If you believe the individual is the primary unit of concern, you necessarily have a concern for all persons — NOS4A2

And yet that "concern for all persons" does not extend to their health or whether children have food and shelter.

Evidently your concern extends only to yourself and the principle of the right to be left alone.

The point is that all persons are individuals and I afford each of them certain rights. — NOS4A2

What are these rights that you afford them? Do you afford them the right to healthcare? Food and shelter for indigent minors?

Sure. It's just that you said the philosophers believed in god. I don't think Socrates did. Plato used him as a mouthpiece. Plato wasn't the only one who did that. — frank

A few quick points:

You are correct in noting the charge of atheism against Socrates. This influenced how Socrates was depicted by Plato and Xenophon. They had to defend both him and philosophy against this charge. Socrates was silenced. The same could not be the fate of philosophy.

In the Republic it is the Good, not God or gods, that: "provides the truth to the things known and gives the power to the one who knows" It is "the cause of the knowledge and truth". Further, "existence and being" are the result of the Good. (508e - 509b) Socrates previously called the sun a god, but this god too owes its existence to the Good.

Far from being a denial of Socrates atheism, it is an affirmation of it.

Some here have failed to properly distinguish the works of Plato and Platonism. They are two different things.

If you believe the individual is the primary unit of concern, you necessarily have a concern for all persons — NOS4A2

Except it is not the individual that is the primary concern. The primary concern of individualism is ME.

If your primary concern is for all persons then your thinking has matured beyond individualism. If so then you have figured out what is wrong with individualism.

Well sometimes you may offend someone by telling the truth. Case in point, My calling out Apollodorus' ignorance and obstinance in this thread.

The truth is, I don't know if it is just a character trait or a pathology. So you are right, I do it with uncertainty. It is evidently not simply a matter of poor reasoning, although it is that, but of something pathological - projecting and trying to cover his lack of knowledge of Christian history by accusing me of saying things I corrected him of saying. And note how many of his arguments come down to calling whoever disagrees with him a Marxist.

And so, in order not to regret playing along and feeding what truly looks to me to be pathological I will no longer engage with him.

I am not going to respond to any more of your false accusations.
— Fooloso4
So, you’re finally conceding defeat. — Apollodorus

Tell yourself whatever it is you need to. Resorting to false accusations, accusing me of saying things I did not is dishonest and cowardly.

Sorry Shawn, I was joking. Taking the position that I can only be sure of my own existence, everything I said, beginning with the fact that I responded to you contradicts solipsism.

Either way, particular or universal, the self is the ultimate truth for the solipsist in His or Her own World, epistemically. — Shawn

I tell myself this all the time, but no one listens. And by no one, of course, I mean me.

Of course.

Solipsism simply cannot be true if the solipsist can doubt.

Prove me wrong. — Shawn

I could but I'm tired of arguing with myself and ending up doubting myself.

PM sent.

You're re-born — Wayfarer

But I am not an entity that is re-born?

The Marxist use (or misuse) of history — Apollodorus

What does this have to do with what Jesus meant by love your neighbor? Your problem with Marxists seems to go much deeper than a difference in ideology.

Just look at the preposterous statements you’re making:
Jesus was addressed as “rabbi”, therefore he couldn’t have been the Son of God. — Apollodorus

This is another example of pathological projection. I said no such thing! I said he was a rabbi. You accused me of making that up and said that he wasn't a rabbi he was the Son of God. I then said that being one does not exclude being the other. It is all right there in the posts.

The fact is that the Gospels show very clearly that Jesus was addressed as “the Son of God” — Apollodorus

And also son of man and rabbi.

You see the word “rabbi” bot not “Son of God”. — Apollodorus

Of course I see it. I never denied it. What I said is that the term meant something different for Jews, and that includes Jesus and his disciples, than it did for gentiles. Jews would never accept the idea of a "begotten son", a son who was one in substance with the father. It is a pagan idea. One that Jesus would have rejected. Jesus believed that there was one God, and it wasn't him.

Since you haven’t spoken to Jesus, you can’t claim to know who he thought he was. — Apollodorus

I can know the context in which he spoke. I can know the saying ascribed to him in the gospels. I can know that none of the gospels have him professing the Apostles Creed.

And, of course, Christians have the right to believe in Jesus in whichever way they wish. You deny this ... — Apollodorus

Once again, I have said several times you can believe whatever you want.

I am not going to respond to any more of your false accusations.

Sorry, but you gave an insufficient answer. The task is not what the questions are; but how those questions elicit us to act in the absence of an answer. You have a very strong sense and incredibly strong command of ignoring my points when you are cornered. — god must be atheist

I do not think that I am cornered. Is that what you intend? To corner me?

We are in the process of packing up and moving back to our summer residence. I simply did not read your question carefully enough. I was thinking about what the questions are.

My first answer to your question is, I can't tell you how to live. For me it begins with working on myself, on who I am and want to be. What I do follows. To live the examined life, that is, to reflect on what I do and say and alter my behavior and attitude when upon reflection I think I have done wrong. To act with patience, humility, and caution, knowing that whatever I do things may not work out as intended or that what is intended may not have been the best choice. To try to see things from different perspectives.

It's really hard, I think! What if you become a disease vector? — bert1

He is an intellectual disease vector. Fortunately many here have been inoculated.

if you’re talking about history and sources, let’s see what history and the sources actually say, not how anti-Christians interpret them. — Apollodorus

Obviously you have not looked at any of the sources I pointed to. Most are by Christian scholars. Apollodorus, the truth is not the enemy, or is only the enemy if you insist on holding on to false beliefs.

What kind of king did the neighbouring nations have? — Apollodorus

Being like all the nations by having a king, as they do, does not mean having a king that is like their king.

A king that was the representative of God on earth and the “Son of God”. — Apollodorus

Are you claiming that this is what the kings of the Egyptians, Assyrians, Mesopotamians, etc. were, representatives of Jesus?

It’s a well-known fact that the institution of kingship in which the king was the son and representative of God, was part and parcel of the culture in the region, especially Egyptian culture which was dominant at the time and to which the Hebrews had particularly close links. — Apollodorus

This is not something that is "well-known" to Egyptologists. The kings were considered incarnate gods. Just like Christians came to believe Jesus was.

Pre-biblical Egyptian inscriptions show that when a king or pharaoh ascended to the throne he was said to be appointed by the God Re, his father. So, he was “Son of God” and “Divine King”. — Apollodorus

What is it that you think you are arguing for? Are you trying to show that the mythology surrounding Jesus was the same as the mythology surrounding the pharaohs? Do you think that helps or hurts your case?

So, who took what from whom? — Apollodorus

You still don't get it. It is not a question of who took what from whom, but of ascribing a meaning to what Jesus said based on a religion that developed after his death.

We know that Jesus himself visited Egypt — Apollodorus

You are really not helping your case. First of all, according to the story in Matthew Jesus was an infant. Second, why would the actual son of God be influenced by Egyptian mythology?

Did Jesus believe he was the Son of God? Well, you weren’t there at the time so you can’t tell for certain, can you? — Apollodorus

We have only the Gospels, and nowhere in the gospels does he claim the things later ascribed to him.

What is certain, however, is that Alexander the Great was called “the Son of God” — Apollodorus

Yes, lots of people were called sons of God, and gods even. Is your point that Jesus was just one of many?

I think it is baseless to claim that Christianity "robbed” the Jews of their "Divine King/Messiah” and "Son of God” concepts in view of the fact that this was part of the common cultural and religious heritage in the region. — Apollodorus

I said nothing about being "robbed". That is all in your fevered brain. You are actually making my point that the gentiles took (as in interpreted/understood not "robbed") the teachings and stories about Jesus and incorporated them into their own mythologies.

And what matters at the end of the day is that Christians felt to have good reason to believe that Jesus was the Son of God and they have every right to do so. — Apollodorus

I have said nothing to the contrary. It is not a question of what Christians believe but of what Jesus meant when he said those words. To import a whole mythology to interpret his simple words is hermeneutically suspect.

I don’t think it is for neo-Marxists to tell Christians what to do. — Apollodorus

Your mind is in a rut. Your response to everyone who disagrees with you is to call them a neo-Marxist. It is a sign of emotional and philosophical immaturity.

Many years ago I met a Catholic priest and since I had been reading a commentary on Genesis wanted to know his views. To my surprise he admitted he knew very little of the Bible. His training and concern wall with ministry and counseling.

As to a certain member, I think his lack of knowledge is only part of the problem. His wild accusations hint at the rest.

Or what did you have in mind, Fooloso4? Can you give some examples, of how to live and think GIVEN what we can't answer? — god must be atheist

Questions about how we ought to live, on a personal, social, political, and geo-political level.

Fooloso4 I'm curious what Anand-Haqq thinks. — Tom Storm

Me too, but your question is one that is often asked.

Perhaps philosophy is not about solving problems but an awareness of them and figuring out how best to live and think given what we cannot answer.

But what is his actual contribution? — Tom Storm

One is the shift from the philosophical assumptions of being to becoming, that things have a fixed end-point or completion which determine what they are.

What I'm pointing out is that in the Buddhist view, there is no entity that incarnates, but that a set of causal factors originates from the living being's actions, which then assume the form of another being in 'the next life'. — Wayfarer

But that is not the same as this:

If every timber is replaced, is it still the same ship? I would say 'yes' if it maintains the same shape and is owned and operated by Theseus. — Wayfarer

The form of another being does not maintain the same shape or is it owned and operated by some other being.

Put differently, why should I care about another being in the next life? In what way have I been liberated from the cycle?

Edit: I see that @180 Proof asked the same question.

Did I use that word? I'm saying that it's 'the ship of theseus' problem i.e. the parts of an entity can be changed but that entity retain its identity. — Wayfarer

You responded to a question about the soul. I assumed your response had something to do with what was asked.

That is the 'ship of Theseus' problem. — Wayfarer

It's not. Changing one physical part with another has nothing to do with the nebulous notion of a soul.

C'mon. It's been pretty simple for thousands of years.
— frank

...simple... — Banno

@Banno

How dare you bring facts into a discussion of the soul!

↪Banno

Well, for the average person it was simple. — frank

Perhaps for the average person who did not know what questions to ask and simply believed whatever it was they were told to believe.

Does Christianity provide a coherent account of the soul or simply claim it? Which version of Christianity are you talking about? The one that claim bodily resurrection of just the soul or Paul's spiritual body, sōma pneumatikos?

People have understood it for thousands of years. I guess you're cut off from the vast majority of people in your own culture and broader language group. — frank

See my earlier comments about Plato's Phaedo. While ostensibly he is laying out an argument to support an immortal soul, he is at the same time showing that there is no coherent concept of an immortal soul.

Added: I also cited two seminal sources from my own culture: Aristotle and the Hebrew Bible. Neither posits an immortal soul that exists apart from a particular body.

So what? That isn't a crime. — Apollodorus

You seem to have lost track of the argument. It is not a crime, but it is also not what Jesus said or what he meant. All that stuff came later.

But concepts like "Son of God" and "Divine King" were quite common, they weren't the exclusive property of the Jews as you're claiming. — Apollodorus

I said nothing of the sort! My contention is that if you wish to understand the meaning of what Jesus said then you need to look at the historical context in which he said those words and the historical context in which the Gospels were written. You disregard both and claim it means what it came to mean for some Christians. And with regard to that you ignore the historical development in which Christian doctrine became official. Again, I gave you all the information you need to do the research on these issues.

You are correct. They are not the exclusive property of the Jews, and they are not the exclusive property of Christians. Jesus was a Jew addressing his disciples who were Jews. He was not a Christian teaching after the Council of Nicea when certain document became official according to some self appointed authorities.

Plus, it isn't about history, it's about religion and faith. — Apollodorus

Christianity is a doctrinaire religion. Its history is an essential part of the development of its doctrines. You are of course free to remain ignorant of such things, but when you make claims such as:

This means that "loving God" and "loving your neighbor" does not mean what is commonly understood by the term "love". — Apollodorus

And:

But the point I was making was that there are two important distinctions to be drawn, (1) between what is commonly understood by “love” and (2) between “love of God” and “love of our neighbor”. — Apollodorus

That is a definitive statement about what love your neighbor means. I pointed out that this has no textual support according to the passages where it occurs. What you said is not the same as saying that this is what it means to you according to your Christian beliefs.

What you're implying is that Christians aren't allowed to have their own religion and should be punished for borrowing from the Jews. — Apollodorus

I said nothing of the sort. I am talking about what Jesus said in its historical context. You are free to ignore it. No one is going to punish you.

Christians also borrowed quite a bit from the Greeks, Romans and others. — Apollodorus

Right, and that is why taking Jesus' words and attempting to alter them according to later developments is to distort what he said. Again, you are free to do so, but you are wrong to say that what Jesus said means what you take it to mean according to a religion that developed after his death.

Should they be punished for that as well? Would you like to start burning Christian bibles and churches??? — Apollodorus

Such ridiculous accusations do not help your argument or whatever credibility you might still have on this forum.

Of course not. The new Jimi would probably be drawn to guitar music or something like that. — frank

Being the master musician and innovator he was is essential to the identity of Jimi Hendrix. Someone with a different identity would not be him.

What I'm really looking for from Fooloso4 is his or her basis for ruling out reincarnation. — frank

I have not ruled it out, I just have not ruled it in. I find no compelling argument to do so and cannot make sense of what a disembodied soul even is.

I don't think a person who believes in reincarnation would say that you retain specific bodily movements from one life to the next. — frank

In that case, contrary to what you said, they do not retain the experiences and skills that involve bodily movement. The reincarnated Jimi Hendrix would not be born with his ability to play guitar and would not have "ever been experienced".

I think they would say that just as you are the same person you were seven years ago (the rate of cellular regeneration), you are the same person in the next life — frank

There is a fundamental difference. Cellular regeneration does not transfer from one body to the next. That would certainly make giving birth difficult.

You're only imagining that. You need to familiarize yourself with Christianity before you make unexamined assumptions like that. In Christianity Jesus is the Son of God. — Apollodorus

I am well aquanted with Christianity. What you are ignoring is its history and factions. I have given you all the information you need to do the research, but you choose to close your eyes and ignore the evidence.

Yes, mainstream Christianity today holds to the doctrine that Jesus is the Son of God. It was not always that way in Christianity. It has gone through several transformations. To look at the beliefs held today and insist that they are what Jesus meant by "love thy neighbor" is anachronistic.

Plus, the Jews could have taken those concepts from others. — Apollodorus

Perhaps they did. What difference does that make to how Jesus and his followers understood what it means to love your neighbor? Or what the terms Messiah and son of God meant to them?

People use words, beliefs and concepts that already exist. Why would they start inventing something new? — Apollodorus

And yet that is exactly what they did. They took Jewish concepts and over time the meaning was altered.

Was that your main argument though? Muscle memory? — frank

Main argument?

You asked:

I'm asking how you know these things, once generated, disappear with your body? — frank

Manual skills are bodily skills. They involve touch and specific bodily movements. How are they maintained if you no longer have a body?

Well, if you really imagine that I didn't know you might come up with that, you are quite wrong. — Apollodorus

I don't have to imagine it. You accused me of making it up:

And, of course, the verses from the Hebrew Bible you're referring to, just don't exist. That's why you can't quote them. — Apollodorus

First you claim I made it up, and when I cite them you claim you knew all along.

To begin with, it is generally acknowledged that the OT texts are corrupted so, they aren’t a hundred percent reliable. — Apollodorus

There is always the problem of transcription error but every instance of the term cannot be a transcription error. What evidence do you have of substantial corruption between the time Paul uses the term, the NT authors use the term, and now? More specifically what evidence do you have that the uses of the term are corruptions and when the corrupted terms were introduced?

However, what is actually meant here is not that they were begotten in the sense of brought into being but in the sense of appointed, i.e. invested with the rank of King: they were each appointed King of Israel. — Apollodorus

The belief in a Messiah originates in Judaism There is no evidence that Paul used 'Messiah' and 'son of God' in any other sense then how they were used in Judaism. He claimed that Jesus was the Messiah, the anointed (in Greek Chrio, Khristós, Christ)King of Israel. It was not Jesus' birth but his death that was the focus of Paul's message.

We are told very clearly that he was brought into the world by the Holy Spirit, i.e. by God’s own Spiritual Power: — Apollodorus

Mark, the oldest of the Gospels, tells no such story, nor does John, and more importantly, Jesus himself does not either.

So these are two totally different stories. David and Solomon were appointed by God, Jesus was created — Apollodorus

There is another story. The story told by John. You quote it but fail to see how it differs from the other stories.

The stories are different. The point is that they take the Jewish teachings of Jesus and Paul and make them into something else.

As for Jesus teaching the “Jewish law” it is obvious that this couldn’t have been the case. How can the Son of God or Prophet or even “Jewish rabbi” (as you choose to call him) teach the Jewish law to the Jews if the Jews ignored him? — Apollodorus

The Gospels tell the story of twelve Jews who did not ignore him. Again, read what Paul said about the Law and Gentiles, and what he said about the split between him and Jesus' disciples over the matter of the Law.

As I said earlier:

It is typical Christian chauvinism to take the teachings of a Jewish rabbi and make them into something they are not. But that is, after all, what the term Christian is all about. — Fooloso4

They took the Jewish terms 'Messiah' and 'son of God' and made them into something else. Something that was foreign to Jesus and Paul. To point to how the terms are used differently only supports what I have said.

I'm asking how you know these things, once generated, disappear with your body? — frank

In the case of muscle memory I don't see how it can be carried into another life if the muscles are not part of that life. Besides, I might be reincarnated as a slug.

I would have none of the things you mention if I was a disembodied entity somehow tethered to a body
— Fooloso4

How do you know that? — frank

I would have no manual skills without a body. Those skill involve muscle memory. Fear has a bodily component, flooding the body with adrenaline, fight or flight. Some of my relationships are to varying degrees physical. I would not have my biological children. Failure of children to thrive often has something to do with the lack of physical contact.

It's you. Your experiences, your skills, your fears, your disappointments, your failures, your relationships, etc. — frank

I make no distinction between me and my body. I would have none of the things you mention if I was a disembodied entity somehow tethered to a body.

It is anyone's guess what will happen to Trump but the direction the Republican Party is going in is clear. They believe they have a winning formula, suppress votes and suppress any criticism or denial of Trump's lies.

The problem is using a term that has various meanings does not tell us what it is that endures beyond life. Neither Aristotle's psyche or the Hebrew ruach does. Calling it "soul" means no more than calling it "something". "Something" is not an account of that something.

What all definitions have in common is that it's an animating force (anima). — frank

Right, but the idea of a soul that reanimates a body which is not the same body but is still somehow "you" is not the same as Aristotle's psyche or the Hebrew ruach, breathe of God.