The Philosophy Now Forum

Fanman wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2026 9:58 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2026 9:30 pm

Fanman wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2026 6:21 pm From my perspective, it doesn't seem logical to attribute the full scope of human morality to a being that is purportedly not human.

The part you are not considering is that “God took a human body” and lived as a man. It does change just about everything.

Can you be specific?

Yes. In Christian theology that, say, abstract God incarnated into a human womb; was born, suffered everything everyone sufferes here, so that (I guess) it could be fully known (?) The suffering of the man Jesus and the overall overcoming, established (as Kierkegaard expressed it) a movement to draw all humanity ‘upward’.

That paradigm of compassion (Jesus’ compasdion and empathy) for men sets the stage for deep empathy with the confition of men universally …

Etc etc.

Fanman wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2026 10:59 pm [This forum doesn't have the strict rules of conduct I am used to, but I will not get used to him any time soon. When he attacks me, I will defend myself.

Sure, why not?

I do suggest though that you will (eventually) grow weary.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2026 11:03 pm

Fanman wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2026 9:58 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2026 9:30 pm

The part you are not considering is that “God took a human body” and lived as a man. It does change just about everything.

Can you be specific?

Yes. In Christian theology that, say, abstract God incarnated into a human womb; was born, suffered everything everyone sufferes here, so that (I guess) it could be fully known (?) The suffering of the man Jesus and the overall overcoming, established (as Kierkegaard expressed it) a movement to draw all humanity ‘upward’.

That paradigm of compassion (Jesus’ compasdion and empathy) for men sets the stage for deep empathy with the confition of men universally …

Etc etc.

Biblically, Jesus Christ is divine; that is his true nature. How would we justify the ontological leap of applying human morals to a divine being who is also the source of morality? The categories don't allow for bidirectional transfer because we cannot fathom the divine; we don't know its oughts. Jesus may have existed (in the form) of a man for a while, but essentially He was God in the flesh — the classification for that is Christ, not human. That said, we cannot ignore the fact that he lived a human life. But I am not sure whether that 'fact' gives us a way to subject Him to human judgement; the idea doesn't correlate in my mind, but maybe it will become clearer.

Ontologically, can we treat Jesus Christ as a human being? Currently, I'd say no because he is the only begotten Son of God (according to Scripture).

John 1:1-2 states:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God.

We can only reason about the ontological implications of that speculatively (IMO).

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2026 11:06 pm

Fanman wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2026 10:59 pm [This forum doesn't have the strict rules of conduct I am used to, but I will not get used to him any time soon. When he attacks me, I will defend myself.

Sure, why not?

I do suggest though that you will (eventually) grow weary.

So can he.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2026 10:54 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2026 9:44 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2026 9:38 pm


Yes, I certainly can. For the reasons that I clearly explain.

The issue of human selfishness, of acts of cruelty, theft, and much else, stem from “the nature of the world”.

True malevolence is perhaps a somewhat separate category.

"A somewhat separate category"? Can you explain?

Yes. A man, a person, who chooses to do deliberate, willed harm to another person falls into that category.

Yes, that's "malevolence" defined...but what makes it "evil." Where is it written in the secular code of things, if such exists, that a man is not allowed to choose to be malevolent?

“systematic malevolence”

"Systemic"? How can a "system" have any motivations at all, let alone "malevolence"?

Theft, taking what is not one’s own, selfishness, self-centeredness, seem to directly reflect Nature. Even within a dog pack a stronger dog takes what he can get from a weaker one. There is no ‘moral rule’.

Not for dogs, maybe....

Fanman wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2026 10:59 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2026 10:56 pm

Fanman wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2026 10:34 pm For the neutral reader,

This:



Is not a statement of fact. It's an inference from someone who is openly posting against me and is seemingly preoccupied with my use of AI.

Note from a user. You’ll get used to Flash. He simply ‘rolls’ a bit differently than do most …

This forum doesn't have the strict rules of conduct I am used to, but I will not get used to him any time soon. When he attacks me, I will defend myself.

He doesn't care in the least about that. It's like being savaged by a damp lettuce.

I came up with this regarding our discussion, Alexi,

Where there can be no substantive epistemic conclusion, there can be no absolute judgement. That is because logical distinction requires sufficient information to make a conclusion. We lack sufficient information about divine ontology; therefore, logic cannot give us a conclusive (or absolute) answer. However, based on the information that we do have, speculation is plausible.

So, can we apply the full scope of human morals to a divine being? Speculatively, yes. But doing so conclusively is not currently plausible.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2026 11:54 pm

Fanman wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2026 10:59 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2026 10:56 pm
Note from a user. You’ll get used to Flash. He simply ‘rolls’ a bit differently than do most …

This forum doesn't have the strict rules of conduct I am used to, but I will not get used to him any time soon. When he attacks me, I will defend myself.

He doesn't care in the least about that. It's like being savaged by a damp lettuce.

Why should I take abuse? I was born free. Under the yellow sun of England. I know my rights. You can only operate in a place without strict rules. One narrative comes after the next. Continually hounding me because I enjoy using AI. Keep it coming, Flash. Maybe one day you will tire me out with your philosophy...

Fanman wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2026 11:32 pm Jesus may have existed (in the form) of a man for a while, but essentially He was God in the flesh — the classification for that is Christ, not human.

If my understanding is correct, Jesus is understood to have, in some sense, relinquished Godness to live the life of a man, under those constraints. So: human but also God.

Fanman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 12:01 am I came up with this regarding our discussion, Alexi,

Where there can be no substantive epistemic conclusion, there can be no absolute judgement. That is because logical distinction requires sufficient information to make a conclusion. We lack sufficient information about divine ontology; therefore, logic cannot give us a conclusive (or absolute) answer. However, based on the information that we do have, speculation is plausible.

So, can we apply the full scope of human morals to a divine being? Speculatively, yes. But doing so conclusively is not currently plausible.

I can go along with that argument, its structure. But “theology” (in various schools) establishes and concludes differently. When you introduce “inspired intelligence” the picture changes.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2026 9:13 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2026 4:05 pmThe “problem of evil” always involves a story, a mythology. Be it “the Fall” or any number of mythic tales about how we find ourselves in this jam. Is there really anything so complex and mysterious about ‘evil’?

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2026 5:47 pm No. The problem of evil is a very specific thing. A trivial paradox in which a contrast is drawn between an all powerful God who could alter the universe in any miraculous way he sees fit at any time, and all loving God who abhors evil, and the evils manifest in the suffering that exists in the world around us, frequently afflicting the innocent.

However I am not referencing any specific “problem” but rather attempting a more limited definition and also a simpler one. It doesn’t exactly matter who created the world. The world, from a conscious man’s perspective, is terrible from any “moral” position one can hold. It seems to me that there is nothing more clear as well as undeniable.

If you are talking about something other than the well known The Problem of Evil, in a context of repsonding to people discussing the well known The Problem of Evil, but for some reason are not actually talking about the well known The Problem of Evil that everyone else is talking about, might I suggest referring to whatever you are talking about as anything except the well known The Problem of Evil. You know, just to avoid looking like you perhaps don't know what the well known The Problem of Evil is?


Your thing seems to be the toe-stub of teen anguish.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2026 9:13 pm Man “goes to battle” against this world, this fate, this reality, because the truth about it is that it doesn’t give a fig about his morals or his problems with the nature of natural reality.

Does he pull up his fighting trousers of rage to protect his knobbly knees of despair from the bitter winds of turpitude while he's at it?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2026 9:13 pm But for an awakened, conscious man to become sensitive to ‘reality’ and to really see it, can rather easily drive him over the edge. It is in that sense like staring into an abyss. He might desire an answer but no answer can come (from nature) — just a swarm of aggressive army ants that mercilessly devours him, morsel by morsel …

You sound like Morissey complaining about a bycicle. Why such purpleness of prose?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2026 9:13 pm The problem of attributing the creation of such a world to a divinity is another issue altogether. There is no way to reconcile the thought that a divinity that would create such a brutal world is likely a brutal being, or a sadistic torturer; and square it with the more desirable and hoped-for thought that God exists in a super-physical plane and might invite us to eventually take our residence there at some point.

Yeah... that's just your version of the well known The Problem of Evil

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2026 9:13 pm In that situation, which is very kafkaesque, a man must “interpret”: Why is he in this realm with such hellish elements? He is torn between the astounding beauty of it all, and certain moments when the world smiles and for moments he is suffused with feelings of satisfaction and gratitude…but then in the next moment it all turns nasty. Again, when awake and aware he knows that he can rely on nothing. He must always be on his toes and must, somehow, outwit something in the very nature of the domain.

Now you sound like Morissey complaining Sartre punched his bycicle.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2026 9:13 pm In one way or another he feels — what is the alternative? — that he is here because of some fault of his nature. And naturally what follows in that he must do something to get out of the mess.

Staring into the face of Nature, no answer comes. But in the religions I have studied — and this is central in Christianity — there is an entity that effectively can bring not only the circumstance of incarnation to an end (man having been cast down into the ‘world’ as it is) but in fact desires this result and, with proper attitude and actions, guarantees a way out and as it were “up”.

And yet as far as I am aware you don't believe in any of that life after death stuff any more than I do.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 12:10 am

Fanman wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2026 11:32 pm Jesus may have existed (in the form) of a man for a while, but essentially He was God in the flesh — the classification for that is Christ, not human.

If my understanding is correct, Jesus is understood to have, in some sense, relinquished Godness to live the life of a man, under those constraints. So: human but also God.

I can't comment on giving up 'Godness,' but I agree with "So: human but also God." I think the Catholics call His state on earth the hypostatic union.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2026 11:53 pm Yes, that's "malevolence" defined...but what makes it "evil." Where is it written in the secular code of things, if such exists, that a man is not allowed to choose to be malevolent?

Personally, I think man defines “the earth” as evil. The natural system, the way it works, its mindlessness, its amorality. But the things the Earth and Nature does to him, he cannot quite ‘take personally’. So he ascribes it to an evil spirit. A malevolence inherent in nature.

“Evil” is a peculiarly charged category, isn’t it?

If you answer the question (as you can only do by way of a NT lens) you associate evil with the demonic. And of course you have and must have a theory (picture) about how evil got here. First pure and divine (deathless), then beset with all the “evils” and unfortunate consequences one can name.

Why are you asking me about what the “secular” world thinks? Am I my brother’s keeper?

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 12:18 am Your thing seems to be the toe-stub of teen anguish.

I did actually (I am serious!) stub my toe the day before yesterday. Talk about acausal connecting principle!

Now you sound like Morissey complaining Sartre punched his bicycle.

Did that really happen?! If yesI think Morrissey had ground for a civil complaint. How was it resolved?

And yet as far as I am aware you don't believe in any of that life after death stuff any more than I do.

Hold on. Have you forgotten?! Alexis Jacobi is a disembodied Grand Master of Light. I communicate to one Mrs Terwilliger in a small town in rural Ohio via the Ouija board who posts my doctrines here. There’s more in heaven and earth than conceived of in your philosophies, Flash!

Fanman wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2026 5:11 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2026 4:42 pm Has that whiny little AI fiend stopped complaining about me yet?

Don't get any worse than you already are Jacobi. Begging AI to tell you how cool you are is just a way to show how weird you are.

In theory, this should be my last response to you, Flash (fingers crossed).

Hmmm... seems not.

Fanman wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2026 5:11 pm Oh, by the way, your critical error (IMO) was mocking ChatGPT for calling me "physically disciplined". How would you plausibly know I'm not? You are the poster child for biblical foolishness, as far as I am concerned. You don't have a single drop of evidence against me to substantiate a valid reason for your abusive behaviour. All you can do is act tough online, big man. Good luck.

Jeez. Why the Hell would chatbot call you "physically disciplined"? The issue is your obliviousness to what is being discussed here.

How bad is your dependency on AI that you've reached the point where you don't even understand why people think it's preposterous that you are posting attaboys from a robot congratulating you for doing push ups or whatever?

You should really be easily able to read between the lines why I think it's weird to ask ChatGPT if you are weird. If not, and if you really haven't been diagnosed with ASD, you gotta talk to your doctor about this, not me, and not a chat bot. You need to take a test.