Christianity

[Alexiev]

[


Quite the opposite. The way we know what good is, is because we are created by God to know what good is. That is, we have a conscience, and an awareness that this universe has both a purpose and a moral orientation. Without Him, we'd know nothing at all about good or evil. And that's precisely why secularism knows nothing about good or evil -- that it assumes there's no ultimate reason for, or moral orientation in, the universe. All "moralizing" is unreal, dishonest and deceptive. Nietzsche understood this, and explained it.

Now, can you "create a secular morality based on that knowledge"? No, of course...secularism will teach you there's no reality underlying all that. But what do secularists do instead? They often steal concepts from Theism, and pretend they're secular, so that secular morality will have a grounding. But you can catch that trick, merely by asking them, "On what secular basis am I morally duty-bound to agree with you?"

They can never tell you. And that's because morality does not come from secularism. It cannot.

But you and I know morality is real. I even dare to say that we both know it's objective -- at least, some precepts in it, we're going to agree on. I suspect you quietly believe that things like slavery, genocide, rape, theft, slander and perjury are really, objectively bad; and that all we're really discussing is the basis on which we can explain the aversion to these things we both share.

I say that we find them morally bad because they are contrary to the nature and will of God, and we have a conscience put in us by God that reminds us of that fact; but what will secularism say?

We do have consciences, but they are the result of natural affections and cultural influences. Are cultural mores objective or subjective? I don't know, and I don't care. I don't have your disdain for subjectivity. Indeed, I think all our perceptions, beliefs, etc. are subjective, at least in part.

God may be a metaphor for culture: a supernatural, incorporeal entity that informs our notions of good and evil (among other things). After all our consciences have redefined good and evil over the centuries and the slavery, rape, etc. we now decry were lauded in some societies. That does not sound like they were God-given to me.

[Immanuel Can]

[


Quite the opposite. The way we know what good is, is because we are created by God to know what good is. That is, we have a conscience, and an awareness that this universe has both a purpose and a moral orientation. Without Him, we'd know nothing at all about good or evil. And that's precisely why secularism knows nothing about good or evil -- that it assumes there's no ultimate reason for, or moral orientation in, the universe. All "moralizing" is unreal, dishonest and deceptive. Nietzsche understood this, and explained it.

Now, can you "create a secular morality based on that knowledge"? No, of course...secularism will teach you there's no reality underlying all that. But what do secularists do instead? They often steal concepts from Theism, and pretend they're secular, so that secular morality will have a grounding. But you can catch that trick, merely by asking them, "On what secular basis am I morally duty-bound to agree with you?"

They can never tell you. And that's because morality does not come from secularism. It cannot.

But you and I know morality is real. I even dare to say that we both know it's objective -- at least, some precepts in it, we're going to agree on. I suspect you quietly believe that things like slavery, genocide, rape, theft, slander and perjury are really, objectively bad; and that all we're really discussing is the basis on which we can explain the aversion to these things we both share.

I say that we find them morally bad because they are contrary to the nature and will of God, and we have a conscience put in us by God that reminds us of that fact; but what will secularism say?

We do have consciences, but they are the result of natural affections and cultural influences.

Then there's no reason we ought to obey those consciences. And when we're tempted to violate them, as we so often are, there is no reason why we should not do so. Natural affections are temporary and transient, and cultural influences are just indoctrination. And both are mere "is' facts, with neither implying an "ought."

Are cultural mores objective or subjective? I don't know, and I don't care.

I thought you were a subjectivist.

I don't have your disdain for subjectivity.

It's not disdain. Disdain would be irrelevant. It's simply analysis, actually. Subjectivism doesn't ground any morals. That's just a statement of how it is.

After all our consciences have redefined good and evil over the centuries and the slavery, rape, etc. we now decry were lauded in some societies.

How do you know they're moving in the direction of "good," or "better," not in the direction of "evil" or "worse"? Without a moral objectivity to bracked your assessment, there's no way to know. So you are assuming conventional morality of the kind you and I share is "good." But if subjectivism is true, we might well be wrong. Maybe a society with slaves, sexual assault, and whatever else is neither better nor worse, but just different. That's what subjectivism would require us to think: that there's no way to arbitrate that.

[Fairy]

[


Quite the opposite. The way we know what good is, is because we are created by God to know what good is. That is, we have a conscience, and an awareness that this universe has both a purpose and a moral orientation. Without Him, we'd know nothing at all about good or evil. And that's precisely why secularism knows nothing about good or evil -- that it assumes there's no ultimate reason for, or moral orientation in, the universe. All "moralizing" is unreal, dishonest and deceptive. Nietzsche understood this, and explained it.

Now, can you "create a secular morality based on that knowledge"? No, of course...secularism will teach you there's no reality underlying all that. But what do secularists do instead? They often steal concepts from Theism, and pretend they're secular, so that secular morality will have a grounding. But you can catch that trick, merely by asking them, "On what secular basis am I morally duty-bound to agree with you?"

They can never tell you. And that's because morality does not come from secularism. It cannot.

But you and I know morality is real. I even dare to say that we both know it's objective -- at least, some precepts in it, we're going to agree on. I suspect you quietly believe that things like slavery, genocide, rape, theft, slander and perjury are really, objectively bad; and that all we're really discussing is the basis on which we can explain the aversion to these things we both share.

I say that we find them morally bad because they are contrary to the nature and will of God, and we have a conscience put in us by God that reminds us of that fact; but what will secularism say?

We do have consciences, but they are the result of natural affections and cultural influences.

Then there's no reason we ought to obey those consciences. And when we're tempted to violate them, as we so often are, there is no reason why we should not do so. Natural affections are temporary and transient, and cultural influences are just indoctrination. And both are mere "is' facts, with neither implying an "ought."

Are cultural mores objective or subjective? I don't know, and I don't care.

I thought you were a subjectivist.

I don't have your disdain for subjectivity.

It's not disdain. Disdain would be irrelevant. It's simply analysis, actually. Subjectivism doesn't ground any morals. That's just a statement of how it is.

After all our consciences have redefined good and evil over the centuries and the slavery, rape, etc. we now decry were lauded in some societies.

How do you know they're moving in the direction of "good," or "better," not in the direction of "evil" or "worse"? Without a moral objectivity to bracked your assessment, there's no way to know. So you are assuming conventional morality of the kind you and I share is "good." But if subjectivism is true, we might well be wrong. Maybe a society with slaves, sexual assault, and whatever else is neither better nor worse, but just different. That's what subjectivism would require us to think: that there's no way to arbitrate that.

Since it’s obvious that Nothing can be objectively proven or disproven about anything, it’s futile to keep changing the subject. All that’s left is for the subject to believe absolutely anything it wants to believe. Absolute truth requires no external validation.

There’s nothing more to it than blind belief.

Your mind sold you on a fantasy.

[Belinda]

People have believed in religious moral codes for centuries or millennia. Secular morality is therefore based upon religious moral codes. Nothing new under the sun.

These religious moral codes are conditioned by the cultures in which they arise; the code sometimes determines the continuing development of the culture, and they become one, as with Islam. Secular morality needs its moral foundation to be humanity's commonality, one species, one code. Science could do a much better job of sorting out what supports our common biology, its survival, and its general welfare. It's time humanity ceased being guided by the ignorance of its past. " IF WE ARE TO SURVIVE AS A SPECIES, WE MUST OVERCOME FAITH." CARL SAGAN

Humanity's commonality is the main thrust of Jesus of Nazareth.
Jesus of Nazareth has been one important cultural icon for two thousand years. The ignorance of the past is still of use for people who are not educable.

Science and technology are much needed for the cause of the survival of the biosphere.

At the juncture of science and Christian and other sources of commonality, there is already conflict as we see from Trumpism and other fascist politics around the globe, against those who resist fascism.

[Belinda]

[


Quite the opposite. The way we know what good is, is because we are created by God to know what good is. That is, we have a conscience, and an awareness that this universe has both a purpose and a moral orientation. Without Him, we'd know nothing at all about good or evil. And that's precisely why secularism knows nothing about good or evil -- that it assumes there's no ultimate reason for, or moral orientation in, the universe. All "moralizing" is unreal, dishonest and deceptive. Nietzsche understood this, and explained it.

Now, can you "create a secular morality based on that knowledge"? No, of course...secularism will teach you there's no reality underlying all that. But what do secularists do instead? They often steal concepts from Theism, and pretend they're secular, so that secular morality will have a grounding. But you can catch that trick, merely by asking them, "On what secular basis am I morally duty-bound to agree with you?"

They can never tell you. And that's because morality does not come from secularism. It cannot.

But you and I know morality is real. I even dare to say that we both know it's objective -- at least, some precepts in it, we're going to agree on. I suspect you quietly believe that things like slavery, genocide, rape, theft, slander and perjury are really, objectively bad; and that all we're really discussing is the basis on which we can explain the aversion to these things we both share.

I say that we find them morally bad because they are contrary to the nature and will of God, and we have a conscience put in us by God that reminds us of that fact; but what will secularism say?

We do have consciences, but they are the result of natural affections and cultural influences.

Then there's no reason we ought to obey those consciences. And when we're tempted to violate them, as we so often are, there is no reason why we should not do so. Natural affections are temporary and transient, and cultural influences are just indoctrination. And both are mere "is' facts, with neither implying an "ought."

Are cultural mores objective or subjective? I don't know, and I don't care.

I thought you were a subjectivist.

I don't have your disdain for subjectivity.

It's not disdain. Disdain would be irrelevant. It's simply analysis, actually. Subjectivism doesn't ground any morals. That's just a statement of how it is.

After all our consciences have redefined good and evil over the centuries and the slavery, rape, etc. we now decry were lauded in some societies.

How do you know they're moving in the direction of "good," or "better," not in the direction of "evil" or "worse"? Without a moral objectivity to bracked your assessment, there's no way to know. So you are assuming conventional morality of the kind you and I share is "good." But if subjectivism is true, we might well be wrong. Maybe a society with slaves, sexual assault, and whatever else is neither better nor worse, but just different. That's what subjectivism would require us to think: that there's no way to arbitrate that.

I agree with Immanuel that conscience is not a guide to anything but cultural mores .

The French word for "conscience" is la conscience, a feminine noun. It means both "moral conscience" and "consciousness" or "awareness". Common phrases include avoir mauvaise conscience (to have a guilty conscience) and prendre conscience de (to become aware of).

ChatGPT

Jesus of Nazareth ,among other wise men ,taught how men should be conscious of human commonality (thanks Popeye for the phrase!) Consciousness of human commonality is despised and ridiculed by fascists and their like who invented the word 'woke' .

[Alexiev]

Then there's no reason we ought to obey those consciences. And when we're tempted to violate them, as we so often are, there is no reason why we should not do so. Natural affections are temporary and transient, and cultural influences are just indoctrination. And both are mere "is' facts, with neither implying an "ought."

Of course there's a reason to obey our consciences. Those that are culturally constituted (like "love your neighbor" or "do unto others*) have been forged on the anvils of time, the wisdom of elders, and the prospect of communal peace and well-being. Natural affections result in "honor your parents". Without them, no mammals could reproduce.

After all our consciences have redefined good and evil over the centuries and the slavery, rape, etc. we now decry were lauded in some societies.

How do you know they're moving in the direction of "good," or "better," not in the direction of "evil" or "worse"? Without a moral objectivity to bracked your assessment, there's no way to know. So you are assuming conventional morality of the kind you and I share is "good." But if subjectivism is true, we might well be wrong. Maybe a society with slaves, sexual assault, and whatever else is neither better nor worse, but just different. That's what subjectivism would require us to think: that there's no way to arbitrate that.

Like you, I don't "know". Instead, I "believe". However your claim that there's "no way to arbitrate that" is clearly incorrect. We arbitrate it through objective analysis of what mores conduce human well- being, and subjectively analysing which mores are approved by our consciences (which, as Ive said, result from cultural training and natural affections). In other words, I arbitrate in exactly the same way as you, except that our cultural influences differ. Religion and the Bible are cultural artifacts, whatever else they may be.

[Immanuel Can]

I agree with Immanuel that conscience is not a guide to anything but cultural mores .

I certainly didn't say that. I don't believe it. Secularism makes that necessary, but secularism is wrong.

[Immanuel Can]

Then there's no reason we ought to obey those consciences. And when we're tempted to violate them, as we so often are, there is no reason why we should not do so. Natural affections are temporary and transient, and cultural influences are just indoctrination. And both are mere "is' facts, with neither implying an "ought."

Of course there's a reason to obey our consciences. Those that are culturally constituted (like "love your neighbor" or "do unto others*) have been forged on the anvils of time, the wisdom of elders, and the prospect of communal peace and well-being. Natural affections result in "honor your parents". Without them, no mammals could reproduce.

Sure they could. Paramecia reproduce without concern for each other and human beings could reproduce by prostitution, female slavery or sexual assault. In fact, people do all three all the time.

What is it that makes the "wisdom of elders" of your culture right, and the "wisdom of elders" in somebody else's culture wrong? For example, why we "right" to give equality to women, say, when in most cultures and most times in history, women have been treated as, at best, second-class citizens, and in some cases as mere chattels? Why are they "wrong" to do that? The majority of history and cultures are on their side.

After all our consciences have redefined good and evil over the centuries and the slavery, rape, etc. we now decry were lauded in some societies.

How do you know they're moving in the direction of "good," or "better," not in the direction of "evil" or "worse"? Without a moral objectivity to bracked your assessment, there's no way to know. So you are assuming conventional morality of the kind you and I share is "good." But if subjectivism is true, we might well be wrong. Maybe a society with slaves, sexual assault, and whatever else is neither better nor worse, but just different. That's what subjectivism would require us to think: that there's no way to arbitrate that.

Like you, I don't "know". Instead, I "believe".

"I believe..." is an assessment that has no moral weight. That one person "believes" something does not imply the duty of anybody else to do so: hence, it cannot be used to order a society, or inform justice, or even to guide personal inclination.

However your claim that there's "no way to arbitrate that" is clearly incorrect. We arbitrate it through objective analysis of what mores conduce human well- being, and subjectively analysing which mores are approved by our consciences (which, as Ive said, result from cultural training and natural affections).

But you still have the problem that the morality you favour is a minority morality, on a world scale. How do you explain that a moral code that fewer people have believed and practiced is more "right" than what more people have believed and practiced?

In other words, I arbitrate in exactly the same way as you, except that our cultural influences differ.

Then by definition, you're not arbitrating it at all. You're escaping the necessity to arbitrate, in fact, by denying the differences can matter. For to "arbitrate" means "to reach an authoritative judgment or settlement." What makes your preferred judgment about these matters "authoritative" or effective to "settle" the dispute?

[Alexiev]

Then there's no reason we ought to obey those consciences. And when we're tempted to violate them, as we so often are, there is no reason why we should not do so. Natural affections are temporary and transient, and cultural influences are just indoctrination. And both are mere "is' facts, with neither implying an "ought."

Of course there's a reason to obey our consciences. Those that are culturally constituted (like "love your neighbor" or "do unto others*) have been forged on the anvils of time, the wisdom of elders, and the prospect of communal peace and well-being. Natural affections result in "honor your parents". Without them, no mammals could reproduce.

Sure they could. Paramecia reproduce without concern for each other and human beings could reproduce by prostitution, female slavery or sexual assault. In fact, people do all three all the time.

What is it that makes the "wisdom of elders" of your culture right, and the "wisdom of elders" in somebody else's culture wrong? For example, why we "right" to give equality to women, say, when in most cultures and most times in history, women have been treated as, at best, second-class citizens, and in some cases as mere chattels? Why are they "wrong" to do that? The majority of history and cultures are on their side.

After all our consciences have redefined good and evil over the centuries and the slavery, rape, etc. we now decry were lauded in some societies.

How do you know they're moving in the direction of "good," or "better," not in the direction of "evil" or "worse"? Without a moral objectivity to bracked your assessment, there's no way to know. So you are assuming conventional morality of the kind you and I share is "good." But if subjectivism is true, we might well be wrong. Maybe a society with slaves, sexual assault, and whatever else is neither better nor worse, but just different. That's what subjectivism would require us to think: that there's no way to arbitrate that.

Like you, I don't "know". Instead, I "believe".

"I believe..." is an assessment that has no moral weight. That one person "believes" something does not imply the duty of anybody else to do so: hence, it cannot be used to order a society, or inform justice, or even to guide personal inclination.

However your claim that there's "no way to arbitrate that" is clearly incorrect. We arbitrate it through objective analysis of what mores conduce human well- being, and subjectively analysing which mores are approved by our consciences (which, as Ive said, result from cultural training and natural affections).

But you still have the problem that the morality you favour is a minority morality, on a world scale. How do you explain that a moral code that fewer people have believed and practiced is more "right" than what more people have believed and practiced?

In other words, I arbitrate in exactly the same way as you, except that our cultural influences differ.

Then by definition, you're not arbitrating it at all. You're escaping the necessity to arbitrate, in fact, by denying the differences can matter. For to "arbitrate" means "to reach an authoritative judgment or settlement." What makes your preferred judgment about these matters "authoritative" or effective to "settle" the dispute?

Mammalian mothers have to nurse their babies. As should have been obvious, that's what I was referring to. Foe many mammals, infants must be attended and cared for in other ways. For humans, this care lasts for years..

More later. I'm off to a cocert.

[Immanuel Can]

More later. I'm off to a cocert.

Have a good one.

[Alexiev]

More later. I'm off to a cocert.

Have a good one.

The overture from West Side Story, a modern violin concerto, and Tchaikovsky's 5th symphony. The Eugene, Oregon symphony is not conducted by Dudamel, although Marin Alsop, the first woman to lead a major U.S. Orchestra, was once the conductor. Still, Tchaikosky's 5th is always worth hearing, as I could explain if I knew as much about music as I know about literature, or sports. My point: it's reasonable to support one's subjective taste (as in music or literature) with reasoned argument. The critic can't prove that he is right -- but he can persuade open minded listeners that he may be, and help them enjoy the performance by telling them what to look for. If the critic can do that for artistic performances, why not for morals? The method is to find common ground -- perhaps a general principle like "do unto others" - with which one's interlocutor agrees and reason from there to more complicated positions (like being anti-slavery or despising Donald Trump). Of course the postulates are unproven -- but that's true whether one is religious or not. If the general principle is denied, the critic can discover why, and look for other general principles violated by the disagreement.

Obviously, that slavery was permitted in a great many societies suggests morality is far from innate or universal, and that God has suggested it to human conscience badly, if, indeed, He has done so at all. Some have even criticized Jesus for refraining from objecting to the institution.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:-

"I believe..." is an assessment that has no moral weight. That one person "believes" something does not imply the duty of anybody else to do so: hence, it cannot be used to order a society, or inform justice, or even to guide personal inclination.

What if several persons of high social standing laid down a religious canon? In effect said "We believe this " .

That is what The Bible is ----an anthology edited by certain persons of high social standing .

Immanuel Can constantly claims to have found certainty. Psychologically, to search for certainty is caused by fear. IC may be right when he explains his idea of God, nobody knows. However IC lacks the humility to seriously consider other views and revise his own views . The Bible is a great work of literature ; IC
does not understand symbolism.

[Gary Childress]

We do have consciences, but they are the result of natural affections and cultural influences.

Then there's no reason we ought to obey those consciences. And when we're tempted to violate them, as we so often are, there is no reason why we should not do so. Natural affections are temporary and transient, and cultural influences are just indoctrination. And both are mere "is' facts, with neither implying an "ought."

The master debater strikes again. Try disregarding your conscience for a while, IC. See how that works out for you.

[Immanuel Can]

My point: it's reasonable to support one's subjective taste (as in music or literature) with reasoned argument.

Yes, it is. For example, you could tell somebody the reasons you think they should prefer chocolate to vanilla. But you can't make those reasons moral ones. They're going to start as issues of taste, and end as issues of taste, and no duty on his/her part is ever going to be forthcoming why he/she must agree with you.

And morality's not like that. Morality commands others to agree. And it does so because its uses are not merely selections at an ice cream parlour or a quality of music that tickles the ear, but questions like, "on what grounds should we distribute goods," or "what actions should be rewarded and punished," and "what rules should govern our society," or at least, "even though I may feel torn, which way is the correct way for me to proceed"? Such questions find no answers at all in appealing to mere taste. Taste never obligates agreement.

And obligation is indispensible in moral matters. We need not just to bully people into compliance with what you or I might prefer, but to be able to convince them by good reasons (if they will accept any such, which some obviously will refuse, because not everybody's moral and rational) that this or that way of living, or this or that policy, or this or that reward or sanction, are just and fit to the situation in hand, and we should all coordinate with it. And if we can't provide sound moral reasons, then, as Neitzsche and Foucault and such have recognized, all we are falling back on, ultimately, is brute power to make my will happen rather than yours. And that's tyranny, not morality.

Obviously, that slavery was permitted in a great many societies suggests morality is far from innate or universal, and that God has suggested it to human conscience badly, if, indeed, He has done so at all.

Quite the opposite: it shows that men can be very wicked. They should know that when they beat, chain or castrate a slave that they are doing evil to a fellow human being. You and I certainly know it. And deep down, they know they're doing wrong, too. But men sometimes like to do wrong anyway, shut down their consciences and sear them, and then carry on as if right isn't right and wrong isn't wrong. There's nothing even unusual about them doing that, because they so often do.

Some have even criticized Jesus for refraining from objecting to the institution.

They criticize Jesus Christ for many things, actually. They complain that He never raised a political movement. They complain that He never tried to overthrow the Romans. They criticize Him for claiming to be the unique Son of God. They complain that he asked for too much devotion, and even accepted worship. They criticize Him for not accepting human nature in its current state. They criticize Him for dying, rather than taking a crown and a throne. And they criticize Him for not being here, right now, and remaking the world the way they expect it to be.

But Jesus Christ does not submit His way of doing things to the tastes of mankind. Man is bent. God's plain is to straighten man out, not to join man in his bent priorities. One either joins God's plan, or one decides to despise it. But taking over command, and demanding God should deliver to us the plan we like...well that's just not going to happen, obviously, and for very good reason.

He's God. We're not. When we criticize, we get those roles reversed. We can ask questions, and He welcomes them and provides answers; but we don't get to pilot the ship ourselves. And good thing, too. We aren't great at it.

[Immanuel Can]

We do have consciences, but they are the result of natural affections and cultural influences.

Then there's no reason we ought to obey those consciences. And when we're tempted to violate them, as we so often are, there is no reason why we should not do so. Natural affections are temporary and transient, and cultural influences are just indoctrination. And both are mere "is' facts, with neither implying an "ought."

The master debater strikes again. Try disregarding your conscience for a while, IC. See how that works out for you.

Lots of people do it, Gary. Do you suppose the rapist, the enslaver, the pedophile, the thief and the slanderer don't know that they're doing wrong, or that their consciences never bother them? If that's so, then why do they hide their deeds? Why do they rationalize them? Why do they show shame when they're caught? And why do they so often admit, when caught, that they did wrong, rather than insisting to the bitter end that what they did was right? Why do some even regret what they did and repent of it, if their consciences weren't at any time being disregarded?

I'll bet there have been moments in life when you shut down your own conscience. And I don't say that to shame you: we're all the same in that. There have been plenty of times we knew what was the right thing to do, but just didn't quite want to do it, so went about rationalizing to ourselves why we didn't have to...