fascism in America?

[iambiguous]

At the time, he was destroying a Pharisaic trap involving taxation, actually. I'm not sure exactly how you're trying to apply that to Judgment Day...

Huh? Are you telling me that anything at all that we mere mortals do in our 70 odd year sojourn down here on Earth isn't applicable to Judgment Day? You know, the day when "I" confronts all the rest of eternity: up or down.

And here today, as back then, the government takes the taxes of citizens and, no doubt, uses the money to pursue any number of polices that might be an abomination to your God. How can this all not get ambiguous, convoluted, confusing.

"Mennonite Dale Glass-Hess wrote:

It is inconceivable to me that Jesus would teach that some spheres of human activity lie outside the authority of God. Are we to heed Caesar when he says to go to war or support war-making when Jesus says in other places that we shall not kill? No! My perception of this incident is that Jesus does not answer the question about the morality of paying taxes to Caesar, but that he throws it back on the people to decide."

He throws it back at the people [their value judgments rooted in dasein] but does not give them a definitive answer rooted instead in God's -- His? -- will.

Again, with so much at stake on Judgment Day. It would be like the Nazis giving Jews the power to decide what to do...when Judgment Day for them revolved around the "Final Solution", the death camps.

I'm not trying to "tell" you anything. I'm just answering your question. You can check the context, and you'll know I'm telling you the truth. The "application" you're trying to make isnt' obvious to me. I'm just wanting you to explain it.

Note to others:

And isn't this typical? I react to him at length. He snips a small part of it and comments in such a way that bares almost no relevance at all of the point I am making. The context in regard to taxes "here today as back then" is the same: producing "ambiguous, convoluted, confusing" reactions in mere mortals as individuals. Reactions rooted existentially in dasein whereas on Judgment Day, God either looks favorably upon your reaction to Caesar or to Hitler or to Trump or He doesn't.

But: He never really makes it all unequivocally clear does He?

Instead, Mr. Snippet here takes up the task of differentiating the True Christian reaction for us here.

Or does immortality and salvation on the one hand and eternal damnation on the other revolve instead around rendering [in the end] everything unto Him?

When a man renders himself unto God, everything he is and has comes with him.

Right. As with God Himself, this is your idea of clearing things up for us. Dispensing the vaguest of platitudes.

Something doesn't become "vague" or "platitudinous" merely because you don't personally understand it. But speaking personally, I'm not at all sure that whatever it is you have in mind is right -- which is why I was offering you the chance to clarify.

Again, given Judgment Day, there's God judging us on whether we either do or do not understand His will in regard to rendering unto Ceasar. Or Hitler. Or trump. I can't clarify this for Him. And you're the one making a distinction between a True Christian and a False Christian when it comes to these things. When are you going to clarify how a True Christian is obligated to react to taxation and the government.

Or, for that matter, fascism in America. You know, the reason this thread exists in the first place. After all, your loving, just and merciful -- omnipotent -- God is following the Trump saga unfolding down here, right?

Oh, sure. Just let mere mortals themselves decide how to connect the dots between before and after the grave. Leaving it all up to those like you to decide who is the True Christian and who is not.

No doubt just as there were those in Nazi Germany who took it upon themselves to decide who was with Hitler and who was not.

And your loving, just and merciful -- omnipotent -- God's reaction to the Nazis? Well, he was rooting for the Allies, right?.

I would say that God has not done that, for sure. You have all the "dots" you need "connected" for you in Scripture and in Jesus Christ. Whether or not you're able to "connect" them depends on your own attitude -- which appears a little gratutitously cynical and unreceptive to feedback, at the moment, if I might say.

Right. And there have never, ever been substantial disagreements down through the ages regarding how Christians must interpret the Scriptures and the life of Jesus. Instead, there is how the True Christians like you understand them...and then everybody else.

If you have only cynicism to offer, you're wasting your time. You'll find, as Scripture itself says, that God simply chooses not speak to people who take that posture.

Again, given this...

https://thebestschools.org/magazine/wor ... -starters/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...and the fact that each of them will insist that only their own path is the One True Path, gee, why would anyone be cynical about religion and God?

[Immanuel Can]

Note to others:

Still talking to yourself?

I react to him at length. He snips a small part of it and comments...

I don't understand your supposition. You seem to be making a mistake, but I can't tell what it is from what you've said. I can't comment on what I do not understand.

So you'll have to be more explicit, or be happy as is.

Something doesn't become "vague" or "platitudinous" merely because you don't personally understand it. But speaking personally, I'm not at all sure that whatever it is you have in mind is right -- which is why I was offering you the chance to clarify.

Again, given Judgment Day, there's God judging us on whether we either do or do not understand His will in regard to rendering unto Ceasar.

As I say, you're out of context with the "render unto Caesar" thing. Christ was speaking about the duty to pay taxes. Completely absent from that incident is any mention of Judgment Day.

Now, if you want to ask a question about Judgment Day, I can point you directly to the relevant passages. You don't have to rely on anything so strained as in hoping there's some analogy between Caesar and Trump. If you want that information, I can supply it: or, if you don't want to admit you don't know where it is, look it up. And I'll answer. Just find an appropriate quotation to sponsor your question.

Fair enough?

Oh, sure. Just let mere mortals themselves decide how to connect the dots between before and after the grave. Leaving it all up to those like you to decide who is the True Christian and who is not.

No doubt just as there were those in Nazi Germany who took it upon themselves to decide who was with Hitler and who was not.

And your loving, just and merciful -- omnipotent -- God's reaction to the Nazis? Well, he was rooting for the Allies, right?.

I would say that God has not done that, for sure. You have all the "dots" you need "connected" for you in Scripture and in Jesus Christ. Whether or not you're able to "connect" them depends on your own attitude -- which appears a little gratutitously cynical and unreceptive to feedback, at the moment, if I might say.

Right.

Yes, right.

And there have never, ever been substantial disagreements down through the ages regarding how Christians must interpret the Scriptures and the life of Jesus. Instead, there is how the True Christians like you understand them...and then everybody else.

Who said there have never been any disagreements? I certainly never said that, and never would. Why would you?

There are always people who know what they are talking about, and those who do not. That's true in any field, from astrophysics to zoology. There's nothing even surprising about that.

So what's your question? I still haven't got a clue what you're on about.

[iambiguous]

Note to others:

Still talking to yourself?

And this makes any sense at all...how?

I react to him at length. He snips a small part of it and comments in such a way that bares almost no relevance at all of the point I am making. The context in regard to taxes "here today as back then" is the same: producing "ambiguous, convoluted, confusing" reactions in mere mortals as individuals. Reactions rooted existentially in dasein whereas on Judgment Day, God either looks favorably upon your reaction to Caesar or to Hitler or to Trump or He doesn't.

But: He never really makes it all unequivocally clear does He?

Instead, Mr. Snippet here takes up the task of differentiating the True Christian reaction for us here.

I don't understand your supposition. You seem to be making a mistake, but I can't tell what it is from what you've said. I can't comment on what I do not understand.

So you'll have to be more explicit, or be happy as is.

Again, what on earth does this reaction to yet another "snippet" from him here have to do with anything I am noting above?

Something doesn't become "vague" or "platitudinous" merely because you don't personally understand it. But speaking personally, I'm not at all sure that whatever it is you have in mind is right -- which is why I was offering you the chance to clarify.

Again, given Judgment Day, there's God judging us on whether we either do or do not understand His will in regard to rendering unto Ceasar. Or Hitler. Or trump. I can't clarify this for Him. And you're the one making a distinction between a True Christian and a False Christian when it comes to these things. When are you going to clarify how a True Christian is obligated to react to taxation and the government.

Or, for that matter, fascism in America. You know, the reason this thread exists in the first place. After all, your loving, just and merciful -- omnipotent -- God is following the Trump saga unfolding down here, right?

As I say, you're out of context with the "render unto Caesar" thing. Christ was speaking about the duty to pay taxes. Completely absent from that incident is any mention of Judgment Day.

Are you actually attempting to suggest that Judgment Day doesn't revolve around everything that we mere mortals think and feel and say and do "down here". Or that you personally know what God takes into account and does not at the Pearly Gates?

Rendering unto Trump's policies down here is not something that God deems relevant in regard to the fate of your eternal soul? Okay, sure, cite the Biblical passages most pertinent to those who did embrace Caesar and Hitler and Trump.

Oh, sure. Just let mere mortals themselves decide how to connect the dots between before and after the grave. Leaving it all up to those like you to decide who is the True Christian and who is not.

No doubt just as there were those in Nazi Germany who took it upon themselves to decide who was with Hitler and who was not.

And your loving, just and merciful -- omnipotent -- God's reaction to the Nazis? Well, he was rooting for the Allies, right?.

I would say that God has not done that, for sure. You have all the "dots" you need "connected" for you in Scripture and in Jesus Christ. Whether or not you're able to "connect" them depends on your own attitude -- which appears a little gratutitously cynical and unreceptive to feedback, at the moment, if I might say.

Right.

Yes, right.

On the other hand...

And there have never, ever been substantial disagreements down through the ages regarding how Christians must interpret the Scriptures and the life of Jesus. Instead, there is how the True Christians like you understand them...and then everybody else.

Who said there have never been any disagreements? I certainly never said that, and never would. Why would you?

Again and again: with so much at stake on both sides of the grave, how could an omniscient and omnipotent God be such a miserable failure in making it absolutely clear which of these paths...

https://thebestschools.org/magazine/wor ... -starters/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...really is the One True Path to immortality and salvation?

And why your God and not one of the others? Back to your videos?

There are always people who know what they are talking about, and those who do not. That's true in any field, from astrophysics to zoology. There's nothing even surprising about that.

Exactly! And that's where you come in here!! Passing yourself off as someone who does know what he is talking about in differentiating the True Christian from the False Christian. On this thread, in regard to how the True Christian is obligated to react to Trump and the possibility that MAGA may well reflect the American rendition of fascism.

Then that still fuzzy part for some where God's mind ends, and your mind begins. Or is it the other way around?

[Gary Childress]

Again and again: with so much at stake on both sides of the grave, how could an omniscient and omnipotent God be such a miserable failure in making it absolutely clear which of these paths...

I would think if a person is true to God, then God knows and the person being true to God knows he or she is being true. Maybe that's all that is really required?

[iambiguous]

Again and again: with so much at stake on both sides of the grave, how could an omniscient and omnipotent God be such a miserable failure in making it absolutely clear which of these paths...

https://thebestschools.org/magazine/wor ... -starters/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...really is the One True Path to immortality and salvation?

I would think if a person is true to God, then God knows and the person being true to God knows he or she is being true. Maybe that's all that is really required?

How on earth is any particular mere mortal going to know which God to be true to when there are countless Gods out there being peddled as the one true God?

Depending on when historically and where culturally you come into this world, you might easily be indoctrinated to believe in the wrong God. If there is a God at all.

And if there is again: what's stopping Him from making it all crystal-clear which path the righteous must be on?

You can't blame someone raised to believe in the wrong God for not believing in, what, your God?

[Immanuel Can]

Are you actually attempting to suggest that Judgment Day doesn't revolve around everything that we mere mortals think and feel and say and do "down here". Or that you personally know what God takes into account and does not at the Pearly Gates?

I’m not “attempting to suggest” any such thing…certainly not anything you’re inventing. I’m just trying to figure out how you think the Caesar thing has anything at all to do with Judgment Day…which is a fair question, since nothing in the Scriptures even remotely links the two.

But go ahead…let’s see the link.

[iambiguous]

Are you actually attempting to suggest that Judgment Day doesn't revolve around everything that we mere mortals think and feel and say and do "down here". Or that you personally know what God takes into account and does not at the Pearly Gates?

I’m not “attempting to suggest” any such thing…certainly not anything you’re inventing. I’m just trying to figure out how you think the Caesar thing has anything at all to do with Judgment Day…which is a fair question, since nothing in the Scriptures even remotely links the two.

Okay, so, again, let's try to get this straight...

Whether in regard to Caesar, Hitler, Trump or to any other autocratic government down through the ages, how any particular individuals reacted to them -- joined them, supported them, critiqued them, revolted against them -- is moot because none of them are actually mentioned in the Bible? Such behaviors are not taken into account by God on Judgment Day?

Come on, in regard to behaviors individuals are contemplating, all they need ask is, "does the Bible mention it"? If not, they're on their own because it won't come up on Judgment Day?

For example, Trump ponders whether he should rally a mob of thugs to storm the Capitol Building in order to render Biden's election victory null and void.

He asks himself, "what does it say in the Bible about that"?

[Immanuel Can]

Whether in regard to Caesar, Hitler, Trump or to any other autocratic government down through the ages, how any particular individuals reacted to them -- joined them, supported them, critiqued them, revolted against them -- is moot because none of them are actually mentioned in the Bible? Such behaviors are not taken into account by God on Judgment Day?

Why do you say that?

And why do you think the incident about taxes has something to do with Trump?

Never mind, I guess. I’m quite sure now you don’t know what you’re talking about at all.

[iambiguous]

Whether in regard to Caesar, Hitler, Trump or to any other autocratic government down through the ages, how any particular individuals reacted to them -- joined them, supported them, critiqued them, revolted against them -- is moot because none of them are actually mentioned in the Bible? Such behaviors are not taken into account by God on Judgment Day?

Come on, in regard to behaviors individuals are contemplating, all they need ask is, "does the Bible mention it"? If not, they're on their own because it won't come up on Judgment Day?

For example, Trump ponders whether he should rally a mob of thugs to storm the Capitol Building in order to render Biden's election victory null and void.

He asks himself, "what does it say in the Bible about that"?

Why do you say that?

And why do you think the incident about taxes has something to do with Trump?

Never mind, I guess. I’m quite sure now you don’t know what you’re talking about at all.

Absolutely shameless!!

Though not necessarily evil, I suppose.

[Iwannaplato]

Absolutely shameless!!

Though not necessarily evil, I suppose.

Or even shameless. Shameless itself as an accusation entails a belief in objective morals - iow such behavior is something one should be ashamed of. Or even 'fascism' as in the title of this thread. Of course, there are some people who own the word fascism and openly admit they want a fascistic system, but most people use the word in a perjorative (note: normative sense) and this also entails moral realism/objectivism.

Moral outrage and nihilism/moral anti-realism are odd bedfellows. Of course, one can be angry and not contradict oneself. And one can struggle against what one does not like. And one can point out fallacies and hypocrisy.

But the moral index finger is permanently holstered.

[iambiguous]

Absolutely shameless!!

Though not necessarily evil, I suppose.

Or even shameless. Shameless itself as an accusation entails a belief in objective morals - iow such behavior is something one should be ashamed of.

Just for the record...

In regard to my conclusion here that Immanual Can's posts in exchanges with me are often deemed by me to be "absolutely shameless", this can only reflect my own subjective, personal opinion derived existentially from dasein. In other words, you might not find his posts absolutely shameless at all...you might find them to be brilliant. And, in my view, using the tools of philosophy, there appears to be no demonstrable argument able to establish beyond all doubt whether he is or is not in fact being absolutely shameless.

I am more than willing to allow others to decide for themselves if posts directed at me are or are not absolutely shameless. I only suggest that such value judgments [mine, his, yours] do seem rooted far more in the existential parameters of dasein than in the rigors of, say, technical philosophy?

Unless, of course, someone here can -- logically? epistemologically? -- encompass "absolutely shameless" posts in an objective assessment of our exchange.

Same with fascism.

Ah, but for the "absolutely shameless", fulminating fanatic objectivists among us, whether in regard to God or to Caesar or to Hitler or to Trump, you think exactly like they do or you are "one of them"...the bad guys.

Moral outrage and nihilism/moral anti-realism are odd bedfellows. Of course, one can be angry and not contradict oneself. And one can struggle against what one does not like. And one can point out fallacies and hypocrisy.

Over and again: both my intellectual and my emotional reactions to "conflicting goods" -- God or No God -- are rooted subjectively in my own political prejudices derived from the existential trajectory of my life explored on this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

On the other hand, when I suggest this is applicable in turn to the moral and political and spiritual objectivists among us...that is when the reactions to me can veer in the general direction of the "absolutely shameless". Why? Because the "my way or the highway" objectivists are far more concerned with being right. What they actually deem themselves to be right about can be almost anything.

And then the part about dasein really ruffles their feathers. After all, what if my points are reasonable? What of their own often arrogant, authoritarian, self-righteous Self then?

Go ahead, ask them.

Hope that helped to, uh, clear things up?

[Iwannaplato]

Just for the record...

In regard to my conclusion here that Immanual Can's posts in exchanges with me are often deemed by me to be "absolutely shameless", this can only reflect my own subjective, personal opinion derived existentially from dasein. In other words, you might not find his posts absolutely shameless at all...you might find them to be brilliant. And, in my view, using the tools of philosophy, there appears to be no demonstrable argument able to establish beyond all doubt whether he is or is not in fact being absolutely shameless.

OK this makes sense if the accusation of absolutely shameless is not an accusation, but rather a descriptive phrase. Oh, that man lacks shame. But in most contexts and I think in this one, it is a kind of moral condemnation.

Which is an odd thing for a nihilist to make.

I can see, jeez I hate when he does that. Or even, I hate him.
I can see, it's pointless for me to talk to someone like you or him.
I can see, I prefer people who_______________________

But moral accusations do not fit well with nihilism

Of course if you were merely making a psychological observation, well, that fits just fine with nihilism or moral anti-realism. And yes, you might be right or wrong and online it would be hard to tell.

Ah, but for the "absolutely shameless", fulminating fanatic objectivists among us, whether in regard to God or to Caesar or to Hitler or to Trump, you think exactly like they do or you are "one of them"...the bad guys.

Yeah, I'm sorry but your description of them sounds like a moral condemnation.

Of course you can say, well my background and experiences led me to have preferences. Hey, me too. But I don't see where the moral-speak comes in. You hate people like that, or you are very angry at them. Or you don't like what happens when they have power.

You have felt reactions to their values, their behavior etc.

But labelling them in morally negative terms, even if slightly implicit, but let's be honest, really quite explicitly with these pejorative terms, that doesn't fit with nihilism. Anyone reading that, in any case, is going to think you think they are objectively bad, and more than that, they will think that on good grounds.

I mean, imagine IC says you don't keep Jesus in your heart, you are bad.
And you respond, you are an absolutely shameless, fulminating fanatic objectivist.

That's two objectivists having a spat.

And if really deep down during the spat you think, or he's not that , I mean there aren't any objective values, it make no difference for the effects of such a conversation on IC, or anyone listening. A world full of nihilists would end up looking very much like one filled with objectivists.

I mean, if you are going to be a non-objectivist, you might as well speak like one.

And there is no reason not to for a nihilist.

That conversation is basically...
you are immoral
No, you are immoral

That's what you have been saying to him. Coming in later and saying What I mean isn't objectively immorl, I mean immoral to me makes no sense. Because 'immoral' doesn't mean, I don't like that. It means that a certain behavior is wrong, period.

I just find it odd to have a nihilist accusing someone of being utterly shameless (or whatever that phrase was) and a fuliminating, fanatic whatever.

Imagine someone saying women are absolutely shameless and fulminating fanatics also.
Then later they say. Oh, I don't think I was being objective. I'm a feminist. That's just because of my Dasein I say that. I know it isn't objective.
We'd think those statements were very odd. And in a way, utterly beside the point.

There are ways to avoid at the very least appearing just like another objectivist. With no loss at all on expressiveness or the ability to point out fallacies or question the foundations of their knowledge of morals, etc.

One still has all those options there while avoiding seeming at all an objectivist.

Of course, it's not bad for a nihilist to act like an objectivist.

But, I do understand,this isn't all black and white. There are gray areas.

So, if it seems useful to you, what I've said here, fine. If not, that's fine also.

It just seems to me walkng and quacking like an objectivist is misleading at best and hypocritical in the middle. At worst it's utterly unresolved on the issue while pretending to be otherwise.

[Gary Childress]

Again and again: with so much at stake on both sides of the grave, how could an omniscient and omnipotent God be such a miserable failure in making it absolutely clear which of these paths...

https://thebestschools.org/magazine/wor ... -starters/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...really is the One True Path to immortality and salvation?

I would think if a person is true to God, then God knows and the person being true to God knows he or she is being true. Maybe that's all that is really required?

How on earth is any particular mere mortal going to know which God to be true to when there are countless Gods out there being peddled as the one true God?

Depending on when historically and where culturally you come into this world, you might easily be indoctrinated to believe in the wrong God. If there is a God at all.

And if there is again: what's stopping Him from making it all crystal-clear which path the righteous must be on?

You can't blame someone raised to believe in the wrong God for not believing in, what, your God?

Well, I think/hope there's a God or some intelligence behind the universe. Otherwise, it seems like things would be an even bigger mess than they currently are. Of course, knowing what God wants from us is a big question and one answered in many different ways by many different people. I guess my tendency is to start with the idea that there is a God and then try to conceive of what that God must be like or about given the fact that not everyone calls "God" by the same name or believes the same things about God. It would seem kind of too easy (as it were) if everything was spelled out in brail for us to know what to do and what God wants. It would make the world incredibly boring and homogenous.

So I'll start with the premise that there is a God.
God maybe wants something from each of us in terms of deeds and behaviors although maybe not the same thing from all of us.
God gives us free choice and free will.
But he also gives us a moral sense of what various different people ought to do in various different situations.

As far as I see it we have two major choices.

1. The world is an accident, without any God or spiritual aspect and there are no guarantees of just about anything.

or

2. There is a God and therefore some sort of hope that everything will work out OK in some fashion.

I'll choose the second. But you're free to choose the first. If you do choose the first I will give the caveat that if you are right, then me behaving as if there is a God has no significant detrimental effect on anything that I can think of. However, if I'm right. behaving as though there is a God will not have a detrimental effect on anything either. It's always best to behave as though there is a God. If a person doesn't act as though there is a God watching over the moral universe, then such a person likely loses in both scenarios (with and without a God) because behaving morally (as though there is a God) is NEVER truly a bad thing. It's always a good thing no matter what.

[iambiguous]

Just for the record...

In regard to my conclusion here that Immanual Can's posts in exchanges with me are often deemed by me to be "absolutely shameless", this can only reflect my own subjective, personal opinion derived existentially from dasein. In other words, you might not find his posts absolutely shameless at all...you might find them to be brilliant. And, in my view, using the tools of philosophy, there appears to be no demonstrable argument able to establish beyond all doubt whether he is or is not in fact being absolutely shameless.

OK this makes sense if the accusation of absolutely shameless is not an accusation, but rather a descriptive phrase. Oh, that man lacks shame. But in most contexts and I think in this one, it is a kind of moral condemnation.

Like it can't be both. But my point is that whether it is construed by someone to be one or the other or a combination of both, it reflects a personal opinion derived existentially from dasein. Unless, of course, someone here, using the tools of philosophy, can provide us with an actual demonstrable argument enabling us to determine when, objectively, someone is being absolutely shameless.

Of course, IC falls back on the Christian God as having the final say on Judgment Day regarding mere mortals reacting as they do to Caesar, Hitler, Trump and all other allegedly autocratic rulers.

That's the part, in my view, he keeps avoiding. He keeps "wiggling" around.

Which is an odd thing for a nihilist to make.

I can see, jeez I hate when he does that. Or even, I hate him.
I can see, it's pointless for me to talk to someone like you or him.
I can see, I prefer people who_______________________

But moral accusations do not fit well with nihilism

Same thing.

Here you are with your own entirely existential, rooted subjectively in dasein "take" on nihilism. On moral nihilism. Assuming that I'm making a moral accusation against IC, when I have made it abundantly clear that my own reaction to him is but a moral, political and spiritual prejudice derived entirely from the life I've lived.

Again: Unless you or others here can pin down once and for all [philosophically or otherwise] whether IC is, in fact, objectively, being absolutely shameless in his exchanges with me.

"I" think he is. And I've noted why I think that. But since I don't exclude myself from my own point of view, I am certainly not suggesting that others here ought to think the same.

IC is the moral, political and spiritual objectivist here. He's the one arguing that in regard to individual reactions to Caesar, Hitler aand Trump re Judgment Day there are those who are True Christians and those who are not.

Go ahead, you ask him.

Ah, but for the "absolutely shameless", fulminating fanatic objectivists among us, whether in regard to God or to Caesar or to Hitler or to Trump, you think exactly like they do or you are "one of them"...the bad guys.

I mean, imagine IC says you don't keep Jesus in your heart, you are bad.
And you respond, you are an absolutely shameless, fulminating fanatic objectivist.

That's two objectivists having a spat.

No, from my own subjective point of view "here and now", it's not. I am not arguing that IC is bad because IC is being absolutely shameless. But is he or is he not arguing that those who do not keep Jesus in their heart are in fact bad. In fact, he has made it rather clear to me that, on Judgment Day, there will be dire consequences for those who don't. Henry quirk for example.

Besides, my point above regarding him being absolutely shameless revolves less around what he posts, and more around how, in my own personal opinion, he often "snips" out tiny portions of my posts, avoiding altogether many of the arguments that I am making.

Imagine someone saying women are absolutely shameless and fulminating fanatics also.
Then later they say. Oh, I don't think I was being objective. I'm a feminist. That's just because of my Dasein I say that. I know it isn't objective.
We'd think those statements were very odd. And in a way, utterly beside the point.

Yes, exactly! Why? Because from the objectivist frame of mind on both sides of the feminist fence -- morally and politically -- gender roles are understood in very different ways. Why? Well, is it because, using the tools of philosophy, we can pin down the "wisest", most objective reaction to feminism? Or, instead, are attitudes about gender roles rooted more in particular historical and cultural and interpersonal contexts that have evolved and changed over the centuries resulting in any number of conflicting conclusions.

Now, I was once a hardcore feminist myself. But, as with all other conflicting goods in the is/ought world, "I" am considerably more "fractured and fragmented" "here and now".

And what's "odd" for the objectivists on both sides of the feminists fence today is that the other side can't see how clearly more rational their side is. And that's why the objectivists on both side of political/ideological/deontological fence react similarly to me.

It's not what the objectivists believe about feminism, but that what they believe about it is deemed by them to be the obligation of all rational men and women to believe in turn.

After all, in anchoring their own precious Self to one dogma or another that's where they derive the comfort and the consolation that sustains them. Hopefully all the way to the grave.

But then what? Here again we have IC taking this all the way to Judgment Day. What does the True Christian believe about feminism? What is God's own take on it?

Isn't that ever and always the bottom line for him?

[iambiguous]

Well, I think/hope there's a God or some intelligence behind the universe. Otherwise, it seems like things would be an even bigger mess than they currently are.

Thinking and hoping there's a God is one thing, demonstrating that in fact there is one, another thing altogether. Let alone demonstrating that it's your God. Let alone demonstrating what your God is either for or against fascism in America.

And what's the bigger mess...a theocratic planet or a planet ruled by the amoral "show me the money" nihilists who now own and operate it?

Of course, knowing what God wants from us is a big question and one answered in many different ways by many different people. I guess my tendency is to start with the idea that there is a God and then try to conceive of what that God must be like or about given the fact that not everyone calls "God" by the same name or believes the same things about God. It would seem kind of too easy (as it were) if everything was spelled out in brail for us to know what to do and what God wants. It would make the world incredibly boring and homogenous.

And how is this not but one more example of dasein propelling you and others from the cradle to the grave? Given the life you and others live out in a particular world understood by you and others in particular [and often conflicting] ways, everyone comes up with their own "rooted subjectively, existentially in dasein" beliefs about God and religion.

So, what else is there but what each of us is able or not able to demonstrate as in fact true for all of us?

Then from my point of view you take all of this up into what "I" call a "general description intellectual/spiritual contraption":

So I'll start with the premise that there is a God.
God maybe wants something from each of us in terms of deeds and behaviors although maybe not the same thing from all of us.
God gives us free choice and free will.
But he also gives us a moral sense of what various different people ought to do in various different situations.

As far as I see it we have two major choices.

1. The world is an accident, without any God or spiritual aspect and there are no guarantees of just about anything.

or

2. There is a God and therefore some sort of hope that everything will work out OK in some fashion.

I'll choose the second. But you're free to choose the first. If you do choose the first I will give the caveat that if you are right, then me behaving as if there is a God has no significant detrimental effect on anything that I can think of. However, if I'm right. behaving as though there is a God will not have a detrimental effect on anything either. It's always best to behave as though there is a God. If a person doesn't act as though there is a God watching over the moral universe, then such a person likely loses in both scenarios (with and without a God) because behaving morally (as though there is a God) is NEVER truly a bad thing. It's always a good thing no matter what.

You have your premises, others their own. Different premises, different Gods.

Then what?

How can it not all come down to what, beyond leaps of faith and wagers, we are able to demonstrate is in fact the "real deal" regarding our set of assumptions housed mainly "in our heads"?

Again, with so much at stake on both sides of the grave, why has an extant God not done a much, much better job at directing mere mortals to the One True Path?

And then those "down here" who are absolutely convinced that fascism in America is, in fact, the One True Path in the interim.