God and morality

[Immanuel Can]

Is it possible for somebody to become a "friend of Gary" while believing that Gary is, say, a 5'4" Chinese female? To be in a relationship with somebody, don't you have to know who they are?

I have been a friend of Bill's for over 38 years, but I've never met him...

But if you thought "Bill" referred to a different person entirely, would you still be a friend of Bill?

[Impenitent]

Is it possible for somebody to become a "friend of Gary" while believing that Gary is, say, a 5'4" Chinese female? To be in a relationship with somebody, don't you have to know who they are?

I have been a friend of Bill's for over 38 years, but I've never met him...

But if you thought "Bill" referred to a different person entirely, would you still be a friend of Bill?

Bill could be on the front of a duck, the personage of Bill is a moot point

-Imp

[FlashDangerpants]

I think the best path is for us to avoid engaging with one another in the future.

I'm going to comment on anything I see fit to.

[Gary Childress]

I'd like to give both Flash and Fanman kudos for holding their respective grounds in a dignified manner. Can't knock that. Touche Gentlemen!

[Immanuel Can]

I have been a friend of Bill's for over 38 years, but I've never met him...

But if you thought "Bill" referred to a different person entirely, would you still be a friend of Bill?

Bill could be on the front of a duck, the personage of Bill is a moot point

Okay, that's your view, I guess.

But I don't think it's true. I think you have to know a person in order to be in any relationship with him/her. And if you don't, then whatever you claim, you're not.

[Fanman]

I think the best path is for us to avoid engaging with one another in the future.

I'm going to comment on anything I see fit to.

Okay, that's fine, Flash, but I'm not going to ignore your abuse anymore, as I have been. If you attack me again, I will defend myself. That is the new boundary I have set between us.

[FlashDangerpants]

I think the best path is for us to avoid engaging with one another in the future.

I'm going to comment on anything I see fit to.

Okay, that's fine, Flash, but I'm not going to ignore your abuse anymore, as I have been. If you attack me again, I will defend myself. That is the new boundary I have set between us.

You take everything so personally.

There's no reason why you can't become a decent philosopher. You just need to quit using AI to tell you how right you are and try to understand the arguments that philosophers have presented rather than just riding roughshod over the history of the subject.

If you get all grumpy when taken to task for these things, you will not achieve whatever it is you are trying to do, because you will never improve.

But I don't care very much. I don't take this stuff personally. I just would prefer it if the philosophy around here was a bit better than it has been recently.

[Impenitent]

But if you thought "Bill" referred to a different person entirely, would you still be a friend of Bill?

Bill could be on the front of a duck, the personage of Bill is a moot point

Okay, that's your view, I guess.

But I don't think it's true. I think you have to know a person in order to be in any relationship with him/her. And if you don't, then whatever you claim, you're not.

when did you shake Jesus' hand?

-Imp

[Alexis Jacobi]

The beginning is faith: "without faith, it is impossible to please God," says the Word. So personal belief in Christ as Saviour, not the example or the imitation, and certainly not trying hard (Eph. 2:8-9) is the gateway to becoming a Christian. Effort follows from salvation, of course; but it never leads.

If I had to speak on this, I’d have to say that in that old passage God was visualized, explained and understood in a certain way. I could not now say that faith is not needed, but we as modern men, and especially we who are in the midst of all the changes and progressions of knowledge, would do ourselves well to redefine and clarify, update, how we think about “faith”. Because the implication is that without that status or quality “God cannot be pleased”. But that view of “God” pictures God as rather stone-like. As if God, as consciousness awareness, as the ultimate in intuition, cannot, or worse will not see into the inner depths of every individual, and understand (and value) where they are in their life. They could be ‘faithless’ technically but in reality on a quite high plane.

A religion — be it Protestant Christianity of Catholicism — often sets up rules about how ‘piety’ is conducted, and there is, naturally, group attitudes that are established as being ‘the right ones to have’. I do not want to imply impiousness necessarily, nor minimize ethical conduct (always emphasized) but rather a subtlety and even a nuance in how God is conceived.

I personally find IC’s rigid Protestant conceptions to be erroneous on two levels: one insofar as it minimizes the high relevance of conduct to achieve “grace”. It simply does not stand up to reason. I get the Protestant conceptions however, but I think it is erroneous. And again: If we conceive of God at all, it seems absurd that that God would not order the priorities of piety so that conduct and even “willingness to obey” is not at the forefront, and the faith element rather below it.

Let me put it like this: If in your conception you define, say, child rape as an extreme evil, but yet believe that one who “has faith in Jesus” could have declared that faith at some point, even been faithful (whatever this is supposed to mean) but who commits such acts again and does not suffer the direst consequences, I say that one’s concepts are very mixed up.

It must be noted that in Catholicism there is such a thing as “mortal sin” and no matter if one at one moment one was “in Grace” if at another one commits “mortal sin” and does not deal with it, one falls from Grace. One must in this sense start over. Reestablish one’s status. So, one is — to put it colloquially — ever on one’s toes.

Effort follows from salvation, of course; but it never leads.

Effort might well not follow from this “salvation event”. And then as I have been saying a far fuller analysis of different levels of ‘complicity’ would be even more unlikely to be undertaken by one whose status is insecure. I am not saying this is done more in general Catholicism, and anyway this is all simply an examination of the concepts that undergird the religion.

[Gary Childress]

But if you thought "Bill" referred to a different person entirely, would you still be a friend of Bill?

Bill could be on the front of a duck, the personage of Bill is a moot point

Okay, that's your view, I guess.

But I don't think it's true. I think you have to know a person in order to be in any relationship with him/her. And if you don't, then whatever you claim, you're not.

If I come across someone who says that he's Jesus Christ and the Son of God and I don't believe he is telling me something that is true, either intentionally or under the fog of mental illness, can I not become friends with him or her, so long as s/he doesn't present a danger to me or anyone else?

I have a lot of friends in the mental health world, patients and clinicians and I'm friendly and OK with most all of them. I'm not as tolerant of bad behavior on the part of clinicians but I don't hold much against a person diagnosed with mental illness so long as he doesn't present an immediate danger.

Am I wrong or misguided to be that way?

[Immanuel Can]

Bill could be on the front of a duck, the personage of Bill is a moot point

Okay, that's your view, I guess.

But I don't think it's true. I think you have to know a person in order to be in any relationship with him/her. And if you don't, then whatever you claim, you're not.

If I come across someone who says that he's Jesus Christ and the Son of God and I don't believe he is telling me something that is true, either intentionally or under the fog of mental illness, can I not become friends with him or her, so long as s/he doesn't present a danger to me or anyone else?

That depends. If he were telling the truth, then obviously, no. If he's just a lunatic you're patronizing, then maybe that's a kind of friendship -- because you have a better idea of who he really is than he has, apparently.

But none of that addressed my question.

[Immanuel Can]

Bill could be on the front of a duck, the personage of Bill is a moot point

Okay, that's your view, I guess.

But I don't think it's true. I think you have to know a person in order to be in any relationship with him/her. And if you don't, then whatever you claim, you're not.

when did you shake Jesus' hand?

-Imp

I didn't. I believed what He said about Himself, and He has established the relationship...no credit to me.

[Gary Childress]

Okay, that's your view, I guess.

But I don't think it's true. I think you have to know a person in order to be in any relationship with him/her. And if you don't, then whatever you claim, you're not.

If I come across someone who says that he's Jesus Christ and the Son of God and I don't believe he is telling me something that is true, either intentionally or under the fog of mental illness, can I not become friends with him or her, so long as s/he doesn't present a danger to me or anyone else?

That depends. If he were telling the truth, then obviously, no. If he's just a lunatic you're patronizing, then maybe that's a kind of friendship -- because you have a better idea of who he really is than he has, apparently.

But none of that addressed my question.

Why do you think I am "patronizing" people with mental illness by being friends with them? I feel a lot in common with people who are diagnosed. I bond with them very strongly and genuinely. Should I not?

[Immanuel Can]

If I come across someone who says that he's Jesus Christ and the Son of God and I don't believe he is telling me something that is true, either intentionally or under the fog of mental illness, can I not become friends with him or her, so long as s/he doesn't present a danger to me or anyone else?

That depends. If he were telling the truth, then obviously, no. If he's just a lunatic you're patronizing, then maybe that's a kind of friendship -- because you have a better idea of who he really is than he has, apparently.

But none of that addressed my question.

Why do you think I am "patronizing" people with mental illness by being friends with them?

If you allow your friend to continue under the delusion he's Jesus, then yes, that's what you're doing. You're caring more about what he thinks of you than whether or not you allow him access to the truth. That's actually not a terribly friendly thing to do, if you did that.

[Fanman]

Flash stated: You take everything so personally.

My response: No, the fact is, I'm not taking your personal abuse anymore; there's an epistemological difference, don't you know that? It's over; I have put on my proverbial sparring gloves too.

Flash stated: There's no reason why you can't become a decent philosopher. You just need to quit using AI to tell you how right you are and try to understand the arguments that philosophers have presented rather than just riding roughshod over the history of the subject.

My response: So you are aware. I see your opinion about my ability as nonsensical (almost completely so given the gap between what we actually present on this forum). I'm not asking for your opinion about me; As stated, I don't see any value in it, but for some reason you keep giving it to me; maybe it's 'true love' . Also, please don't be concerned about my (personal) use of AI. That part of my life is my personal business, not yours. I don't tell you what you should and shouldn't do; if I wanted your opinion and guidance, I would ask for it. That's a fact.

Flash stated: If you get all grumpy when taken to task for these things, you will not achieve whatever it is you are trying to do, because you will never improve.

My response: What? Grumpy? I'm very happy where I am, mate. I mean, I can't dream of ever aspiring to your level of philosophical success and glory, but we can't all be perfect.

Flash stated: But I don't care very much. I don't take this stuff personally. I just would prefer it if the philosophy around here was a bit better than it has been recently.

My response: Improvement starts with yourself. Be the improvement you want to see, Flash, and things around you may naturally and progressively improve. Unless you feel that you don't need to improve, but everyone else does. That wouldn't surprise me.