Is it "stealing" for the government to tax people for social services?

[Impenitent]

There are manifestations of what you might call ‘democratic thinking’ : selfish and narcissistic thinking of people who are of a given nation (false identity), who ‘built’ it and all that, who have recently appeared on the cultural horizons.

These people, obviously, are not going to be of much use when finally the genuine end of history gets here, as it is now. Unfortunately, but necessarily, these democratic manifestations are misguided. In fact they are fascistic and must be resolutely culled. (If I may speak freely here). First by cutting out the possibility of conceiving thought along such lines (this points to the importance of getting the right people to serve in our education centers) and later isolating them. The means will occur naturally and need not be outlined here.

all non members of the master race/proper party will freely isolate and extinguish themselves?

-Imp

[MikeNovack]

However if you've done it, or supported it, then you'll never admit to yourself what you've done. There's no win in it for you if you do; because then you'd be a murderer, but being secular, without means of repentance and forgiveness. ............ And I expect you to persist, even though you know you're wrong.

That is YOUR belief coming from your "brand" of Christianity.

I assure you, humans have managed to repent, sought to change their ways, and find forgiveness without benefit of YOUR (conception of (God). Can't you see that you re mixing up what YOU feel about the validity of their repentance and receiving EXTERNAL forgiveness (you might not even be including "changing themselves") with way THEY are feeling.

Or are you denying this? Do you actually hold that YOUR beliefs on the matter determine what THEY feel/experience?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Are you proposing some sort of night of long knives, or some more generalised holocaust today?

Keep your heart and mind focused on the rainbows and the blossoms comrade!

(I suspect that General Intelligence will guide the processes when the time comes).

[Immanuel Can]

However if you've done it, or supported it, then you'll never admit to yourself what you've done. There's no win in it for you if you do; because then you'd be a murderer, but being secular, without means of repentance and forgiveness. ............ And I expect you to persist, even though you know you're wrong.

That is YOUR belief coming from your "brand" of Christianity.

What else did you think I'd speak from? We can all only speak from what we believe to be true.

A secularist can only assume morality is a personal or social fiction. A Christian can only believe morality is objective. To think otherwise is to fail to be rational. So he has to speak from his worldview, and I from mine.

Or would you prefer we lied?

I assure you, humans have managed to repent, sought to change their ways, and find forgiveness without benefit of YOUR (conception of (God).

Thanks for your "assurance." But if you think that, explain just one moral precept secularism requires. If you can't, and if you're remaining rational, then you cannot help but also realize that secularism has no moral information in it, and any such things as you list have to be self-generated delusions. Rationally speaking, it can be no other way.

But most people don't even try to be rational when it comes to morality. They continue to believe in things their own worldview would compel them to recognize cannot exist, such as a rationale and basis for repentance, and somebody actually capable to forgive one's sins. Where is a secularist going to get those?

[Alexis Jacobi]

That is YOUR belief coming from your "brand" of Christianity.

A couple of notes. First, the fact of the matter is that all ideas about justice, the right (what is right), about social and personal morality, about ethics, were developed (or became manifest in human thought) in ancient Egypt. [See The Dawn of Conscience by James H. Breasted]

Why do I say this in relation to your comment? Because our conscience about all matters had and has a process of development and in this sense an understanding of “the will of God” transcends the specific capsule (in IC’s case Hebraic Christianity).

So the sense that a human child, at almost any stage of its development and growth, is to be regarded as ‘sacred’ and as understood to have ‘rights’ far antecedes the Christian idea of the sanctity of life and the value of a baby.

This ‘sense’ about right and wrong has been developed in our civilization over millennia. This sense — our morality, our conscience — was discovered, realized, received through processes of revelation of understanding, that antecedes the Christian historical period. It simply became better expressed by Christian theologians.

I know, I know, it is tempting to beat upon IC but what I say is true.

[Alexis Jacobi]

A secularist can only assume morality is a personal or social fiction. A Christian can only believe morality is objective.

There is another, higher, more balanced and more useful and communicable means of understanding each of these perspectives: mine.

I have become empowered — or is it best to say I have been impelled forward by invisible intelligences? — to step boldly onto the path of Master Metaphysician.

True, I am still a mere babe, but really : the seeds are clearly visible, the sprout pokes out of the brown, fertile earth. I feel at times I am attended by angels! Like the sound of the Cosmic Om that vibrates behind the manifest world.

Hard to explain really.

We both build and construct our morality as a novelist creates the scenery in the novel — and we realize ever-present truths that are present everywhere in this mysterious cosmos.

The God of your conception is a figure in a novel, i.e. invented, embellished, assigned a rôle …

… but the Ideas that stand behind that Picture, those are utterly real.

Trippy, eh?

[Age]

You don't know what the word means. It's from the Latin, and means "offspring." And it's human "offspring." So calling it a "fetus" is admitting it's the "offspring" of a human being...which is a baby.

The "offspring of a human being" is only a "baby" during a particular portion of its life (as I've tried to explain, but you are too dense to understand).

Of what is it the "offspring"? What kind of being does it "spring off"?

The "offspring of a human being" is sometimes a child, or a teenager, or an adult, or (in your case) an age-addled geriatric. Or a fetus.

And every last one of them is a human being in the full moral sense. Even if you think a fetus is only a "pre-human," then it's still most definitely a human being you're extinguishing if you abort him/her. That same life you're ripping out of existence is that which most certainly would have become baby, teenager, adult and geriatric...everything that you, yourself have become. Except you killed the child.

However if you've done it, or supported it, then you'll never admit to yourself what you've done.

Exactly like when you have done it, and, supported it, "yourself", "immanuel can", and you also have never admitted to "your" 'self' what you have done.

Back when this was written 'these people', because of there unfortunate circumstances, would not always admit when they have done Wrong.

There's no win in it for you if you do; because then you'd be a murderer, but being secular, without means of repentance and forgiveness.

LOL

Imagine believing 'this', here.

And that's not a win for anybody. So perpetuating the lie that you haven't killed a human being is the only thing that can appear to you to be in your interest. I get that. And I expect you to persist, even though you know you're wrong.

'This', here, is 'projection', at its finest, added with pure 'denial', also at its finest. As I can and will show and prove absolutely, and irrefutably, True

[Age]

A secularist can only assume morality is a personal or social fiction. A Christian can only believe morality is objective.

There is another, higher, more balanced and more useful and communicable means of understanding each of these perspectives: mine.

I have become empowered — or is it best to say I have been impelled forward by invisible intelligences? — to step boldly onto the path of Master Metaphysician.

Why do both if you talk about the exact same Thing, which impells and leads or guides you both 'forward', yet you, still, fight and disagree with each other?

Once you two find out and know the answer, as well, then you both with see, with absolute clarity, that you both have not been actually listening to the actual Master Metaphysician/God at all, here, really.

Although, obviously you both 'currently' will believe otherwise.

True, I am still a mere babe, but really : the seeds are clearly visible, the sprout pokes out of the brown, fertile earth. I feel at times I am attended by angels! Like the sound of the Cosmic Om that vibrates behind the manifest world.

Hard to explain really.

We both build and construct our morality as a novelist creates the scenery in the novel — and we realize ever-present truths that are present everywhere in this mysterious cosmos.

The God of your conception is a figure in a novel, i.e. invented, embellished, assigned a rôle …

… but the Ideas that stand behind that Picture, those are utterly real.

Trippy, eh?

[Immanuel Can]

We both build and construct our morality as a novelist creates the scenery in the novel — and we realize ever-present truths that are present everywhere in this mysterious cosmos.

These are mutually exclusive.

Either morality is a response to an objective reality,
or
Morality is a construct (i.e. a personally or socially-favoured delusion).

[Age]

We both build and construct our morality as a novelist creates the scenery in the novel — and we realize ever-present truths that are present everywhere in this mysterious cosmos.

These are mutually exclusive.

Either morality is a response to an objective reality,
or
Morality is a construct (i.e. a personally or socially-favoured delusion).

Although 'morality' is an already proved 'objective reality', morality is certainly not based off, nor from, some words written in a book titled, 'bible'.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Why do both if you talk about the exact same Thing, which impells and leads or guides you both 'forward', yet you, still, fight and disagree with each other?

To understand the essence of the dispute is crucial. Both Hebraism and Christianity are far too infused with imperious attitudes. Both go to battle with so-called “paganism”. But my view is that Hebraism is, in many crucial aspects, a rip-off from what had been established in “paganism”.

Once you understand this, and if you can ever put down your ego enough to subscribe to the Forty-Six Week Email Course and resolve to be cured of error once and for all, well I guess things will just keep on as they are.

Frustrating yes, but so be it. Yet consider this: Since you find it impossible to bend a knee before the Transcendent Truths I bring out; consider how excruciatingly difficult it is for Immanuel …

[Age]

Why do both if you talk about the exact same Thing, which impells and leads or guides you both 'forward', yet you, still, fight and disagree with each other?

To understand the essence of the dispute is crucial. Both Hebraism and Christianity are far too infused with imperious attitudes.

So, in 'essence' you two are not actually being led by the, what could be called, 'Master Metaphysical God', at all, but rather you two are being 'led' by a set of arrogant and domineering beliefs, instead, correct?

Both go to battle with so-called “paganism”. But my view is that Hebraism is, in many crucial aspects, a rip-off from what had been established in “paganism”.

Okay.

But, 'you' are, still, 'in conflict' with 'others', here, right?

Once you understand this, and if you can ever put down your ego enough to subscribe to the Forty-Six Week Email Course and resolve to be cured of error once and for all, well I guess things will just keep on as they are.

When, and if, you ever provide 'my error', then, and only then, are 'we' able to 'look at' it ot see, and discuss, if it actually exists, or not.

Frustrating yes, but so be it. Yet consider this: Since you find it impossible to bend a knee before the Transcendent Truths I bring out; consider how excruciatingly difficult it is for Immanuel …

Provide just one example of your alleged 'Transcendent Truths', which you, laughably, claim you bring out and I find impossible to, so-call, 'bend a knee' to.

How many more times are 'these people' going to assume things, and make claims, which are absolutely False?

[FlashDangerpants]

Are you proposing some sort of night of long knives, or some more generalised holocaust today?

Keep your heart and mind focused on the rainbows and the blossoms comrade!

(I suspect that General Intelligence will guide the processes when the time comes).

I see, the choice was impossible, you want both.

[phyllo]

He can't be seen to promote violence.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Either morality is a response to an objective reality,

or

Morality is a construct (i.e. a personally or socially-favoured delusion).

All I can tell you, perhaps all that anyone could say, is that our present stance, our human stance, in respect to moral questions, was carved out over significant periods of time, and as I pointed out, the origin of the moral self, man as a personality and man as a character with character and with agency in this world, developed in the Egyptian period and beginning 4,000 years BC.

Your great error, if I am to be frank, is your investment in a sort of theatre of imperious, theological dramatism which, for the sake of simplicity, coalesces around this terrible, lonely, stormingly violent figure of Yahweh. Yahweh the Historical Terror. (Who is the emblem of an enormous rip-off by the Hebrews of material that had been developed by others. The error is in assuming possession).

This figure is your creation. And the notion of a god who is both the sole possession of a people, and solely possesses a people, and is destined to rule the world, and is also the world’s autocrat, is precisely where your novel veers into the territory of error. Obviously you did not create this Figure, but just as obviously you invest in it — when there are certainly other options.

Gently yet gorgeously I manifest here like a lantern on a high tower, trying to explain things clearly.

What you fail to realize is that— I think you are constitutionally incapable of entertaining the realization — is that both Yahweh and Jesus are amalgamations, vessels, into which projected content is conveniently deposited (for lack of a better word). The devotee of these projections accesses, perhaps embodies, two notable characteristics: One, the retributive waster of enemies and the curses of the angry god; and Two the total opposite: the ultra-compassionate god of salvation. In your case, when cornered, you channel the god of absolute intolerance. But there is a sort of ‘base’ in the Jesus of total understanding and deep compassion for man’s plight.

Now, in the formula that I have quoted you reveal how your mind works mathematically. Obviously in Aristotelian manner: eliminating the excluded middle, resorting to an absolutist’s declaration. If I were to comment I would say, I do say, that man realizes (receives, discovers, decides on) those Principles that are part-and-parcel of our conscience. Even those you argue with exist within the structure of those principles! But it seems to be that the opposition you receive is less against those Principles and more against the absolutist construct that is the vessel of your preachments. I.e. “a personally or socially-favoured delusion”.

You see? In essence it is quite simple when it is laid out as only Alexis Jacobi is capable of doing.