IS and OUGHT

[henry quirk]

Astro,

I am a free man with an inalienable right to my, and no other's, life, liberty, and property. You are a free woman with an inalienable right to your, and no other's, life, liberty, and property.

You ought not screw around with my life, liberty, or property without just cause. I ought not screw around with your life, liberty, or property without just cause.

Just cause: self-defense, defense of another.

Assess & discuss, please.

[Belinda]

None of this gives any indication of what a moral property would be. It's just an extra layer of mysticism trying to obscure that God's opinion about what is right and wrong remains an opinion, but one that happens to be held by a giant frightening sky beast that everybody has to suck up to.

It's good to see that Belinda has found yet another thing for God to be a synonym of. She's becoming very much like Papa Smurf at this rate.

Nothing wrong with synonyms. Synonyms are attempts to compare ideas. So one may say horse and cheval and caballo are synonymous.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can wrote:

"Good" is not merely "what the gods love," (Socrates), nor even "what God commands" (as in, say legalism, Pharisaism or Shariah). "Good" is who God is. And while He does make that known in terms of commandments (among other things, because that's not exclusive) anything He commands merely flows out of that.

True, Good and God are synonymous .

No, "true" and "good" are predications about God's character. They are not identical with God, and thus not true synonyms. God is also many other things, such as just, powerful, holy...a predication is not identical with its referent: it's partial and adjectival instead.

This does not imply that eternal Good revealed itself to men.

Nobody said it does imply that. That is a different issue entirely. But it's a necessary question, once the existence of God itself is known.

We have revelations such as the life and work of Jesus. All such revelations are Earth -bound and may be explained as matters of history.

Well, that's not really relevant, because your own existence can be explained as "bot" or "man in drag." Having an "explanation" doesn't tell us whether it's the true explanation or not. The truth will remain, whatever "explaining" people try to make about it.

As for Jesus Christ, He's the key issue. It's up to you to decide to hear Him or reject Him. But there are no middle positions on that. To reduce Him to a mere "historical" but otherwise unspecial character is rejection of who He really is.

Your choice. Make it wisely. Everything depends on it.

[FlashDangerpants]

None of this gives any indication of what a moral property would be. It's just an extra layer of mysticism trying to obscure that God's opinion about what is right and wrong remains an opinion, but one that happens to be held by a giant frightening sky beast that everybody has to suck up to.

It's good to see that Belinda has found yet another thing for God to be a synonym of. She's becoming very much like Papa Smurf at this rate.

Nothing wrong with synonyms. Synonyms are attempts to compare ideas. So one may say horse and cheval and caballo are synonymous.

Sure, if you God and God in godly God gOd gOD then eventually your words mean God at all.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

As for Jesus Christ, He's the key issue. It's up to you to decide to hear Him or reject Him. But there are no middle positions on that. To reduce Him to a mere "historical" but otherwise unspecial character is rejection of who He really is.

Jesus of history and Christ of faith are not the same and cannot reduce one to another.

[promethean75]

he wuz like a jewish Confucius but he didn't have any special powers. he's just been mythologized through the ages...  his situation was interesting enough to gain some media attention in rome (the empire). a political agitator executed by the romans, Sartre called him.

as each era passes Christianity builds more equity and is ironically believed more strongly because of that, rather than abandoned completely, as should be the case. 

just an ordinary dude who got into some trouble that happened to be recorded and archived by followers in his cult, the apostles etc.

i personally don't believe in the virgin birth, the resurrection, the miracles or the son of 'god' spin. what's left is just a historical celebrity.

he would have been a hit if they had tik tok back then. 

[henry quirk]

(MAINLY) FOR ASTRO CAT...

https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-di ... -auid-2215

Comments (anyone)?

[Harbal]

As for Jesus Christ, He's the key issue. It's up to you to decide to hear Him or reject Him. But there are no middle positions on that. To reduce Him to a mere "historical" but otherwise unspecial character is rejection of who He really is.

I have heard it said that we can't be sure that he was even a historic figure. A bit like Robin Hood and his merry men, but without bows and arrows.

[Age]

Astro,

I am a free man with an inalienable right to my, and no other's, life, liberty, and property. You are a free woman with an inalienable right to your, and no other's, life, liberty, and property.

You ought not screw around with my life, liberty, or property without just cause.

But why, if someone just touches "your toothpick" for example, then your views very quickly turn around completely and you now believe that you now 'have a right' or even 'ought to' take the life, liberty, and/or property, from the "other"?

I ought not screw around with your life, liberty, or property without just cause.

Is taking another's life 'just cause' for them just touching your toothpick?

You have previously claimed that you have 'this right' to do so.

Just cause: self-defense, defense of another.

Assess & discuss, please.

[Age]

Immanuel Can wrote:

"Good" is not merely "what the gods love," (Socrates), nor even "what God commands" (as in, say legalism, Pharisaism or Shariah). "Good" is who God is. And while He does make that known in terms of commandments (among other things, because that's not exclusive) anything He commands merely flows out of that.

True, Good and God are synonymous .

No, "true" and "good" are predications about God's character. They are not identical with God, and thus not true synonyms. God is also many other things, such as just, powerful, holy...a predication is not identical with its referent: it's partial and adjectival instead.

This does not imply that eternal Good revealed itself to men.

Nobody said it does imply that. That is a different issue entirely. But it's a necessary question, once the existence of God itself is known.

We have revelations such as the life and work of Jesus. All such revelations are Earth -bound and may be explained as matters of history.

Well, that's not really relevant, because your own existence can be explained as "bot" or "man in drag." Having an "explanation" doesn't tell us whether it's the true explanation or not. The truth will remain, whatever "explaining" people try to make about it.

As for Jesus Christ, He's the key issue. It's up to you to decide to hear Him or reject Him.

But what 'you' 'hear', "immanuel can", is not always what "jesus christ" was actually saying and meaning.

But there are no middle positions on that.

Yes there are, and they exist as misinterpretations, misconstructions, and misunderstandings . Of which 'you' are an expert in, sometimes.

To reduce Him to a mere "historical" but otherwise unspecial character is rejection of who He really is.

LOL The human being known here as "jesus christ" was NO more special than ANY other human being. To think or believe otherwise is a True sign of MISINTERPRETING and MISCONSTRUING things.

Your choice. Make it wisely. Everything depends on it.

LOL "everything".

Why is it that the followers of religions can be the MOST BLINDED ones alive?

[Age]

(MAINLY) FOR ASTRO CAT...

https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-di ... -auid-2215

Comments (anyone)?

OF COURSE 'the Universe' did NOT begin and is NOT expanding. This is, quite simply, just because of what 'the Universe' IS, EXACTLY.

And, as I have ALREADY EXPLAINED in this forum, the further along the evolution line 'you', human beings, evolve, the better your instruments for looking further afield become. So, it is with them that 'you' can see, and understand 'more'.

That is; until 'you' arrive at the actual and irrefutable Facts of things, like for example of WHAT the Universe IS EXACTLY, and HOW It works, EXACTLY, then 'you' can concentrate on other FAR MORE IMPORTANT things, like learning HOW to live in peace and harmony with one another, in this one and ONLY infinite and eternal Universe.

[henry quirk]

But why, if someone just touches "your toothpick" for example, then your views very quickly turn around completely and you now believe that you now 'have a right' or even 'ought to' take the life, liberty, and/or property, from the "other"? Is taking another's life 'just cause' for them just touching your toothpick? You have previously claimed that you have 'this right' to do so.

Citation, please.

[henry quirk]

OF COURSE 'the Universe' did NOT begin and is NOT expanding. This is, quite simply, just because of what 'the Universe' IS, EXACTLY.

It appears you may be right.

[Immanuel Can]

As for Jesus Christ, He's the key issue. It's up to you to decide to hear Him or reject Him. But there are no middle positions on that. To reduce Him to a mere "historical" but otherwise unspecial character is rejection of who He really is.

I have heard it said that we can't be sure that he was even a historic figure.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... d-and-died

[Dubious]

(MAINLY) FOR ASTRO CAT...

https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-di ... -auid-2215

Comments (anyone)?

Where is Lerner's evidence that the big bang didn't happen - even though it's possible and probable that it didn't happen in quite the way we think. Until he actually has evidence, real evidence, not the presumed kind, he's just another guy trying to flog a pet theory which wasn't even his to begin with.

If the universe is infinitely old then what is the function of entropy in its gradual erosion of order? To maintain a universe forever it would have to be the opposite of what its usual definition is, viz., instead of declining into disorder, maintaining order. Since time is related to entropy, what is the function of time in such a universe. To claim the universe being "infinitely old" amounts to a paradox of cosmic proportions since the universe, having always existed, would be ageless without reference to any time scale. "Old" doesn't apply to such a universe. It always is and never ceases to be. Every single imbalance would need to be corrected to forever allow it to maintain itself...a kind of counter-entropy negating the slow insurgence of disorder to its inevitable conclusion.

Just my thoughts!