Philosophy Now Forum

Schools and the Decalogue
There are states in the USA that require all schools to exhibit the ‘Ten Commandments’. Would it be acceptable for all schools globally to do so? On the basis that in essence or approximately they apply to all countries and states if the term ‘god’ signifies the fundamental ethos that everyone must have, and not propaganda for Judaism or Christianity. Such primary ethics applies to democracy and tyranny. It is only at the stage of employing secondary ethics that forms of society are set apart, as in Christianity and responsible democracy. The Church in Britain has been suppressed through its own fault in asserting a ‘god’ figure as against an ethos, or what is loosely a ‘spiritual god’.
You shall have no other gods before Me.
You shall make no idols.
You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
Keep the Sabbath day holy.
Honour your father and your mother.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.
You shall not covet.

RWStanding wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 6:54 amThe Church in Britain has been suppressed through its own fault in asserting a ‘god’ figure as against an ethos, or what is loosely a ‘spiritual god’.

What does this sentence mean?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 1:09 pm

RWStanding wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 6:54 amThe Church in Britain has been suppressed through its own fault in asserting a ‘god’ figure as against an ethos, or what is loosely a ‘spiritual god’.

What does this sentence mean?

I think he means something that's true: that in the interests of becoming more approachable to the general public, many forms of belief within the broad umbrella of "Christendom" (if we can borrow that antiquated and somewhat misleading collective term), have made the mistake of advocating a reduced and pallid version of "God," which is really not properly filled-out as the true God of Biblical Christianity. Instead, it's something on the way to being just "a higher Power," or "a Force" of some kind -- something much more Deistic than Christian -- something monotheistic, but vague, less-that-fully-personal and distant from ordinary affairs and real people.

But this version of "God" does not have much flesh on his bones, so to speak; and not surprisingly, the reaction of the public has not been to rush to embrace this watered-down, etiolated pseudo "God," but they have instead received the impression that there isn't enough in this conception of God to matter at all. Understandably, they've decided not to bother.

What RW seems to be avocating is some sort of return to a more vigorous description of God. But, with all due deference to your intent, RW, I think it won't be found through a mere return to the Decalogue. The Decalogue did not keep Israel on track, did it? And it will not keep the UK public on track, either. For it was never intended to do so, even when God gave it (Gal. 3:24).

The most we could say about the Decalogue is that it was a set of ethical-legal regulations given to Israel in an interim period; it's certainly not the sum and total of ethics, just as ethics are not the sum and total of Christianity. They are but aspects of a much greater whole. And some restoration of what the totality of that whole is would be necessary before any real revival of public ethics or religious respect would be possible...let alone any broad experience of spiritual salvation.

So I'm in agreement with RW's wish to make the public more aware of a fully-fleshed-out conception of who the Christian God is, whether they choose to accept or reject that full conception. But I think it has to be the full conception of God Himself that they come to understand, not merely a return to a list of 10 basic rules of ethics and law.

But RW can explain his view better than I can, I'm sure...so I'll pause there to give him that space.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 1:23 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 1:09 pm

RWStanding wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 6:54 amThe Church in Britain has been suppressed through its own fault in asserting a ‘god’ figure as against an ethos, or what is loosely a ‘spiritual god’.

What does this sentence mean?

I think he means something that's true: that in the interests of becoming more approachable to the general public, many forms of belief within the broad umbrella of "Christendom" (if we can borrow that antiquated and somewhat misleading collective term), have made the mistake of advocating a reduced and pallid version of "God," which is really not properly filled-out as the true God of Biblical Christianity. Instead, it's something on the way to being just "a higher Power," or "a Force" of some kind -- something much more Deistic than Christian -- something monotheistic, but vague, less-that-fully-personal and distant from ordinary affairs and real people.

And what would I read to find evidence that this is actually the case, that the god of the church of England (that's what you're talking about, right? The church of England?) is defined in this way, in contrast to how it's defined in standard Catholicism or popular Protestant churches?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 1:33 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 1:23 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 1:09 pm

What does this sentence mean?

I think he means something that's true: that in the interests of becoming more approachable to the general public, many forms of belief within the broad umbrella of "Christendom" (if we can borrow that antiquated and somewhat misleading collective term), have made the mistake of advocating a reduced and pallid version of "God," which is really not properly filled-out as the true God of Biblical Christianity. Instead, it's something on the way to being just "a higher Power," or "a Force" of some kind -- something much more Deistic than Christian -- something monotheistic, but vague, less-that-fully-personal and distant from ordinary affairs and real people.

And what would I read to find evidence that this is actually the case, that the god of the church of England (that's what you're talking about, right? The church of England?) is defined in this way, in contrast to how it's defined in standard Catholicism or popular Protestant churches?

I think you could read rather broadly and find it out. But it would take a lot of reading, since the claim is a very broad one, about a whole denomination, and in fact, several different denominations, to be honest. But somebody soaked in the theology of conservative Protestantism would not find it difficult to see. And I have watched it happen for several decades now, and have seen it traced back to the early part of the last century in literature, as well. It seems the real trade-off began, in a small way, with things like the late-1800s "Social Gospel" movement, and then continued in a series of gradual PR trade-offs in small increments, accelerating at various points (whenever a given chuch became specially concerned about its potential alienation from the larger culture) and culminating where we are.

But maybe the easiest way to confirm it is simply to look at the version of "God" that so many of these denominations, including the C of E, are offering to the public now. Is what they are offering a complex, personal relationship with a personal, holy, triune and dynamic God, or merely the prospect in the theoretical belief in a sort of distant, benign, impersonal and largely indifferent, monolithic "overlord"? Or are they merely advocating a return of the public to the practice of general ethics of a vaguely Christian sort, absent any relationship to God at all?

Much of broader Christendom, you will find, is doing just that. And I'm suggesting that not only is such a vague "God" conception not enough to renew public life, it really shouldn't be: that if all we Christians were to have to offer was that kind of "God," then it's unsurprising that the secular public remains unimpressed. I would be, too: for what has such a conception of "God" got to offer by way of meaning for me? And who wants a merely distant and austere moral overlord? Of what real use is such, in the actual challenges of a human life?

So it is really no wonder that NIetzsche (a contemporary of the Social Gospel Movement, you will note) declared "God is dead, and we have killed him." If we think of the proper and full conception of God, then that is a claim that even a Christian can find winsome: nobody any longer knows why we need God, and the fault is that those who claimed to speak of Him spoke of something so utterly remote from His real identity that perhaps we "killed" His rightful image with the general public.

Whether God Himself is dead, of course, or whether He has ceased to be all that He truly is, as the result of this decline in public profile...that's a different question, and not one which a real Christian would propose.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 1:51 pm

So no straight forward resources then? I just have to be completely immersed in both general Christianity and English Christianity specifically in order to see it?

Fair enough, I thought possibly there was something you could just quickly and easily point to. Guess that's not the case.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 2:17 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 1:51 pm

So no straight forward resources then? I just have to be completely immersed in both general Christianity and English Christianity specifically in order to see it?

As I say, not necessarily. You could just look at what's being offered today, and see if it is a complete picture of God or just a vague, Deistic kind of "godishness." Looking at different churches will yield you different results. But you'll certainly find that there is a large number of mainline denominational churches (such as the United, Methodist, Lutheran, C. of E., and other ones), in which God is presented in pretty much this fashion, except in rare cases when such churches have become independent in relation to the dicates of their synods or established denominational rules. These more independent churches often present a much more complete and winsome picture of God, even when their denominational headquarters and many of their associated churches have fumbled the text.

Fair enough, I thought possibly there was something you could just quickly and easily point to. Guess that's not the case.

I'd love to make it simple for you, honestly. But human nature isn't simple, and human behaviour isn't simple, and the history of all church denominations is long and complex. But I can give you a source or two that might be a fruitful place from which to form at least a basic opinion about that.

For example: "A new Pew Research Center survey of more than 4,700 U.S. adults finds that one-third of Americans say they do not believe in the God of the Bible, but that they do believe there is some other higher power or spiritual force in the universe. A slim majority of Americans (56%) say they believe in God “as described in the Bible.” And one-in-ten do not believe in any higher power or spiritual force."
(https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/20 ... they-mean/)

Of course, this leaves us with the question, "When Americans say they believe in 'the God of the Bible,' what conception do they think that is?" And I suspect it is more often the vague, Deistic kind of conception, one that is actually NOT Biblical, or some similarly half-baked understanding of God that some or many of them believe amounts to being "the God of the Bible." That seems to me to be experientially true, though I cannot prove it. And to imagine that more than half of the people in America have a really clear idea of what they mean by "God" when they say the word, or "Biblical God" when they claim as much, seems to me unduly optimistic, given that only one in five Americans has even read the whole Bible even once (https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/ ... inish.html). How can people who've never read the whole Bible even once be sure that the idea of "God" they are following is fully "Biblical"?

And if that's true, then even that bleak statistic may be bleaker still, in reality. But there would have to be much more research to confirm that.

The important thing, though, is that this palid, weak, distant view of God is almost always the starting point for public debates about the possibility and relevance of God, it seems. And if so, it's not really surprising that believing in God is not highly compelling to the public mind in Western democracies today. It's like Oxford professor of Pure Mathematics, John Lennox, said to Richard Dawkins in one of their debates: "I don't believe in the God you don't believe in either." Dawkins hated that: but there's something to it. If all that is presented to the public is a kind of vague "Force" or cosmic hall-monitor in place of the real God, no wonder people don't believe in it. It's not who God is.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 6:19 pmYou could just look at what's being offered today, and see if it is a complete picture of God or just a vague, Deistic kind of "godishness."

How do I just look at that? Do I need to attend many dozens of church services? Are there links that they give that show what you're saying about them in their own words?

It's okay if this is some kind of insiders-only discussion. It's okay if the answer is "you would, in fact, only know if that claim is true if you're immersed in modern Christian thought." Not all conversations make themselves available to outsiders, and that's okay. The way you're making it sound simple and easy, "just do this one thing", suggests that it's not only for insiders to know, but I'm getting the impression that it is really inscrutable to outsiders.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 6:55 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 6:19 pmYou could just look at what's being offered today, and see if it is a complete picture of God or just a vague, Deistic kind of "godishness."

How do I just look at that? Do I need to attend many dozens of church services? Are there links that they give that show what you're saying about them in their own words?

It's okay if this is some kind of insiders-only discussion. It's okay if the answer is "you would, in fact, only know if that claim is true if you're immersed in modern Christian thought." Not all conversations make themselves available to outsiders, and that's okay. The way you're making it sound simple and easy, "just do this one thing", suggests that it's not only for insiders to know, but I'm getting the impression that it is really inscrutable to outsiders.

I thought I was being quite clear that it's complex. Did I not begin with the recognition that human nature and behaviour are not simple matters to unpack?

However, in spite of that, and as a favour, I was trying to simplify it for you as much as is practical, by giving you two articles that are starting points to show the general truth of what I was saying; I wasn't suggesting that I could provide you with an exhaustive picture in one link. That would, indeed, be unreasonable for me to offer, or for you to anticipate.

For more specifics, you'd have to pick a particular group or denomination to investigate, and take a look at their own pronouncements, whether in print, in video, or on their own websites. But if you were more interested in the general public discourse, it's pretty easy to show that the conception of a "God" of which they're speaking is usually quite unfocused and non-specific. That is the level at which the Atheist-Theist debates all take place, for example, since "Atheist" is an unfocused concept, and "Theist" is so broad a collective term that it collects such unlike views as the proposed "God" of Islam with the "God" of Judaism, or the "God" of Protestantism with the proposed "God" of Deism or Unitarianism. So it's not at all hard to see how macro-level the philosophical debate seems to stay: the theological debates within a particular "religon" are much more precise and focused, of course; but that requires a fair bit of challenging reading.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 7:37 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 6:55 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 6:19 pmYou could just look at what's being offered today, and see if it is a complete picture of God or just a vague, Deistic kind of "godishness."

How do I just look at that? Do I need to attend many dozens of church services? Are there links that they give that show what you're saying about them in their own words?

It's okay if this is some kind of insiders-only discussion. It's okay if the answer is "you would, in fact, only know if that claim is true if you're immersed in modern Christian thought." Not all conversations make themselves available to outsiders, and that's okay. The way you're making it sound simple and easy, "just do this one thing", suggests that it's not only for insiders to know, but I'm getting the impression that it is really inscrutable to outsiders.

I thought I was being quite clear that it's complex. Did I not begin with the recognition that human nature and behaviour are not simple matters to unpack?

The word "just" maybe has more weight to me than it does to you. "Just do this thing" implies it's easy - yet when I read "just look at what's being offered", I wouldn't even know how to begin doing that, so it seems odd to use the word "just" there, when the thing I should "just" do has no clear actionable path.

But maybe you didn't intend for the word "just" to have as much weight as I interpret.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 7:45 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 7:37 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 6:55 pm

How do I just look at that? Do I need to attend many dozens of church services? Are there links that they give that show what you're saying about them in their own words?

It's okay if this is some kind of insiders-only discussion. It's okay if the answer is "you would, in fact, only know if that claim is true if you're immersed in modern Christian thought." Not all conversations make themselves available to outsiders, and that's okay. The way you're making it sound simple and easy, "just do this one thing", suggests that it's not only for insiders to know, but I'm getting the impression that it is really inscrutable to outsiders.

I thought I was being quite clear that it's complex. Did I not begin with the recognition that human nature and behaviour are not simple matters to unpack?

The word "just" maybe has more weight to me than it does to you.

Perhaps so. But I've done both sides of that equation for you: admitted the complexity, but pointed you to the simplest routes possible. So you can "just" go farther with that line of inquiry, or abandon it, as you see fit, I suppose.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 7:47 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 7:45 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 7:37 pm
I thought I was being quite clear that it's complex. Did I not begin with the recognition that human nature and behaviour are not simple matters to unpack?

The word "just" maybe has more weight to me than it does to you.

Perhaps so. But I've done both sides of that equation for you: admitted the complexity, but pointed you to the simplest routes possible. So you can "just" go farther with that line of inquiry, or abandon it, as you see fit, I suppose.

I was interested to find out what exactly these people in the church of england were saying that's being interpreted in the ways you're saying, so ideally I would just have liked a couple direct links of things they actually say. If I have to fully immerse myself in English theology for years to try to find out what you're saying, then I guess this can just be a discussion for insiders.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 7:51 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 7:47 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 7:45 pm
The word "just" maybe has more weight to me than it does to you.

Perhaps so. But I've done both sides of that equation for you: admitted the complexity, but pointed you to the simplest routes possible. So you can "just" go farther with that line of inquiry, or abandon it, as you see fit, I suppose.

I was interested to find out what exactly these people in the church of england were saying that's being interpreted in the ways you're saying, so ideally I would just have liked a couple direct links of things they actually say. If I have to fully immerse myself in English theology for years to try to find out what you're saying, then I guess this can just be a discussion for insiders.

Oh? You wanted the C of E specifically? You never said.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/short ... canterbury.
https://anglican.ink/2023/10/09/why-we- ... f-england/
https://anglican.ink/2023/07/07/the-chu ... oblematic/
A small sample of the internal struggles to define "God" and to take a definitive position on what this "God" would want. But it shows that this stuff is not hard to find...particularly if the putative head of the church himself can't figure out if God is a male figure, or what he wants in relation to sexual politics, or whether what Jesus prayed is okay for Christians to pray...That all bespeaks a pretty confused understanding of the "God," concept, as even Anglicans themselves admit.

Does that help?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 8:02 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 7:51 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 7:47 pm
Perhaps so. But I've done both sides of that equation for you: admitted the complexity, but pointed you to the simplest routes possible. So you can "just" go farther with that line of inquiry, or abandon it, as you see fit, I suppose.

I was interested to find out what exactly these people in the church of england were saying that's being interpreted in the ways you're saying, so ideally I would just have liked a couple direct links of things they actually say. If I have to fully immerse myself in English theology for years to try to find out what you're saying, then I guess this can just be a discussion for insiders.

Oh? You wanted the C of E specifically? You never said.

I didn't?

These are my words:

And what would I read to find evidence that this is actually the case, that the god of the church of England (that's what you're talking about, right? The church of England?) is defined in this way, in contrast to how it's defined in standard Catholicism or popular Protestant churches?

I appreciate the links, reading.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 8:02 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 7:51 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 7:47 pm
Perhaps so. But I've done both sides of that equation for you: admitted the complexity, but pointed you to the simplest routes possible. So you can "just" go farther with that line of inquiry, or abandon it, as you see fit, I suppose.

I was interested to find out what exactly these people in the church of england were saying that's being interpreted in the ways you're saying, so ideally I would just have liked a couple direct links of things they actually say. If I have to fully immerse myself in English theology for years to try to find out what you're saying, then I guess this can just be a discussion for insiders.

Oh? You wanted the C of E specifically? You never said.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/short ... canterbury.
https://anglican.ink/2023/10/09/why-we- ... f-england/
https://anglican.ink/2023/07/07/the-chu ... oblematic/
A small sample of the internal struggles to define "God" and to take a definitive position on what this "God" would want. But it shows that this stuff is not hard to find..

Not knowing what you googled, this doesn't show anything about how hard to find it is. I tried googling your words prior and didn't find this stuff. I tried "church of england god pallid", didn't get this kind of stuff. I appreciate the resources, I don't know why you feel the need to belittle me for not knowing what to search. I'm not immersed in the culture, OP was incredibly vague, you were a lot less vague but I still obviously didn't know what to google. Since you did know, you - finally - got some links, which I appreciate, and supplemented it with this "not hard to find" bit, which I don't appreciate. It feels like a very unnecessary rib-jab in what was otherwise quite a helpful thing for you to provide, and a reasonable thing for me to ask about.

I don't know what you searched, so I have no idea how hard to find it really was. You know what you're talking about, I'm asking what you're talking about, OF COURSE it's easier for you to find it than for me.