Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-06-2014, 11:00 PM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(01-06-2014 06:48 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  
(01-06-2014 01:29 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  The point is that Christianity is, in my opinion, a vehicle for delivering a reason based religion, as opposed to, and in order to supplant, paganism. Kant upholds the dictates of moral reason to be the core of what is required of human beings. How one formulates that rule may vary but the concept is the same.

For instance:

"Kant’s... focus is on the role sacred history can play in awakening and establishing rational faith. When using faith in the prototype as an example, Kant makes clear that one can legitimately be awakened to the prototype of reason by a purported historical manifestation of the prototype (e.g., Jesus of Nazareth). According to Kant, whether one is awakened to the prototype by reason or by history, both means of awakening can set one on the path of pure moral faith. The question is not one of the means of awakening, but of what is seen as the rational ground of faith. If the empirical manifestation is believed to be a revelation of some (dormant?) truth already embedded in reason(viz., the truth of human depravity and our need for divinely initiated moral renewal), then, for Kant, there is no rift between this faith and the faith of reason—both look to the same rational truth for hope." http://www.academia.edu/194732/Kant_on_t...n_Religion

The categorical imperative is: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.
Which is a formal expression of the golden rule, "do unto other as you would have others do unto you". The test of whether you are acting on something which you would want to be universally applied is whether you would want it to apply to you. I can't see any difference. One commentator has described them thus: "Kant's Categorical Imperative is so strikingly similar to the “Golden Rule” that the two may even be morally equivalent." http://phiml.hubpages.com/hub/Kants-Cate...olden-Rule

The difference between the two is obvious. Kantianistic morality is strictly rigid and only considers the actions of the moral actor and not the consequences of such actions. The golden rule considers the recipient of a moral action first above the moral actor; ie something is morally permissible if the person on the receiving end feels it is moral and fair.

The axe-murder scenario I presented before is a good example of that. As a Kantian you would only consider the positive act of lying, and no the negative consequence of the murder. The kantian philosophy relies on the ideal of everyone adhering to the same rules in order to insure a desirable outcome; ie the actions of the murder are not your responsibility, only the act of lying or telling the truth. The Golden Rules is more flexible than that; it is usually true that the consequences of your actions are more important than the action themselves.

No it's not. It is reason based. He didn't say, "always tell the truth". That is simplistic and completely mistaken

So, a murder comes to the door and you think that Kant would say, "The guy you're looking for is next door". Which would be moronic and involve you in aiding and abetting a murder. The axiom has to be one which you can apply universally and I don't think that if you were the intended victim, you would want that to be a universally applied axiom. If you can't apply it to a situation in which you are the intended victim, then you aren't understanding what Kant said.

The problem I have with what you have posted is that you take a false interpretation of Kant, apply it wrongly to an idiotic example and then try to make Kant look silly.

The correct way to apply an axiom in such a situation is that you should do what reason tells you to and in a way that it could be applied universally, ie., with you as the potential victim, so it would mean you should so what you can to stop the axe murderer, because it might equally be you on the receiving end, and you should try to stop the axe murderer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2014, 11:32 PM (This post was last modified: 02-06-2014 11:43 PM by rampant.a.i..)
Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(02-06-2014 11:00 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(01-06-2014 06:48 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  The difference between the two is obvious. Kantianistic morality is strictly rigid and only considers the actions of the moral actor and not the consequences of such actions. The golden rule considers the recipient of a moral action first above the moral actor; ie something is morally permissible if the person on the receiving end feels it is moral and fair.

The axe-murder scenario I presented before is a good example of that. As a Kantian you would only consider the positive act of lying, and no the negative consequence of the murder. The kantian philosophy relies on the ideal of everyone adhering to the same rules in order to insure a desirable outcome; ie the actions of the murder are not your responsibility, only the act of lying or telling the truth. The Golden Rules is more flexible than that; it is usually true that the consequences of your actions are more important than the action themselves.

No it's not. It is reason based. He didn't say, "always tell the truth". That is simplistic and completely mistaken

So, a murder comes to the door and you think that Kant would say, "The guy you're looking for is next door". Which would be moronic and involve you in aiding and abetting a murder. The axiom has to be one which you can apply universally and I don't think that if you were the intended victim, you would want that to be a universally applied axiom. If you can't apply it to a situation in which you are the intended victim, then you aren't understanding what Kant said.

The problem I have with what you have posted is that you take a false interpretation of Kant, apply it wrongly to an idiotic example and then try to make Kant look silly.

The correct way to apply an axiom in such a situation is that you should do what reason tells you to and in a way that it could be applied universally, ie., with you as the potential victim, so it would mean you should so what you can to stop the axe murderer, because it might equally be you on the receiving end, and you should try to stop the axe murderer.

Right, and every single intro to Philos class is wrong.

Axioms are by definition inflexible. That's why they don't work, and yet Kant would not abandon them.

His system of categorical imperatives wasn't fixable.

Example:
Quote:[hide]One of the first major challenges to Kant's reasoning came from the French philosopher Benjamin Constant, who asserted that since truth telling must be universal, according to Kant's theories, one must (if asked) tell a known murderer the location of his prey. This challenge occurred while Kant was still alive, and his response was the essay On a Supposed Right to Tell Lies from Benevolent Motives (sometimes translated On a Supposed Right to Lie because of Philanthropic Concerns). In this reply, [/hide]Kant agreed with Constant's inference, that from Kant's premises one must infer a moral duty not to lie to a murderer.

Kant denied that such an inference indicates any weakness in his premises: not lying to the murderer is required because moral actions do not derive their worth from the expected consequences. He claimed that because lying to the murderer would treat him as a mere means to another end, the lie denies the rationality of another person, and therefore denies the possibility of there being free rational action at all. This lie results in a contradiction in conceivably and therefore the lie is in conflict with duty.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

Sound reasonable to you?

Kant was brilliant and laid a good foundation for later thinkers. But his philosophy, while complex, was far from perfect.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes rampant.a.i.'s post
03-06-2014, 12:21 AM (This post was last modified: 03-06-2014 12:25 AM by Michael_Tadlock.)
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(02-06-2014 11:00 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(01-06-2014 06:48 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  The difference between the two is obvious. Kantianistic morality is strictly rigid and only considers the actions of the moral actor and not the consequences of such actions. The golden rule considers the recipient of a moral action first above the moral actor; ie something is morally permissible if the person on the receiving end feels it is moral and fair.

The axe-murder scenario I presented before is a good example of that. As a Kantian you would only consider the positive act of lying, and no the negative consequence of the murder. The kantian philosophy relies on the ideal of everyone adhering to the same rules in order to insure a desirable outcome; ie the actions of the murder are not your responsibility, only the act of lying or telling the truth. The Golden Rules is more flexible than that; it is usually true that the consequences of your actions are more important than the action themselves.

No it's not. It is reason based. He didn't say, "always tell the truth". That is simplistic and completely mistaken

So, a murder comes to the door and you think that Kant would say, "The guy you're looking for is next door". Which would be moronic and involve you in aiding and abetting a murder. The axiom has to be one which you can apply universally and I don't think that if you were the intended victim, you would want that to be a universally applied axiom. If you can't apply it to a situation in which you are the intended victim, then you aren't understanding what Kant said.

The problem I have with what you have posted is that you take a false interpretation of Kant, apply it wrongly to an idiotic example and then try to make Kant look silly.

The correct way to apply an axiom in such a situation is that you should do what reason tells you to and in a way that it could be applied universally, ie., with you as the potential victim, so it would mean you should so what you can to stop the axe murderer, because it might equally be you on the receiving end, and you should try to stop the axe murderer.

Kant addressed that very question in his life time. I didn't make it up, I took it from history :/.

EDIT: In rampaint a.i. 's link, see the normative criticism section. It compares and contrasts the golden rule to the categorical imperative.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Michael_Tadlock's post
03-06-2014, 12:31 AM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(01-06-2014 06:21 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(01-06-2014 01:29 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  "Kant’s... focus is on the role sacred history can play in awakening and establishing rational faith. When using faith in the prototype as an example, Kant makes clear that one can legitimately be awakened to the prototype of reason by a purported historical manifestation of the prototype (e.g., Jesus of Nazareth). According to Kant, whether one is awakened to the prototype by reason or by history, both means of awakening can set one on the path of pure moral faith. The question is not one of the means of awakening, but of what is seen as the rational ground of faith. ..." http://www.academia.edu/194732/Kant_on_t...n_Religion
...

And I reckon that this where Kant ballsed it up.

Buddhism has some good stuff.
Over in this neck of the woods, there are essentially two Buddhisty types... those that are atheistic (with no external god(s)) and apply reason and those that buy the little shiny idols.

Islam has some good stuff.
Over in this neck of the woods, there are essentially two Islamy types... those that are some of the most reasonable peeps you'll ever meet and those that piss in your soup for doodling a pic of Mo on your paper napkin.

"purported historical manifestation[s] of the prototype" lead to idolatry and fanaticism.

The particular irony with Buddhism, Islam and indeed Christianity is that all have the anti-idolatry ideal in their founding documents.

Those that follow the unthinking, easy idolatry path rarely do so from a basis of reason and nor is reason awakened in them.

Drinking Beverage


I suppose Kant recognized the Jeremy E. Walker phenomenon, that sadly a lot of people just can't reason through things and the history of religion has been, for the most part of human history, all about worhshipping idols, particularly phallic ones.

I think that our modern attitudes towards sex and nudity have to do with modern religions wanting to suppress these older religions, some of which are still around, in Japan and Bhutan and some islands somewhere in the South Pacific, which I hope to visit some day.Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deltabravo's post
03-06-2014, 12:31 AM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(01-06-2014 06:21 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(01-06-2014 01:29 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  "Kant’s... focus is on the role sacred history can play in awakening and establishing rational faith. When using faith in the prototype as an example, Kant makes clear that one can legitimately be awakened to the prototype of reason by a purported historical manifestation of the prototype (e.g., Jesus of Nazareth). According to Kant, whether one is awakened to the prototype by reason or by history, both means of awakening can set one on the path of pure moral faith. The question is not one of the means of awakening, but of what is seen as the rational ground of faith. ..." http://www.academia.edu/194732/Kant_on_t...n_Religion
...

And I reckon that this where Kant ballsed it up.

Buddhism has some good stuff.
Over in this neck of the woods, there are essentially two Buddhisty types... those that are atheistic (with no external god(s)) and apply reason and those that buy the little shiny idols.

Islam has some good stuff.
Over in this neck of the woods, there are essentially two Islamy types... those that are some of the most reasonable peeps you'll ever meet and those that piss in your soup for doodling a pic of Mo on your paper napkin.

"purported historical manifestation[s] of the prototype" lead to idolatry and fanaticism.

The particular irony with Buddhism, Islam and indeed Christianity is that all have the anti-idolatry ideal in their founding documents.

Those that follow the unthinking, easy idolatry path rarely do so from a basis of reason and nor is reason awakened in them.

Drinking Beverage


I suppose Kant recognized the Jeremy E. Walker phenomenon, that sadly a lot of people just can't reason through things and the history of religion has been, for the most part of human history, all about worshipping idols, particularly phallic ones.

I think that our modern attitudes towards sex and nudity have to do with modern religions wanting to suppress these older religions, some of which are still around, in Japan and Bhutan and some islands somewhere in the South Pacific, which I hope to visit some day.Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2014, 12:43 AM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(03-06-2014 12:21 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  
(02-06-2014 11:00 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  No it's not. It is reason based. He didn't say, "always tell the truth". That is simplistic and completely mistaken

So, a murder comes to the door and you think that Kant would say, "The guy you're looking for is next door". Which would be moronic and involve you in aiding and abetting a murder. The axiom has to be one which you can apply universally and I don't think that if you were the intended victim, you would want that to be a universally applied axiom. If you can't apply it to a situation in which you are the intended victim, then you aren't understanding what Kant said.

The problem I have with what you have posted is that you take a false interpretation of Kant, apply it wrongly to an idiotic example and then try to make Kant look silly.

The correct way to apply an axiom in such a situation is that you should do what reason tells you to and in a way that it could be applied universally, ie., with you as the potential victim, so it would mean you should so what you can to stop the axe murderer, because it might equally be you on the receiving end, and you should try to stop the axe murderer.

Kant addressed that very question in his life time. I didn't make it up, I took it from history :/.

EDIT: In rampaint a.i. 's link, see the normative criticism section. It compares and contrasts the golden rule to the categorical imperative.



My point remains the same and is supported by others who view Kant the same way. For instance:

Kant’s first formulation of the categorical imperative is an understanding about how to determine if an action is right or wrong, and it states, “Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.” I take this to mean “act only in accordance with reasons that would apply to all similar situations.” A universal law can take the situation into account. For example, “Pay back your debts unless it would be more respectful to not do so,” is an example of a universal maxim. For example, Socrates discusses a situation when you are borrowing a weapon from a friend, and your friend wants the weapon back while in a rage and wants to use it to murder someone. In this case it seems more respectful to your friend to keep the weapon until he or she calms down:


Suppose that a friend when in his right mind has deposited arms with me and he asks for them when he is not in his right mind, ought I to give them back to him? No one would say that I ought or that I should be right in doing so, any more than they would say that I ought always to speak the truth to one who is in his condition.1

My interpretation of Kant is supported by Robert Johnson who makes it clear that the categorical imperative can take into consideration the situation and consequences when he lays out his understanding of the categorical imperative:


First, formulate a maxim that enshrines your reason for acting as you propose. Second, recast that maxim as a universal law of nature governing all rational agents, and so as holding that all must, by natural law, act as you yourself propose to act in these circumstances. Third, consider whether your maxim is even conceivable in a world governed by this law of nature. If it is, then, fourth, ask yourself whether you would, or could, rationally will to act on your maxim in such a world. If you could, then your action is morally permissible.2

It is clear from above that Johnson thinks “circumstances” can make a difference.

It’s not obvious how to apply the categorical in various situations. Ermanno Bencivenga argues that Kant’s categorical imperative was developed in an attempt to understand and describe moral rationality on the conceptual level rather than a comprehensive moral theory to be used in practical everyday moral reasoning.3

1 Johnson, Robert. “Kant’s Moral Philosophy.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 17 May 2011. (Section 5, The Formula of the Universal Law of Nature.) <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#ForUniLawNat>. Last updated 2008.

2 This is supported in Kant’s “On a Supposed Right to Lie because of Philanthropic Concerns,” where he makes it clear that applying the categorical imperative to everyday life requires us to “go from a metaphysics of right (which abstracts from all empirical determinations) to a principle of politics (which applies these [metaphysical] concepts [of right] to instances provided by experience)” (3).

4 Bencivenga, Ermanno. Ethics Vindicated. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. (37)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2014, 01:52 AM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(03-06-2014 12:43 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(03-06-2014 12:21 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  Kant addressed that very question in his life time. I didn't make it up, I took it from history :/.

EDIT: In rampaint a.i. 's link, see the normative criticism section. It compares and contrasts the golden rule to the categorical imperative.



My point remains the same and is supported by others who view Kant the same way. For instance:

Kant’s first formulation of the categorical imperative is an understanding about how to determine if an action is right or wrong, and it states, “Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.” I take this to mean “act only in accordance with reasons that would apply to all similar situations.”

I don't always universal axiom, but when I do, I do it situationally.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Michael_Tadlock's post
03-06-2014, 01:55 AM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(03-06-2014 12:43 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(03-06-2014 12:21 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  Kant addressed that very question in his life time. I didn't make it up, I took it from history :/.

EDIT: In rampaint a.i. 's link, see the normative criticism section. It compares and contrasts the golden rule to the categorical imperative.



My point remains the same and is supported by others who view Kant the same way. For instance:

Kant’s first formulation of the categorical imperative is an understanding about how to determine if an action is right or wrong, and it states, “Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.” I take this to mean “act only in accordance with reasons that would apply to all similar situations.” A universal law can take the situation into account. For example, “Pay back your debts unless it would be more respectful to not do so,” is an example of a universal maxim. For example, Socrates discusses a situation when you are borrowing a weapon from a friend, and your friend wants the weapon back while in a rage and wants to use it to murder someone. In this case it seems more respectful to your friend to keep the weapon until he or she calms down:


Suppose that a friend when in his right mind has deposited arms with me and he asks for them when he is not in his right mind, ought I to give them back to him? No one would say that I ought or that I should be right in doing so, any more than they would say that I ought always to speak the truth to one who is in his condition.1

My interpretation of Kant is supported by Robert Johnson who makes it clear that the categorical imperative can take into consideration the situation and consequences when he lays out his understanding of the categorical imperative:


First, formulate a maxim that enshrines your reason for acting as you propose. Second, recast that maxim as a universal law of nature governing all rational agents, and so as holding that all must, by natural law, act as you yourself propose to act in these circumstances. Third, consider whether your maxim is even conceivable in a world governed by this law of nature. If it is, then, fourth, ask yourself whether you would, or could, rationally will to act on your maxim in such a world. If you could, then your action is morally permissible.2

It is clear from above that Johnson thinks “circumstances” can make a difference.

It’s not obvious how to apply the categorical in various situations. Ermanno Bencivenga argues that Kant’s categorical imperative was developed in an attempt to understand and describe moral rationality on the conceptual level rather than a comprehensive moral theory to be used in practical everyday moral reasoning.3

1 Johnson, Robert. “Kant’s Moral Philosophy.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 17 May 2011. (Section 5, The Formula of the Universal Law of Nature.) <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#ForUniLawNat>. Last updated 2008.

2 This is supported in Kant’s “On a Supposed Right to Lie because of Philanthropic Concerns,” where he makes it clear that applying the categorical imperative to everyday life requires us to “go from a metaphysics of right (which abstracts from all empirical determinations) to a principle of politics (which applies these [metaphysical] concepts [of right] to instances provided by experience)” (3).

4 Bencivenga, Ermanno. Ethics Vindicated. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. (37)

I agree. The best way to understand Kant it to ignore everything he actually said.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2014, 01:58 AM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(01-06-2014 08:34 AM)djkamilo Wrote:  It was just awful scholarship to say the least.

How are they able to ignore St Paul? Seriously the Pauline 7 (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Phillipians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon) are universally authentically attributed to St Paul and all dated before 70 CE. It's convenient for their thesis to ignore them, but also very dishonest.

Ignoring everything in Christian polemic, apologetic writings from Origen, Ireneaus and Tertullian also very convenient. Let alone Roman writers of the era.

Plus the voice of the female was just annoying.

Can I get my time back? Thanks

You make a good point about Paul. Atwilll really should have discussed Paul in his book.

I'll share with you my opinion. I suspect Paul was a Roman government agent. I think he was part of the governments' prewar (i.e. pre 66 CE) effort at undermining Judaism. Here is my reasoning.

There’s a fascinating angle to consider; that the Roman government was the driving force behind Paul’s pagan propaganda. Paul taught that the Jewish messiah was the Christ, and he’d already been and gone, I think because he didn’t want Jews rallying under a yet to arrive militaristic messiah who would challenge Roman rule. I strongly suspect the government employed Paul, because they wanted to mar the power of messianic Judaism, and particularly Nazarenism. They were trying to stop a war.

Rome knew a revolt was brewing in Palestine in the 50’s and 60’s. The government sent many different procurators to Palestine to control the unrest, yet many of them were corrupt, which only made matters worse. All Jews in the Diaspora felt a connection with Jerusalem and the temple; they even sent money as an annual gift to the priests in the temple. The government was aware that many Jews didn’t assimilate well in a political and social sense, and that made them suspicious of their Palestinian connections. Jewish extremists throughout the empire (such as Yeshua) promoted the subversive idea that their own Jewish king should govern the world on behalf of God and in place of Caesar. If the government couldn’t pacify these Jews, it would set a dangerous precedent for other races to revolt. They needed to keep control over the trade routes to Asia and Egypt. They were frustrated at having to repeatedly use force to suppress Jewish extremists, as it was disruptive, expensive, and taxing on morale. I think the government thought that if they could undermine Jewish extremism using propaganda it would prevent a whole world of hassle.

There might have been many “Pauls” working as government agents. One of the reasons I suspect this is that he wrote to a community in Rome to introduce himself, and it’s obvious from his letter that this group already had some beliefs about a Christ. The government was worried that Judaism was attracting converts from Gentiles. Paul’s role was to stop the spread of the subversive religion. He tried to infiltrate the Nazarenes to undermine them and their messianic message. I suspect (but can’t prove) he passed information about them on to Roman authorities. His “conversion,” in which “God’s” new ideas were revealed only to him, and by which he became the founding member of his own Christ fan club, was his modus operandi. This explains one reason why he wrote with such passion; he was desperate to sell his watered down, non-militaristic version of Judaism, one that downplayed the importance of the temple and all the ethnocentric antisocial practices. His aim was to counter Jewish messianic fervor, which was building in momentum and needed to be quelled. He failed, because Jews in Palestine revolted in the war of 66 -70 CE.

This theory fits with the fact Paul was a Roman citizen, and that he had little genuine respect for Pharisaic Judaism. It could be why he didn’t publically reveal he was Roman until he was about to be physically assaulted by Roman soldiers. It would explain how he managed to support himself financially. It might also be why he hoped a financial gift to the Nazarenes in Jerusalem would be accepted; he was trying to endear himself to the Nazarenes using bribery. It explains why he often insisted that the Torah was obsolete, and why he was like a dog gnawing at a bone promoting his own theology instead. It makes clear why he wrote this to a Roman community:
“Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.” (Romans 13:1-7 KJV.) A government agent wrote this, not a Jesus fan who had seen the light!

It explains the way he finished off his letter to the Philippians:
“All the saints salute you, chiefly they that are of Caesar’s household” (Phil. 4:22, KJV.) This confirms that he had contact with the Emperor Nero’s family.

It fits with the fact the book of Acts states:
“Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul” (Acts 13:1, KJV.) So the earliest Christian community at Antioch boasted a member of Herod Antipas’ family, the pro-Roman Tetrarch who had murdered John the Baptist, and Paul (Saul) was associated with him.

It clarifies the real reason why, in the book of Acts, he was repetitively roughed up by traditional Jews nearly everywhere he went, yet was never attacked by Gentiles. It explains why once the local Roman authorities knew who he was and what he was up to, he was treated so well, despite the fact he so regularly disturbed the peace. Paul’s so called “arrest” by Roman troops in Jerusalem doesn’t mean he wasn’t in league with them. Things had got a little out of control and he ended up being a source of civil unrest. He’d become a diehard dogmatist causing trouble wherever he went. Instead of undermining Judaism, he incited Jews to the point of violence, something Rome didn’t want. The “arrest” was, in fact, for his own safety. Reading between the lines, he was never treated like a prisoner. Rather, there were remarkable Roman resources used to protect him. He had to be moved to Rome, as it was the best place his safety could be guaranteed.

We don’t hear from Paul after the early 60s. This could be because the anti-Jewish propaganda project hadn’t worked, and the time for talk was over; the military had to be bought in. He had become redundant. There is a Christian “tradition” he was executed in Rome, but no valid reason why that would have happened, and no good evidence to say it did. (http://archives.politicususa.com/2011/12...ink.html).

If this theory is true, Paul was a spy and a charlatan; a cog in the wheel of a cunning government plan. I’m not suggesting that he didn’t wholeheartedly believe in the value of what he was doing. If the project had been successful the first (66-70CE) and second (132-5 CE) Jewish wars would have been averted. I think he knew he was promoting manufactured dogma as a means to an end.

This means Rome, via Paul, created the Christ, a benign pacifist messiah.
Thijs Voskuilen and Rose Mary Sheldon, who co-wrote “Operation Messiah,” come to a similar conclusion. They postulate that Paul was “…supporting the imperial structure, benefiting from it, cooperating with it, often saved by it. The end product for Rome was exactly what it wanted - a loyal, other – worldly, spiritual movement that was completely divorced from Palestinian revolutionary movements, from Jewish nationalism and from any challenge to Roman imperial authority. Its followers were supposed to pay taxes and be loyal citizens of the emperor.”
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2014, 02:13 AM
RE: Atwill Documentary...excellent stuff
(03-06-2014 01:55 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  
(03-06-2014 12:43 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  My point remains the same and is supported by others who view Kant the same way. For instance:

Kant’s first formulation of the categorical imperative is an understanding about how to determine if an action is right or wrong, and it states, “Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.” I take this to mean “act only in accordance with reasons that would apply to all similar situations.” A universal law can take the situation into account. For example, “Pay back your debts unless it would be more respectful to not do so,” is an example of a universal maxim. For example, Socrates discusses a situation when you are borrowing a weapon from a friend, and your friend wants the weapon back while in a rage and wants to use it to murder someone. In this case it seems more respectful to your friend to keep the weapon until he or she calms down:


Suppose that a friend when in his right mind has deposited arms with me and he asks for them when he is not in his right mind, ought I to give them back to him? No one would say that I ought or that I should be right in doing so, any more than they would say that I ought always to speak the truth to one who is in his condition.1

My interpretation of Kant is supported by Robert Johnson who makes it clear that the categorical imperative can take into consideration the situation and consequences when he lays out his understanding of the categorical imperative:


First, formulate a maxim that enshrines your reason for acting as you propose. Second, recast that maxim as a universal law of nature governing all rational agents, and so as holding that all must, by natural law, act as you yourself propose to act in these circumstances. Third, consider whether your maxim is even conceivable in a world governed by this law of nature. If it is, then, fourth, ask yourself whether you would, or could, rationally will to act on your maxim in such a world. If you could, then your action is morally permissible.2

It is clear from above that Johnson thinks “circumstances” can make a difference.

It’s not obvious how to apply the categorical in various situations. Ermanno Bencivenga argues that Kant’s categorical imperative was developed in an attempt to understand and describe moral rationality on the conceptual level rather than a comprehensive moral theory to be used in practical everyday moral reasoning.3

1 Johnson, Robert. “Kant’s Moral Philosophy.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 17 May 2011. (Section 5, The Formula of the Universal Law of Nature.) <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#ForUniLawNat>. Last updated 2008.

2 This is supported in Kant’s “On a Supposed Right to Lie because of Philanthropic Concerns,” where he makes it clear that applying the categorical imperative to everyday life requires us to “go from a metaphysics of right (which abstracts from all empirical determinations) to a principle of politics (which applies these [metaphysical] concepts [of right] to instances provided by experience)” (3).

4 Bencivenga, Ermanno. Ethics Vindicated. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. (37)

I agree. The best way to understand Kant it to ignore everything he actually said.

Possibly.Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: