Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight.

[Immanuel Can]

You poor blinded little theist, I'm not "imagining" anything.

Well, here's the thing. We're going to find out. The stakes you think you're playing for is a posture among anonymous speakers on a discussion board; pretty low stakes, really. But what we're really doing is talking about your eternal destiny. And as Jesus asked,

"What shall it profit a man if he should gain the whole world, but lose his own soul; or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?" (Mt. 12:26)

To give up your soul for everything temporally desirable is bad enough. But to surrender it for a chance to preen on a discussion board? Can one spend any more for anything less?

There is no endgame here by which you win. Pascal saw this. And even if you don't believe Pascal, does not common sense tell you the same? Is not the disproportion of the potential "win' and the potential "loss" too great for you to undertake? Do you not retain some sense of self-interest or even self-preservation, that you speak this way of God?

But I see no point in provoking you further. So I shall let you decide to hear or not, as you may decide. But this you know: you have been told. And for that, you will one day answer.

[Dontaskme]

You poor blinded little theist, I'm not "imagining" anything.

Well, here's the thing. We're going to find out. The stakes you think you're playing for is a posture among anonymous speakers on a discussion board; pretty low stakes, really. But what we're really doing is talking about your eternal destiny. And as Jesus asked,

"What shall it profit a man if he should gain the whole world, but lose his own soul; or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?" (Mt. 12:26)

To give up your soul for everything temporally desirable is bad enough. But to surrender it for a chance to preen on a discussion board? Can one spend any more for anything less?

There is no endgame here by which you win. Pascal saw this. And even if you don't believe Pascal, does not common sense tell you the same? Is not the disproportion of the potential "win' and the potential "loss" too great for you to undertake? Do you not retain some sense of self-interest or even self-preservation, that you speak this way of God?

But I see no point in provoking you further. So I shall let you decide to hear or not, as you may decide. But this you know: you have been told. And for that, you will one day answer.

Very good reply.

Also, we cannot know if this earthly event is a one off never to be repeated event, in that it's circumstances just got lucky, or that it was a totally random accident that would never in all eternity ever happen again ever. We just cannot know that.

.

[Dontaskme]

lets hear your own account of why you believe God exists.

Actually, God has a full account of why I exist.

I can see that now. I cannot know. I is known. (me sometimes gets a little confused as to which I is which. Am I spirit or flesh. .or both.. I forget while in the flesh where I'm in the sleep state and have no awareness present in this state, it is only upon waking from the sleep state that I remember which I is which.

The awareness of the body is the knowing experiencing of the body, this knowing cannot be refuted or denied to exist, it's self evidently irrefutable. Self evident without question, and when there is no question, no answer is required.

This thought came streaming into my awareness from God only knows...

[Immanuel Can]

...we cannot know if this earthly event is a one off never to be repeated event, in that it's circumstances just got lucky, or that it was a totally random accident that would never in all eternity ever happen again ever. We just cannot know that.

Right now? No, we can't know absolutely. There is going to be some measure of faith involved, whichever answer we take to heart.

Dubious is taking as a given that no God exists. Now, given that there is no way of substantiating such a claim, he needs some faith to cling to it. But he feels he's fine with that, I think. If he's wrong, though...

Pascal sharpens the focus. If the Bible's right, then we WILL know...and for sure. What we have to have some faith in now will be seen later on. There will be a judgment, and God will be proved righteous in it. And if that's true, then Dubious stands to lose absolutely everything. For right now, he's declaring his hatred and contempt for God, and just begging God to do something about it.

That's not smart, I'm going to suggest. God can and will do something about it: and He's told us what He's going to do. Right now, Dubious is providing God with the perfect justification for doing to Dubious exactly what Dubious should never want Him to do...namely, to give Dubious the very thing he's begging for...an eternity without God.

Maybe it'll happen that some people will still one day try to say to God, "You never told me, and I never meant for this to happen." Maybe. But this much is sure: one of them won't be Dubious anymore. And so it's in his own interest that I advise him to more circumspection about his situation. He won't grasp that, and will almost certainly respond with resentment; but I'm actually trying to have some mercy on him...more than he's having on himself.

[Immanuel Can]

Am I spirit or flesh. .or both.

Both, of course. One can wonder what "being flesh" or "being spirit" means, but it's clear that in some sense we are always both. In the Gnostic view, even, which holds that "flesh" is bad or an illusion, it's still not saying flesh does not exist, but that it exists as bad, or as a level of illusionary consciousness...and neither is a "nothing."

The awareness of the body is the knowing experiencing of the body, this knowing cannot be refuted or denied to exist, it's self evidently irrefutable. Self evident without question, and when there is no question, no answer is required.

That's about right, I think. The "knowing" we have, that we have a body, may not be exactly what most people think it is...a contact with the solid, singular, ultimate material basis of reality...or it may be. But even if it were not, it would still be a "thing," a reality, an actual "knowing."

[Dubious]

There is no endgame here by which you win. Pascal saw this. And even if you don't believe Pascal, does not common sense tell you the same? Is not the disproportion of the potential "win' and the potential "loss" too great for you to undertake? Do you not retain some sense of self-interest or even self-preservation, that you speak this way of God?

But I see no point in provoking you further. So I shall let you decide to hear or not, as you may decide. But this you know: you have been told. And for that, you will one day answer.

It clear that the main reason you believe in him are based on the odds of a bet. I believe and therefore I'm saved and if the story of Jesus turns out to be one of complete malarkey I simply won't exist; end of story! It all sounds so very practical. Based on this your belief amounts to nothing more than a just-in-case insurance policy.

It's based on practicality and not its absurdity as Kierkegaard described and not only described but made unconditional as the very core of belief. K's vision declares it's innate value forever anchored to those terms regardless of its translation. Compared to belief's true construction, Pascal's Wager is a con mans trick, one of simple expediency which god somehow is too stupid to notice!

Also as mentioned a few times without any response, we don't know what Jesus said we only know what others said he said many years later. One can only wonder if belief in him is so central that by not believing one is condemned, why something of such importance - whether it actually is or not - isn't expressed by him directly but dependent on those who never knew him!

Not least there is an insurmountable difference between believing the Jesus story and wondering whether there is a grand creative force out there as a purely metaphysical speculation which may be acknowledged or allowed some credence but has nothing to do with saving one's hypothetical soul.

Not being too far from conclusion myself, I regard this belief mandate an egotistical abberation from someone who wished to be acknowledged as divine or semi divine with all those not conforming cast to oblivion as you have so kindly pointed out to me. By most humans standards, this translates into an obscenity and because ONLY humans are capable of creating such, we know very well how the Jesus story got written.

What's the difference in principal between this and any cheap tyrant's threats! There are far greater stories and accomplishments out there done by humans than anything expounded in the Bible. Of that there is no doubt except for those like you.

When you're dead you won't be looking down; when I'm dead I won't be looking up; we'll both be looking in the same direction - if one may say it that way - called Nowhere never to be renounced!

[Immanuel Can]

It clear that the main reason you believe in him are based on the odds of a bet.

An incorrect assumption. I neither said that, nor implied it. The "bet" involves your own actions, not mine. You're betting God doesn't exist, without any evidence to assure you you're safe in that bet. And you're betting it so strongly you think you can afford to insult Him and to deny that He can do anything about that. Meanwhile, you have practically zero to win, since making a point on an internet site is a very light achievement. So you're "betting" very badly.

I don't rest anything on "odds of a bet" in regard to my belief. What I know, I know, both from evidence and from experience. What you know about what I know, or how I know it...not much, obviously.

we don't know what Jesus said we only know what others said he said many years later.

Actually, three of the gospel writers were eye-witnesses and all were disciples of Christ. Luke was a physician, and all were educated men.

There are far greater stories and accomplishments out there done by humans than anything expounded in the Bible.

Name one.

When you're dead you won't be looking down; when I'm dead I won't be looking up.

That's your assumption, I know. We'll both find out if that's a safe assumption.

My recommendation is merely that you stop assuming. Too much rests on the issue.

[Dontaskme]

Am I spirit or flesh. .or both.

Both, of course. One can wonder what "being flesh" or "being spirit" means, but it's clear that in some sense we are always both. In the Gnostic view, even, which holds that "flesh" is bad or an illusion, it's still not saying flesh does not exist, but that it exists as bad, or as a level of illusionary consciousness...and neither is a "nothing."

The awareness of the body is the knowing experiencing of the body, this knowing cannot be refuted or denied to exist, it's self evidently irrefutable. Self evident without question, and when there is no question, no answer is required.

That's about right, I think. The "knowing" we have, that we have a body, may not be exactly what most people think it is...a contact with the solid, singular, ultimate material basis of reality...or it may be. But even if it were not, it would still be a "thing," a reality, an actual "knowing."

We're the dang thing. Tag you're it.

I am nothing without God.

''Live for nothing or die for something'' Rambo

[Dontaskme]

It clear that the main reason you believe in him are based on the odds of a bet.

I bet you join in with the yearly christmas festivities human ritual event. Apologies if you don't.

Pride comes before a fall.

Hubris destroys all empires.

Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall. see also, James 4:6 (KJV): But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble. and, 1 Peter 5:5 (KJV): Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder.


The giving and receiving of the PRESENT

[Dubious]

Dubious wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:36 pm

It clear that the main reason you believe in him are based on the odds of a bet.

An incorrect assumption. I neither said that, nor implied it. The "bet" involves your own actions, not mine.

It's very correct and more than just an assumption. If you're in accord with Pascal's Wager as some of your past posts more than imply then your "faith" is based on the condition that adopting a belief in god is the safest bet. If true you win and eternal bliss is yours; if false the loss is of no significance. That's faith based on a bet pure and simple!

Yours is a very rational approach meant to profit on an event in case it happens. If your horse wins, as you believe it will, you're bankrolled for all of eternity.

Actually, three of the gospel writers were eye-witnesses and all were disciples of Christ.

Explain how that can be. For one thing the Gospel of Mark, the earliest, was written ~ 70 CE. By what miracle could he have been, along with the others, a disciple of Christ? Saying "it doesn't add up" is an understatement! In addition, none of the gospel writers ever claimed to be an eyewitness aside from the very essential fact that the gospels were composed "anonymously" their titles being added by other scribes at a later date! That means we don't know who wrote them, only the names which were later applied.

There are far greater stories and accomplishments out there done by humans than anything expounded in the Bible.

Name one

I'll name several. There is art, philosophy, literature, science, music, etc. The life of a world genius like Mozart is a thousand times more valuable than some Jewish preacher who damns everybody who doesn't believe in him! Ever consider how oxymoronic it is that not only Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., but god's own chosen people, the Jews who reject Jesus as savior would themselves suffer the same conclusion!! Jesus wouldn't have liked that at all!

When you're dead you won't be looking down; when I'm dead I won't be looking up.

That's your assumption, I know. We'll both find out if that's a safe assumption.

No we won't! Not unless the universe turns out to be a complete farce or some alien's idea of practical joke which can hardly be called amusing!

The Jesus story, when taken literally, is both pathetic and obscene not to mention stupid that a deity would so vehemently insist on your belief otherwise you're damned. What specifically must I believe in order to capitalize when the time comes?

Faith for many is a psychological need offering a degree of comfort when there's little to be had in their every-day lives. It functions as an existential security blanket offering some recompense for miseries suffered and also the main reason why faith in the 21st century is on an upswing. Those who are more secure are usually far less concerned about biblical promises or religious consolation.

The upshot is, to believe in that story one must do so implicitly which is obviously not possible for everyone but which rampant theists such as yourself are ever ready to condemn for their lack of faith. If there are reasons to have it, fine and if there aren't any, also fine! Faith has to pay for itself; without some expected recompense you wouldn't even bother!

[Immanuel Can]

If you're in accord with Pascal's Wager...

I'm not "wagering." You are.

And it's not any longer anything to do with me what happens. You have heard what you need to hear. What you do with it will be up to you. You need to worry less about why I believe in God, and a lot more about why you don't.

[Dubious]

I'm not "wagering." You are.

How am I wagering? It's not me who's betting on a passport to heaven by presenting my credentials of belief in Jesus. Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and not least, the Jews aren't wagering either that such belief will save them which you "forgot" to mention. I guess atheists will have to accept damnation together with all of these other guys who fail to give Jesus his quota of divine rights.

Actually, Brittanica says it supposes Mark was written between 60 and 70, because in 70 the Temple was destroyed by the Romans. If the crucifixion was somewhere between 30 and 33, what's the problem? It's an eyewitness, first-hand account. In all cases, the date of composition is still merely a guess, but even if right, is not problematic.

So explain again how it could be a first hand eye witness account if we have no idea who wrote them. Calling them by their traditional names happened around a century later. The gospels of Matthew and Luke were written around 85 to 90 and John 10 to 20 years later. So, to repeat, by what miracle could they have been disciples of Christ knowing him first hand??

I noticed you shortened your original post by a quite a bit. To reiterate, as far as human accomplishment is concerned Jesus offers nothing in comparison with the world's true benefactors. It's a real irony that I would be in exactly the same position as far as damnation is concerned if I did believe in a god but not believe in Jesus!

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not "wagering." You are.

How am I wagering?

You're wagering that there is no God and no Judgment...and if you're right, the best you get is to die meaninglessly and plunge into endless night. But if you're wrong, you're doing something immeasurably worse: you're placing yourself under the Judgment of God, defying Him to deal with you. And as the Word of God says, "Do not be deceived; God is not mocked. For whatever a man sows, that he shall also reap." So you have no wins there. You have two losses, with one being much worse than the other. But you're guaranteed a loss.

That's what I call "bad wagering."

You're right that I shortened my post. I realized that we are past the point where you are even interested in evidence, reasons and proofs...at least for any other purpose than for defying, contradicting, objecting, and so on. Not for understanding.

However, the spirit with which your words suggest you're approaching this question is one that God Himself has guaranteed will result in you seeing nothing. Without faith, without seeking, without openness, there is no knowledge of God. And that's the way God wants it. Skepticism will buy you nothing. You'll merely end up feeling confirmed in disbelief, no matter what I say. This is between you and God: do you have any willingness to hear?

So arguments from me are impractical now. You have what you need, and you know what God has said. You will either hear it, or you will not.

And there, really, is the end of the matter. The rest is up to you.

[Dubious]

You're wagering that there is no God and no Judgment...and if you're right, the best you get is to die meaninglessly and plunge into endless night.

What a disgusting ignorant way to put it. You're really out to punish aren't you! Who are you to say that a non-believer like myself would die meaninglessly plunged into endless night? This shows once again, what the character of a true zealot is really like! When YOU croak or I croak or a dog croaks there will be no stupid endless night; it will instead be exactly as it was BEFORE you were born when your personal clock didn't exist. Did you notice any dark endless nights then? This is how partisans like you like to get revenge!

These are your views as a strict uncompromising theist but it's not so unusual for at least some theists to reexamine there beliefs and surrender to what history, logic and just plain evidence reveals; not many but there are some. They aren't afraid, as you so obviously are, to examine context as well as content. They cease to create fictions required to vindicate outworn beliefs which you have in no way mastered and likely never will. Biblical scholarship for almost 200 years have forced into view multiple discrepancies and non-sequiturs which severely limit any authority the bible may once have had. Theists such as you, avoid by every means possible the hard-edged questions which is how you survive in your beliefs and how you maintain your sense of superiority over all the poor benighted atheists out there.

Just to repeat two of them which you have assiduously avoided replying to...

- One can only wonder if belief in him is so central that by not believing one is condemned, why something of such fundamentality isn't expressed by him directly but dependent on those who never knew him by gospels anonymously written!

- If as you insist that one MUST believe in Jesus to be saved what of all the other religions for whom such a demand is foreign? Per your logic, they as well would have to be damned. And what about the most egregious falling off of all! The direct Jewish negation of their own for which the Jews were anathematized throughout Christendom. Are they also to be annihilated for not accepting Jesus as a god figure who doles out salvation to those who believe in his godhead?

Your hope for salvation is based on the quicksand of a paradox which can never be other than what it is if believed in literally!

[Immanuel Can]

You're wagering that there is no God and no Judgment...and if you're right, the best you get is to die meaninglessly and plunge into endless night.

What a disgusting ignorant way to put it. You're really out to punish aren't you!

Not to punish. To alert. It would not be compassionate of me to do any less, or any differently.

You see, I do not care whether or not I "win" this discussion. It does not matter, ultimately. For your problem right now is clearly not one "of the head," but "of the heart." It's not that you could not find reason to consider God, but that you don't want to. So I could manufacture for you arguments on on First Causes or Cosmic Design, give you all the maths and the reasons, or prove to you the integrity of the gospels or of Jesus Christ Himself, and I would not reach you. If I could manufacture a miracle right in front of you, you would remain unconvinced.

That puts the conflict squarely where it has always been: not between you and me (for what am I, after all?) but between you and God. And you know that's where it is, because you've taken to insulting Him in the most elaborate terms you can fashion. Were it with me, you would reserve your ire for me.

So you will have to sort out your disposition between you and Him. As for me, I have told you what you need to hear. What you do with it is up to you.