Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote:

artisticsolution wrote:Tell me, Do you really think Jesus didn't mean what he said here?

Of course. But in Luke this young man is specifically identified as being a "ruler" (Gk: archon: a general word for a prince, chief or district ruler). So may I ask you, of what place or among what nation was the young man a "ruler"?

Archon is a judge or magistrate, not a prince. BTW.

Immanuel Can wrote:? Are you offended that we've given you so much time?

And god and I Can spoke unto the masses:"Fear not that We, the divine couple, hast given unto you our time, for thou deservest it, whilst Hobbes deserveth it not, and has verily been placed unto the Holy Ignore List, for speaking unanswerable questions.
"So dear Child God and I, the Royal "we" have much to offer thee"

artisticsolution wrote:

thedoc wrote: Funny, but I don't remember seeing that question on my ballot, but if it was on your's, why did you vote for it?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/executive_power

Doc is right...American's don't vote on whether or not we go to war.

We only vote for the people who make it happen. Which is why we should be held responsible who we vote for....don't you agree, Doc?

Yes I do, and if we could know what a particular politician was going to do, once in office, It might change how we were going to vote.

The difficulty is that what a politician says to get elected, is often quite different from the actions after the election. The record of their actions prior to that would be useful, but it is often obscured from the public record and misrepresented in the statements by both sides.

Arising_uk wrote:

bobevenson wrote:The only good is what God hath put in your heart, not what you hath received through an institutional grid. Giving your kingdom unto the beast means giving up what you hath received through an institutional grid in favor of what God hath put in your heart. Aren't you glad you've got a prophet to explain things to you (I mean beyond explaining the game of Ouzo, which I admit has been a total failure)?

So what have you given up?

The Ouzo Cross is a symbolic representation of the struggle between good and evil, the Christ line versus the beast line. It is the eternal struggle between what God hath put in our hearts and the evil that flows through an institutional grid of religious, cultural and social values. Maybe if you learned how to play the game of Ouzo, you'd understand.

bobevenson wrote:The Ouzo Cross is a symbolic representation of the struggle between good and evil, the Christ line versus the beast line. It is the eternal struggle between what God hath put in our hearts and the evil that flows through an institutional grid of religious, cultural and social values. Maybe if you learned how to play the game of Ouzo, you'd understand.

So a big fat nothing then, despite all your talk you've not given up one thing given to you by this 'grid'. This is why you are the anti-baptist bob, patsy of 'satan' and the 'beast'.

Arising_uk wrote:

bobevenson wrote:The Ouzo Cross is a symbolic representation of the struggle between good and evil, the Christ line versus the beast line. It is the eternal struggle between what God hath put in our hearts and the evil that flows through an institutional grid of religious, cultural and social values. Maybe if you learned how to play the game of Ouzo, you'd understand.

So a big fat nothing then, despite all your talk you've not given up one thing given to you by this 'grid'. This is why you are the anti-baptist bob, patsy of 'satan' and the 'beast'.

I try to explain something to you, and you respond with incoherent babbling.

Vor wrote:
Then why did he say

If you love Me, you will keep My commandments. John 14.15

IC wrote:

Note exactly what He said: "If you love me...," not "If you want Me to love you..." It makes all the difference in the world.

It shows that obedience to Christ is an act and expression of love from mankind to God. It is not a favour done for God, nor is it a way of buying God's favour. In other words, it is not a precondition of a relationship with God, but rather a reaction to an existing relationship with God.

It could not be more succinct or simplistic.

John 14:15 KJV. If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Jesus stressed the authority of the Scriptures. When tempted by Satan or battling His opponents, "It is written" was His defense and offense (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10; Luke 20:17). "'Man shall not live by bread alone, '" He said, "'but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God'" (Matt. 4:4).


How can you become acquainted with God, without searching His Word?

bobevenson wrote:I try to explain something to you, and you respond with incoherent babbling.

All I wanted explained bob was what you have given up from this 'grid' of yours and, as usual, you avoid sentences ending with question marks. So once more bob, what have you given up that you have received from this 'grid' of yours?

Immanuel Can wrote:
I do believe your very first post identifies us as the ONLY people to whom you wanted to make relevant note, is that not so?

Yes, of course, This thread...my little thesis...only applies to Christians. For obvious reasons I thought:

1. Because, once an English teacher told me that when you are coming up with a thesis statement, you should try to narrow down your topic to specifics. lol

2.The thing that caused me to start this thread in the first place was because my family, who happen to be Christians, were discussing politics and advocating fixing the problem of immigration by placing the national guard all along the border of Mexico with the instructions, "Shoot to Kill". This didn't come from Atheists in my country...sorry. It didn't come from Muslim's in my country...sorry. It came from Christians. Sorry, but the fact of the matter is, in America...Christians are known for these types of remarks. I think it's high time I wrote about it...cause frankly I am sick of it!

Now, back to reason 1.

Don't you agree that it can get beyond confusing having too many discussions going on at once? As it is we already have misunderstanding about this tiny topic...can you imagine if I included all religions and atheists! Do you live in America? When is the last time you heard and atheist condone killing Mexicans at the border? You took this theme to be an attack on Christians, as if I am comparing them to non Christians unfavorably. Oh NO! I am comparing Christians to the head Christian, which is Jesus Christ. I don't remember him advocating murder of any kind. I mean, yeah, God killed a few people in his day...but I don't think his son ever said, "Christians...Rise above and stone their f'n heads off!"

This thing you are stuck on...that you can tell 'good' from 'bad' Christians is nonsense, as in my view of things no one could come close to Jesus! Compared to him they are all bad! If you want to see "true" Christian then don't look in the mirror...don't compare yourself to other Christian'...instead, compare yourself to Jesus...then perhaps you will see the truth that everyone fails miserably compared to him. So you won't have to worry about trickery from "bad" Christians. You won't have to be so suspicious. I don't think Jesus was suspicious once. He didn't think in terms of 'I am a better Christian than anyone.' He was confident in the fact that he was good...all the while humbling himself in the presence of his father! All I can say is , "WOW" to that. Here he is walking on water and thinking, he is nothing compared to his father! Here he is making wine a bread for a bunch of people who were probably looking to the people on the right and left of them thinking, "I'm a better Christian than both these schmo's". lol At least what I gather from the Christian remarks about how you can tell a "true" Christian.

Stop giving me the Christian test...lol... if you want to prove you know more than I do about the bible, I will tell you right now, you do. No contest. It's been 35+ years since I was in bible study. The jig is up, you win.

Do you now feel upset because we took you seriously? Are you offended that we've given you so much time?

No, why would I be upset? I was totally serious. Everything I said, I stand by and I will continue to stand by....because I know, without a shadow of doubt in my being, that if there is a God, he is behind me all the way. Right now he's saying, "You go girl!" I truly think you need to go back and reread my OP with new eyes. Read it as if you are not insulted...cause you may have brought a preconceived notion of ill intent where there was none toward you. Well, Unless you don't agree that it is wrong to kill illegals crossing your borders or hate groups of God's children cause the color of their skin.
If that is the case, that you do think those are the christian things to do, then we don't have anything else to say as we are not even on the same page.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

artisticsolution wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Does ANYone seriously think that if a god exists that it is those ten rules that s/he/it would command us to follow?
In the first instance, there ain't no ten commandments in the Bible. Take a look there are many more, and not limited or numbered at 10. But only a few of them have any relevance to modern living, and what is more hideous is what they leave out.

But read the first 4 and ask yourself what sort of a insecure, paranoid god would command that!
Then why is there nothing about cheating, racism, gender equality, and child protection.

It all seems a bit me, me, me.
And what the fuck does he want with all those burnt offerings?

Again Hobbes, I do not want to have a conversation on Christianity, per se...the subject is way too huge for that.

I would like to see a thread discussing "burnt offerings". You should make one!

I mean, take a look at how the one simple little facet of Christian morality has turned into a 7 page debate over what should be considered akin to an innocent childlike understanding of right vs. wrong on the face of it.

Mankind loves to trample the snow.

I agree. The trouble is that I.Can thinks that he knows exactly and objectively what god wants, and what is right and wrong. The question is not that simple.
What is good for you might be evil to another, and there is no way to avoid this. I always found this problematic when as a child someone asked if I knew the difference between right and wrong. After seeing a naked Vietnamese child running. covered in napalm burns from American soldiers on TV. A war supported the the majority of the American people, I knew that something was wrong with the idea.
I'm now 55, and nothing I have seen or heard has changed my mind. What really scares me, is people like I Can who thinks the problem is a simple one, just like those sending the drones into kill the innocent.

Well, it is complicated, isn't it? All I can say is I am tired of it all...it's just draining.

artisticsolution wrote:Don't you agree that it can get beyond confusing having too many discussions going on at once?

I'm fine, actually. I was just waiting to hear what you thought of the rich young ruler. But it seems your question was...well, not something you actually cared to ask.

This thing you are stuck on...that you can tell 'good' from 'bad' Christians is nonsense,

I'm not stuck...I know very well it's true. And actually, I think you do too... Your own comments differentiating Christ from people who want to see Mexicans shot shows very clearly you know there's a difference.

However, your assumption that I place myself above other Christians is wrong. It was Christ himself who commanded us directly to discern those who took His name legitimately as theirs, and those who do not take it legitimately. And if you think about the kinds of people who want to shoot Mexicans, you'll know precisely why He would do that. There are some things with which He would not want His name associated.

Understandable, no?

Stop giving me the Christian test...lol... if you want to prove you know more than I do about the bible, I will tell you right now, you do. No contest. It's been 35+ years since I was in bible study. The jig is up, you win.

I wasn't trying to show off. You asked me a question. You cannot be annoyed with me if I had an answer, can you?

Everything I said, I stand by and I will continue to stand by....because I know, without a shadow of doubt in my being, that if there is a God, he is behind me all the way.

I'd want to be sure about that. I don't see in your "test" anything He would have sanctioned. Judgment of good and evil, when it comes, will be in His hands, not our own. And self-justification just won't play then. And even at present, my feeling if I think I have a good conscience -- and yours too -- don't matter relative to whatever it is He thinks on the matter.

I truly think you need to go back and reread my OP with new eyes. Read it as if you are not insulted...cause you may have brought a preconceived notion of ill intent where there was none toward you.

I've read it, and I'm not offended by it. But I don't agree you're right about it either. However, since you're tired, we can leave it at that. Thanks for your time. I appreciate it.

Immanuel Can wrote:

artisticsolution wrote:Don't you agree that it can get beyond confusing having too many discussions going on at once?

I'm fine, actually. I was just waiting to hear what you thought of the rich young ruler. But it seems your question was...well, not something you actually cared to ask.

Which question was that?

I'm not stuck...I know very well it's true. And actually, I think you do too... Your own comments differentiating Christ from people who want to see Mexicans shot shows very clearly you know there's a difference.

However, your assumption that I place myself above other Christians is wrong. It was Christ himself who commanded us directly to discern those who took His name legitimately as theirs, and those who do not take it legitimately. And if you think about the kinds of people who want to shoot Mexicans, you'll know precisely why He would do that. There are some things with which He would not want His name associated.

Understandable, no?

But here's the thing....you yourself said that we are all sinners. So under those rules above he wouldn't want his name associated with any of us. A sin is a sin is a sin...why is your sin less than theirs?

Would you say, "God would not want his name associated with me?" If you weren't thinking and said or did something sinful? " what if that day you were just cranky and full of sinful thoughts that you opened you mouth for all the world to hear?

Would you be embarrassed by your behavior if you realized how you sounded to God?

Would you think yourself less of a Christian?

I wasn't trying to show off. You asked me a question. You cannot be annoyed with me if I had an answer, can you?

That was my way of asking for the answer. I was being honest about not remembering ...and not understanding the point you were making.

Grüß Gott, AS

Yes, I understood that you were addressing Christians and offered a Thought Experiment as to how they could decide what is right and wrong.
I also understand that you wanted to keep a tight focus. Bu hey, you know that this a PN discussion forum, right? The scope of anyone's intent and what they are trying to accomplish often takes us into more complicated waters. Or not. Sometimes, it just gets plain silly, even nasty.

The thought experiment is a great way to get people to consider their actions; reasons and consequences. Questioning, in this case, some Christian family and friends. It's a bit like them considering the question: What would Jesus do?

The thing is - this requires a certain degree of imagination and flexibility. Easier for some than others. It does not need the heightened intellectual deliberation of academic theologians or professional philosophers.

Some Christians might have a more fixed and absolute take on how to decide what is right or wrong; based on Scripture. However, there are so many variables to take into account: the when/how and if people have to be killed. The morality or immorality.

Religion doesn't have a monopoly on morals. Or even advice on what to do in a particularly difficult situation which has conflicting values.
However, there is common ground between religious and secular thinking; moral values such as fairness; benevolence. Again, things get complicated when dealing with specific situations. You just have to look at world politics...the situation in Greece.

Anyway, I'm rambling again -
Thanks for keeping up the good work and challenging the way we think. The flexibility of being open to new outlook...and not shut off by tradition.
Creative artisticsolution

M: The human mind can deceive, for sure - how is this 'wicked' on one interpretation ? People can and do understand that perceptions of what is right/wrong are not always the same for all, at all times and in every place. There is not always a straight and easy line to follow; this is not about sinful mental deception.
IC: The Bible is realist* about epistemology. What this means is that it assumes that there is a reality "out there" so to speak, toward which any genuinely truthful propositions must relate. What you're channelling above seems to be modernist relativism, which assumes that there is no objective reality toward which propositions could relate, and only differences of opinion.

M: Dear God, of course there is a reality 'out there' about which anyone can think, either in a subjective or objective way. Or both.
I am not 'channelling' anything - just thinking out loud.

M: And what is that objective truth about morality that you agree with? Specifics, please?
IC: Okay. "Moral" means anything that is consonant with the character and nature of God Himself. "Immoral" is anything antithetical to that character. Is that specific enough? Or were you looking for something else?

M: I didn't ask you what you think 'moral' or 'immoral' means. I asked for examples of this 'objective moral truth'. How would this tell anyone what is right or wrong in any given situation.

M: No room for subjective flexibility - creative and critical thinking - at all?
IC: No, this doesn't follow from what I'm saying at all. "Creativity" is a creation of God. And "critical thinking" is something every rational being should do, and in fact, yet another faculty God has given us. Both are key elements of our humanity. But "creative" doesn't mean "making your own morality up," and "critical thinking" is not the same as "cynical dismissal." I'm not saying you're guilty of either: I'm just pointing out that these words are not synonyms.

M: It seems to me that it does follow, if you only allow for 'objective truth' in deciding moral issues. Creative and critical thinking is what is required in thinking through actions/behaviours and consequences.

IC: And "subjective flexibility"? There's lots of room for that. But all of us know that there are limits to where that can go. "Subjectivity" has to live within moral guidelines. There are legitimate and illegitimate forms of human expression, because (and here we come full circle) the hearts of humankind are not filled only with good, creative, critical and healthy things; they're also full of violence, cruelty, selfishness, venom and other such elements. So "subjectivity" cannot be regarded amorally.

M: Flexibility of thought has both strengths and limitations. There is a personal reasoning process which might be correct or faulty. Just as any moral guidelines or objective set of imperatives.

It's been an interesting discussion. We are talking about 2 different value systems and guides: the religious and the secular moral. They can both co-exist and have similar values. The former appear to ground their moral thinking on various scriptures, with varying interpretations. The latter based on what?
Perhaps, we can call it ethical self-creativity. Still a work in progress...rationality based on what is 'out there'...very human and yes, fallible - just like scriptural interpretations. We have obligations and responsibilities - developed over time. The problem with religious scripture, as I see it, is that it is static. Some take comfort from that and use it as a defence for what others might deem 'immoral' action/beliefs.

Thanks again for provoking thought. I am hoping to bow out of this now -

artisticsolution wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: I agree. The trouble is that I.Can thinks that he knows exactly and objectively what god wants, and what is right and wrong. The question is not that simple.
What is good for you might be evil to another, and there is no way to avoid this. I always found this problematic when as a child someone asked if I knew the difference between right and wrong. After seeing a naked Vietnamese child running. covered in napalm burns from American soldiers on TV. A war supported the the majority of the American people, I knew that something was wrong with the idea.
I'm now 55, and nothing I have seen or heard has changed my mind. What really scares me, is people like I Can who thinks the problem is a simple one, just like those sending the drones into kill the innocent.

Well, it is complicated, isn't it? All I can say is I am tired of it all...it's just draining.

Yes, it is. I continue to suspect the motives and the opinions who think it is simple. These are the dangerous people.