable situation of not being able to know what is moral and what is not —ironically, the very situation into which Secularism would precipitate us all.

Right, READ the Bible, read and understand.

Your problem is ignoring the second version of creation, or rather reading it and interpreting in a peculiar way (not necessarily you personally but your religion). It's NOT primarily about "the origin of sin" but about becoming human (not remaing just one of the animals). Part of that becoming human is gaining the knowledge to make moral judgements. In other words, according to my interpretation, the origin of sin only because without that knowledge it is impossible to sin. Animals can't sin.

Eve's eating the fruit not a sin because she hasn't yet eaten the fruit. Same for Adam. Shall we discuss Eve's giving the fruit to Adam? She now knows, is capable of sinning. But if you treat all of the laws as true from the beginning, she has a classic moral problem of laws in conflict plus what god has done to her nature. She is forbidden to lie down with a beast (until Adam has eaten the fruit, he remains one). And she is cursed by god with a desire for the man. Discuss, in terms of Eve's situation, what is the right course of action.

I am saying, in this account, god put the tree of knowledge in the Garden, made moral knowledge available to humans. Yes told us not to take it, but we did. You are acting as if this account not there, as if god chose to retain being the only possible source of moral judgement. Remember god's question to Adam and Eve "who told you that you were naked?" << how come you can make moral judgements >>

1. Where is she forbidden bestiality?

[seeds]

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.

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

The irony of all of this is that if IC actually understood and believed the key assertions stated in the Bible, such as the following, for example,...

"...And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil..." — Genesis 3:22, KJV

...then he would realize that -- according to the Bible itself -- even a person who rejects the existence of a Divine Lawgiver has nevertheless been imbued with the ability to discern (to "know") good from evil.

Again, if IC truly understood and believed in the doctrines he promotes, he would realize that a general sense of divine morality has been baked into our being from the very beginning.

Which, if true, would seem to be a logical reason as to how and why a non-believer in God is instinctively aware of how nothing could be more evil (less moral) than a God who is able (and willing) to condemn untold billions of defenseless lifeforms to an eternity of unimaginable torture,...

...simply because (by God's own design) they were not conscious enough to fathom the ontological status of a Being that is capable of creating the (natural-appearing) setting in which they were awakened into existence.

Or, worse yet, because they did not perform some silly rituals in order to appease the vanity of said Being.

Hence the atheist's rejection of Christianity or any religion that suggests that it is okay to torture any sentient being for any reason whatsoever (never mind for eternity, for crying out loud).

As I suggested a long time ago, IC was born in the wrong century,...

...for it is clear that he would have fit-in beautifully in the Middle Ages as one of the Christian authorities who smugly and gleefully held a cross in the face of an unfortunate soul that he then burned at the stake for the crime of heresy.
_______

[Alexis Jacobi]

Heaven is infinite from eternity, like everything else. Everyone, everything that has ever suffered, gets to be fixed. Nobody, nothing, can do any harm to another. And any impulse to, will be therapied, developed, transcended - ironed out. By those who have gone before. From forever. With no violence. Love is infinitely competent.

Where learnt thou this?

[Gary Childress]

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

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.

But the secularists can indeed say why stealing is wrong. The secularist reasons that stealing is wrong because of nature including human nature…

Let’s see if that’s so. Spell it out, logically.

Premise 1: Secularism is true.
Premise 2:______________________________________?
Conclusion: Therefore, stealing is wrong.

Please fill in Premise 2, showing how “nature” or “human nature,” whichever you actually believe is the right glue, connects Premise 1 with the conclusion you claim is true.

1. There is a God.
2. _______________________________
Conclusion: Therefore, stealing is wrong.

Can you complete the argument above?

[Immanuel Can]

But the secularists can indeed say why stealing is wrong. The secularist reasons that stealing is wrong because of nature including human nature…

Let’s see if that’s so. Spell it out, logically.

Premise 1: Secularism is true.
Premise 2:______________________________________?
Conclusion: Therefore, stealing is wrong.

Please fill in Premise 2, showing how “nature” or “human nature,” whichever you actually believe is the right glue, connects Premise 1 with the conclusion you claim is true.

1. There is a God
2. _______________________________
Conclusion: Therefore, stealing is wrong.

Can you complete the argument above?

Yep.

Understanding who God is, that He is both the Creator and thus the logical determiner of all teleology, and that there isn’t even another plausible candidate for that role, it becomes almost unnecessary to add the middle premise. But we’ll do it.

Premise 2: “The nature and expressed will of God are contrary to the act of theft."

[Gary Childress]

Let’s see if that’s so. Spell it out, logically.

Premise 1: Secularism is true.
Premise 2:______________________________________?
Conclusion: Therefore, stealing is wrong.

Please fill in Premise 2, showing how “nature” or “human nature,” whichever you actually believe is the right glue, connects Premise 1 with the conclusion you claim is true.

1. There is a God
2. _______________________________
Conclusion: Therefore, stealing is wrong.

Can you complete the argument above?

Yep.

Understanding who God is, that He is both the Creator and thus the logical determiner of all teleology, and that there isn’t even another plausible candidate for that role, it becomes almost unnecessary to add the middle premise. But we’ll do it.

Premise 2: “The nature and expressed will of God are contrary to the act of theft."

That's not a valid or sound argument. It amounts to:

1. G exists.
2. The nature and expressed will of God are contrary to the act of theft.
Conclusion: Therefore, stealing is wrong.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that premise #1 is true. Can you flesh the argument out into a valid and sound one? How do we know the alleged creator/source of the universe and all that is-- is concerned about humans stealing from each other (but apparently not as concerned about lions and alligators eating humans, for example)?

Also, why is it evident that stealing is wrong? For example, what if someone is starving or homeless and steals from a convenience store so that they don't die of hunger? Should we believe that it's wrong for them to steal under those circumstances? And if it is not wrong to steal under those circumstances, then what caveats need to be added to the moral statement: "stealing is wrong?" to make the statement true?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Heaven is infinite from eternity, like everything else. Everyone, everything that has ever suffered, gets to be fixed. Nobody, nothing, can do any harm to another. And any impulse to, will be therapied, developed, transcended - ironed out. By those who have gone before. From forever. With no violence. Love is infinitely competent.

Where learnt thou this?

On the shoulders of giants. It's what I saw, emergent, beyond the Bible, thanks to Rob Bell and Brian McLaren and Steve Chalke. Beyond, to infinity, and eternity. The ultimate fact. That creates the best case God. Pity.

[Alexis Jacobi]

How do we know the alleged creator/source of the universe and all that is-- is concerned about humans stealing from each other (but apparently not as concerned about lions and alligators eating humans, for example)?

That’s only the half of it, brother.

My entire moral world fell into shambles recently. Let me tell you the story:

You know I live in South America down by the banks of the grey-green greasy Orinoco river, right? Well, a month back I took my granny in a skiff to a beautiful spot along those Edenic shores for a picnic. She smiled and all of Nature seemed to smile along with her. Little did I know what it had in store!

We walked up the hill to a spot I’d prepared. But I’d forgotten the case holding the utensils and went down to grab it out of the skiff. It was stuck under the seat and I had to lie prone to reach it. Just for a second I closed my eyes, enjoying to coolness. I’d not been sleeping well pondering these intense moral questions discussed here on PN, you see, and dammit I fell asleep!

It wasn’t for more than 15-20 minutes. But in that interim a swarm of army ants passed through the unforgiving jungle. These demonic insects devour everything that crawls or walks and, you guessed it, they got grandma! When I got back up the hill all there was were her picked over bones and that print dress I bought her in San Fernando de Atabapa last rainy season …

I knew then and with devastating certainty that there was no “morality” in Nature.

(I must add that while I wailed & moaned up there out of sight some Indians stole the outboard and I had to paddle back to civilization. It was a very very bad day).

[Will Bouwman]

...there might be a god? Whodda thunk?

There certainly isn't as it would easily have communicated with us...

Well, all you can rule out is a god that that has communicated with us unambiguously. That leaves the door open to all sorts of inscrutable or indifferent gods.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Can I start with the first question? I’ll propose that it should be something close to, “Why did God even make that tree?” That would be a good first starting point. But if you prefer a different question, I’ll go with it. Where would you like to start?

:::raises hand:::

Who.got.granny? God or those devilish ants!

Why did God make those ants?

Or, in Adam & Eve’s garden, what did ants eat?

And please describe how it actually came about that the entire world turned to violence and death after those Two fell. Was it gradual? Or an instantaneous change?

One minute everything calm and peaceful and then … everyone turned on everyone else?

[Immanuel Can]

1. There is a God
2. _______________________________
Conclusion: Therefore, stealing is wrong.

Can you complete the argument above?

Yep.

Understanding who God is, that He is both the Creator and thus the logical determiner of all teleology, and that there isn’t even another plausible candidate for that role, it becomes almost unnecessary to add the middle premise. But we’ll do it.

Premise 2: “The nature and expressed will of God are contrary to the act of theft."

That's not a valid or sound argument. It amounts to:

1. G exists.
2. The nature and expressed will of God are contrary to the act of theft.
Conclusion: Therefore, stealing is wrong.

No, that’s an incorrect summary.

It IS valid if you realize what the word “God” refers to. That’s why I put that explanation at the start. It would not be a valid argument in regard to, say, Zeus…because Zeus is reputed to be a created being, not the Creator. It would not work in regard to a Deist god, because the Deists claim that their creator has no further wishes or intentions or teleology for its creation. But it would be valid if God is the God of the Jews and Christians. Because that “God” means, “Comprehensive Creator and Supreme Being, who has teleological purposes for his Creation.”

And so:
1. G exists as the Comprehensive Creator and Supreme Being, who has teleological purposes for his Creation.
2. The nature and expressed will of God (and His teleological purposes indicated thereby) are contrary to the act of theft.
Conclusion: Therefore, stealing is wrong (i.e. contrary to the Divine intentions for our teleology).

Also, why is it evident that stealing is wrong?

Well, one can only say that if one knows what one means specifically by “stealing.” If one redefines it to include things like “borrowing temporarily” or “taking with permission,”or even “taking under extraordinary circumstances,” such as borrowing a car to save a life, then it voids the principle of the meaning it actually implies. One has to limit it to “taking without warrant that which God has allowed to be the legitimate property of another.” And if one limits it in that way, it’s a clear principle.

And in the clear, it’s not hard at all. Don’t just take my stuff. I can’t take yours. That’s pretty straightforward.

Applications are more complicated than general principles. But without clear general principles, one has no idea at all of what to make of applications. One doesn’t even have a reliable sense of direction. One is left with one’s mere intuition, grounded in…nothing.

[Immanuel Can]

Can I start with the first question? I’ll propose that it should be something close to, “Why did God even make that tree?” That would be a good first starting point. But if you prefer a different question, I’ll go with it. Where would you like to start?

:::raises hand:::

Yes, AJ…you are excused to the washroom.