Cultural Christians.

[William]

Elon Musk has identified himself as a cultural Christian in a new interview.

“While I’m not a particularly religious person, I do believe that the teachings of Jesus are good and wise… I would say I’m probably a cultural Christian,” the Tesla CEO said during a conversation on X with Jordan Peterson today. “There’s tremendous wisdom in turning the other cheek.”

Christian beliefs, Musk argued, “result in the greatest happiness for humanity, considering not just the present, but all future humans… I’m actually a big believer in the principles of Christianity. I think they’re very good.”

{SOURCE}

For debate.

Q: Is it better for the world to be a Cultural Christian than an all-out anti-theist?

Also.

Q: Is it better to be a Cultural Christian that belong to any organised Christian religion?

Cultural Christian Definition = Anyone that believes that the teachings of Jesus are good and wise.

[The Tanager]

Rather, I am fine with thinking bible reports can be categorised as JF, if you are fine with doing the same with NDE reports.

Otherwise there is a possible double standard being used for the one but not for the other.

I’d greatly benefit from you clarifying your terms better, but I’ll try another stab. Looking at your signature, UFs are based on personal subjective experience, so I don’t think your NDE or my biblical beliefs are necessarily UFs, because it seems to me that people who believe NDEs speak of a worldview like yours will sometimes bring non-subjective evidence to bear. I guess maybe they are both JFs, if I’m getting your terminology correct. But then so is materialism.

The problem I would have now, though, is the ‘F’ of your terms. Why call these facts? Neither of us thinks materialism is a fact, right? Would you put that in JF? If so, why the ‘F’?

Jesus isn't even saying that her adultery is right or wrong, nor that stoning folk is right or wrong. He is not placing himself as the judge as to what is right or wrong but that the answer to those questions are within the individual and for the individual to decide.

She had no objective accusers, including Jesus.

He absolutely is saying her adultery was wrong. He tells her to sin no more. He calls what she was there for a sin and tells her to stop. He certainly allows her the freedom to continue doing it, but the rightness/wrongness isn’t left to her to decide. Jesus chose to show mercy, yes, but he accused her of sinning and advised her to stop.

Who did Jesus side with. Neither.

Jesus sided against both sides’ actions, but sided for both sides as humans in need of (and worth) grace.

I am saying what he was doing was showing how people can keep themselves in line by being aware of their own hypocrisy re a type of antidote which allow folk to see their double standard (and how it impacts inside the shared objective reality) and repent of it (drop the stones and go away and seriously think about things).

He did this to the crowd that was being hypocritical, but also speaking to the women in her sin and telling her to repent of it as well.

Yes, I agree that it is best to understand that process to be an interactive co-creative thing both GOD and the individual are engaged with.

Co-creative in what way? Creating what is actually good/evil? Like GOD-in-you will decide stealing is bad, but GOD-in-me decides stealing is good? If not, how?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #211]

Looking at your signature, UFs are based on personal subjective experience, so I don’t think your NDE or my biblical beliefs are necessarily UFs, because it seems to me that people who believe NDEs speak of a worldview like yours will sometimes bring non-subjective evidence to bear. I guess maybe they are both JFs, if I’m getting your terminology correct.

Yes - you appear to be understanding the positions correctly.

But then so is materialism.

If you mean on the subject of such happenings, yes it is. An argument that such reports are the product of some type of brain disorder is also categorised as JF.

The problem I would have now, though, is the ‘F’ of your terms. Why call these facts? Neither of us thinks materialism is a fact, right? Would you put that in JF? If so, why the ‘F’?

The "fact" has to do with possibility. (IF) is classified as Irrefutable Fact (IF) Example Humans in general experience some level of self-awareness. This is a fact which is irrefutable.

The other fact-position are equally treated (re possibility/possibly fact) regardless of the position any human personality holds themselves to be (theist or atheist) on whatever question arising (in this case bible reports and NDE reports.

A materialist might see such reports as (UF) (and that is fine) but you and I don't (which is also fine) so we are at least on the same page and thus can discuss such in line with the idea that we exist within a created thing, whereas it is patently obvious that we cannot engage the same way with materialists and materialism.

I agree that it is best to understand that process to be an interactive co-creative thing both GOD and the individual are engaged with.

Co-creative in what way? Creating what is actually good/evil? Like GOD-in-you will decide stealing is bad, but GOD-in-me decides stealing is good? If not, how?

Co-creative in support of the purpose of growing an acceptable human personality useful to GOD in relation to oneself and others.

I am not arguing for "the GOD in me" if you are meaning "me" as the "human form".

Rather the co-creation has to do with aligning of mind, (the realization brings about this transformative alignment ) and thus the human personality has to understand they are mind engaging with matter, (theistic) not matter engaging with mind (materialistic) and therein, such unusual phenomena reported is not understood to being purely materialistic in nature and explained away as simply the result of "brain" activity and brain activity as simply the result of emergence of mindfulness through a mindless medium.

He absolutely is saying her adultery was wrong.

As to the reported story I am simply pointing out that Jesus was using the situation as a means to have all who witnessed/partook understand - in particular - the sin of hypocrisy, a point
which can be overlooked if one is simply arguing the story is about Jesus judging the woman an adulteress.
If you disagree hypocrisy is a sin, (or that Jesus didn't see hypocrisy as sinful) then we may differ in how we most likely see everything.

[The Tanager]

The "fact" has to do with possibility.

That is not how most people use ‘fact’; it’s very confusing. Facts are not seen as possible, but actual by almost everyone.

Co-creative in support of the purpose of growing an acceptable human personality useful to GOD in relation to oneself and others.

But this was being talked about in the context of morality, of what is good and evil. Do you think GOD and humans are co-creative on what constitutes good and what constitutes evil? If so, what do you mean by that? That you and GOD can create that beating up someone like Freddie Mercury is bad, while Steve and GOD can create that doing so is good?

As to the reported story I am simply pointing out that Jesus was using the situation as a means to have all who witnessed/partook understand - in particular - the sin of hypocrisy, a point
which can be overlooked if one is simply arguing the story is about Jesus judging the woman an adulteress.
If you disagree hypocrisy is a sin, (or that Jesus didn't see hypocrisy as sinful) then we may differ in how we most likely see everything.

I absolutely agree it is a sin and that Jesus is pointing that out in this story. But to say only that is to overlook the other thing Jesus is doing, which is pointing out to the woman that her adultery is a sin that he knows is not delivering on its promises, that she should stop doing it, and that he wants to show her forgiveness and freedom.

It's both. That has been my point. The relevance to our discussion being that Jesus was a moral objectivist not a subjectivist.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #213]

But to say only that...

Who was saying it was only that?

Can you recall why I brought the bible story example into this discussion? Perhaps we can focus on that instead of the tangent?

That is not how most people use ‘fact’; it’s very confusing.

Are you confused because you want to treat biblical reports as factual things and also want to treat NDE reports as fictional things and do not want to give these equal ground/a level playing field?

Because that is what we were discussing and you didn't appear to be confused about this until I said that they should be treated equally.

Do you think GOD and humans are co-creative on what constitutes good and what constitutes evil?

Yes.

If so, what do you mean by that?

Do you think GOD and you are co-creators in the development/growth of your human personality?

If so, does this growth have anything to do with morality?

Jesus was a moral objectivist not a subjectivist.

Do you mean "Jesus was a moral objectivist not a moral subjectivist"?

Re.

Something that doesn’t actually exist (like a mirage) would not be an ‘object’.

Would you say a rainbow doesn't actually exist and thus is not an object?

[The Tanager]

Who was saying it was only that?

Can you recall why I brought the bible story example into this discussion? Perhaps we can focus on that instead of the tangent?

We could have been talking past each other, so please just say the context you want to focus on with it.

Are you confused because you want to treat biblical reports as factual things and also want to treat NDE reports as fictional things and do not want to give these equal ground/a level playing field?

Because that is what we were discussing and you didn't appear to be confused about this until I said that they should be treated equally.

No, we were talking past each other from the beginning and didn’t catch that right away. I was talking about how I don’t think they are equally facts. You don’t either. You reject my understanding of the Biblical claims as true facts about reality. Neither of us think they are on a level playing field in that sense.

According to post 212, you weren’t talking about whether they are factual or fictional, but about how people argue for them in the same kinds of ways (i.e., using both subjective and objective reasons). This is what I understood and wrote in post 211 and you directly responded that I understood you correctly there.

It is that change of understanding about what you meant that confuses me about your use of the word ‘fact’. ‘Fact’ seems to fit more with the first kind, not what you said you meant by IF/JF/UF. This has nothing at all to do with which views are factual and which ones are fictional. So, no, my confusion doesn’t arise from any supposed bias.

Do you think GOD and you are co-creators in the development/growth of your human personality?

Yes.

If so, does this growth have anything to do with morality?

On the subjectivist/objectivist question, only if moral subjectivism is true.

Do you mean "Jesus was a moral objectivist not a moral subjectivist"?

Yes.

Would you say a rainbow doesn't actually exist and thus is not an object?

I honestly don’t know enough about the real science behind it to say, it's never been an important question, so I’m agnostic. It also misses the point. We have established the two categories (real and illusion); it doesn’t matter what all fits in what category.

[TRANSPONDER]

The "fact" has to do with possibility.

That is not how most people use ‘fact’; it’s very confusing. Facts are not seen as possible, but actual by almost everyone.

Co-creative in support of the purpose of growing an acceptable human personality useful to GOD in relation to oneself and others.

But this was being talked about in the context of morality, of what is good and evil. Do you think GOD and humans are co-creative on what constitutes good and what constitutes evil? If so, what do you mean by that? That you and GOD can create that beating up someone like Freddie Mercury is bad, while Steve and GOD can create that doing so is good?

As to the reported story I am simply pointing out that Jesus was using the situation as a means to have all who witnessed/partook understand - in particular - the sin of hypocrisy, a point
which can be overlooked if one is simply arguing the story is about Jesus judging the woman an adulteress.
If you disagree hypocrisy is a sin, (or that Jesus didn't see hypocrisy as sinful) then we may differ in how we most likely see everything.

I absolutely agree it is a sin and that Jesus is pointing that out in this story. But to say only that is to overlook the other thing Jesus is doing, which is pointing out to the woman that her adultery is a sin that he knows is not delivering on its promises, that she should stop doing it, and that he wants to show her forgiveness and freedom.

It's both. That has been my point. The relevance to our discussion being that Jesus was a moral objectivist not a subjectivist.

That looks to me like yet another example of Christian illogic, bias and faithbased thinking. It assumes that everything Jesus is supposed to have said is what he really did say. I am pretty sure that nothing Jesus supposedly said is what Jesus really ever said, and is just the opinion of Christian writers.

But here's the thing - whether or not, it is Jesus, or the writers - giving their moral take on the moral codes of the time, and with special relevance to the Jewish law (which Christians wanted to discredit) and Christian law (which Paul appears to say is an innate (god - given) play nice instinct.

So morality, like other origin apologetics seems to depend on trying to dismiss any natural origin for morals - and especially, IF humans just devised morals themselves, they are not 'objective'. Objective, seems to mean, dictated by God through Jesus.

But it isn't it is the same old attempt of a philosopher or ethical expert to propose a valid system of ethics. There is no reason to regard Morals as 'objective' whether given by a god (name your own, as human ethics seems innate to all cultures) or devised by humans.

Objective morality is a fraud and a swindle, based on assuming a god that did everything, made everything and dictated everything and all that is needed to validate that faithclaim is to dismiss all other hypotheses about cosmic, Life, consciousness and moral origins and that supposedly leaves a god as the default theory. It does not, and especially not with Morals, which are not too good in the OT and at best impractical in the New.

The morality argument was dead in the 80's and Christian apologetics keep trying to make it stick. Bible (and organised religion) skeptics have to stop playing their game, and call out this 'origins' apologetics as the irrational faithbased nonsense it is, and doesn't tell which god anyway.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #215]

Please just say the context you want to focus on with it.

Post #206... I introduced the particular story as an example that - whether "Jesus" or "God" - the determination of what is good and bad is for humans to decide without resorting to an external idea of GOD (be that Jesus in the NT or YHVH in the OT).
(I think the story of Moses been given stone tablets with rules on them parallels this particular story re Jesus.)
I am talking about morality as something which comes through human consciousness, (which we agree can be said to be evidence as a mark of God’s existence.)

It is that change of understanding about what you meant that confuses me about your use of the word ‘fact’.

If I understand you correctly, you have a problem with the use of the word "fact" now but did not have a problem with it before.

You explained that this is because "fact" is usually used to denote "true/something established as true" and that this was causing you confusion.

Unjustified Fact (UF) example - belief (of any sort) based on personal subjective experience. (Belief-based belief)
Justified Fact (JF) Example, The Earth is spherical in shape. (Knowledge-based belief)
Irrefutable Fact (IF) Example Humans in general experience some level of self-awareness. (Knowledge-based knowledge)

The idea of a level playing field has to do with making sure double standards (the sin of hypocrisy) is cut off/given no legs re positions.

Therein, I await for you to agree with me that both bible reports and NDE reports are equally positioned.

If you cannot accept this as being the case, then an evidential explanation is required from you as to why you treat the one differently from the other.
(Since I am prepared to treat both as equal, I have no such onus.)

Do you think GOD and you are co-creators in the development/growth of your human personality?

Yes.

If so, does this growth have anything to do with morality?

Only if moral subjectivism is true.

Are you arguing then that morality has nothing to do with your part in growth as a human personality and it is a thing which GOD alone has something to do with?

If so, can you explain the process GOD uses in order to achieve this without your participation?

Would you say a rainbow doesn't actually exist and thus is not an object?

I honestly don’t know enough about the real science behind it to say, it's never been an important question, so I’m agnostic.

Do you know the "real science" behind mirages, because you appear not to be agnostic about that, having stated that they are illusion and therefore not real.

It also misses the point. We have established the two categories (real and illusion); it doesn’t matter what all fits in what category.

I don't recall that we agreed to anything re real and illusion. We were talking about simulation, and if this universe was a simulated thing (a created thing iow) and I think that since both rainbows and mirages are a part of the simulation, there is no requirement to think of them as "non-real", so perhaps you are conflating what can be - say - "held in one's hand" as being "real", and that which cannot be held in one's hand as be "non-real"?

Re that, where would you place mind? Real or non-real?

(Do you see what I am getting at here?)

[TRANSPONDER]

It rather bemuses me when we get into a discussion about 'real' and not - real because in a sense, nothing is real, because the whole of matter and the universe (as it appears to us) is not real. It is a mental representation in our minds of the way atoms have clumped together and react.

But it is real in the sense that the perceptions we have of rainbows, for example which do not actually exist but are a factual phenomenon, are reliable and often predictable.
I think it was Einstein who said that 'the universe is an illusion, but it is a remarkably convincing one'. I say that the universe is an illusion, but it is a reliably predictable one.
I also say that reality is not what we can bang on a table, but is physics that we can predict.

The point being that, even if we are an illusion created by swirls of empty space occupying position (which is what atoms really are) or a Cosmic Hologram or even a computer game on a huge ET Alien computer, it is Real in the sense that reliable physics rules obtain and 'Miracles don't happen', which is the logical basis that puts the burden of proof on theist faithclaims.

[The Tanager]

Objective, seems to mean, dictated by God through Jesus.

No, ‘objective’ has the same sense about a moral statement that it does about a scientific statement like the shape of the earth. The existence of a God is a way that morality (like physical truths) could be objective. Naturalists, if they want to assert morality is objective, are free to offer an alternative. I haven’t seen a coherent reasoning offered for one.

That isn’t a logical problem until the naturalist wants to make moral proclamations about how one should or should not act or which moral claim is better.

[The Tanager]

Post #206... I introduced the particular story as an example that - whether "Jesus" or "God" - the determination of what is good and bad is for humans to decide without resorting to an external idea of GOD (be that Jesus in the NT or YHVH in the OT).
(I think the story of Moses been given stone tablets with rules on them parallels this particular story re Jesus.)
I am talking about morality as something which comes through human consciousness, (which we agree can be said to be evidence as a mark of God’s existence.)

But what do you mean “for humans to decide”? If it is that each human gets to decide if adultery is good or bad, then both of these stories absolutely reject that notion.

If it is that each human gets to decide what they will do, then I completely agree, but that’s irrelevant to the objective/subjective debate within morality, which is what I’ve been discussing.

If I understand you correctly, you have a problem with the use of the word "fact" now but did not have a problem with it before.

You explained that this is because "fact" is usually used to denote "true/something established as true" and that this was causing you confusion.

Correct.

Unjustified Fact (UF) example - belief (of any sort) based on personal subjective experience. (Belief-based belief)
Justified Fact (JF) Example, The Earth is spherical in shape. (Knowledge-based belief)
Irrefutable Fact (IF) Example Humans in general experience some level of self-awareness. (Knowledge-based knowledge)

The idea of a level playing field has to do with making sure double standards (the sin of hypocrisy) is cut off/given no legs re positions.

Therein, I await for you to agree with me that both bible reports and NDE reports are equally positioned.

If you cannot accept this as being the case, then an evidential explanation is required from you as to why you treat the one differently from the other.
(Since I am prepared to treat both as equal, I have no such onus.)

At first I thought the categorization was focused on how reasonable a belief founded on objective reasoning is. IFs were 100% certain, JFs were things that are the most reasonable beliefs to hold on an issue because of the objective reasoning, and UFs are not reasonable beliefs to hold because of the objective reasoning.

But then you seemed to say that UFs are beliefs only built on subjective evidence, while JFs are built on subjective and objective evidence. In that case, the use of ‘facts’ is confusing because the categories would be about the type of the evidence, not whether the conclusion is true or not. On this front, I think certain beliefs about NDEs can have objective evidence offered in support (and, therefore, are positioned equally in this sense).

On the other front, I don’t think they are the more reasonable beliefs to hold versus their alternatives, while I do think certain Biblical beliefs are the more reasonable ones to hold versus their alternatives (and, therefore, are not positioned equally in that sense).

Are you arguing then that morality has nothing to do with your part in growth as a human personality and it is a thing which GOD alone has something to do with?

If so, can you explain the process GOD uses in order to achieve this without your participation?

I’m saying that no human plays any role in the truth of moral claims. They do play a role in their personal moral development and growth (or its opposite).

Do you know the "real science" behind mirages, because you appear not to be agnostic about that, having stated that they are illusion and therefore not real.

Enough to know they are optical illusions and the thing you see isn’t a reality.

I don't recall that we agreed to anything re real and illusion. We were talking about simulation, and if this universe was a simulated thing (a created thing iow) and I think that since both rainbows and mirages are a part of the simulation, there is no requirement to think of them as "non-real", so perhaps you are conflating what can be - say - "held in one's hand" as being "real", and that which cannot be held in one's hand as be "non-real"?

No, the context (see post 203) of me speaking about a distinction between ‘simulation’ and ‘illusion’ concerned ‘good’ and ‘evil’ if materialism is true. I attach a reality to a ‘simulation’ that I don’t with an ‘illusion’, so I wanted to make that clear, even if we don’t (or shouldn’t) use those exact terms in that way.