Right = grassroots media & free speech. — Leontiskos

When it comes to the airwaves, this is factually wrong. The truth is just the opposite. Fox News is not and never has been grassroots. It was started by Rupert Murdoch and is controlled by the Murdoch family. Sinclair Broadcasting is the second largest television operator in the US. When tuning in to there local TV station many might think that the news is reported by independent anchors, but they are reading from scripts with a conservative bias prepared centrally by Sinclair that goes out to all of their affiliates nationwide. iHeart Media is the largest owner of radio stations. This conservative group is hardly grassroots growing through mergers and accusations.

When it comes to X this is factually wrong. It is neither grassroots or free speech.

When it comes to podcasts this is factually wrong. Right wing shows dominate. It is not even close.

Relativist, I am sure I am not alone in applauding your efforts to bring truth to light, but NOS is a true Trump believer for whom facts and truth only matter to the extent that they can be used selectively in an attempt to defend him. To this end lies and falsehoods serve him just as well and usually even better. Like Trump he relies on the childish argumentative strategy of "I know you are but what am I?" accusing others of what he is accused of.

Amazing to watching the GOP manufacture issues ... — Mikie

They would not be nearly so successful if not for Fox and more recently the proliferation of podcasts that cynically treat politics as a rule free, fact free competitive sport.

Then if the essence of Christianity is strict adherence to its rules, I suppose any claim to membership requires acceptance of the ressurection. — ENOAH

There is no mention of resurrection in the sermon. There is no mention of resurrection in Mark when the good news is announced. Then again, the term 'Christian' does not appear either.

In the end, I think the strings attached end up twisting and strangling the thing being promoted. But that is admittedly me — ENOAH

Despite the efforts of the Church Fathers and the self-appointed gatekeepers in this thread, there is no single, coherent, agreed upon concept 'Christian' or teaching regarding Christianity. Odd as it may sound, Jesus was not a Christian. There is much in Christianity that I think he would not have approved of. The religion is the invention of Paul for the Gentiles and developed in ways that I think Paul would not have approved of through the influence of paganism.

Is the essence of Christianity the salvation of the individual or the strict adherence to its rules? — ENOAH

Perhaps the law of Moses is not about personal salvation or adherence to its rules. The social and political aspect of Deuteronomy should not be overlooked:

Go in and take possession of the land the Lord swore he would give to your fathers—to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob—and to their descendants after them.

(1:8)

So I took the leading men of your tribes, wise and respected men, and appointed them to have authority over you—as commanders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and of tens and as tribal officials. And I charged your judges at that time, “Hear the disputes between your people and judge fairly, whether the case is between two Israelites or between an Israelite and a foreigner residing among you. Do not show partiality in judging; hear both small and great alike. Do not be afraid of anyone, for judgment belongs to God. Bring me any case too hard for you, and I will hear it.”

(1:15-17)

The law is for the people, for the nation, not for an individual.

In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus says that he has come to fulfill the Law. Fulfilling the Law is not simply obedience to it. It is something to be accomplished. (5:18)

There is in the sermon no promise of personal salvation, but rather to be part of the kingdom of heaven. Here too there is a political or social dimension.

So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets. (7:12)

So maybe we say this idea was retrojected back to Jesus or we bite the bullet and say that Jesus breaks from the Torah here. — BitconnectCarlos

If the Sermon on the Mount is accepted as an accurate reflection of Jesus' teaching then he does not break from the Torah:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished ...

For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

(Matthew 5:17-20)

Paul, however, says that "the believers" the followers of "the way" are not under the Law. The dispute between Paul and Jesus' disciples colors much of the NT. In Acts, for example, we find:

God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.

(Acts 15:8-11)

The issue here is circumcision (brit milah, the covenant of Abraham. It is not simply a custom or tradition of the elders to be accepted or rejected, as the Law is sometimes treated in the Gospels. It is a fundamental part of the Law.

According to Acts:

... the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”

But according to the Sermon it is Jesus who says to keep the Law of Moses.

I think what it means is 'beyond the vicissitudes of existence' i.e. not subject to birth and death and arising and perishing. — Wayfarer

The Forms do not come to be or pass away, but it is affirmed that they are. Unlike the Good they are all said to be.

But since this thread is not on Plato and the Good, I will leave it there.

Well thank you for mustering enough courage to address this point. Is it expecting too much of you to address what Mark says about the good news.

Just so I am clear, are you referring to Acts where Peter says:

You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, announcing the good news

(10:36)

The same good news about which you said?

... proclaiming the "good news of Jesus Christ" was the good news (gospel) ... — Leontiskos

The term gospel does not refer exclusively the written documents. As I said:

. I think the gospels are a combination of stories that were in circulation, changing somewhat in the telling, and inspiration — Fooloso4

Fooloso is not aware of Peter's revelation — Leontiskos

Unfortunately, you lack to courage to address me and my questions to you directly. Instead you make broadside attacks against me lacking in substance. Or else you choose not to respond at all, as is the case with regard to what the "good news" means in Mark. I understand. Addressing it means undermining your claim about the connection between the good news and [correction: resurrection].

The Apocalypse of Peter or Revelation of Peter is a non-canonical gospel. It was included in the Muratorian Canon but not in the present canon. In early Christianity there was no official canon. It was not until 367 that Athanasius of Alexandria compiled what is now the official canon.

When Socrates asks for a definition of a term that he and all the interlocutors believe is important but disagree about, he is surely trying to find the view from nowhere, the place where we transcend doxa and perhaps, eventually, dianoia as well, and can see the Good itself. — J

There are a few points that I disagree with. Socratic philosophy is rooted in opinion. The examination of opinion does not mean the transcendence of opinion. I take seriously the Socratic notion of human ignorance.In Plato's Apology he says that he does not know anything noble (or beautiful) and good. (kalos kai agathos) (21d)

From the Phaedo:

One day I heard someone reading, as he said, from a book of Anaxagoras, and saying that it is Mind that directs and is the cause of everything. I was delighted with this cause and it seemed to me good, in a way, that Mind should be the cause of all. I thought that if this were so, the directing Mind would direct everything and arrange each thing in the way that was best. If then one wished to know the cause of each thing, why it comes to be or perishes or exists, one had to find what was the best way for it to be, or to be acted upon, or to act. On these premises then it befitted a man to investigate only, about this and other things, what is best.

(97b-d)

Plato shifts between mind as the cause of the order of the cosmos and mind as what order and directs human inquiry. In our inquiry we must be guided by consideration of what is best. Accordingly, we accept those arguments that seem best. The question of what is best is inextricably linked to the question of the human good. About what is best we can only do our best to say what is best and why. The question of what is best turns from things in general to the human things and ultimately to the self for whom what is best is what matters most. The question of the good leads back to the problem of self-knowledge.

In another thread Socratic Philosophy I argued that because the Good is beyond being it cannot be known.

Yes, and so far no lines are crossed. — Christoffer

Well, so far he is not the president. Although it is within the powers of the office, his choice of people like Gaetz, Kennedy, and Musk, and threats to remove military leaders who are not sufficiently "loyal" crosses a line. Replacing people who are competent and can serve as a check against his self-serving interests and destructive tendencies with people who are not but are willing to do whatever he wants is crossing a line.

Yes, there are circumstances that can change how a statement is understood, so instead of making up stories look at the circumstances. Trump is about to meet Arianne Zucker for the first time.

Arianna Zucker:

Hi, Mr. Trump. How are you? Pleasure to meet you.

Talking about her on the bus prior to meeting her Trump says:

I’ve got to use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her.You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful... I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything ... Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.

If he were to just start kissing her or grab her by the pussy what she might or might not let him do is irrelevant. There is no indication that she would "let him", he is already doing it. She is just a shiny object to him that he thinks he is entitled to do what he wants with.

Socrates doesn't offer a distinction among types of arguments, but among people who hear them or make them. — Srap Tasmaner

Right. That is a major reason why Plato wrote dialogues.

Another point is how radically different Socratic philosophy is from "the view from nowhere".

It also cuts across the division between philosophy and psychology that developed.

It's reminiscent of that Wittgenstein quote about "working on yourself." — Srap Tasmaner

A passage that I have quoted here several times.



.

It fits very well with the above speculations about the ethics of philosophical discourse — J

The "trinity" of Socratic philosophy, the just, the beautiful, and the good guides the inquiry of all of Socratic philosophy, which includes Plato and Aristotle.

Do you consider Peter's revelation a lie/a Pauline invention then? — BitconnectCarlos

I do not consider it a lie. I think the gospels are a combination of stories that were in circulation, changing somewhat in the telling, and inspiration, understood as the indwelling of spirit. Rather than doctrine or dogma inspiration it is a report or witnessing of what is present or experienced. As such, it can vary widely.

For the Church Fathers who wanted to establish the teaching of the one true church this was intolerable. Others might regard it as the genius of Christianity in accord with Paul. But Paul was at odds with Jesus and the disciples who regarded themselves as observant Jews.

If Jesus did keep kosher, then presumably statements like Matt.15:11 are early Christian beliefs retrojected back to Jesus. — BitconnectCarlos

The answer is simple. Paul on his own authority, and over the objections of Jesus' disciples declared it so. Paul gives an account of this.

... the person is of bad or questionable character, or there are reasonable reasons for someone of bad intention to make false claims about the accused, or something similar, then I would not believe them. — Bob Ross

What do you know of character of those women who have made accusations against him? Why not apply the same standard to them as you do to the accused? I agree that if there is evidence of bad intentions then their claims are weakened, but the possibility of bad intentions does not mean that there are bad intentions.

An analogy is a similarity in dissimilar events: that’s how it works. The analogous aspect was that the phrase “I didn’t even have to wait” does not itself indicate a sex crime was committed. Do you agree or not? — Bob Ross

There is nothing analogous in these situations. Shooting someone because they pose a threat is not analogues to shooting someone for fun even though the same phrase occurs when I say "I shot him".

the first quote is noting that a women who cannot prove sufficiently that the crime occurred is not in principle evil. — Bob Ross

The problem is with the misogynistic idea that "the evil woman" poses a threat to innocent men. There is always the problem of false conviction. It has nothing to do with "evil women", but this is the kind of thing that gets trotted out whenever a woman accuses a man. She is made suspect.

This is a blatant straw man, and hopefully the above provided ample clarification. — Bob Ross

The idea of the evil woman seducing and/or wrongly accusing innocent men is ancient. Whether or not this is what you intended, there it is. It is not simply the problem of false witness, the evil woman comes to play an essential part. The dynamics have been in place since long before us.

The general consensus among Christians is that the resurrection is the good news. If that's not it, then most Christians are mistaken. — Brendan Golledge

If the general consensus does not take Mark into consideration then the general consensus as you rely on it needs revision. I think that part of the general consensus is to put more weight on the Gospels than on the consensus.

The last couple days I kept finding myself thinking about the Phaedo, because there's a passage there about losing faith in arguments. The way I remembered it was something like Socrates saying, don't let my death cause you to lose faith in discussion and argument — Srap Tasmaner

What is at issue is the fate of the soul. Socrates' attempts to "charm away" Simmias' and Cebes' fear of death.

The discussion has reached this point:

Phaedo:
“ Who knows, we might be worthless judges, or these matters themselves might even be beyond trust.” (88c)

Echecrates:
“'What argument shall we ever trust now?” (88d)

It is called misologic. More than losing faith in argument it is more strongly hatred of argument. (89d) Socrates addresses this in two related ways. By giving up the pretense that philosophical argument will give the former lover of argument the answers about death he desires and returning to mythology. The other is to move from sound arguments to the soundness of the soul and sound judgment, in a word phronesis, that is developed by the cultivation of certain beliefs about life and death. Or, as Gadamer might put it, a way of being.

We are familiar with this kind of thing from the Greek sophists, whose inner hollowness Plato demonstrated. It was also he who saw clearly that there is no argumentatively adequate criterion to distinguish truly between philosophical and sophistic discourse. — Gadamer, Truth and Method, pp. 308-9

What distinguishes the philosopher from the sophist, according to Gadamer, is a matter of intent. A difference in a way of being. (The Idea of the Good, 39.)

... you have to believe that Jesus rose from the dead to be a Christian, because that's what other Christians believe. — Brendan Golledge

What do you think this means? As has been said several times in this thread by different posters, there has never been an agreed upon belief in what resurrection means. This is what Paul said:

So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
(1 Corinthians 15:42-44) — Fooloso4

The physical or natural body, including the physical body of Jesus, is perishable. It is not what is resurrected. Jesus, according to Paul, is of the seed of David according to the flesh (Romans, 1:3-4) That is, his physical body is human. That body is perishable and so is not what is resurrected.

Contrary to what some self-appointed gate-keepers here claim, the "good news" has nothing to do with resurrection.

...According to Mark:

This is the Good News about Jesus the Messiah. It began just as the prophet Isaiah had written:

“Look, I am sending my messenger ahead of you,
and he will prepare your way.
He is a voice shouting in the wilderness,
‘Prepare the way for the Lord’s coming!
Clear the road for him!’”

This messenger was John the Baptist.
(1:1-4)

Later on, after John was arrested, Jesus went into Galilee, where he preached God’s Good News.“The time promised by God has come at last!” he announced. “The Kingdom of God is near! Repent of your sins and believe the Good News!”
(1:14-15)

The good news is that the kingdom of God is near. It is the beginning of a new beginning. Those who heard the good news did not know that Jesus would be crucified. That could have nothing to do with the good news according to Mark.

In addition, according to Mark, forgiveness of sin came with repentance:

He was in the wilderness and preached that people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God to be forgiven.
(1:4)

Forgiveness of sin is not part of the good news and does not require the death of Jesus. — Fooloso4

So, where is the line being drawn? — Christoffer

For many voters the lines have already been crossed and Trump will get us back on the right side. For others Trump crosses the line. With Trump the line continues to move. The US survived Trump the first time around and so many think we can survive Trump 2.0. That there is no real danger. We can survive this or that, and one thing after another it is no longer clear where the lines are. This is authoritarian creep.

Or are people that gullible, naive and blind that it would get so far before people act? — Christoffer

The majority of voters think things are bad and blame the government. They want change and destroying the government as it is will bring change. A demagogue steps in, with promises he won't keep, and scapegoats to be eliminated as the solution.

So when will people say enough is enough? What's the line? The actual line that is. At which crossing it would result in removal by force. — Christoffer

By that time it may be too late to remove him by force or any other means. He has made it clear that he will be firing military leaders who do no demonstrate sufficient "loyalty", that is, obedience to him. He will have eliminated government agencies, made the Department of Justice an instrument of his will, effectively curtailed the powers of Congress to act against him, and have a Supreme Court that promotes theocratic rule and an even larger majority if there is an opening.

a fundamental and important principle called “innocent until proven guilty”. — Bob s

That is a legal principle. As a non legal standard, if one or two people accuse someone of something then it might be reasonable to not reach a conclusion, but as the number of accusations rise in unrelated cases where the accusers who do not know of the other accusations, it would be stupid to continue to assume that they did nothing wrong.

Believing the accuser without any evidence is always wrong; because it does not establish the necessary evidence to support what the accused was accused of. — Bob Ross

So if a large number of people make accusations in cases where the only evidence is the word of the person on each side, it is always wrong to believe the accused and not believe the many accusers?

It was an analogy to point out that saying “I didn’t even have to wait” does not entail itself a confession of sexual assault. — Bob Ross

Analogies made in cases that are not analogous are at best misleading and at worse deceptive.

I never said we should treat women that accuse men of sexual crimes, who do not have sufficient evidence to prove it, as “evil women”. — Bob Ross

What you said is:

That’s poor reasoning, and opens up for innocent men to be convicted of crimes they didn’t commit by evil women. — Bob Ross

You assume the man is innocent, and so a woman who accuses him is assumed to be evil unless she can prove he did it. But in a great many cases there are no witnesses and no evidence. It is his word against her's and her's and her's, but they can't be believed because they are all evil.

...women merely claiming be to sexually abused is not sufficient evidence to support that the alleged man did it. — Bob Ross

In such cases the only evidence is the word of the victim. Whenever accused of anything Trump plays the victim. Why, in case after case, do you take his word against women who have nothing to gain by making known what they say has happened to them?

That’s poor reasoning, and opens up for innocent men to be convicted of crimes they didn’t commit by evil women. — Bob Ross

What is poor reasoning is jumping from the allegations of these women to a situation where someone like Trump is portrayed as an innocent man convicted of crimes by evil women. It is for this reason that only a fraction of cases are even reported.

What is the reasoning behind the assumption that in case after case after case we should take Trump's word over that of the women?

All you are noting here is that he speaks demeaning about women—that’s not a sex crime. — Bob Ross

All I am noting is that he does not even seem to know her name. This is far different than the romantic date scenario you provide.

There’s tons of men out there that are f*boys that speak in an overly sexualized way about women—that’s not a sex crime. — Bob Ross

When they act on it over and over again with women who have given no indication that they welcome the advance that is a sex crime.

Yes, and unfortunately, this is the real challenge for sex crime victims — Bob Ross

No. The real challenge is that they will become the target of just the kind of "reasoning" you provide, where without any evidence they are treated as the evil woman.

I don’t think it is morally permissible; but it is legally permissible. — Bob Ross

It is not legally permissible! Lacking sufficient evidence to prove that a crime occurred does not mean that no crime was committed..

The difference between us is that you think that the tape, which you keep re-quoting, demonstrates a confession out of Trump’s own mouth to kissing women without any kind of consent; and I am not seeing how. — Bob Ross

You asked for a link. I provided one but apparently you did not read it. The tape is only one part of a larger picture. There are 27 women over a period of thirty years who made allegations against him. There was in those cases no consent involved.

What do you think of the part that says “they let you do it”? — Bob Ross

I think it means that at least in some of the cases the do not resist. There are different reasons why. It should not be taken as consent simply because someone does not fight. If you are really interested do some research on what victims of molestation say.

What do you think of the part that says “they let you do it”? It seems like, to me, that you are ignoring that part — Bob Ross

I am not. I said that Trump's assumption. All you have is his side of the story.

Can we agree on that? — Bob Ross

Yes. But what might hold for one case does not have for all cases or even most cases. Even if it is true in some cases it is not in others. Because it is not true in those cases it is molestation.

“Yeah, Hannah and I had a great time yesterday. We went on a nice date, and she let me kiss her. I didn’t even have to ask: I didn’t have to wait. She just let me kiss her. It was amazing”. — Bob Ross

He says nothing about going on a nice date. From the transcript:

Yeah that's her with the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her.

I don't think her name is "with the gold". That is nothing like a dating situation. It is predatory behavior.

My problem is that she had no concrete evidence, — Bob Ross

What concrete evidence might she have? He attacked her in a department store dressing room.

Some degree of public recognition is not licence to molest someone. Spin this any way you want, but his being "a star" does not confer privilege or make all or most women weak in the knee because it is Donald Trump.

I don''t think there is any good reason to pursue this further. If you regard his action as permissible and imagine that women welcome his advances, there is nothing more I can say to that will make you see just how wrong it is.

I'm going to go out on a limb here bit, but I think Jesus had disciples before he was crucified, and I would think it sensible to allow that they were Christians even then, as they already thought him the Messiah — unenlightened

I posted this above. It gives clear textual support for what you are saying.

The dying for your sins is an after the fact attempt to make the incomprehensible comprehensive. How could the dead Messiah accomplish what was promised? By making his death part of the plan all along.

There is such a thing as implicit consent and, specifically with kissing, it is commonly accepted that you can kiss a woman without explicitly asking if it’s ok first—it depends, rather, on the circumstances. — Bob Ross

These is such a thing, but that does not mean that when Trump just starts kissing women there is implicit consent. It does depend on the circumstances.Once again:

there is a big difference between:
— Fooloso4

I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss.I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything ... Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.

and a situation in which there is a "vibe".

We are talking about what Trump brags he had done, not what might happen between other people in other circumstances.

All he is saying in that tape, is that women will let you do things to them if you are famous; which is generally very true. — Bob Ross

To just assume that women will let him do anything because he is a star is a rapist mentality. Some women might assent but many will not. I will stop there for a moment hoping this might sink in. It is the problem of the "casting couch". Some women might let him because they think it might advance their career, but others because they are coerced and worried about what will happen if they don't.

Grabbing someone and not waiting does not leave time to judge whether they welcome the advance or give them a choice in the matter. In the E Jean Carroll case she did not "let him" do things, she resisted, but he did them anyway.

The practice is relative to a purpose or purposes. — Bob Ross

Good practice involves more that just the purpose construed narrowly. It is not simply a matter of the production of crops. To be good practice it must be sustainable. It must limit the negative environmental consequences. Phosphates produce larger yields but are harmful to streams, rivers, ponds, and lakes.

there is such a thing, in principle, as a good or bad farmer. — Bob Ross

Of course, but in practice as well as principle. What makes a good farmer is what she does in practice not principle.

instead you are sidestepping it by trying to debate what exactly the practice of farming entails. — Bob Ross

I am not sidestepping it. I have not denied that there is a difference between a good and bad farmer. It is, however, vacuous. The question of what it means to be a good farmer must address the practice of farming.

What is the purpose of chess?

To play a fair, strategic match according to certain rules to determine a winner. — Bob Ross

To play fair and by the rules is not the purpose of playing the game, it is a requirement. Determining a winner may be secondary to other things. If you are a competent player determining whether you will win again the average 5 year old should be evident without even playing.

Perhaps in your case I am wrong. Perhaps you would play with the purpose of beating them. Perhaps the same holds for other games as well - to win against them. And in line with the topic of this thread, to assert and demonstrate supremacy.

I see what you are saying, but no one tends to get explicit consent to kiss a woman: that literally kills the vibe, and women attest this. — Bob Ross

As I hope you know, there is a big difference between:

I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss.I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything ... Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.

a

and a situation in which there is a "vibe".

Likewise, he said “they let you do it” and he didn’t say “I can do it anyways”. — Bob Ross

I am quoting from a transcript of the conversation. What does it mean to let you do it when you don't even wait?

Whether or not a farmer is good at farming is relative to what the purpose of farming is — Bob Ross

Xenophon's Oeconomicus is about this. It is not simply about the purpose, it is about the practice and results of the practice.

whatever internal goods exist for chess — Bob Ross

What are the internal good of chess?

relative to the purpose of chess — Bob Ross

What is the purpose of chess? People play for a variety of reasons. I did not play chess with my young children with the purpose of

Is there a point you are trying to make in defining what it means to be good at chess?

It seems we have moved quite far away from supremacy, nationalism, and imperialism.

I have pushed back on legally dubious claims ... — AmadeusD

That is the problem! You are arguing as if this is a legal matter. It's not. There are no legal cases.

No. I am a victim of several sexual assaults — AmadeusD

Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were referring to my comment about lawyers. It is not clear what "they do" refers to. You misquote me. What I said is "they do not ... "

If you have an issue with this ... — AmadeusD

I don't. The point is that it is a major reason why many victims just keep quiet.

Your biases are writ large, and its clear your have a pre-determined view on the matter. — AmadeusD

It is not a pre-determined view. It is a view based on his own words, the allegations against him, his lies, his numerous court cases, and the strategy he learned from Roy Cohn - deny, deny, deny.

It doesn't seem to matter to you that we have systems in place to adjudicate conflicting accounts of things. — AmadeusD

These women made allegations. He denied each and every one of them as he does any accusation against him. That is as far as all but one of these cases went.

You are also intimating that a recording of a private conversation, in a context that has absolutely nothing to do with carrying out a sexual assault is evidence of one. — AmadeusD

I am not intimating anything. I am saying that grabbing a woman by the pussy without consent is a sexual assault. He claims that this is what he does.

It is several. No it isn't. — AmadeusD

According to the Oxford Languages dictionary, 'several' means:

more than two but not many.

Twenty-seven is many.

I've suggested it does not strain credibility. — AmadeusD

Evidently your threshold is far greater than mine. Is there any number of allegations against him that he denies that would strain his credibility for you?

When you do not know the facts they cannot indicate anything.
— Fooloso4

Ok. So, why are you coming to all manner of absurd conclusions, foregoing democratic judicially processes and assuming everything but God to get to a position like the one you're in? — AmadeusD

Facts are provided in the link. I listed them. The fact that the number of allegations against him are much more than "several". The fact that they did not bring legal charges against him so there was no opportunity to lie in court. The fact that E Jean Carroll brought him to court and won. The fact that none of them except her pursued it any further.

These are the facts you missed or ignored in your attempt to defend him.

Very true. I am one. — AmadeusD

One of those who do not care about the truth?

where they are assaulted a second time.
— Fooloso4

Sorry, what the heck are you talking about here? — AmadeusD

Are you just pretending to be clueless? The defense will do what they can to attempt to discredit the accuser. This often amounts to a psychological abuse and an assault on the victim's integrity.

It seems you're not getting what you want out of hte world stage, and thereby foregoing any sense of objectivity here. — AmadeusD

Nonsense. This has nothing to do with me, but when 27 women over a period of 30 years make allegations of sexual misconduct against the same person two things seem likely: there are others who remain silent and at least a few of the allegations are true. Or, perhaps you agree with him that grabbing women by the pussy is acceptable behavior if you are "a star". Or that them "letting you" do is is consent.

But hte facts indicate other than the conclusions you're drawing. — AmadeusD

What facts?

So, it does not strain credibility to think there are several, perhaps scorned, unstable women willing to lie in court for money. — AmadeusD

27 is more than several. "perhaps scorned" is weaseling and a sleazy suggestion. They were not willing to lie in court, 26 of 27 did not bring legal charges against him so there was no opportunity to lie in court or financial incentive. When you do not know the facts they cannot indicate anything.

.What is the "good news? According to Mark:

This is the Good News about Jesus the Messiah. It began just as the prophet Isaiah had written:

“Look, I am sending my messenger ahead of you,
and he will prepare your way.
He is a voice shouting in the wilderness,
‘Prepare the way for the Lord’s coming!
Clear the road for him!’”

This messenger was John the Baptist.

(1:1-4)

Later on, after John was arrested, Jesus went into Galilee, where he preached God’s Good News.“The time promised by God has come at last!” he announced. “The Kingdom of God is near! Repent of your sins and believe the Good News!”

(1:14-15)

The good news is that the kingdom of God is near. It is the beginning of a new beginning. Those who heard the good news did not know that Jesus would be crucified. That could have nothing to do with the good news according to Mark.

In addition, according to Mark, forgiveness of sin came with repentance:

He was in the wilderness and preached that people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God to be forgiven.

(1:4)

Forgiveness of sin is not part of the good news and does not require the death of Jesus.

It's actually a pretty damn good indication of this. — AmadeusD

There are many, both men and women, who choose to remain silent or do not press formal charges. They do not wish to undergo a difficult, traumatic, and humiliating ordeal where they are assaulted a second time. This time around by defense lawyers who care nothing about the truth.

one of the best definitions of phil. that I know: "inquiry about inquiry". — J

I agree. Whenever philosophy moves away from being self-reflexive it loses its bearings.

Socratic philosophy - self-knowledge, knowledge of ignorance, the examined life, is not simply inquiry but inquiry into the act, findings, and limits of our inquiring.

.

Many Christians probably believe that the resurrection was a corporeal, cellular regeneration of Jesus' body. He was literally dead; then he was literally alive again — BC

It would seem that Paul was not one of them.

So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

(1 Corinthians 15:42-44)

The physical or natural body, including the physical body of Jesus, is perishable. It is not what is resurrected. Jesus, according to Paul, is of the seed of David according to the flesh (Romans, 1:3-4) That is, he was human in his physical body. That body is perishable and so is not what is resurrected.

It might take the creatives to do this. — Amity

I think that they play an important role. We are not so easily moved by statistics and theories. We are emotional beings. But this can be manipulated in different directions. Compassion, but also fear and hatred.

I am not denying that ethics should play a role in our evaluation of politics, but without specifics the claim is vacuous

Correct. I believe I already noted I am analyzing this through an Aristotelian lens; but maybe that was with someone else. — Bob Ross

The specifics of the current political situation is something that Aristotle could know nothing about.

... that Hollywood tape explicitly states that there is consent — Bob Ross

It does not. Here is what he says:

I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.

Where is explicit consent? How can there be consent when he does not even wait?

he is conveying that women will give you consent when you are famous (which actually tends to be true if you think about it). — Bob Ross

Bullshit! His getting away with it and them consenting are two very different things.

but when I give examples of why the claim about being good at farming is problematic, you appeal to a hypothetical, moral anti-realism.

What???

Aristotelianism is a form of moral realism. — Bob Ross

What you said was:

This is a form of objective goodness: if you are really a moral anti-realist, then you must deny that there is such a thing as a good farmer, or deny that this sort of objective goodness has any relevance to morality. — Bob Ross

Your good farmer is a hypothetical. Rather than addressing what it means to be a good farmer you assume that denying your vacuous claim about the good farmer means you must be a moral anti-realist. "Moral realism", "moral anti-realism", "objective goodness", none of this is about what actual farmers do, which is the only basis on which to base a claim that he is or is not a good farmer.

those have been resolved by normative ethics. — Bob Ross

I mean this with all goodwill and intent: put aside the bloodless, frictionless world of the theoretical and come back down to earth.

An appeal to ethics gets us nowhere on this issue. Of course it is an ethical issue, but ethicists continue to argue the issue without resolution. The issue of abortion is very much in dispute between ethicists.

We don’t need to appeal to authority to discuss ethics….. — Bob Ross

It is not an appeal to authority. The fact is that those who discuss ethics, both casually and professionally, are not in agreement. Normative ethics is not some transcendent or ready made solution to ethical problems.

Politics is literally the practical study of justice….which is a sub-branch of ethics. — Bob Ross

Political science and political philosophy are studies, politics is not. Your man Trump cares nothing about justice or ethics.

Did you read the OP? — Leontiskos

I did. Did you? Did you miss the two questions raised?

1) If Jesus did not rise from the dead, can there be a rational belief in Christianity? and 2) If one is not sure if Jesus actually rose from the dead, can they still have a rational belief in Christianity? — Brenner T

These questions are not limited to the teachings of Paul on resurrection.

you display your ignorance in this area constantly — Leontiskos

Please point out the mistakes in my response to the OP.

One does not need formal theological training to know that Christianity has never been monolithic. This is a matter of historical fact, not theology. The Church Fathers would not have needed to establish a "universal" Church with official doctrines if if was. They would not have had to destroy what they regarded as heretical teaching or felt it necessary to attempt to discredit and silence those "heretical" teachers.

Did your formal theological training include the different beliefs in resurrection? What is Paul referring to when he says Jesus rose in accordance with scripture? We find in Judaism both the idea of bodily resurrection, spiritual resurrection, and even resurrection in different bodies.

The question of resurrection for Paul is complicated by Paul's "vision". To see someone in a vision is not to see him in person. His claim that:

For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves[a] or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

(1 Corinthians, 13)

is one use of the term body that is problematic.

In 1 Corinthian Paul distinguishes between the natural body and the spiritual body:

So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

(15:42-44)

The life of the spiritual body, sōma pneumatikos, comes with the death of the physical body. Whatever Paul meant by resurrection it is not necessarily the same as what others might take it to mean.

There is no mention of resurrection in the Gospel of Thomas. Since many of the early gospels were lost or destroyed we cannot say with certainty that he was alone. John's criticism of Thomas suggests that Thomas' teaching were widely known and accepted.

Elaine Pagels points out that the Gnostic Gospels contain different interpretations of Jesus rising including the idea that the resurrection was not a physical event but a symbol of how Christ's spirit could be felt in the present.

None of this is about what the truth of the resurrection might be but rather about different beliefs about what it was. If, as some believe it was symbolic rather than an historical event, then it is clear that actually physically arising from the dead is not a necessary belief held by all Christians.

If there is an upside to this is that those who oppose the MAGA movement will have to come to a better understanding of the majority and attempt to address their concerns in a meaningful way.