Philosophy Now Forum

Now I understand, it was the examples that could be considered a provocation.

duszek wrote:Now I understand, it was the examples that could be considered a provocation.

No, I think what Immanuel was talking about, was my condescending tone, in that I was making it so easy even a child could understand. My frustration was clear...and I think he found both insulting.

He had no way of knowing if my examples were actual remarks made by Christians in my country.

He had no way of knowing I have had enough of the cruel remarks to last a lifetime from people who should know better. Who else should know right from wrong than those practicing a religion which is all about trying to keep the 10 commandments? They are called ' commandments for a reason, after all.

He also had no way of knowing that I was raised a Catholic until I was 10 ish and then my family switched to born again Christian , and I went to church there until about the age of 17.

Christians were bringing down my faith in humanity and I had to get out or follow along a path that did not make sense to me.

I didn't know how to consolidate the sentiments... ' love thy neighbor'/ ' but blow his fucking head off if he dares to cross my borders'.

This is all I ever hear from Christians in my country, is it any wonder why I am frustrated?

P.S. I am very curious if Immanuel has encountered any Christians like this? I wonder if he would think he is betraying them to stand up against such rhetoric and say, ' you are wrong and let me tell you why'. Or would he follow them in the name of Christianity?

I don´t know this kind of Christians from personal experience and I would have difficulty understanding their way of viewing things.
American Christians on the internet do not sound so radical and merciless as you describe.

What´s wrong with Mexicans ? I heard that they are great at picking fruit and Americans would not do this work because it´s too hard for them.

artisticsolution wrote:

duszek wrote:Now I understand, it was the examples that could be considered a provocation.

A bit. They were kind of acerbic, as if being "Christian" were supposed to entail the views you describe.

Answering a question worded in that way becomes like trying to answer a question like, "Have you stopped beating your dog yet?" There's no way to answer and win without first challenging the assumption that drives the question in the first place.

No, I think what Immanuel was talking about, was my condescending tone, in that I was making it so easy even a child could understand. My frustration was clear...and I think he found both insulting.

Not so much personally insulting as suggesting that the asker might not have any sincere intent. After all, when one is trying to converse, normally one accords one's interlocutors the benefit of the doubt and attributes to them some goodwill. When one starts with negative assumptions, it's questionable whether a conversation is being invited at all.

In that case, it simply reads more like "talking smack" in the hopes of getting a reaction...and life's too short.

He had no way of knowing if my examples were actual remarks made by Christians in my country.

I'm always puzzled by the uses of the word "Christian" as to what background and frame of reference the user is employing. It's like the words "white" or "black" or "female" or "handicapped," or whatever -- a collective both broad and undefined. And I know it's not polite to call people who may happen to call themselves "Christians" inauthentic, but on the basis of what the Bible itself requires, I'm certain that such exist.

So is the term being employed to describe "Christians" as I would recognize them? Not in the main, for sure: but then again, I do not know everyone alive who calls themselves a "Christian." And in any large group one meets outliers who don't fit the main.

He had no way of knowing I have had enough of the cruel remarks to last a lifetime from people who should know better. Who else should know right from wrong than those practicing a religion which is all about trying to keep the 10 commandments? They are called ' commandments for a reason, after all.

I would say that nothing is "Christian" about either of their practices as you describe them here, so you have every right to doubt their integrity and sincerity if that's what they do. Did not Christ Himself tell us, "By their fruits you shall know them...you do not gather figs from thorn bushes..."

You get the metaphor, I'm sure. I think what you've got there is people who have the name right, but whose understanding is sadly lacking.

He also had no way of knowing that I was raised a Catholic until I was 10 ish and then my family switched to born again Christian , and I went to church there until about the age of 17. Christians were bringing down my faith in humanity and I had to get out or follow along a path that did not make sense to me. I didn't know how to consolidate the sentiments... ' love thy neighbor'/ ' but blow his fucking head off if he dares to cross my borders'.

I don't know how to consolidate those either. Personally, I wouldn't try. It's certainly no Biblical mandate that one should have to reconcile such bizarre extremes.

Maybe not "loving neighbours" is as good an indication as you're going to find that the people you're describing aren't "Christian" in anything beyond a nominal sense.

This is all I ever hear from Christians in my country, is it any wonder why I am frustrated?

America, I'm surmising? I really like Americans, personally, but they can be very...extroverted. One has to know how to take them, or one can easily be offended.

I've heard there are areas with some curious types in some pockets, and I confess I've even met a few like that in my travels in the U.S. On the other hand, most U.S. Christians I've met are lovely people. But my experience is much more global than that, and on the average, the Christians I meet...and I can say this without a hint of hyperbole...are the very finest people I have known wherever I find them. I am unworthy of their company, I confess. But I have met some very fine agnostics and atheists and people from various cultures as well, and probably a great many are better people by nature than I am too. For my side, I make no requirement of people that they believe what I believe before I will befriend them. And I live and work in a completely secular context, with people who have no affinity with Christianity at all, and who espouse all sorts of ideologies. Yet we get along.

Please understand: I'm not questioning your veracity on your own experiences of "Christians"...just answering your question, if I may, and suggesting that a different kind of experience is possible.

P.S. I am very curious if Immanuel has encountered any Christians like this? I wonder if he would think he is betraying them to stand up against such rhetoric and say, ' you are wrong and let me tell you why'. Or would he follow them in the name of Christianity?

I would say this: that the call of any real Christian is to follow truth in the name of God; and since "Christ-ianity" takes its name from the One who said, "I am the Truth," it would be a signal betrayal of that calling to follow any group simply because they claimed a name but showed by their actions that they had no real love of the truth. So I could hardly be direct with atheists and agnostics, but give my own group a free pass, could I? That wouldn't be right, as I'm sure you'll agree.

That being said, I see no reason for being hard on anyone unnecessarily, do you? I think it kind of stifles conversation.

duszek wrote:I don´t know this kind of Christians from personal experience and I would have difficulty understanding their way of viewing things.
American Christians on the internet do not sound so radical and merciless as you describe.

What´s wrong with Mexicans ? I heard that they are great at picking fruit and Americans would not do this work because it´s too hard for them.

Lol...duszek you slay me you're so cute sometimes it's refreshing!

Who did you hear that from? This is the part of the problem, having someone (mexicans in this case) do your dirty work ( Americans in this case.... look down on mexicans because most Americans think picking fruit is beneath them), is not nice at best and merciless at worst.

In my mind, it is far from a Christian thing to do.

Weren't you the one that says actions sometimes speak louder than words?

Immanuel Can wrote:
That being said, I see no reason for being hard on anyone unnecessarily, do you? I think it kind of stifles conversation.

Sometimes stifling an inhumane conversation is the only ' right' thing to do. I can't speak for everyone, but I am going to speak up when someone starts saying things like, 'shoot 'em at the border.' To say nothing is to allow this mentality to take root. Saying nothing condones killing in this case, I think. As when they masses are in agreement, what's right gets pushed aside.

Possibly you have not heard this from American Christians because they are being politically correct around you? They usually only talk 'war/ hate' like this when they are in a group of like minded people they feel comfortable with..like on Fox news. I am sure glen beck has eluded to something along the same line if not came right out and said it.

How do you think Bush got his war going? He told Christians that he was divinely inspired. ...or something like that. Gotta look up his exact words.

Here ya go...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

Well, I won't tell you what I think...

I'll tell you instead what the Leader (the One after Whom the people in question are named, according to your description) says about this..

"Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter."

So apparently, He foresaw that there would be lots of people around who would say one thing and do another. But apparently, the only One who really matters is quite clear on who belongs to Him and who does not.

Now, if I said that, it might be judgmental. Good thing it wasn't me who said it.

AS wrote:

I know my family doesn't really think the should kill illegals...or hate in any way as they try to be good people. They just lose their moral compass sometimes, and when they do ...the nonsense they spout just gets on my nerves.

Of course and this little diatribe could be applicable to everyone else, as they are just good people also.

Such hypocrisy.

Vor wrote:AS wrote:

I know my family doesn't really think the should kill illegals...or hate in any way as they try to be good people. They just lose their moral compass sometimes, and when they do ...the nonsense they spout just gets on my nerves.

Of course and this little diatribe could be applicable to everyone else, as they are just good people also.

Such hypocrisy.

I believe most people have said something bad about someone else...I consider them 'good' people until they take action and do actual harm.

People talk shit...it's the Christian people who I hold more accountable because they should know better.

Immanuel Can wrote:Well, I won't tell you what I think...

I'll tell you instead what the Leader (the One after Whom the people in question are named, according to your description) says about this..

"Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter."

So apparently, He foresaw that there would be lots of people around who would say one thing and do another. But apparently, the only One who really matters is quite clear on who belongs to Him and who does not.

Now, if I said that, it might be judgmental. Good thing it wasn't me who said it.

Lol...do you know how many times I have been told that by the very ones who talk shit. The only difference is (Born again Christians. ..they used to call themselves this but stopped a while ago. ..don't ask me why) they think the only way you can get into heaven is to believe Jesus is the son of God and died on the cross for our sins.

So they say something like, "only he who knows my son will enter the kingdom of heaven."

Which means my sweet jewish husband is shit out of luck. ...lol

The odd thing is they like my husband and Jewish people in general as they think jewish people are the chosen ones....so don't ask me. I never understood this members only mentality.

artisticsolution wrote:Lol...do you know how many times I have been told that by the very ones who talk shit.

Well I think the point is quite obvious: it's simply that not everyone who calls themselves a thing IS it. Common sense will tell you exactly the same thing, so I'm not sure why you'd be surprised.

Immanuel Can wrote:

artisticsolution wrote:Lol...do you know how many times I have been told that by the very ones who talk shit.

Well I think the point is quite obvious: it's simply that not everyone who calls themselves a thing IS it. Common sense will tell you exactly the same thing, so I'm not sure why you'd be surprised.

Common sense can't tell you what is in their hearts and minds. If I knew that for sure, I would be God.

Or...

Like Bill murrey says in Groundhog day, "I'm a God. I'm not the God."

Still, I hold Christians to a higher standard than non Christians. Just as I hold the lawman to a higher standard than the layman. The law man should know more about law than the layman.

artisticsolution wrote:Common sense can't tell you what is in their hearts and minds. If I knew that for sure, I would be God.

You don't need to be.

Example: You can say "Bruce Jenner is mentally a woman," but he also participated in the men's Olympics. Now, leaving aside whether or not gender-bending is moral, a simple conclusion follows: either he was wrong then, or he's wrong now. Either when he then said, "I'm a man," or when he now says, "I've always been a woman," he was not what he was claiming to be.

See? Common sense.

Likewise, a person can call themselves a "Christian" or a "hamburger." It won't make it so, unless they really are what they say they are. I guess you'll need a good test to tell you when you're dealing with a real one, and when you're not. What do you propose?

Like Bill murrey says in Groundhog day, "I'm a God. I'm not the God."

Rita: "That's reassuring. For a minute there I thought you might be crazy."

Still, I hold Christians to a higher standard than non Christians. Just as I hold the lawman to a higher standard than the layman. The law man should know more about law than the layman.

Well, I would hold Christians to a higher standard -- but I'm not sure why you would. After all, you don't believe they're believing in anything real, right? So shouldn't they just be run-of-the-mill deluded types? Why would you think it right to be harder on them than you would be on ordinary folks? That doesn't seem reasonable if you really think they're just mistaken.

Just askin'.

Immanuel Can wrote: You don't need to be.

Example: You can say "Bruce Jenner is mentally a woman," but he also participated in the men's Olympics. Now, leaving aside whether or not gender-bending is moral, a simple conclusion follows: either he was wrong then, or he's wrong now. Either when he then said, "I'm a man," or when he now says, "I've always been a woman," he was not what he was claiming to be.

See? Common sense.

Likewise, a person can call themselves a "Christian" or a "hamburger." It won't make it so, unless they really are what they say they are. I guess you'll need a good test to tell you when you're dealing with a real one, and when you're not. What do you propose?

I propose you read Kierkegaard and stop being so suspicious. I suppose next your going to tell me you know for sure someone loves you because they have said to you, "I love you."

Who the fuck knows what Bruce Jenner thinks? Has he ever been a woman? Does he even know what that means? He only knows what it means to him. To me, his idea of what it is to be a woman, might be bollocks! How would he or I know what each other thinks about what it is to BE woman?

He has his own unique experience. I have mine. Only a 'God" knows what is in our heart or if anything it true. He may be more woman than I could ever dream of being...lol...who the fuck knows?

Rita: "That's reassuring. For a minute there I thought you might be crazy."

LMAO Ya got me there..I just might be. Wanna have a crazy 'cook off'?

Well, I would hold Christians to a higher standard -- but I'm not sure why you would. After all, you don't believe they're believing in anything real, right? So shouldn't they just be run-of-the-mill deluded types? Why would you think it right to be harder on them than you would be on ordinary folks? That doesn't seem reasonable if you really think they're just mistaken.

I don't know if they believe anything real. As for me, I only know my truth, which I am still perfecting. If you are asking if I am Christian, I would say I am as close as I can get, but I am not religious at all. I don't believe in a man made version of religion, I only know a spiritual side. If they profess a knowledge of Jesus, that is their thing. All I know is, I can't believe anyone would lie about such a thing when it is a common held knowledge that in Christianity, lying is a sin. So, I have to accept them on their word, or lose my Christian spirit. Jesus...God...sending people to hell? I suppose if you think this is true, you must also believe that it is only right you do the same on earth...and cause people a hell here on earth. This is the Christian idea I can't get behind. The punishment factor. The suspicion.

Common sense tells us we can't know what another knows 100%, we can only use subjective knowledge to think we know. And that is how we deceive ourselves. Doubt exists in most everyone, no?

artisticsolution wrote:Who the fuck knows what Bruce Jenner thinks? Has he ever been a woman? Does he even know what that means? He only knows what it means to him. To me, his idea of what it is to be a woman, might be bollocks! How would he or I know what each other thinks about what it is to BE woman?

Not material. He can "think" all kinds of things. He can "think" whatever he/she wants. It won't change the basic law of logic known as "The Law of Non-Contradiction." Or to put it in common terms, two genuinely opposite statements cannot simultaneously be true -- they can both be false, if a third alternative is available, or two only "seeming" contradictory statements can be reconciled: but two genuinely opposite affirmations cannot both be true. It's literally impossible for that to happen.

The paradigm case of this LNC is statements of being: as in, "I AM a woman," and "I AM a man." Not possible at the same time and in the same sense. And that doesn't even remotely depend on knowing the mind-state of the claimant in question. Whether they believe what they say or not doesn't affect the application of the LNC.

So it's not necessary for either you or me to know what Jenner thinks: It's enough that he/she/whatever has made two contradictory statements. Then the LNC takes over. We know, as certainly as we know 2+2=4, that he/she/whatever was lying at one point or the other.

I merely make the point, though, to underline that claims to be X don't make a person X. Only true claims to be X make it true.

And that's important, since you attribute a lot of negative stuff to what you call "Christians." So I'm asking how your sort out the real ones from the phonies, since both are certain to be included in such a broad, undefined category.

All I know is, I can't believe anyone would lie about such a thing when it is a common held knowledge that in Christianity, lying is a sin.

I'm sorry...you've lost me. "Such a thing" as what?

So, I have to accept them on their word, or lose my Christian spirit.

Not true at all. Christians are not anywhere told to believe whatever people happen to say. That's a modern relativist fiction, and one that doesn't even make sense on relativism's own terms. If it were true, then we'd have to allow that Charles Manson is God...because he says it, and it's "not nice" to doubt people. Clearly that's bizarre.

But the truth of the matter is that Christians are positively commanded to judge among themselves, and to help anyone who's confused as to what being a Christian really means, and avoid anyone who's being a deliberate phony.

The rest of what you said there...can you sort it out for me? It's a real jumble of conflicting issues. I can't see what you were trying to say. Do you want to take another run at that?