That "flow" from the past towards the future with a nothing that divides the two as the present is very much what he's getting at rather than a continuous series of instants. — Moliere

I don't want to sidetrack the thread, but Descartes claim of life being divided into separate independent moments seems suspect to me, especially given his claim about the mind or soul being indivisible and immortal. I think it has something to do with his defense against accusations of atheism.

Yes. I like that view, it's a spin on one of Aristotle's proofs of God. — frank

But Sartre doesn't like it.

In other words, we aren't using any writings of Descartes as the limit to the discussion. — frank

Sartre references Descartes and the infinitesimal instant. The passage from Descartes is about that. Sartre says:

... the cogito, must not be limited to the infinitesimal instant. Moreover this conclusion could be drawn from the fact that thought is an act which engages the past and shapes it outline by the future. — Being and Nothingness, p 156

In other words, Sartre is saying that thought is not a series of discreet infinitesimal instants. The thinker, the cogito, according to Descartes essentially a thinking thing and not simply a thing that thinks, is then not a series of discreet moments created anew .

I don't think these two are in conflict. If change is inherent to thought, it doesn't matter much if that change produces discreet moments or comes as a stream, does it? — frank

According to Descartes existence occurs in discreet moments. It requires a cause, namely God, to create it moment to moment.

aporia as a possible gateway to something better. — J

Aporia means impasse, the opposite of a gateway.

the Socrates (or Plato) of the Republic — J

A major key to understanding the Republic is the making of images, including the image of a transcendent realm of Forms. Or, in other words, philosophical poiesis.

Here we specifically examine the difference between knowledge and "how it looks to us." — J

In the Republic after Socrates presents the image of the Forms Glaucon wants Socrates to tell them what the Forms themselves are. Socrates responds:

You will no longer be able to follow, dear Glaucon, although there won’t be any lack of eagerness on my part. But you would no longer seeing an image of what we are saying, but the truth itself, at least as it looks to me. Whether it really is so or not cannot be properly insisted on.(emphasis added)
— 533a

I see him advocating a positive doctrine about knowledge that is meant to be independent of what Athenians, or anyone else, think of it. — J

He does advocate a positive doctrine but it is made to persuade the Athenians not would be philosophers.

Most schools have a policy prohibiting a relationship with a student that goes beyond coffee,but it happens. Since it is your teacher who must deal with the consequences of violating the rules it is the teacher who should make the decision.

...the reflective achievement of Descartes, the cogito, must not be limited to the infinitesimal instant. — Being and Nothingness, p 156

In the Third Meditation Descartes says :

For a life-span can be divided into countless parts, each completely independent of the others, so that from my existing at one time it doesn’t follow that I exist at later times, unless some cause keeps me in existence – one might say that it creates me afresh at each moment.

I take it that it is in response to this that Sartre says:

Moreover this conclusion could be drawn from the fact that thought is an act which engages the past and shapes it outline by the future. — Being and Nothingness, p 156

If I am a thinking thing, and if thinking is not something that exists anew from moment to moment but rather extends from the past to the future, then as a thinking thing I do not exist anew from moment to moment and thus do not require some cause to keep me in existence.

I think Socrates and most philosophers since are committed to the idea that there is an ideal convergence point, involving rational inquiry, where we can reach consensus based on what is the case, not simply on "how it looks to us." — J

I don't think the Socratic philosophers agree with this. Certainly it involves rational inquiry, but where do they affirm anything like an ideal convergence point or consensus that is not provisional? Without knowledge I do not see how we can get beyond "how it looks to us." In many cases inquiry ends in aporia.

At least in part because they too chose change. She did not do a good job of articulating how her administration would differ from his. At one point she said she would not have done much differently She later attempted to walk that back.

Trump painted her as a radial progressive. In response she attempted to appear as a moderate maintaining the status quo.

And what you quoted from me was written with Socratic practice in mind. — Srap Tasmaner

But an examination of opinion is not an attempt to find a view from nowhere. It is an attempt to find the opinions that seems best. It is the view from where we are, in our ignorance of transcendent truths. The questions remain open, to be looked at again from another limited point of view.

The view from nowhere is a forgetfulness or disregard for the human. If, however, the unexamined life is not worth living then surely it cannot be a view from nowhere.

I don't really know what happened. — Tom Storm

Neither does anyone else.

perceptions of the economy tanking when it is actually doing ok — Tom Storm

For many the economy is a matter of what they can and cannot afford. For some there is real hardship and financial insecurity. For others it is being able to afford a house or what their parents had. And for still others it is resentment that they can't afford a big house or fancy car or luxury vacation.

Unfortunately Trump will take credit for an improving economy, just as he did last time around.

I don't think payback for liberal elites, transgender issues, and "wokeness" are that important. It is more a matter of what people see and hear in the media than these things having a significant effect on their lives.

embracing an exciting wrecking crew that will dismantle the entrenched old guard. — Tom Storm

Yeah, I agree. What they don't think about is what happens after the destruction. What replaces it.

To what extent was this election driven by a declining faith in established systems and a demand for bold, culture-busting reforms symbolized by Trump? — Tom Storm

I think people are fickle. The Founders were well aware of this and tried to minimize it.

... intensifying polarization and a clash of worldviews? — Tom Storm

It certainly seems as if this is the case, but I think the whole thing might be to a greater or lesser extent exaggerated. People are growing weary of it. The sport of "owning the libs" is getting old and tired. It takes time to adjust to change, and things continue in significant ways. Often acceptance comes with a new generation.

Or... maybe I'm full of shit and we are all fucked.

Whatever the case, grannies cramping themselves into an aneurysm is just sad on multiple levels. — Tzeentch

Tzeentch, you are clueless.

the politicians' trick? — Tzeentch

What trick? Are Trump's choices to head government agencies with incompetent sycophants a politician's trick? Are his threats to gut and eliminate government agencies a politician's trick? Are his threats against the media that does not show proper deference to him a politician's trick? Are his threats of retribution against his political enemies a politician's trick? Are his environmental policies a politician's trick?

If there is a politician's trick that Trump is using it is to say outrageous things that get attention and steer attention away from the real threads.

What pot do you suppose I'm boiling in? — Tzeentch

You don't seem to understand the metaphor. The pot is not yet boiling. At this point it may seem welcomingly warm.

The pot is the USA. It is not about you, its about us.

Said the frog in the water slowly coming to a boil: "Come on in the water is warm".

It is the assumption that I question. I think it has more to do with dissatisfaction with the economy, the way they believe the country is going, and a belief that Trump will fix it; or, that any change will be better than what we have now.

So will the DNC learn this lesson? — 180 Proof

What is the lesson? Not to nominate a woman?

Do you think a man would have won?

.

the political pendulum — frank

What are the forces behind the movement today? Dissatisfaction and the desire for change play a role, but is authoritarianism the only option? Of course one man's authoritarianism is another's New Deal. From that perspective some see MAGA is a correction.

Is the demagogue or a plutocracy or kleptocracy the natural consequence of democracy?

Or is our system robust enough to self-correct?

Right = grassroots media & free speech. — Leontiskos

Free speech?! You are being gaslighted.

America’s right-wing forces would have you believe that they are the courageous entities standing up for free speech.

But, as they try to claim that mantle, many of those same forces in media and politics are behind a disturbing wave of book bans sweeping the nation.
PEN America, a non-profit organization committed to protecting free expression, published an alarming report Tuesday indicating that the “book ban crisis” is only getting worse. The bans are “speeding up,” the organization warned in its report, a troublesome trend that is impacting public school systems from coast-to-coast.

“There were over 4,000 instances of book bans in the first half of this school year—more than all of last school year as a whole. This is a marked increase in comparison to the last spring semester, in which PEN America recorded 1,841 book bans,” the group said in the report, aptly titled “Banned in the USA.”

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/17/media/right-wing-book-bans-accelerating/index.html

A link to the PEN report.

In public libraries:

Suddenly book bans and other forms of censorship in schools and libraries are ascendant across the country, led by organized groups and politicians. Last year saw a record-breaking 1,269 efforts to censor books and resources nationwide, nearly twice as many as in 2021, according to the American Library Association (ALA). The ALA used to receive 300 to 400 reports a year of efforts to ban books, says Deborah Caldwell-Stone, director of the ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom, “but in 2020 we suddenly began receiving a growing number of reports — from one to two a week, if any, to five or six in a single day.”

https://www.gse.harvard.edu/ideas/ed-magazine/23/11/book-bans-and-librarians-who-wont-be-hushed

According to Fox News:

FOX News Channel (FNC) is a 24-hour all-encompassing news service and has been the number one network in basic cable for the last eight years and the most-watched television news channel for more than 22 consecutive years, currently attracting nearly 50% of the cable news viewing audience according to Nielsen Media Research. Notably, Nielsen/MRI Fusion has consistently shown FNC to be the network of choice for more Democrat and Independent viewers, with the most politically diverse audience in cable news. Additionally, a 2023 New York Times/Siena College poll found FNC as the leading single source of news for voters across the country. Owned by Fox Corporation, FNC is available in nearly 70 million homes and dominates the cable news landscape, routinely notching the top 10 programs in the genre.

https://press.foxnews.com/2024/10/fox-news-channel-sees-second-highest-rated-october-in-network-history-during-an-election-year#:~:text=FOX%20News%20Channel%20(FNC)%20is,audience%20according%20to%20Nielsen%20Media

wise and sagacious universities — Fire Ologist

New College of Florida, the small liberal arts college historically ranked among U.S. News and World Report’s top 75 institutions, has fallen 24 places. Now it risks dropping out of the top-100 category entirely.

This double-digit tumble is due in part to Governor Ron DeSantis’ overhaul of the school to transform it into a decidedly right-wing institution—a “Hillsdale of the South,” in reference to the conservative college in Michigan. DeSantis appointed right-wing activists to the board of trustees, replaced the college’s president and other administrators with political allies who have no experience in higher education, and gutted one-third of the faculty along with the diversity and equity department. The board has even relocated students to hotels to accommodate incoming athletes’ use of campus living spaces.

This type of college takeover is a new, more sinister development in a longstanding conservative practice. The right has spent decades creating parallel and competing structures in areas including political news, social media, and even consumer goods. This time, instead of offering students a conservative alternative in higher education, DeSantis and his allies are gutting an existing institution from the inside.

https://time.com/6319108/conservative-universities/

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.