God and morality

[Alexis Jacobi]

So I shall cease. It is enough for me to know that you cannot really explain what you think you mean by "Catholic" or "Christian." I was pretty sure that was going to turn out to be the case, anyway.

You never really began.

You regularly set up the result you end up achieving by a defect in your approach.

But here is the question: The two basic definitions offered, do those seem adequate? Or do you define either differently?

[Alexis Jacobi]

So it looks like it will be "your way," which is to avoid clarity and to pile up irrelevancies until the question is forgotten.

If you indicated what precisely is “irrelevant”, it would help me to better understand your perspective in general and help those who read these exchanges.

What is “irrelevant” in my various responses to you?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Either the Bible and Christianity is all a lie, or there must be some who can do what Jesus did.

What is your choice of those two options?

Is the Bible and Christianity a lie, or is God just not creating any people with faith, --- which would make all Christians who say they have faith, --- liars.

I mean no insult here but someone is definitely lying, if we read what is written and look at reality and listen to Christians.

What do you think is the truth?

My answer is rather simple and feel free to tell me what you think of it. I see “earth” as a location, a ‘plane’ if you wish, where many different entities have gravitated. Our life and our struggle here is essentially snd fundamentally spiritual, and ‘ultimately’ I acknowledge a providential spirit (intelligence, awareness) that presides over the realm.

Along the way — this is the core of my view — one achieves some level of awareness about the nature of the locale. That awareness is a substantial beginning. Because in that awareness, in that process, there is ‘recapitulation’: a spiritual review of what one has lived, what happened, and what one did. It can be rather intense.

At that point — accentuated self-awareness, recapitulation — one can act to continue processes of clarification or one can attempt, advertently or inadvertently, to ‘forget’. Forgetting is a backward step but if one is lucky it doesn’t have to continue long or forever.

The ‘Bible’ is a compendium and in it there are sufficient sign-posts that, in my view, point to the perspective I offer. But it is, as all religious stories are, a Picture, a representation. It may ‘connote’ many different things, but the material that it connotes is independent of the vehicle of connotation if that makes sense. The map is not the territory.

[Immanuel Can]

I talk about “Christian culture in Europe”

Yes, that's what I've been questioning. Europe is at the intersection of many different and conflicting ideas of what a "Christian" would be. And absent a clear and recognizable definition, how can one even know what one is looking to produce?

[Immanuel Can]

What is “irrelevant” in my various responses to you?

You gave me other people's definition of Protestant and Catholic. You never showed that you had any idea what those terms might mean yourself. And you refused to answer even the simplest of questions in a straightforward way.

I wanted to know what you were thinking. I got, instead, what other people think, and nothing much to the point of my questions.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Simply put, dearest IC, you will have to relinquish the annoying, invincible tendency to attempt to control how conversation and exchanges proceed. That will require an inner shift, a change of method and strategy. That is your bridge to cross, Old Bean. You may well be stuck. But I am not stuck …

[Immanuel Can]

Simply put, dearest IC, you will have to relinquish the annoying, invincible tendency to attempt to control how conversation and exchanges proceed.

Translation: "Don't ask simple questions I'm afraid to try to answer."

[Alexis Jacobi]

In regard to this:

I suggest we take the word literally: "Christian" literally means "little Christ." So if somebody behaved as a "little Christ," I think we can call them a "Christian" to that extent. But if they behaved like a Crusader, and Inquisitor or a Fascist instead, I think we have good, empirical reasons for putting into question any claim that they were "Christian."

The gist of my position arises directly here. No one, except a complete renunciant, can imitate Jesus Christ.

And especially when there is any level of investment in the world, any construction in the world, the building of a community or a nation. There, pure ethics and pure morals, of a Christian sort, of that very radical Christian sort, will be violated. Are violated. That is why i point out that even if your Catholic neighbor is a “good man”, he is, and all of us are, involved in circumstances of complicity.

So the real facts of the matter are these: All the processes of the construction of Europe involved activities that have shades of relationship to “conquest” to “inquisition” and to “fascism”. These are the facts of the human situation. That is summed up in my term “complicity”.

Conquest=imposition of will
Inquisition=intense inquiry, decisive power of assessment
Fascism=strict forms of social control

I work within the terms you provided, attempting to locate their similes. Their correspondences.

It is possible that in a detached community (Amish? Quaker? Something of this order, maybe a monestary?) that a truer expression of pure Christian principles is evident, is possible. For the rest we deal in approximations.

In the larger scheme of things — as with the development and creation of Europe, which involved a strong military and administrative power and a “plowing of fields” within barbaric, northern Europe, if you catch my meaning, the application of decisive force expressed itself. We have been determined by it.

These are, as we say, “realities”.

[Immanuel Can]

In regard to this:

I suggest we take the word literally: "Christian" literally means "little Christ." So if somebody behaved as a "little Christ," I think we can call them a "Christian" to that extent. But if they behaved like a Crusader, and Inquisitor or a Fascist instead, I think we have good, empirical reasons for putting into question any claim that they were "Christian."

No one, except a complete renunciant, can imitate Jesus Christ.

That is precisely why forgiveness is essential...because nobody can be perfect. Fortunately, Christianity incorporates forgiveness for those shortcomings.

But when somebody says, "I am a little Christ," and then makes no effort to be one, or even goes directly contrary to the explicit commands of Christ, then don't you think we have a reason to question his claim?

And this is essentially what you've been unable to understand about a Christian. He's not a person who can make a claim and then not follow through. Nor is he somebody who claims to be perfect. Instead, he's one whom Christ has forgiven and is changing. He's a sinner, but a forgiven one, and one with a new path enabled by God Himself.

But the man who says "I'm a Christian" and yet does not walk that path is declared by Christ Himself, in the famed "Sermon on the Mount," in fact, to be nothing but a fraud. I think we can believe Him about that, don't you?

Jesus said: “Now why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? Everyone who comes to Me and hears My words and acts on them, I will show you whom he is like: he is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid a foundation on the rock; and when there was a flood, the river burst against that house and yet it could not shake it, because it had been well built. But the one who has heard and has not acted accordingly is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation; and the river burst against it and it immediately collapsed, and the ruin of that house was great.” (Luke 6:46-49)

[Alexis Jacobi]

Yes! And that is EXACTLY WHY I stated:

Your emphasis, which also includes moral precepts and commandments, is in “the state of grace” and what you refer to as “salvation”. If the Evangelical Christian (as you are) achieves that state of grace, he is in many senses freed from consequences of actions he takes in the world.

Take as an example (I grant you an exaggerated one) George Bush Jr. Because he is ‘saved’ he can with an uninhibited conscience nevertheless act in the world, make wars, strike certain people or groups. He is “saved” no matter what he does, or what he aligns with. This is the Evangelical frame of mind.

This is, I think, how you view YOURSELF. You are “saved”. You may have many different lines of “complicity” in the world, you may have to take action in the world, or support the action of major players in the world, but you remain unscathed … because you stand in God’s favor.

Otherwise, as a strict Christian, you would be required to extricate yourself from “the world” and from complicity in it. Maybe you are in such a position, I cannot be certain.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes! And that is EXACTLY WHY I stated...he is in many senses freed from consequences of actions he takes in the world.

And this is exactly why you're wrong. Consequences still obtain. There are consequences in the here-and-now, for certain; the man who steals will still end up doing damage to his own character, an insult to his God, and a stint in jail. Nothing changes, so far as that is concerned. And while he cannot lose his eternal soul, God promises specifically that he will loose reward and honour in the next life, too. So there are consequences in the afterlife, in which each Christian believes fervently.

As Paul puts it, writing to Christians specifically, "Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will reap destruction from the flesh, but the one who sows to the Spirit will reap eternal life from the Spirit." (Gal. 6:6-8)

So I'm sorry...but you're just wrong. You clearly don't know Christian theology, so you're imagining what you think it might be; but you're getting it wrong. This is the problem with trying to decide who's a Christian. There are a lot of fakes out there...as there always is, for any good thing. There are always knock-offs, imitations, cheap copies, and frauds galore. The only sure way to know is to use the Biblical standard -- not to make stuff up.

[Fanman]

Regarding my previous post, my thoughts touch on the omnipotence paradox. Is it a question of metaphysics? I think that is debatable, but it certainly is a philosophical question. I created the following formulation, which I feel is a conclusive answer if we define omnipotence as unlimited power (maybe someone can provide a substantive counterargument).

My formulation assisted by ChatGPT

The omnipotence paradox semantically limits omnipotence by suggesting that omnipotence cannot exceed itself. My formulation follows the mechanics of omnipotence when defined as unlimited power: omnipotence can always exceed any proposed level of power. Therefore limitation is incoherent.

I did not arrive at that conclusion through metaphysics. I used logic, conceptual analysis, coherence, reason, and the assistance of AI. So, it seems, based on this example at least, that while the purported category of metaphysics can be used to ask questions or frame questions as metaphysics, producing answers that can be categorised as metaphysical is challenging.

Update: Please note that my formulation strictly applies to the wording of the omnipotence paradox.

[Fanman]

I don't usually respond to personal attacks. However, in this case there is a philosophical reason that I feel needs to be aired.

If a person asserts that I don't understand metaphysics, but never demonstrates a clearer understanding through their own reasoning, then I have not been given a substantive reason to regard their understanding as clearer than mine.

I believe that is a reasonable and respectful statement.

[phyllo]

"Christian" is not some highly technical term.

You have to be a bible scholar to use it.

You don't have an intimate knowledge of a person's character to use it.

Parson Brown professes a belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ. Therefore he is a Christian. That's the requirement.

If you don't know that he is having an adulterous affair, he is still a Christian. If you find out that he is having an adulterous affair, he is still a Christian.

You don't need access to his computer to verify whether he has kiddie porn or not. You can just call him a Christian.

Christians are sinners, they make mistakes and they do bad things. They are responsible for violence, war, persecutions and abuse. They are Christians in spite of doing bad things.

For the Bible scholars:

... for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
Romans 3:23

“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.
Mark 10:18

[Alexis Jacobi]

And this is exactly why you're wrong. Consequences still obtain. There are consequences in the here-and-now, for certain; the man who steals will still end up doing damage to his own character, an insult to his God, and a stint in jail. Nothing changes, so far as that is concerned. And while he cannot lose his eternal soul, God promises specifically that he will loose reward and honour in the next life, too. So there are consequences in the afterlife, in which each Christian believes fervently.

There are numerous levels to the responses I gave you that you missed due to the classic Protestant (Luther-like?) hard-headedness. That trait in you damages your philosophical standing. But I do not judge you too harshly because, in this area, you are not really in control.

What I attempt to point out to you is that though many Protestants have the outlook you do, and will repeat precisely what you repeated from a ‘catechism of conventional understanding’, this position inhibits that Protestant believer from seeing and understanding the depth and the detail of the issue of complicity. Neither have you recognized it nor acknowledged it.

We have moved beyond a discussion on the topic of Europe, of Christian culture, and the present degeneration of European culture and the various causal chains that have led to this. My primary assertion about this condition is that it extends from “loss of horizon” and a collapse in the intellectual and intuitive capability of “believing in” the realness of metaphysical principles. And I assert that the fundamentals of Christian thought and ethics, for Europe (by extension Europe’s former colonies that are ‘Christian’) is the Christian matrix. In this I agree with Dawson: Christian religion, Christian meditation (the spiritual practice of prayer etc.) and Christian ethics and social philosophy and practice, can and does produce a renewal, a regeneration of what had degenerated.

But my analysis of “our complicit situation”, that is to say philosophically because I do not present here as a theologian and am more an observer with theological interests and sociological and anthropological interests, our ‘complicit situation’ seems to me of far greater consequence when compared to your simplistic, even superficial attitude.

This is why I referred to our present and to an “emblem” of Protestantism’s attitude and function. George Bush Jr. and his blind Christian Zionism. You too are a “Christian Zionist” if I have read you correctly over the years. It is all “typical”. But it goes farther. If you really take the idea of the practice of Christian ethics (and Catholic social teachings) to their further point, our lives and our cultural relationships would necessarily be radically transformed. The shallow pieties of your brand of Evangelism allow, in my opinion, a veritable hypocrisy to exist and to flourish. And you exhibit in your general discourse on your cherished themes a lack of profundity in comprehension of the wider issues. And it is in this sense that you exhibit typical traits.

Yet do not get confused or get twisted into a theological bundle. I am not a pastor, I am not a preacher, and my “take” on all these matters is not driven and determined by strict theological formula. Feel quite free therefore to dismiss me entirely. You are not an authority for me. And I extend this to your “school” which I have noted in conventionally conservative but lacking in intellectual qualities I deem to be essential.

As Paul puts it, writing to Christians specifically, "Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will reap destruction from the flesh, but the one who sows to the Spirit will reap eternal life from the Spirit." (Gal. 6:6-8)

Again, my reading of you, your general philosophy, your political stances, and your “social philosophy”, leads me to precisely the conclusion I have expressed here: You do not understand the implications in that bit of theology. You understand it conventionally however.

So I'm sorry...but you're just wrong. You clearly don't know Christian theology, so you're imagining what you think it might be; but you're getting it wrong. This is the problem with trying to decide who's a Christian. There are a lot of fakes out there...as there always is, for any good thing. There are always knock-offs, imitations, cheap copies, and frauds galore. The only sure way to know is to use the Biblical standard -- not to make stuff up.

Do not ever be sorry, brother.

You, IC, have limited standing in my eyes as an authority when the larger implications are developed. And especially as they pertain in our present. I do not disrespect the limited authority that you have, shall we say earned. But the truth, from where I sit, is that you need to be more quiet; read responses better; and resolve to act less arrogantly and immaturely.

There are a lot of fakes out there...as there always is, for any good thing. There are always knock-offs, imitations, cheap copies, and frauds galore. The only sure way to know is to use the Biblical standard -- not to make stuff up.

That is a valuable statement. And its implications, for those genuinely interested, would require being thought through.