Imperefct God

[Immanuel Can]

Oh well, of course. If you, "feel it in your bones," it must be right.

Did I say anything like that? You'll have to show me where.

You were trying to say she was wrong?

She was right in this case. It doesn't mean intuition will be right in every case, nor that intuition was the reason she was right. The reason she was right is that her instincts were directing her to the moral conclusion...but that moral conclusion does not depend one whit on anybody's instincts.

The same would be true if somebody had an "instinct" to believe that jumping off a cliff would kill her. She would be right, and her instinct would be right; but the science of gravity would not depend on her instinct, nor would we need to offer her instinct as its proof. Hard facts would do that, anyway.

No, I said that DAM intuitively recognizes what her cognitions have not yet properly explained to her.

I didn't think so. You were trying to say her feelings were right.

As above.

[Immanuel Can]

...and yet you're ready to immediately pronounce him judged as if he were one of the world's great thought criminals, the arch-enemy of god, a second Satan,

I don't have to. It was Nietzsche who "declared" God dead, and then called himself "antichrist." The man wanted what he wanted: I don't have to add to that.

But in point of fact, I find Nietzsche very useful. He at least had the courage that most Atheists lack...he understood how eliminating the reality of God from the human equation would result in terror and amorality. It was a price he was prepared to pay, of course; but in that he had far more courage than many of those who have claimed to admire him. They blanche at the very thought of what Nietzsche flatly stated would result from the "death of God," and have to invent new "meanings" and "moralities" of their own, meanings and moralities that have no grounds at all in Atheism, because they can't face the abyss the way Nietzsche did.

No, it does not eradicate all morality and meaning since these never wholly depended on only Christians principles...

Nietzsche believed they did, as I quoted from the Madman's Tale. But I understand your fear. Nietzsche was asking a lot from his followers...probably too much.

Consider, for example, this passage from the famous "Madman's Parable":
"What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning?"

What Nietzsche referred to in that aphorism is the fading of a 2000-year-old belief and our long dependence on it. God, though mentioned, has very little to do with it. Without changing a word, it could have referred to ANY belief which subsisted for that long entrenching whole civilizations in its dogmas and beliefs.

Let's say that's true: let's say the base belief was in some different kind of "god" or some different "religion," not the Judeo-Christian one. (Though, of course, it clearly WAS that "God," and he said so repeatedly, as you must know.)

It wouldn't change one thing about what Nietzsche says results -- no possibility of meaning, no morals, no direction, no hope, no afterlife, no gods of any kind. The lights, the lanterns, (whatever we take them to be) all go out. But newer Atheists, despite their hatred of God, seem afraid of that dark. Nietzsche at least pretended he wasn't. He had a little more courage, at least, than they have.

Though I'll bet he has none now.

[Immanuel Can]

No, I said that DAM intuitively recognizes what her cognitions have not yet properly explained to her.

What the heck is that supposed to imply?

It was supposed to imply that you might actually be a better person than some of your statements would encourage my interlocutor to conclude.

Do you not like getting such benefits of the doubt?

[Immanuel Can]

Gnostics ignore Atonement, so the cross is immateril to them. and utterly irrelivent - all they care about is the message their Christ had to those that heard him speak.

Imagine if he wrote: "Christians ignore atonement, and the cross is immaterial to them and utterly irrelevant." Would anybody believe him?

why not?

Because it's evidently untrue. In fact, it's false by definition. So that pretty much seals the deal.

Somebody who ignored atonement and thought nothing of the cross is not, by any plausible definition, a "Christian." Now, if that's a description of Gnostics, as you insist, then you are forced to realize that none of them is "Christian."

[Immanuel Can]

Easy answer. Christianity is Judaism plus Messiah.

Nope!

Yep.

[RCSaunders]

Did I say anything like that? You'll have to show me where.

You were trying to say she was wrong?

She was right in this case. It doesn't mean intuition will be right in every case, nor that intuition was the reason she was right. The reason she was right is that her instincts were directing her to the moral conclusion...but that moral conclusion does not depend one whit on anybody's instincts.

The same would be true if somebody had an "instinct" to believe that jumping off a cliff would kill her. She would be right, and her instinct would be right; but the science of gravity would not depend on her instinct, nor would we need to offer her instinct as its proof. Hard facts would do that, anyway.

No, I said that DAM intuitively recognizes what her cognitions have not yet properly explained to her.

I didn't think so. You were trying to say her feelings were right.

As above.

I've already addressed this nonsense here.

No feeling can tell you anything other than that you are having the feeling, and all emotional feelings are nothing more than physiological reactions to what one already thinks and believes. Human beings do not have instinct and intuition is just supersticious belief in mystic insight.

[Immanuel Can]

I've already addressed this nonsense here.

You got it wrong.

You should read what I said again...or not, as you please.

[Dontaskme]

You were trying to say she was wrong?

She was right in this case. It doesn't mean intuition will be right in every case, nor that intuition was the reason she was right. The reason she was right is that her instincts were directing her to the moral conclusion...but that moral conclusion does not depend one whit on anybody's instincts.

The same would be true if somebody had an "instinct" to believe that jumping off a cliff would kill her. She would be right, and her instinct would be right; but the science of gravity would not depend on her instinct, nor would we need to offer her instinct as its proof. Hard facts would do that, anyway.

I didn't think so. You were trying to say her feelings were right.

As above.

I've already addressed this nonsense here.

No feeling can tell you anything other than that you are having the feeling, and all emotional feelings are nothing more than physiological reactions to what one already thinks and believes. Human beings do not have instinct and intuition is just supersticious belief in mystic insight.

Humans did have instincts when they were animals back in the day… but have since lost their animal instinct due to dependence on technology and conceptual language.

Human babies are the only species that are totally helpless for the first couple of years, due to having lost all their natural animal instincts.

They are basically turning into A I robots

[FrankGSterleJr]

I can imagine Jesus spinning in heaven knowing what atrocious behavior has been connected to the faith by way of very-bad-example institutional Christians. So many theists have created God’s nature in their own angry and vengeful image, especially the part insisting that ‘God hates ______’, etcetera. I can see them generally finding inconvenient, if not annoying, having to try reconciling the conspicuously contradictory fundamental nature, teachings and practices of the New Testament’s Jesus with those of the wrathful, vengeful and even jealous nature of the Old Testament's Creator. (Really, why couldn't Jesus have been one who’d enjoy a belly-shaking laugh over a good joke with his disciples, now and then?)

Maybe the general human need for retributive justice can be intrinsically linked to the same terribly flawed aspect of humankind that enables the most horrible acts of violent cruelty to readily occur on this planet, perhaps not all of which we learn about. Meanwhile, when a public person openly fantasizes about world peace, a guaranteed minimum income and/or a clean, pristinely green global environment, many ‘Christians’ reactively presume he/she must therefore be Godless thus evil or, far worse, a socialist. This, despite Christ's own teachings epitomizing the primary component of socialism — do not hoard morbidly superfluous wealth when so very many people have little or nothing.

I can picture many institutional Christians who would prefer that Jesus had not been so publicly contrary to contemporary conservative values thus politics. I’d suggest they might seek out a faith that’s more reflective of their own true values and behavior.

[gaffo]

where is IC????????????? i would welcome his conversation. Sir? wharer are you? you well i Hope/


i hope he is well, nice guy now i have to wrroy about him being silent ;-/./

I'm here.

Thanks for the concern, G. I was "off the grid" for a week, with no access. But no harm done. I'm back now.

Good to be off the grid - clears ones mind to more important things and for self reflection.

glad you are back!

[gaffo]

...and yet you're ready to immediately pronounce him judged as if he were one of the world's great thought criminals, the arch-enemy of god, a second Satan,

I don't have to. It was Nietzsche who "declared" God dead, and then called himself "antichrist." The man wanted what he wanted: I don't have to add to that.

But in point of fact, I find Nietzsche very useful.

I know nothing about him - and i had phil in college and know of many other philosophers views - he just never interested me - seemed an asshole, and i have no interest in what an assholes has to say on any matter (assholes are broken inside - so anything they have to say about stuff is infected with their broken-ness which they never fixed due to lack of self curage-reflection or just plain ignorance of self) - either way what they say is not worth my time.

I listen to self actualized persons - the unbroken - not the broken.

there are may philosophers i respect - agree or disagree with - i respect them either way - but only from the self complete ones - not the dicks.

He at least had the courage that most Atheists lack...he understood how eliminating the reality of God from the human equation would result in terror and amorality.

Courage - bullshit! and his view is wrong becasue he was an asshole. removing God from man does NOT make him immoral - because man is a moral animal via his instincts - good by default - just becasue Neiches was a dick and hated hmiself and was a broken man - makes him a coward - not brave - for all he did was paly the cowards game - transer all my subconscicne bleak baggage to all others! - make them all evil!!!!! - it them not me that is evil!!!!!!!!!!

so no you anr Niech are wrong on this matter God your or the other 2 billion other God from time immammoral are not need to make man good - he is born that way as a social animal. via evolution.

[gaffo]

[But newer Atheists, despite their hatred of God, seem afraid of that dark.

I've never hated your God - not from before i bacame an Athiest in 1977 nor after up to today.

of course i fear death - as i have always - even prior to 1977.

[gaffo]

Imagine if he wrote: "Christians ignore atonement, and the cross is immaterial to them and utterly irrelevant." Would anybody believe him?

why not?

Because it's evidently untrue. In fact, it's false by definition. So that pretty much seals the deal.

Somebody who ignored atonement and thought nothing of the cross is not, by any plausible definition, a "Christian." Now, if that's a description of Gnostics, as you insist, then you are forced to realize that none of them is "Christian."

your lest sentancei is a circular argament claiming support for your 1st senctance.

AND you never claimed why its "untrue"

So you saying the Cross is what matters - period.

so if christ was not killed by the Romans, but instead became the King of Israel and threw out the Romans..........today - since he did not die on the cross, though was a king and mssiah - we will not regonize him (so in an alternate universe the JEWS do - but the Christians do not! - the latter will be waiting for the "reall Messiah" - on ehtat must die on the cross - even if 200 yr later!).

and i fthe cross is all that - and not the messengers meage - why dont you guys worship both of the theivs that died on corss next to your Messiah - since the cross is all that matters.



__________

BTW who is more Christian?

a guy that read the gospels;s "red letters" (christs sayings) and say ya i like what he says, too bad he was killed by the Romans, sad he did not live another 40 yrs to impart more wisdom to his people.

or

I like the idea of the Atonment - God killed his son for m. I don't think much about the "read letters" but whatever, he died for ME - and I'm all that matters so ya!

[gaffo]

Easy answer. Christianity is Judaism plus Messiah.

Nope!

Yep.

we must agree to disagree Sir.

[gaffo]

You were trying to say she was wrong?

She was right in this case. It doesn't mean intuition will be right in every case, nor that intuition was the reason she was right. The reason she was right is that her instincts were directing her to the moral conclusion...but that moral conclusion does not depend one whit on anybody's instincts.

The same would be true if somebody had an "instinct" to believe that jumping off a cliff would kill her. She would be right, and her instinct would be right; but the science of gravity would not depend on her instinct, nor would we need to offer her instinct as its proof. Hard facts would do that, anyway.

I didn't think so. You were trying to say her feelings were right.

As above.

I've already addressed this nonsense here.

No feeling can tell you anything other than that you are having the feeling, and all emotional feelings are nothing more than physiological reactions to what one already thinks and believes. Human beings do not have instinct and intuition is just supersticious belief in mystic insight.

so untrue Man has as much instinct and is rule by it as much all all the other animals on the planet.