In the center of the table, of course, was the guest of honor's seat. When Jesus arrived and sat down, quietly, you could hear a pin drop. The assembled lovers of wisdom stopped what they were doing, Voltaire with his hand raised and crooked, frozen in the middle of an elegantly airy gesture, and Hume with a very fine piece of smoked fish halfway to his mouth. Sextus Empiricus raised a sardonic eyebrow, as The Nazarene made a gesture encompassing them all, "I greet you!" he said.
The silence in the room would make your ears ring, until Socrates stood and asked gently, "Whence, therefore, Evil?" Neitzsche blew his breath out through his mustache and sat back, "ah!" and Lao-Tze's smile became more joyful, if such a thing was possible, still. Everyone in the room waited for The Nazarene's reply.
My mind does strange things when I'm flying a red-eye coast-to-coast and have had a couple glasses of red wine prior to boarding. I'd been discussing religion with a fellow I'd met recently and one of the things he'd said the day before was that "Jesus was a great philosopher." I know I cringed visibly when I heard that, but at the time I was playing nice so I didn't say anything. Perhaps you've heard similar things about the "great philosophy" in the bible (or, for that matter, the koran, book of mormon, or much of the buddhist literature) The reason that assertion is so cringe-worthy is because those books contain virtually nothing resembling a coherent philosophy, and none of the characters in those books are remotely anything like philosophers. In the case of Jesus, he was a god-man supposedly part of the supernatural forces that give man morality and free will through assertion (if you're a christian who accepts divine command theory) I was thinking that none of the real philosophers I've read say "Because I said so" and mistook that for a philosophical argument.
If the son of god were a philosopher, and showed up on earth in a form whereby he could be questioned by humans, he'd immediately barraged with important and interesting questions. Not the little piffle like "hey, check out this adulterer we're going to stone, derp, derp!" or "can you turn this water into some more wine? Perhaps a good Zinfandel?" but, as Socrates would ask, "Whence, therefore, Evil?"
Think about it. If you're a philosopher and suddenly found yourself face to face with a real honest to goodness supreme being, you would not ask it whether it wore boxer shorts or briefs. There are so, so many questions that a real philosopher would immediately ask! In my little fantasy scenario above, I imagine that Jesus would have had a pretty hot and sweaty time once Voltaire started backing up Socrates' questions, and with Plato and Aristotle standing by to check his logic, "because I said so" wouldn't get him very far at all. I assembled my cast of characters carefully, because:
- Socrates would be absolutely fearless in being willing to question a god. He died, apparently quite graciously, because he loved philosophy and did not fear what earthly powers could do to his body. He would not hesitate for a moment to annoy the living fuck out of a god, just as he annoyed so many of the politicians and thinkers of great Athens.
- Plato would no doubt wish to resume the question he voiced through Socrates in my favorite of his dialogs, the Euthyphro, namely, "Is there a piety that the gods love, or is something pious simply because it is loved by the gods?" A real philosopher would not let Jesus stand there without explaining whether he was the source of all morals or whether he adhered to a set of higher morals himself and, if so, where those morals came from.
- Aristotle would ask Jesus, in his role as god, "where did god come from?" The great systematizer of philosophy would not allow such an important question to hang.
- Thales would doubtless have some questions about the nature and origin of the universe.
- Sextus Empiricus (assisted ably by David Hume) would confuse Jesus unbearably by querying his epistemology: if god is the source of all knowledge, how did god come to know? I am sure that they would do it gracefully perhaps as a tag team but Jesus would quickly find himself in an infinite regress (pyrrhonian trope #2) as he attempted to certify his criteria without being dogmatic. I imagine that Hume would watch Sextus at work, while mentally composing a brilliant essay on "Is god naturally dogmatic?" Many of the christian apologists I've encountered have claimed that god is the anchor for all claims of knowledge. "Well, how do you know that?" I wish I could watch Sextus Empiricus and David Hume work that particular topic.
- Lao-Tze and Epicurus both recognized in their philosophies that the actions of the gods are more or less irrelevant to the affairs of men, and that wise men should act accordingly. After all, if the gods chose to serve you as they did Job, then you're going to get fucked and there's nothing you can do about it. Conversely, if they're going to raise you high and make you mighty, you're hardly in a position to take credit for it. I imagine that Epicurus and Lao-Tze would wind up in the garden, enjoying the stars and the breeze. Of all the conversations in philosophy that I would want to hear, it would be this one.
- Spinoza would eventually join Lao-Tze and Epicurus in the garden.
- Nietzsche would be a potentially delightful interlocutor for Jesus, who could ask him, "so, do I appear dead to you?" "Not until tomorrow," would be Nietzsche's snappiest come-back, though it would be way too brief for him.
- Rousseau would doubtless have some questions for a god, regarding the origin of its authority. If this were a Monty Python sketch, I could see Rousseau asking Jesus, "Supreme authority comes from a mandate from the masses, not from mere supreme power!" ("Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!")
- Voltaire would provide a witty, clear, and devastatingly arch summary of the discussion.
I'm also sure that Jesus' disciples were not philosophers. Indeed, you've got to wonder "what's wrong with those guys?" Here they were following around god, and didn't think to ask him any interesting questions? Or, if they did, they didn't take notes. Like the time Matthew was busy re-tying his sandal during the sermon on the mount and missed the part where Jesus said, "By the way, load up on Cisco on its IPO. Stay away from Facebook, it'll tank." Joking aside, you'd think that, as Aristotle almost certainly would have, one of Jesus' disciples would have asked him, "what causes people to sometimes get sick when nobody around them does?" and Jesus could have told the great systematizer about bacteria and viruses. Perhaps, you'd think Jesus would have mentioned en passant to Matthew, "by the way, Matt, Earth goes around the Sun, not the other way around. Write that down in your testament and people'll respect you for actually knowing something."
No, Jesus wasn't a philosopher. Nor were any of his disciples. If you think about it, if Jesus really was god come-to-Earth, he did the most piss-poor performance possible. It could have only been worse if he'd worn a gag arrow-through-the-head hat and played banjo. "Oh, I'm not here to actually talk philosophy or teach, I'm just here to be bloodily slaughtered. And Mel Gibson's going to make $100mil on a movie about it. W00T!"
And people wonder why we atheists laugh at religions.
Addendum: Note that today's philosophers actually do have a chance to question gods. For one thing, there's good old Tenzin Gyatso, that wretched platitude-spouting conman who allegedly is a multi-incarnated partially supernatural being of supreme wisdom. You'd think that he could explain the problem of evil, or perhaps refute Sextus Empiricus in detail. But, instead, he's concerned with heavy issues like whether oral sex is "sexual misconduct" or whether homosexuals should have human rights. As an armchair philosopher, I am disgusted by the intellectual slack that this cheese-brained theocrat gets granted. Why hasn't someone asked him (as Sextus Empiricus would) "How do you know that you've lived before?" Another diety among us is the Emperor Of Japan. I don't think he makes any specific claims to specialness other than direct descent from goddess amaterasu. But for a divine being, his grasp of geopolitics and warfare are about as good as the dalai lama's grasp of quantum mechanics. For that matter, someone could ask the pope Socrates' question to Euthyphro. I'm sure his little toesie-woesies would curl helplessly in his silk prada slippers, and he wouldn't have an answer. This is a guy who claims divine knowledge regarding who should stick their penis into whom, but doesn't want to tackle the really interesting questions that philosophers grapple with all the time. Whence, therefore Evil? Indeed!
- Mood: Joy
- Listening to: My computer fan
- Reading: Scalzi:
- Watching: my laptop
- Playing: at being human
- Eating: as little as possible
- Drinking: tea
Awesome concepts and I do agree.
The bible means the book or should mean a book with 66 short stories.
I was a believer but after my studies in theology I discovered all was written by humans and not god.
They made naive claims of god inspired them to write prophecy and scriptures many years after the death of prophets and Jesus. Amusing, Paul never had written about the four gospels because they were written after his death. Entertaining the stories doesn’t follow any discipline of examination. Religion is okay with me but don’t force your own personal religious beliefs on me. It’s human nature to write about heroes after their deaths and similar to Hollywood the stories get better with new technology. Rewriting the same stories was boring so let’s add some supernatural. Jesus maybe is a nice man but too boring.
I didn't think it was possible to get everything so wrong about Jesus while simultaneously imposing certain characteristics on history's greatest philosophers. Thinking Jesus might say "Because I said so" is more your critique on non-reflective Christians than Christ and his followers.
The Greeks and the Jews alike values wisdom above all else and it wouldn't be too impossible for Aristotle and Plato to be somewhat sympathetic to what Jesus *might* say in your hypothetical set-up.
No matter that you include no great Christian-Catholic philosopher who exerted profound influence on the history of philosophy.
You take "philosopher" to be some magical idea that grants someone clarity or coherence of thought. I wonder if the rest of your cast would interrogate each other-- I wonder if they would fail as spectacularly as you claim Jesus did. The values that you assume are the "real interesting questions" may have (and probably have) been answered or addressed by Hebrew Scriptures, commentaries, reflections, and the long history of texts that surround them.
As for this dinner party, I doubt you were even invited. You indicate you know very little about philosophy in the process.
according to christian faith the first sin was in the garden of eden, the whole apple pie thing. and that's what we are all being punished for.
my question is this: the eating of the fruit meant that adam and eve would have knowledge of good and evil...
but surely, you cannot have any moral system, no mater how wrong or right without at least a basic sense of good and bad.
does this mean that if they hadn't eaten the fruit any act would be allowed? killing the animals and setting fire to eden wouldn't be a problem since they couldn't differentiate between good and bad?
of course seeing what religion has been up to these past 2 millennia the view that people acquiring their own sense of right and wrong wouldn't be advantageous is to be expected.
but i find it interesting that the very first sin was to gain a personal moral viewpoint of the world.
I was raised in SE Texas and SW Louisiana. My parents were not religious. I was never told to believe in god. I was never told to NOT believe in god (well, by my parents anyway). I learned very early that it was very important to other children what church I went to. When I said, "I don't go to church." that was met with, "Well you believe in god, right?" Very quickly I learned that the only answer that would get me untangled from this conversation was, "Well, of course I do!". I began to get more curious about discussing this religion thing. But every time I would ask questions of a theist, the ultimate answer was, "You just have to have faith in god." Over and over... "You have to have faith. God answers all prayers. He has a plan, you just are not meant to know what it is." I didn't know what an atheist was at the time...
The first time I realized I was an atheist was when I said to myself, "That's it... That really is it. I will never be able to accept, "Because god said so." as an answer. That is NOT an answer. It makes no sense. It does not explain anything. It just makes me ask more questions. I was not comfortable with that at first... "Does that make me immoral? Evil?" I finally realized, "NO! I am not a bad person. I am not evil. I just don't believe in god." I have no explanation for how "things" came to be... But I'm damned sure it wasn't magic, wishful thinking, or a god who passes judgment on the day to day happenings of the world. There just is NO evidence of that. God is irrelevant in my life. That doesn't make me an ungrateful child who refuses to say a "prayer of thanks"... That makes me realistic. Show me some evidence that does not involve "faith"? Oh you can't? Well then I don't believe.
That's what I have to say...
Of course in some way it still would be fun for me to watch this. I could giggle about God's inability to answer questions.
Also I owed you a comment on Pyrrhonism.
About Pyrrhonism in general. It really made sense in Ancient Greece and Middle Ages. Then people's beliefs about physics, chemistry, biology or neurology were so problematic that suspending judgment was a really good idea. But nowadays it's different. Then people had only their faculties, but now in addition to our own eyes we have also scientific measuring instruments, which are more reliable. So many of Sextus arguments (differences of human and animal senses, our inability to see in long distances) no longer hold.
What is left is the regress argument, which still is a problem. So we still can't escape some assertions. And here my decision is to make a couple of initial assertions, which seem to be the most logical ones.
But should we suspend judgment even nowadays? We have:
1. Stupid claims (for example, ghosts, reincarnation, Freud's psychology). We already know it's bullshit, so why suspending judgment?
2. Proven science (for example, speed of sound). It's pretty well proved, so one might as well consider this to be quite likely to be true (no need to suspend judgment either).
3. Scientific hypothesis and stuff that is researched at the moment (for example, the origins of universe or how genetics influence human behavior). Here some hypothesis sound believable, but they aren't totally proved, so suspending judgment really is a good idea. I could add to this category also hypothesis in subjects like psychology or psycholinguistics. Some of them sound possible, but try proving anything there!
4. Matters of opinion (for example, aesthetics, purpose of one's life, the best lifestyle, what's the best way, how to govern a country). OK, since this is a matter of opinion, one shouldn't say “I am right and you are wrong”. But we still need a criterion for action. Most people seem to strive for career, earn money in speculative real estate deals, have children, and change their smartphones every 2 months, so I should do that as well. Really? Only I don't think so – my decision about whether I should marry shouldn't be decided by a poll.
I find this to be an important problem with scepticism. “Since I am not capable of choosing, I accept other people's choice”. If I can't choose, then why should I think that others can choose? Besides a sceptic is making a choice anyway – she chooses to trust other people's judgment instead of hers. And this is a choice too. One can't escape making a choice.
But laws and customs of the society was only one of Pyrrhonist's criteria for action. There were also natural inclinations and appearances. And basically that's what we all are following (for example, “it seems to me that babies are cute, so I'll make some” or “it seems to me that classical art is beautiful, so I paint in this style”).
5. Unimportant matters of opinion (for example, what clothing to wear, although here everyone may consider different things to be unimportant). Here following the society's customs really is a pretty good idea, because it doesn't really matter anyways.
About Popkin's “The History of Scepticism”. I found it very interesting.
Firstly because I find history to be very interesting, so I liked finding out more about what people were thinking back then. That definitely helps one to understand history and the specific time period better.
I had already heard somewhere or figured out on my own many of the arguments, which were mentioned in this book. Although some were new for me. From these new ones my favorite was this one – “If your views are based on no facts or reasoning, then I shouldn't accept them. If, on the contrary, you base your views on judgment and reason, then you are inconsistent when asking me to simply believe you”. This sounds really nice and I often meet people, to whom this can be said.
What else. My favorite part was how in the beginning of reformation Catholics and Protestants were using the same Pyrrhonian arguments against each other. It was really fun how both of them were searching for a criterion for the true faith and both were having exactly the same problems. In my opinion these discussions were much more fun than majority of those stupid jokes, which I get to hear from my classmates in university.
And this wasn't the only beautiful irony in this story of the use of sceptical arguments. Back then scepticism was used to undermine confidence in reason and leave us faith only. Few centuries later it was used to destroy faith.
I also liked some parallels with what we have nowadays. For example, it was funny to compare how ad hominem arguments were used few centuries ago with how they are used now. Then whenever you wanted to call somebody in a rude name, you called him atheist. But the tendency was the same – if you are too lazy to bother refuting an argument, just go for an ad hominem attack.
And there was one more quote I remember very brightly. It was from Jean de Silhon - “if the Christians who have protected Pyrrhonism had foreseen the consequences of this error, I do not doubt that they would have abandoned it”. OK, I know that many people lie to themselves. They like believing X, so they are unwilling to hear anything that might prove X to be wrong. But very few people actually admit this loudly. They will scream that they are searching for truth and truth so nicely happens to be what they have been blindly believing for ages. But this guy actually admitted that instead of searching for truth he preferred conscious delusion. And I'm not sure what to think in such situations. Usually I prefer people to tell the truth instead of being hypocrites. But when people actually admit such things, it's hard not to be shocked.
Makes brain ache.
Must return with brain cell*
*[last brain cell put in storage when married]
My comment on this journal:
The Dining Philosophers - a Problem
The priority can bee:
1: a Problem...
3: The Dining...
1: By accepting there is a problem...
you have walked straight in to their trap...
Christians have good and evil as a vertical axis...
but the trap is the split...!
All gods and all humans are made of: Good AND Bad...!
2: It is the way we treat these sides of ours...
that defines our value for others...
Putting Jesus on trial for answers...
makes your philosophers fall in that same trap...
In a way...it defines the split between:
Head aka brain aka more important...and Body...
But they are also one...!
3: Coming to the Dinner...makes Jesus a body...
a hungry one...
and I am back at the beginning...
Gods are hungry too...
also for knowledge...
but not at the same time...!
Let me finnish with a homemade joke:
Jesus Muhammed and Buddha are sitting talkin together...
Buddha: "Who's turn is it to make dinner"...?
Muhammed:" It's Jesus"...
Buddha:"Oh no...fish again"...!
makes your philosophers fall in that same trap...
If you had the chance to ask your god questions, what would you do or not do?
I will answer…But first…
let me make a remark:
when I see it…I read:
“MY STOCK IS NOT YOUR ART”…!
I will Answer this your question…
First…Let me look at the parts it is made of:
To meet gods
Had the Chance to ask
My answer to your question:
To meet gods:
I do not have any plans on meeting any gods…
I see the risk of then being labeled “special”…
I do not accept it…
We must live: "AS IF" we are the children of gods...
because we are clearly NOT...
we humans have equal rights and with each other only…
I must rely on my own sense of…
and my established knowledge level of right and wrong…
My response to the challenge of: This Now…
Had the Chance to ask:
I do not see it as my chance…
I have nothing gods need to answer to…
The trap here:
“You are making the god your slave”…
They now Has to answer to you…!
I will never have a slave…
I will make a statement:
“We humans have a lot of trouble...
dealing with good and bad…
You gods…and all your special powers...
must have it even harder”…!
I have not one god… I have no god…and I accept all gods…
I have the belief that:
All gods live together somewhere…
as we people do here...
Much like in Norse Mythology…
we create ALL “gods” with our imagination …
we are religious…
have a religious way of doing things…
it comes long before established religions…!
I have no questions for gods…
I am a human…
I have questions only for humans…
I would first try and find out…
if they want comunication at all…
If I meet some god…
I will behave only as a human towards another human…
Start from scratch and try to make a friendship…
Greetings for now…Jakob.
Humans are inquisitive by nature in a quest for knowledge and wisdom. Anyone going against this basic principle, should be ruled out.
Exactly! If you can't explain something, what can you say you know about it? Nothing!
Humans are inquisitive by nature in a quest for knowledge and wisdom. Anyone going against this basic principle, should be ruled out.
Well said. "Philosophy" broken down into its ancient Greek components means "love of wisdom" For who would not prefer to love wisdom than imaginary gods?
Since 2003, we are having governments of liberal thinking (leave economics aside). Recently, a law for legal abortion under certain circumstances was approved. Its application is proving to be a bumpy road, since the Church and conservative sectors of our society are scandalized. They call themselves "prolife", while we call them "candlelickers" and other worse things. Ironically, these sectors are historically the ones that least respect life and human rights, while doing their abortions with a good amount of money and under the table. Naturally, they will not discuss matters related to faith. They hate all the advanced changes that are taking plate in our society, to the point of being pathetic and irrational. You just can't argue with them, as they have no points to make.
The average christian is likely just misguided (it's amazing how many people graduate from highschool without knowing basic algebra). Not really capable of calculated malice, but more respouting what was spouted at them. The people who take leadership roles are the really scary ones. Though, even then, you'll have a lot in the mix who never took a theology class and blindly take their book as literal truth.
The Son of Man feasts, and you call him a glutton." (SSV)
I consider that the words of a Philosopher, albeit one who prefers being straightforward instead of "sophisticated".
Also, something to learn about prejudice from those two lines.
It's a clever aphorism but it amounts to an observation of how humans behave; it doesn't explain anything unless you want to read into it and make your own assumptions beyond it.
It's neither dialectic or rhetoric - it's more of a sound bite.
If it's the latter, then good and evil are whatever god says. That's problematic, to me, because it doesn't really say anything it just creates this label and leaves it open to interpretation. If a believer says "god is good" have they told you anything about either god or what goodness is?
Personally, I don't find good and evil to be coherent concepts, so I can't offer you anything remotely resembling a definition - and I'd go farther and say that, I've witheld judgement about what they are, because I am not convinced by any of the definitions I've been presented.
However, for this particular case, it doesn't matter because we can treat "Good" and "Evil" using the loose terms that theists use. If someone tells me "God is good" then I can still ask them, "Whence, therefore, evil?" Or, as one of the other commenters specified, "Why, then, isn't everything good?" (Because he appears to believe in "Good" but not "Evil") At this point we are discussing the theoretical properties of god. I'm actually not interested in defending the theoretical properties of god (because I'm extremely unconvinced that there is such a thing as a god) but in its own terms it's a dilemma that a god or a theist would have to answer.
There are several provocative answers that a god might make to that question. For example:
- "I really don't give a shit. There is good and absence of good and they just happened and it's not my problem." Well, such a god may be a supreme being, but it's not kind or loving or caring.
- "I don't know what 'Good' is." If god said that, again, it's not kind of loving or caring or good (and we probably don't know what "Good" is either)
- "I can't make everything good. There has to be some things (for whatever reason) why there are a few not-good things." In that case, god is not a supreme being; there is some higher power that prevented god from creating a universe that was free of not-good. Or maybe god just wasn't powerful enough to create a universe that was free of not-good. In which case god's not a "supreme" being at all, but rather a sort of divine amateur.
- "Actually, I'm not good myself." Is another possibility. Maybe god actually wants to make us miserable and "Good" is just an accident (or a way of throwing salt in our wounds).
I'm sure there are other possibilities.
Trying to defend the attributes of god isn't my problem; I'm not a believer. Neither, I suspect, was Epicurus.
The Epicurean paradox is difficult (hence why it is a paradox!). People who believe in a god often suggest in answer to this that we cannot understand a god's mysterious ways ... that bad things happen for a reason that will turn out to be good over the course of time. So I'm stuck here with what is good or bad ... good things may become bad and bad things may become good depending on perspective ... in which case the Epicurean logic falls down since we are implicitly trying to judge what a god does as good or bad ... which actually we can't if the nature of an event can be both good and bad at the same time. There just isn't enough information to make that call.
This is where those that believe in a god write an insurance policy ... they don't need to know whether their lives will be good or bad and never need to make that judgement because whatever happens, heaven is waiting for the faithful and is by definition all that is good. Whilst those who are not faithful look forward to an eternity of everything that is bad in hell.
I see this as really dangerous ... If there is no god, heaven or hell etc. then our actions in this life are all that we have. There is no will of a god and everything is up to us. So if we shirk our responsibilties (lets say moral responsilibilties for want of a better phrase) to ourselves and others and leave everything up to a mythical being, we (as a species) have the capability to create disaster on a planet wide scale.
We can contrast that with a more Darwinian approach. People may believe that the application of Darwinism suggests that only the fittest survive ... and again there is a paradox ... what does fittest mean and is it absolute? If we compete selfishly to gain all the resources for ourselves, in the short-term we may gain an advantage ... but looking at human behaviour in terms of co-operation, this strategy may not work over the long term, (and history tells us that it generally doesn't). I'm left with the idea that the term fittest cannot be defined as it is constantly changing as the environments change; we just never have all the information to make that call.
That's where I give up, pick up a pencil and draw silly things!
(It seems I may be an Operationalist [link] and that is so unfashionable!)
Looks like, us humans, having a bacteria like mentality, will probable not survive (unless we adapt of course) although the world will quite happily continue without us until of course the sun turns into a red giant and that'll be the end of that , but thanks to infinity there's a good chance it'll all happen again, and again, and again...
Pelicanh: Socrates and Buddha never wrote the words they are credited with either their students wrote them
Starcraftor: "It is not considered wrong to accumulate wealth on your own behalf, but it falls under the Deadly Sin of Greed as soon as that wealth comes at the cost of anyone else." Can you tell that to all the wealthy politicians whose money came from profiting off the impoverished around the world that live on less than $2 per day? Who lack the medicine to prevent maternal death from child birth or who children starve to death because they are paid pennies for the work their parents do? Just saying
It's as much of a rebuttal as saying "potatoes" would be.
Socrates and Buddha never wrote the words they are credited with either their students wrote them
What writings of Jesus do we have?
I'm quite comfortable with saying that the words of buddha are the "alleged words of buddha" or the words of Mohammed (who was illiterate) or Joseph Smith (who was illiterate) are all the much-later jottings of their followers. Ditto Lao-Tzu and Confucius.
We don't know what Socrates really said, because Plato was telling "Socrates stories" as was Aristophanes. Plato was Socrates' student and knew him personally and was plausibly present at many of the events that he recounted (and no doubt fictionalized)
What you'll notice when it comes to Socrates and Plato is that philosophers are perfectly comfortable doubting Plato's words and seeking only the arguments that he puts in Socrates' mouth. Plato makes no attempt to say that Socrates knew anything special about anything or was recounting any divinely-inspired thoughts. Since the Socratic dialogs are presented as human words, we can deal with them accordingly and (other than some of the goofier neo-platonists) nobody is saying that they are literally true and must be accepted literally at face value.
We are told that the words of the prophets are right - um, urr, - because they are. They just are! Because god says so! Because the authors of those words are basically asserting their right-ness, they forgot to argue why they're correct.
And I am working on a book, but I may not publish it because it'll cause trouble.
Regardless of whether or not you want the conversation, there are two points I would like to make:
First, you are correct. Jesus was not a philosopher. Judging from his actions and claims, it can't make sense to simply claim him as some kind of wise teacher; either he was telling the truth and was the Son of God or he was a madman.
Second, I don't find the nature of evil to be an interesting question at all. "Evil" in the Catholic church's understanding does not exist. I know that that may sound ignorant of me, but it is perfectly comparable to the way in which cold does not exist in a scientific sense. Cold is simply the absence of heat; evil is simply the absence of right action. It is not considered wrong to accumulate wealth on your own behalf, but it falls under the Deadly Sin of Greed as soon as that wealth comes at the cost of anyone else. Desiring a woman is no sin and often a positive force in a man's (or, for that matter, a woman's) life, but pornography is considered evil because it reduces the woman in question to nothing more than an object for desire.
let the shitstorm begin.
Yes, most politicians seem to disregard what their faith says or does not say about whatever issue is presently flying around. But then, so do most Americans.
I see by your comment that Jesus was either savior or madman that you've read your Lewis. So, that's a start...
it can't make sense to simply claim him as some kind of wise teacher; either he was telling the truth and was the Son of God or he was a madman.
There are more alternate possibilities:
- he was a con-man.
- he never existed at all and was a creation of con-men.
- he is an aggregate character, comprised of bits of mithraic legend and some of the myths attached to other messianic figures that were active in palestine at the time, wrapped around a core of a real person.
So I don't accept that it's a simple savior/lunatic proposition.
I'd wave Occam's Razor around and offer that the simplest explanation would be that he was a messianic rabble-rouser, much like many of the other messianic rabble-rousers that the romans had to deal with. He was an ordinary human, and died like one, then had a legend grafted on afterward by his followers just like we've seen with Mohammed, L.Ron Hubbard, Joseph Smith, and too many other religious leaders to count.
I don't find the nature of evil to be an interesting question at all.
I wouldn't, except that it's strong counter-evidence to any proposition that there is a supernatural being that loves and cares about humanity. If you argue that there is no such being, or that such a being (if it existed) were maleficent, then I agree it's not an interesting problem at all.
As a moral nihilist I hardly claim to "own" that particular issue, myself. But it's an interesting problem for those who argue that there are things such as objective morality and a personal god.
"Evil" in the Catholic church's understanding does not exist. I know that that may sound ignorant of me, but it is perfectly comparable to the way in which cold does not exist in a scientific sense. Cold is simply the absence of heat; evil is simply the absence of right action.
It's not necessary to reify evil, the problem is the same even if you see it as a dichotomy. Let me put it this way:
- There are some who argue that there is a loving god that cares about collective and individual humans' actions and fate
- That god (allegedly) has the power to do great good.
- By choosing not to, that god allows a great absence of good to periodically happen.
Therefore that god either does not care about good, or is incapable of acting to cause good.
Also, arguably, if you believe that god is the creator of all, that god chose to leave substantial areas empty of good (you might call those areas "evil" or you might call them absence of right action) therefore is responsible to some degree for that absence of right action.
It is not considered wrong to accumulate wealth on your own behalf, but it falls under the Deadly Sin of Greed as soon as that wealth comes at the cost of anyone else.
Is this your interpretation of it, or is this a newer spin on catholic doctrine?
It's certainly a new take on Matthew 19:24.
pornography is considered evil because it reduces the woman in question to nothing more than an object for desire.
Wait, now you're using the term "evil"...
I said nothing about a dichotomy; I think you need to re-examine your understanding of that word. Regardless, there is a single logical fallacy in that ancient argument: The argument assumes (!) that it is more ideal for there to be more good immediately in the world. Consider a boy at his studies. In the immediate sense, his life would be more pleasant if there were no homework for him to do; however, this would make it much more difficult for him to learn his lessons. This goes hand-in-hand with what I mention below (about Matthew 19:24), as an easier/better life to begin with actually makes it harder to learn to be righteous. Thus, it is better for some suffering to be in this passing world that you might develop and become a better person/soul.
Matthew 19:24 says nothing about the accumulation of wealth as being evil in any way. It just states that wealth (and the nearly-inevitable attachment to wealth) makes it very difficult for a wealthy man to reach heaven. Most of the times that I've heard this passage discussed, it is mentioned that one of the four gates into Jerusalem - the north gate, if I recall correctly - was unusually small and known as "the needle's eye" and that this is most likely what Jesus was referring to, as it's what those listening to him would most likely have understood him to be saying.
TL;DR version: MjRanum's bored, has some time to kill, so why not troll the theistic masses while pandering to the likeminded, sharing his limited imagination - seriously, who the hell fantasizes about nerds sitting around a table discussing crap?