Christianity

[Belinda]

Alexis Jacobi wrote:

So in this sense the Germanic world, through Protestantism, undertook to throw off the influence and the yoke of a Universalizing Roman Church and to assert itself in a range of ways in direct opposition. True, some part of this was 'reasoned' and 'logical' but on another level it was deeply psychological and reactive.

But Protestantism did not arise de novo from human nature.Protestantism arose from cultural change. Culture intervenes between biological inheritance and belief.

The Reformation in Europe was preceded by Renaissance of a former civilisation's notions of reason and knowledge. Then printed communications allowed many Europeans to read The Bible for themselves and become intellectually independent of priests' interpretations and priests' vested interests.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Yes, but you continue to make the nominalist mistake (i.e. taking nominal identification as real and authentic). You take for granted that anybody who ever called themselves a "Christian" did not need to do a single thing more than that to have earned the term. But nominalism is, even just from the view of the secular sociological study of religion, practically useless as an identifier. It's always wildly erroneous. Since it has no criteria but the name itself, it automatically includes under one umbrella term, things that have nothing to do with the religious phenomenon in question.

We have been over this before, haven't we?

My recent posts contain many different thoughts and ideas which, by changing the subject or redirecting it into this area, seem to make it possible to skip over the thoughts in those posts.

[Alexis Jacobi]

That's the point. If you think diseases are just "of nature," then they can't possibly be "evil." They're neither good nor evil, because you don't believe either word has any objective meaning.

Yet actually, and according to the logic that arises in understanding and acceptance of 'nature' and 'natural processes', everything and all things that go on in nature must be defined as 'good'. So disease in children, let's say, must necessarily weed out the weaker and the susceptible. The ones that survive have 'natural resistance'. So nature serves 'good' ends. Which is to say exclusively itself.

Christian theology, it seems to me fair to say, and the entire structure of Christian view, is dependent on the assertion that at one time the natural world was absolutely benign and that the Figures of man (Adam & Eve) lived in a perfectly harmless world -- as if God's grace had established a bubble of protection around them. Though nature is depicted (a Earth-like garden) that garden could have no relationship at all to the world of nature that we observe. So, what was depicted was a place, a reality, completely outside of the reality that we now live in and are entirely subject to.

One has to turn to the Christian explanation as to how and why things got so messed up. There was said to be some act, some decision, some breaking of a rule, that (literally) brought about a tragedy not only to those two naughty persons, who were ejected from the zone of grace and some sort of divine forcefield, but that their act, their bad decision, actually pulled the entire Earth down into the pit of mutable change, disease, where beings prey on other beings mercilessly, and also of course Death and the processes by which what is dead is circulated back into the ecological system by never-ceasing processes of life that go on endlessly.

So the entire world-situation -- the Fall is an event suffered by all creation not just human beings -- came about as part of the consequential punishment of those two irresponsible persons. Within this picture and this idea, obviously, it was imagined that all things that existed -- all biological things certainly -- did not need to feed on each other in order to live. So there were no microbes on the skin of Adam & Eve that could have or would have festered into a disease and thus a destruction-process or a death-process. And no insects needed to feed off biological material in order to live. There was no predation. There was no blood & gore or the screams of the victim when hunted by the wily predator. Adam & Eve would have been 'ignorant' of such things.

(It also should be asked why even the possibility of eating the apple could have been considered for nothing in that world of the Garden ate any other thing. No mosquitos sucking blood, no creatures feeding off other creatures, no ecological system. What does eating even mean in the world of Adam & Eve? And it seems ridiculous but if they ate they also defecated which would necessitate enzymes and microbes to dispose of it and recirculate it back into the forest-system.)

So it is said that their act of disobedience jarred the entire Creation. It brought about a chaos that, essentially, brought about death. Ultimately, it is death that is the cause of all the ensuing suffering.

The entire Christian argument is, and this seems plain and clear, is in its essence an argument against the reality of death and the horror of being subject to it. So that divine being who conquers death and leads mankind -- those who seek to ally with him -- back to the deathless sphere is, in this story, the hero of it. And what price must be paid in order to once again be granted deathless, eternal existence? Well that is the core question, isn't it?

It might seem that I am trying to denigrate Christian mythology -- and I cannot see it as anything but mythology and I do not believe that anyone else really can see it differently unless they deliberately choose to see the Garden picture as reality -- but this is not really so. I think that the meaning behind the story is what one must focus on. The meaning, let's say, if it is real, must operate even if the terms of the story change -- and even perhaps if there is no story.

The entire meaning that is expressed in Christianity, therefore, has to do with the proposition that there is a deathless soul and that there is, somewhere and somehow, a plane of existence that is eternal and also deathless. Some part or aspect of ourselves which is outside and beyond the determined, mutable world. One must devise some means-of-explanation as to how it has come about that this aspect or part of us has become imprisoned and trapped in this terrible world of mutability and death. How did such a thing happen? Or why did it happen? And what, essentially, is the cure for it?

The Christian Story -- certainly in comparison to other metaphysical descriptions and explanatory systems -- is like a child's tale. The truth must be told: it no longer functions except for those who are mentally simplistic or who, despite more complex and realistic explanations, force themselves to see things in terms of a children's story.

This is why, in the Occidental post-Christian world, that people like Aldous Huxley -- total rationalists and deeply committed to modernist intellectual necessity -- turned to other metaphysical systems for a more *advanced* explanation of how the heck this all came about. That is, how we all wound up in *the material entanglement*. A more complete metaphysical picture really is presented through the Vedic viewpoint. But there are some complications. The Vedic explanation-system, though similar essentially to the Christian explanation-system, is incomparably larger and expressed in 'mature' terms that can, to some degree, satisfy the need for coherency of the modern mind. Yet the Vedic system (it is far wider and intricate than one supposes) fall far short in any domain that we now consider relevant -- such as 'enlightened government' and, basically, all that came out of the European Enlightenment. They never got to that point.

And yet *we* did. The philosophy of Christianity, though based on children's stories (I say this without ire or ridicule and just to make a true statement) was used in such a way that an extremely sophisticated system of thought and philosophy emerged from it. It totally surrounds us and is discernable in all of our expressions. It is so pervasive that, like the water a fish lives and and never thinks about, it is hard for some to see, understand and appreciate. I always refer to The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought as a basic starting-point to appreciate Christianty's depth. It is a bizarre quandary really: such advanced, relevant and important thinking and exposition, which yet has roots in 'primitive' simplistic Story.

But here is another strange aspect: examine the arguments of those who seek, for a host of motives, to tear down the possibility of 'believing in' Christianity. Their arguments also involve childlike reductionsim and simplification. True, they focus on something like the Garden of Eden story and undermine it (as I have done in a way) but they fail to discern a higher level of meaning that is expressed there, and thus make the false-declaration that there is nothing of relevance or importance in the Story. So they really 'throw the baby out with the bathwater'. Also, their destructive burrowing is often related to other social and political motivation, but that is another aspect of our modern tale and one taking greater form around us now.

So what I say is that the Whole Picture needs to be better seen, more fairly seen, better understood and also protected. It is a curious position I admit and not without problematic elements.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, but you continue to make the nominalist mistake (i.e. taking nominal identification as real and authentic). You take for granted that anybody who ever called themselves a "Christian" did not need to do a single thing more than that to have earned the term. But nominalism is, even just from the view of the secular sociological study of religion, practically useless as an identifier. It's always wildly erroneous. Since it has no criteria but the name itself, it automatically includes under one umbrella term, things that have nothing to do with the religious phenomenon in question.

We have been over this before, haven't we?

It's a problem that doesn't go away. It's actually fatal to your hypotheses. And that, I suggest, is probably your strong reason for not wanting to hear it.

Nevertheless, it remains a fatal flaw.

You could fix the flaw, and arrive at better hypotheses: but they'd be less sweeping, less all-encompassing, less ambitious and less simple than those you've been tending toward so far. Still, history is not a simple business, I think we both realize; and I think you'll also realize -- not just in this, but in many instances -- that those historical characterizations that are broad, sweeping and simple are usually also wrong in some very important way, and their effect is to distort the historical situation beyond the point at which the simple generalizations simply fail to reflect truth.

So simple is often not better. And general can mean "distorted." Nevertheless, generalizations are always tempting because they always offer us a seeming "handle on the situation" that more attention to the facts would deny us.

You'll never see that more clearly demonstrated than in a statement like Marx's axiom that "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." (Commie Manifesto) That's about as general and untrue a statement as you'll ever find. However, it's also become the "handle" by which millions have tried to address reality -- always with disastrous results, as we both know. And it turns Marxist historiography into a whiny, repetitive and grossly distorted telling of things. One cannot read Marxist history very long without eyerolls: everthing turns out to be this class and that class, and nobody seems to have any will independent of class at all.

So let's not do that. Let's not imagine that clinging to the nominalist criterion will give us a proper grasp on the role of Christianity in history. I don't at all hesitate to say it has one, but we'll never find it if we do that.

[Alexis Jacobi]

It's a problem that doesn't go away. It's actually fatal to your hypotheses. And that, I suggest, is probably your strong reason for not wanting to hear it.

Nevertheless, it remains a fatal flaw.

Again, you are changing the subject. It is not that I avoid hearing *it* -- I heard it the first time -- and I also refuted your assertion that my perspective is fallacious.

You seek to draw me into this discussion, one that you feel you can better control, which I already resolved long ago, and with this manoeuvre to avoid response to the other (and I think more important points) I brought out in other posts.

I am not sure if you are aware that you often use this debate technique (?)

So let's not do that. Let's not imagine that clinging to the nominalist criterion will give us a proper grasp on the role of Christianity in history. I don't at all hesitate to say it has one, but we'll never find it if we do that.

Now you have settled into the use of the term 'nominalism' as if this fairly describes how my view of Christian culture is structured. But that is your term and not one that I agree applies to me.

What I ask of you, reciprocally, is that you not do what you are now doing. 'Let's' you not slot my view of Christian culture into your arbitrary term of 'nominalism'.

And again you are seemingly deliberately attempting to draw the conversation back to this issue to avoid discussion of the more important ideas brought out in other posts.

Would you kindly stop doing that?

[Immanuel Can]

That's the point. If you think diseases are just "of nature," then they can't possibly be "evil." They're neither good nor evil, because you don't believe either word has any objective meaning.

Yet actually, and according to the logic that arises in understanding and acceptance of 'nature' and 'natural processes', everything and all things that go on in nature must be defined as 'good'. So disease in children, let's say, must necessarily weed out the weaker and the susceptible. The ones that survive have 'natural resistance'. So nature serves 'good' ends. Which is to say exclusively itself.

Very true. In an evolving system, one would have to say that misery and death were tools salutary (at the racial level) for the purging of evolutionary failures from the evolving strain of man. One would have to get down on one's knees and bless Darwin for the gift of chidhood illnesses, perhaps.

One has to turn to the Christian explanation as to how and why things got so messed up. There was said to be some act, some decision, some breaking of a rule, that (literally) brought about a tragedy...

Christianly speaking that's not mysterious.

The "one act of disobedience" (spoken of in Romans, for example) was not per se the eating of a fruit; lots of fruits get eaten even today, without remark. Rather, from a Christian view, it was the action of disobeying the Eternal God. That could have been achieved through the picking up of a prohibited rock, the performing of a prohibited ritual or song, the speaking of prohibited words, or any other sorts of acts; for the essential part was not the fact of it being a fruit, but of it being the singular and only thing that God had explicitly prohibited to man.

The essence of the act was "disobedience," as Romans says.

So the entire world-situation -- the Fall is an event suffered by all creation not just human beings -- came about as part of the consequential punishment of those two irresponsible persons.

And who were those "persons"?

Not just anyone. They were, in fact, the two people from whom you, I and all people were destined to derive our heritage. They were the parents of the entire human race, not merely two people among a crowd of others.

So it is said that their act of disobedience jarred the entire Creation. It brought about a chaos that, essentially, brought about death. Ultimately, it is death that is the cause of all the ensuing suffering.

Well, their action affected them all the way down to the genetic level. We can see that for certain, because the narrative tells us that they were, from that moment forth, but not before, subject to death. And since they were also the stewards of God's Creation, that which was under their legitimate charge, the whole cosmos, fell with them.

Of course, it had to: otherwise, where would they live?

The entire Christian argument is, and this seems plain and clear, is in its essence an argument against the reality of death and the horror of being subject to it. So that divine being who conquers death and leads mankind -- those who seek to ally with him -- back to the deathless sphere is, in this story, the hero of it. And what price must be paid in order to once again be granted deathless, eternal existence?

Romans again.

"For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous." (5:19)

The Vedic explanation-system, though similar essentially to the Christian explanation-system,

Wow. What a bizarre claim. It's not "similar" at all...one would have to pull back to the Moon to imagine in was, and leave the entire thing in such fuzzy focus that it all blurred together.

It is a bizarre quandary really: such advanced, relevant and important thinking and exposition, which yet has roots in 'primitive' simplistic Story.

Well, if the Christian story is merely simplistic, then it would not be capable of generating such "advanced, relevant and important thinking" as to occupy some of humanity's best minds for thousands of years of recorded history now. At the same time, if it were not accessible at some "starter" level, then there would be a great number of people in this world (for the average IQ in humanity is only around 98) who simply could not understand it at all, and hence could not be saved at all; or who could not proceed to understand, grow and know God without constant and unrelenting personal reliance on some specialized elite of scholars. And there are people who think that is still true: that the Christian message cannot be understood by ignorant "laymen," but must forever be processed throught "enlightened understandings" of some priestly caste.

I do not believe that at all.

The accessibility of the Christian message to all is made possible by the simplicity; the depth of thought that has come out of it is made possible by its profundity.

[Immanuel Can]

I also refuted your assertion that my perspective is fallacious.

You "contradicted" it, I agree; whether you successfully "refuted" it is quite another matter. I actually do not find your explanation convincing at all. I have too much "insider" knowledge of Christianity to fail to recognize that your generalizations, while handy for producing generalties, have the unfortunate feature of including in your category "Christian" things that have no relationship at all to Christ or to those who know and follow Him.

The subsequent problem is that while you are attempting to analyze how Christian belief generates certain outcomes, you're including in your data set people who actually have no Christian belief. How then can you say what "Christianity" did or caused, when more than half of your data set is only nominally, but not actually, "Christian"?

Sorry: I do understand that from an "outsider" perspective, the nominalist criterion is very winsome. Unfortunately, it's also facile and incorrect, as any "insider" is bound to know. But as I say, even deeper secular scholarship has roundly rejected the nominalist criterion -- see, for example, the definitional problems outlined in this entirely secular source: https://www.learnreligions.com/what-is-religion-250672 Every scholar of world religions has, as the first lecture in their coursework, some treatment of "what is a 'religion,'" which invariably outlines these problems. The truth is that secular scholars of religion have an ongoing challenge with even locating their subject matter at all -- and not just in the case of Christianity, but in most other "religions" as well.

All this is manifest to your scrutiny. Go and see if I am lying to you about this. Nominalism is the first definitional tactic these entirely secular scholars and treatments all reject.

[Alexis Jacobi]

AJ: The Vedic explanation-system, though similar essentially to the Christian explanation-system

Wow. What a bizarre claim. It's not "similar" at all...one would have to pull back to the Moon to imagine in was, and leave the entire thing in such fuzzy focus that it all blurred together.

It is not a bizarre claim at all -- and what is bizarre really is that you seek to attach the moniker 'bizarre' to it. The various cosmological pictures that are developed in Vedic cultures (there are many and they span long time periods) are explanatory systems, and the Christian mythological system is one that, too, seeks to *explain*. In this sense they are similar.

My view is that more is to be gained from examining these various systems and trying to discern out of them what meaning is conveyed, then in attempting to shoot the adversarial system down -- as you often seem to do but for entirely coherent reasons given your orientation as strict Christian apologist.

I am quite certain that the Vaishnava religious description (this is the one I have examined most closely) shares many many comparable points to that of our own Christian system, and I am also quite sure that the the Bhagavad-Gita can be employed as a means to elucidate important aspects of Christian metaphysics. That is why I often say that, for example, the 16th chapter of the BG can be read to understand the function of the combative duality expressed in Christian thought between God and Satan. The divine and the demonic.

Well, if the Christian story is merely simplistic, then it would not be capable of generating such "advanced, relevant and important thinking" as to occupy some of humanity's best minds for thousands of years of recorded history now. At the same time, if it were not accessible at some "starter" level, then there would be a great number of people in this world (for the average IQ in humanity is only around 98) who simply could not understand it at all, and hence could not be saved at all; or who could not proceed to understand, grow and know God without constant and unrelenting personal reliance on some specialized elite of scholars. And there are people who think that is still true: that the Christian message cannot be understood by ignorant "laymen," but must forever be processed through "enlightened understandings" of some priestly caste.

You do not engage in fair argument. I did not say it was 'merely simplistic', what I said is that many of the stories are like children's stories. As for example that of Adam & Eve in the Garden.

I do not in any way or sense disagree that *the best minds* went to work in relation to the simplistically presented stories, and effectively my point is that great and significant things were done by those men and with their minds and spirits.

All of our philosophy seems to have arisen out of the Greek world, and the notion of 'theology' has to do with thinking about and ruminating on the doings and interrelations of these gods. If the stories about the gods are seen as simplistic tales and a part of common cultural lore, then these correspond to the Christian mythology-based building blocks upon which and out of which very advanced and evolved modes of thought, and topics of though, arose.

You suppose, of course, that I am working to denigrate either the stories or those perhaps who concocted them, but that is false. You seem often to get defensive when critical analysis is applied to Christian notions generally. Yet I do not believe that my effort is that of undermining Christian myth, or Christian ethics, but in finding a way to (perhaps) explain it better.

I think that many of your explanations fall very short of the desired mark. And the reason? It seems to be because you have no choice but to defend the story in its overt sense -- as if there really was a Garden somewhere and an *original mating pair*.

The notion of 'disobedience' is, of course, far more critical as an idea -- but it does not depend on a rarther silly child's story about a garden!

[Alexis Jacobi]

You "contradicted" it, I agree; whether you successfully "refuted" it is quite another matter.

There is no way -- in your eyes -- for anyone to refute your assertion that the description, as I use it, of Christian culture is essentially a fallacious term and is a nominalistic designation. You have won the argument -- again in your own eyes -- from the start.

I have a difference of opinion about the issue, but if this is an error (your assertion) it is not one of nominalism's errors.

Simply put, you are the possessor of the definition of who is and who is not a Christian. (I know that you will say "No, God is and you will then quote the relevant scripture"). Everyone and in fact anyone who does not fit your definition -- the one you control -- can be described by you as not being *truly* Christian and, potentially, as not being Christian at all. You can dismiss anyone you wish, when you wish, on that basis.

You have established yourself in a form of radicalism it seems to me. But it is not that I do not understand what you are getting at. Or what you attempt with your radical attempt to control definitions. What a marvelous tool you have at your disposal.

My view is that there is a 'Christian culture' which I have also described, fairly, as christianesque. This corresponds to Kierkegaard's 'christendom'. I do not disagree, necessarily, with the strict Kierkegaardian definitions that you also seem to hold to. Within a Christian culture, according to my lexicon of defitions, there will certainly be those who are more fully tied to strict observance and thus, according to your and also Kierkegaard's more strict definitions, would be seen as and would be called true Christians or truer Christians.

But none of this takes away or diminishes that there are many many shades of white and grey. There are many many people who have certain strains of relationship to Christian thought, observance and ethical practice. And they comprise a whole and that whole I describe as 'Christian culture'.

It is a fair and realistic definition. And it does not diminish the possibility of examining and talking about Christian notions and influence, in fact it allows a wider conversation to occur.

Your definitions severely limit conversation.

Yours is a somewhat unfair, because too radical, too strict, definition that is tied to your own personal ideals and adamancy, and I think also to the sect or branch of Christianity of which you describe yourself as being a part.

As well, my notions of Christian culture are, if I may say, shared by Christopher Dawson (a big influence on my thought) who uses the term 'Christian culture' all the time. Not as the nominalistic error you are on about but as a fair generalization to talk about something real and considerable. I.e. Christian culture!

And you have again engaged that much more in changing the subject and moving it to a zone of argument that pleases you.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The accessibility of the Christian message to all is made possible by the simplicity; the depth of thought that has come out of it is made possible by its profundity.

And what I say is pretty much what I already said and at length: no one that I know, and no one that I am aware of, believes actually in the Adam & Eve in the Garden story unless it is seen a mythological, allegorical and metaphor-ridden.

The story no longer functions therefore. Except in some people, that I admit. And when you find those people, and examine them, you find two classes: 1) those who take it literally, and 2) those who allegorize it.

Those who allegorize it have done and will always do far more with it than those who literalize it.

I am uncertain about *the origin of profundity*. Or who is more profound than another, or why. I do not deny that Jewish thought really seemed to get to the heart of very important things and for this reason the *systems* of thought and ethics that developed may fairly be called *superior*.

But you see I am not arguing your points nor defending what you defend. I define and argue my own points and for my own declared ends. I do not seek to polarize myself against you, nor to be polarized into positions the definitions of which you control.

[Immanuel Can]

I am also quite sure that the the Bhagavad-Gita can be employed as a means to elucidate important aspects of Christian metaphysics.

So...you haven't read the Gita, right?

Because I have. (In fact, I have a copy right here, if you want to discuss particulars.) And I'm darn sure that's not so.

That is why I often say that, for example, the 16th chapter of the BG can be read to understand the function of the combative duality expressed in Christian thought between God and Satan. The divine and the demonic.

Ummm...nope. Not seeing it.

You're going to have to do more to convince me you've got a point there. What passage within 16 are you specifically thinking of?

...what I said is that many of the stories are like children's stories.

And what I said is that many of them seem that way only because they have an access-level for simple folk.

All of our philosophy seems to have arisen out of the Greek world...these correspond to the Christian mythology-based building blocks upon which and out of which very advanced and evolved modes of thought, and topics of though, arose.

You misunderstand how ancient narratives work, I think.

The invention history as a mere list of facts is a rather recent innovation -- not earlier than the Enlightenment, and one that has not even survived the postmodern critiques of it. For most of its history, historiography has entailed the recounting of events of significance, for their ongoing value...not merely the compiling of impersonal information for its own sake. And it's always had a narrative structure -- even in the days when we (rather naively) believed straight-factual accumulation was a non-narrative form, and neutral historiography was possible.

It never was: for history has always involved the selection of particular facts and details, and the discarding of vast quantities of others as a matter of both necessity (because there are simply too many "neutral" facts and happenings to record more than a small percentage of all that goes on) and interpretation (because history is always a form of telling of a story; often a factual one, but always a selective one, and often with some sort of teleology implied).

Your characterization of the biblical narrative as "mythology based" is thus quite misleading. It is, as all ancient histories have been, a selection of events recorded in aim of a particular telling of the meaning of those events.

...as if there really was a Garden somewhere and an *original mating pair*.

Of course there was. And you don't need to be a Christian to know there had to be.

Let's take the Evolutionary story. We'll take it seriously, in spite of things like this. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... t-ape.html

According to the Darwinian view, human beings came into their modern form by way of a series of mutations. According to that story, the non-adaptive mutants, such as the Piltdowns or the Neanderthals, died out because they were not adaptive. What survived was the genetics of some superior mutants: and those, of necessity, must have been a mating pair. They can have been nothing else, unless you believe that coordinated mutations happen across groups and without reproduction.

And if you believe that, let's see your alternate explanation. I'll simplify it. How did, say, Peking Man become Neanderthal Man, the alleged next evolutionary stage? Was it by mass mutation, or by a genetic adaptation developing from a single mating pair? Which answer do you favour?

[iambiguous]

Well, I'd say that given this -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... _disorders -- many might find it hard to even imagine what an omniscient and omnipotent Christian God was thinking when He brought it all about.

Wait.

Before we deal with your allegation against God, we must understand what you mean by it. You mean that childhood diseases are "evil," or "bad," presumably. As a Theist, I would agree they are...but I say that as a Theist, of course, so in accordance with the standards of "good" and "evil" that Scripture provides.

You tell me then...

No, no...you owe me an answer. If you can prove that you know what "evil" is, I'll happily tell you.

We can't even definitively -- ontologically? -- prove that what we think evil is we freely opted to believe of our own volition.

And -- click -- when have I ever argued that I could prove I know what "evil" is? Or evil? Or Evil? I just note that when human beings interact wants and needs come into conflict. And in regard to both means and ends. And that when the consequence of this goes badly for us, many call those on the other side of the conflict evil. Or Evil.

Then the part where a belief in an omniscient/omnipotent Christian God comes in. Then the part where I root that in dasein.

Then this part...

You tell me then what your Scripture says about why on Earth a God, the God, your God brought into existence a human biology able to be afflicted with...

https://dph.illinois.gov/topics-service ... -list.html

Or, for parents of infants and toddlers, these afflictions...

https://www.cdc.gov/parents/infants/dis ... tions.html

My point is only to suggest that in a No God world, moral standards are rooted subjectively/intersubjectively out in a particular world understood in a particular way existentially...as the embodiment of dasein.

Word salad. This says nothing. "Rooted," "subjective," "intersubjective," "understood in a particular way," "existentially," "embodiment" and "dasein." All words you just through in with no clear purpose or meaning.

Spell it out. No jargon.

Okay, let's presume there is no Christian God. How then would an individual go about pinning down objectively which behaviors are inherently/necessarily Good or Evil? How would this not be profoundly -- problematically -- rooted in history and culture and in personal experiences?

So...

Given a particular moral conflict we are all likely to be familiar with in a No God world, what clear-cut meaning and purpose are you able to provide us with in an assessment that is not a "word salad".

...in the absence of God, there does not appear to be a way to describe this or that behavior as either objectively moral or immoral.

There we go.

Go where? And, again, it is often the Christians who point this out to us. God must exist because, as some insist, in the absence of God "all things are permitted".

So, sure, why not the Christian God.

Horrific childhood diseases don't exist because individual subjects are of the opinion that they exist.

The term "horrific" is a value term, and thus needs an objective reference. Absent God, there is no objectivity to values, so nothing is "horrific." So you need to justify your use of that term.

Look, I'm just pointing out that any number of men and women in noting the diseases above that can afflict children, will use words like "horrific" or "ghastly" or "terrible". I use the word to describe these medical conditions myself because the prolonged suffering of children clearly seems to have "the power to horrify" me.

But does that mean that objectively all men and and women are obligated to feel horror here?

How would that be demonstrated in the absence of God? After all, there are sociopaths among us who will actually inflict pain and suffering on children. Note the philosophical argument that essentially rebuts such behavior.

Then the part I always come back to:

[Childhood diseases] exist because for a reason I can't even begin to imagine from an alleged loving, just and merciful God said to be both omniscient and omnipotent, human biology is such that they are objective medical conditions that millions upon millions of completely innocent infants, babies, toddlers and children endure around the globe.

Day in and day out. Year in and year out. Century in and century out.

But the problem is that that "historical, cultural and interpersonal context" is clearly not Atheism itself. For it is clear that in Atheism, what IS, simply IS. There is no objective fact of "evil," and none of "good" either; these have to be mere illusions, maybe feelings people happen to have in some contexts, but which absolutely cannot possibly refer to any objective truth.

Yes, that's the terrible psychological burden of atheism. You look around you at a world where a countless number of children are in agony day in and day out, and there is no teleological reason for it. Shit just happens given the brute facticity that is an amoral nature and all you can do is to hope that it doesn't happen to your child.

Well, then, you're cooked.

If you have no objective judgment to offer, then you have no accusation against God.

How could I, a mere mortal, have an objective judgment to offer? And it's less an accusation against the Christian God than a curiosity as to how Christians do rationalize the enormous suffering of children day in and day out given the description they provide us of this God they worship and adore.

I'm looking for those "excellent answers" that go beyond His "mysterious ways".

So childhood diseases, Atheistically considered, are not "evil." So your accusation boils down to this:

You accuse the God you don't believe exists of allowing things you don't have any basis to regard as evil.

How can a disease of nature be evil?

That's the point. If you think diseases are just "of nature," then they can't possibly be "evil." They're neither good nor evil, because you don't believe either word has any objective meaning.

That's my point about diseases in a No God world. That and how many atheists can then only accept the pain and suffering they cause as "beyond good and evil".

Again, precisely [in my view] the reason that Gods are invented. To provide mere mortals with a reason. It's God's Will. Don't expect to understand it. But at least be comforted in knowing that He does have a reason. That there is a reason.

Please explain: do you believe in objective evil, or not? If you do, you have an accusation, and we can go forward. If you don't then you don't even have an accusation.

Over and again...

What I believe about evil in a free will world is but one subjective point of view from but one particular human being -- "I" -- in the staggering vastness of "all there is".

For that, you can start here: https://www.sciencechannel.com/show/how ... ks-science

Then factor in your Christian God.

On the season premire of the series last night it was noted that when the universe began at the Big Bang, it was less than the sise of a single atom -- and from out of "nothing at all" -- while today, "the observable universe is 93 billion light years across".

With over two trillion galaxies.

Go figure the Christian God in that.

Sure, evil may exist objectively. A Humanist or scientific or ideological or natural evil in a No God world.

And all I can do is come into places like this and discuss that with others. Same as you.

And, again, it's "less an accusation against the Christian God than a curiosity as to how Christians do rationalize the enormous suffering of children day in and day out given the description they provide us of this God they worship and adore. I'm looking for those 'excellent answers' that go beyond His 'mysterious ways'."

[Immanuel Can]

We can't even definitively -- ontologically? -- prove that what we think evil is we freely opted to believe of our own volition.

It's even worse. So far as I can tell, you can't even find the reasons you believe "evil" is a thing.

But it's essential to your charge that maybe we should consider God guilty of allowing some of it.

You can't accuse God of what you don't actually think is wrong. You can't accuse anybody of something that's not actually wrong.

Then this part...

Word salad. This says nothing. "Rooted," "subjective," "intersubjective," "understood in a particular way," "existentially," "embodiment" and "dasein." All words you just through in with no clear purpose or meaning.

Spell it out. No jargon.

Okay, let's presume there is no Christian God. How then would an individual go about pinning down objectively which behaviors are inherently/necessarily Good or Evil?

EXACTLY!

Now you've got the problem: an Atheist denies HIMSELF any entitlement to allege that God (or anybody else) permits "evil," since the Atheist has no means of "pinning down" what would be "necessarily good or evil." You've got it.

But what's the fix for that?

The Atheist, if he has no fix for it, has to realize that he has nothing coherent to say about good or evil.

I'm just pointing out that any number of men and women in noting the diseases above that can afflict children, will use words like "horrific" or "ghastly" or "terrible".

Sure. But you have to say, as an Atheist, they do so with no justification. They just fail to understand that their feelings are unrelated to objective moral facts: they think that the diseases are "horrific," or "ghastly" or "terrible," but they're just wrong. What they are is neutral, morally speaking, you have to say.

...does that mean that objectively all men and and women are obligated to feel horror here?

If it doesn't mean that, then all you've said is, "I have feelings of horrible about certain things."

And the answer to that would have to be, "Yeah? Okay."

But the problem is that that "historical, cultural and interpersonal context" is clearly not Atheism itself. For it is clear that in Atheism, what IS, simply IS. There is no objective fact of "evil," and none of "good" either; these have to be mere illusions, maybe feelings people happen to have in some contexts, but which absolutely cannot possibly refer to any objective truth.

Yes, that's the terrible psychological burden of atheism.

Good.

Now you can understand why the so-called "Argument from Evil" fails as a rational proposition: it makes no Atheistic sense at all.

Now, that's a different issue from the emotional side of evil. Most people who articulate the argument from evil because they are vexed by the feelings they have associated with some awful event. But the Atheists can only console those people by saying, "There, there, dear; there's no objective reality to your grief and anger. You have not been hard-done-by; it's just how life goes."

The Theist can take the problem of evil seriously. But as you can see, the Atheist simply cannot...not so long as he speaks "as an Atheist."

Fortunately, most people don't really do that. Most people take their sense of injustice or horribleness as at least possibly signalling something real.

[promethean75]

"You can't accuse God of what you don't actually think is wrong. You can't accuse anybody of something that's not actually wrong."

He's still trying to catch you in this imaginary trap. Even after I explained that there is no trap. In one ear and out the other. These people are relentless, Biggs. I dunno how you do it.

[promethean75]

"allowed many Europeans to read The Bible for themselves and become intellectually independent of priests' interpretations and priests' vested interests."

Mm-hm. The Protestant revolution was to Christianity what capitalism was to feudalistic monarchy. The replacement of a former hierarchical tyranny with a new soon-to-be hierarchical tyranny. It was a decentralization of church power and hegemony... which liberated the individual from the religious state.... just as capitalism liberated merchants from the feudal state of rule.

Hundreds of years later, you have the late stage capitalism in which the new state merges with the most power capitalists, once again creating a tyranny over the working class.

Now you have the state, the capitalists and the church working against the proletariat.

So much for that idea, eh?