Philosophy Now Forum

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 5:31 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 4:36 pmOf course, it took a bloody civil war to end government-ignored slavery. God knows the price to be paid for draining the swamp that overwhelmingly votes for The Party in every election, and that focuses attention upon perpetuating The Party because for The Party, the method of government is Party before Constitution.

“Swamp” is a far too general term. It actually doesn’t mean much unless it is carefully defined. I think if you were to fill it out more your assessment could be better understood.

Walker wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 5:00 pm With his capacity, I don't think you would want IC on the dark side.

You have a plethora of grim fables to share.

But I am the 'male reproductive cell' that escaped all this silly nonsense. ( Remember I'm not a member of any club you belong to, I've got my own thing going on and it's nothing like yours in any way shape or form )

Walker wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 5:00 pm

Don't worry about Age. No one has the power to silence Age.

No human being has the power to silence the silence.

Woof! Woof! and is why you do philosophy.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 3:13 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 6:13 am when I go to discuss THAT God with 'you', "immanuel can", 'you' cower, run away, and hide...

You're so funny, Age.

You actually imagine you're some kind of challenge or threat. But everybody -- not just me -- knows you're crazy and incoherent, and don't know anything close to as much as you imagine you do, and so most of the time, they just ignore most of your messages, just as I do. That's why you find yourself furiously writing message after message, to which people often do not bother to respond at all. They're not paying attention anymore.

People aren't afraid of you, Sport: they find you utterly uninteresting, because you can't actually track an argument, follow a lucid thought, or provide any insight. If you had some humility or willingness to listen, instead of just a litany of off-point objections that merely show you don't know what you're dealing with at all, they might engage with you. But you don't stay focused long enough for them to bother.

But maybe I'm the only guy who will explain that to you. Still, if you realized it, you could get yourself out of that unpleasant situation; so in the interest of helping you along. I point it out to you.

You will become a teacher of yourself when for the same things that you blame others, you also blame yourself.

Y/OUR words have no copyright.

Walker wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 5:32 pm No, if he was on the dark side, you would be easy to crush.

I like a good grape, it's the seeds I'm not particularly keen on.

The mob is the mother of tyrants.

Walker wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 5:32 pm No, if he was on the dark side, you would be easy to crush.

What a hellish philosophy, keep going, you are on fire right now.

Walker wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 5:32 pm No, if he was on the dark side, you would be easy to crush.

Why not whip the teacher when the pupil misbehaves?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 6:00 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 5:32 pm No, if he was on the dark side, you would be easy to crush.

What a hellish philosophy, keep going, you are on fire right now.

That's what makes the dark side devoid of light, and it's what makes hell, hell.
It crushes the spirit.
For some reason, you appear to be hellbent on crushing the spirit of IC.
Are you an agent of the dark side?

Bishop Bullwinkle Hell To Da Naw,Naw,Naw With Da Bicycle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QxIIz1yEsA

Like MLK, Bullwinkle utilizes an answering voice.
(Bullwinkle is an anti-neiner, 'cause he says The hell with the No No No ... to Life.)

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Oct 16, 2022 8:20 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Oct 16, 2022 7:38 pm burn in Hell for eternity

That does appear to be a stumbling block of comprehension for atheists.

Well, the stumbling block for this atheist revolves more around Christians who claim to comprehend Hell but are than unable to actually demonstrate why all rational men and women are obligated to believe that, in fact, it actually does exist.

As for this particularly ponderous intellectual contraption...

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Oct 16, 2022 8:20 pmHowever, burning in hell in eternity does make perfectly logical, rational, secular sense, when one doesn't interject their fears and beliefs into the understanding, or worry so much about what other folks think.

Hell only exists in the present. Causation puts you in hell. As a human you have the capacity to know, and the means of knowing, the causation that will put you in hell right now. The way out of hell is also caused, right now. Some causes created by your actions will land you in hell now and all the nows you can ever know. Other causes by your actions will not spare you. Still other causes by your actions will remove you from hell you are in now, while you’re still able to act. Christianity explains the causes and the effects.

The reason Christianity has persisted is because people have lived the causes and effects. It's tried and thus true.

There is no faith in this. It’s the natural way of things.

...how would you go about demonstrating that it is, in fact, true?

You know, before moving on to the Christian God and this:

...an endless procession of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and tornadoes and hurricanes and great floods and great droughts and great fires and deadly viral and bacterial plagues and miscarriages and hundreds and hundreds of medical and mental afflictions and extinction events...making life on Earth a living hell for countless millions of men, women and children down through the ages...

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 7:20 pm...

Other than in speculation of memory or prediction, hell can only exist in the present. Those who are in hell, know it. A contiguous string of present moments, all in hell, establish the continuity of hell that will permeate and consume all that you can ever know. As a hell being, you perceive phenomena differently than those who are not in hell. You perceive ugliness where others perceive beauty, and that's because you're in hell. (Not you personally ... the plural "you" of humanity who fits the bill).

If you are a hell being, you will not be singing Little Orphan Annie's Song ever again after the hurricane comes to town, unless in mockery.

That's understandable after your ground has been ripped away, and the objects of your attachments, including your beloved, can never be found again.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 2:55 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 12:01 am If the earth and everything on it were destroyed by a collision with a massive asteroid, would justice continue to exist in our universe?

Would God continue to have the same nature and character, the one in which "justice" is grounded as a property? Yes, obviously.

Would there be any human experience of that? No, not any longer, obviously.

But I get the feeling those answers are so obvious that I must be missing something that's supposed to be difficult in answering that...what am I not understanding about your question, Nick?

Normally the concept of justice is restricted to what happens on the earth and how we react towards one another. In other words humanity defines justice and claim it to be what God wants. However what if the universe is a giant living machine consisting of levels of reality as described in the great chain of being? The higher conscious levels have a responsibility to the lower conscious levels helping them to evolve and partake in the great cycles of life: the continual process of involution and evolution plurality into wholeness. It enables the universe to serve its purpose through the exchange of substances as this living machine eats itself.

Universal justice and the consciousness creating it will continue to exist regardless if the earth is destroyed while the interpretations creating subjective justice will disappear along with the earth.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 16, 2022 10:29 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Oct 16, 2022 9:52 pm Let's start at the top. The first Commandment:

Exodus 20:1-3 “And God spoke all these words, saying, ‘I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me.'”

Okay, you tell me [and henry]: does the Deist God count?

You have the commandment. How do you read it?

Doesn't seem all that ambiguous at all to me. It's telling henry that his own Deist God does not come before Him. Then, of course, the only question is this: come Judgment Day, what if henry persists in "having" the Deist God instead?

Does the Christian God grant dispensations to those who do not worship and adore Him but who share His own political prejudices?

How about quoting the Scripture in regard to that. Because, if it's not in the Bible, doesn't it then just become what you think is true here "in your head"?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 16, 2022 10:29 pmIsn't it very obvious that the commandment allows that there is but one God? So it rules out making up alternate gods, or adding gods, to the God of Israel.

Yeah, that's my point to henry. His "one God" is not your "one God". And there are either actual consequences for that on Judgment Day or there are not. Bazookas notwithstanding.

Then the part where, on Judgment Day, the God of Abraham must give a thumbs up or a thumbs down to those who worship and adore Him as either Christians, Muslims or Jews.

Then, in my view, how you "wiggle, wiggle, wiggle" around all that because henry and you are buddies here...on the same page politically.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 16, 2022 10:29 pmNow, somebody who takes that commandment can discuss the nature and character of that God, or His expectations, and even His identity. What's clear, if we take that commandment seriously, is that no one is permitted to be either an Atheist or a Polytheist. Nor is such a one going to believe in a God that is not the God of that particular commandment...assuming he takes it as a "commandment."

In other words, henry might get a pass from the Christian God but no fucking way will an atheist!!

And, again, the irony here that the omniscient Christian God "somehow" gives us free will. But then when some of us use it honestly, sincerely and introspectively to think through the existence of God with genuine intentions, we still get tossed in Hell if we are unable to believe in Him. Your "loving, just and merciful" God.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 16, 2022 10:29 pmAs to whether or not the God of the Bible, and hence of that commandment, is Henry's God, you'll have to ask Henry. It's not my job to declare that for him; he is of age and capability to speak to that.

I have asked him. At least before he put me in the "penalty box". And his answers were basically just the philosophical equivalent of flippant shrugs.

And, sure, who knows, if he arrives at the Pearly Gates and tries that approach with the Christian God...it might work there too.

Right?

Walker wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 7:26 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 7:20 pm...

Other than in speculation of memory or prediction, hell can only exist in the present. Those who are in hell, know it. A contiguous string of present moments, all in hell, establish the continuity of hell that will permeate and consume all that you can ever know. As a hell being, you perceive phenomena differently than those who are not in hell. You perceive ugliness where others perceive beauty, and that's because you're in hell. (Not you personally ... the plural "you" of humanity who fits the bill).

If you are a hell being, you will not be singing Little Orphan Annie's Song ever again after the hurricane comes to town, unless in mockery.

That's understandable after your ground has been ripped away, and the objects of your attachments, including your beloved, can never be found again.

Meno! Is this you?!

Or [sigh] is this just one more example of how philosophy venues seem to attract those with a "condition".

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 7:49 pm Normally the concept of justice is restricted to what happens on the earth and how we react towards one another.

Not Biblically, though.

Thinking that way requires a secular mindset first, as you point out.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 7:52 pm Does the Christian God grant dispensations to those who do not worship and adore Him but who share His own political prejudices?

No, of course not. Politics have nothing to do with salvation.

But you can read all this for yourself: you don't need me to tell you. I point you to John 3. It gives you the terms of salvation.

Yeah, that's my point to henry. His "one God" is not your "one God".

It's up to him to say.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 16, 2022 10:29 pmNow, somebody who takes that commandment can discuss the nature and character of that God, or His expectations, and even His identity. What's clear, if we take that commandment seriously, is that no one is permitted to be either an Atheist or a Polytheist. Nor is such a one going to believe in a God that is not the God of that particular commandment...assuming he takes it as a "commandment."

In other words, henry might get a pass from the Christian God but no fucking way will an atheist!

Having trouble reading English again?

No exceptinos are mentioned. You made that up.

And, again, the irony here that the omniscient Christian God "somehow" gives us free will. But then when some of us use it honestly, sincerely and introspectively to think through the existence of God with genuine intentions, we still get tossed in Hell if we are unable to believe in Him. Your "loving, just and merciful" God.

So your intentions are pure, you say? And you're honest, sincere and thinking it through? If that's true, you will find God. if it's not, then you get what you have chosen...to insult God, and then face the consequences of your rejection of Him.

Seems very fair.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 16, 2022 10:29 pmAs to whether or not the God of the Bible, and hence of that commandment, is Henry's God, you'll have to ask Henry. It's not my job to declare that for him; he is of age and capability to speak to that.

I have asked him. At least before he put me in the "penalty box". And his answers were basically just the philosophical equivalent of flippant shrugs.

Then that's what you get.