Christianity

[Nick_A]

"The primary one is that God is the center of all goodness, so doing what is consonant with His character turns out to be the very definition of morality, as well as the only road to our own teleological good."

You're homeboy Euthyphro made quite a dilemma out of that very claim. You didn't get the memo?

Seriously tho, every time you put an argument up having anything to do with 'god' - unless to show the concept to be nonsense - somebody can come behind you and knock it down.

The best a religious fellow such as yourself can do is maintain a quiet feidism based on a personal hope/faith - if that is your temperament - and pass up attempts to argue or even talk about such non-sense, silently. If you don't, and get away with it, it means a battle-hardened atheist has not yet found you.

I see you couldn't tackle Meno's Paradox. Yet you believe you can understand Christianity which requires transcending dualistic critical thinking.

[Dontaskme]

One is original, every one else is a copy.

Not interesting. Sorry. I have nothing to say about that.

Well of course it's not going to be interesting, nothing that does not include you is ever going to be interesting.

It's how nothing entertains itself.

No need to be sorry about the longing to show up to your own show. It's normal, else how else are you going to show.

You can only know what you already know, and what you know is a memory. Enjoy your recording.

[Immanuel Can]

The student explained that even God cannot beat the ace of trumps with the deuce. To do so destroys the game.

That's a poor analogy, for many reasons. One is that life is not a "game," obviously. "Games" have arbitrary rules that are as variable as the games people can want to play. But a second is that there is no feature of the past that creates a duty upon God to perpetuate the present conditions of anything. The "Laws" of Nature are not bigger than the Creator. He does not "owe it" to anything to ensure that things continue as they have indefinitely: and judgingby 2 Peter, as quoted earlier, He promises He will not.

In fact, Creation itself was an interruption to "the status quo," so to speak; so it's inevitable that God can, should He choose, do anything He wishes with it. Who will tell him "No"?

The real question is whether or not He does, or will do. And that's a question no appeal to the past or the status quo can even address.

[Dontaskme]

Yet you believe you can understand Christianity which requires transcending dualistic critical thinking.

That which appears to transcend NEVER transcends.

Christian bullshit seems to want to be taking over the world, and that never ceases to crease me up.

[Dontaskme]

One is that life is not a "game," obviously. "Games" have arbitrary rules that are as variable as the games people can want to play. But a second is that there is no feature of the past that creates a duty upon God to perpetuate the present conditions of anything.

D fuck is that supposed to mean...and you talk about me not making sense.

[Immanuel Can]

One is that life is not a "game," obviously. "Games" have arbitrary rules that are as variable as the games people can want to play. But a second is that there is no feature of the past that creates a duty upon God to perpetuate the present conditions of anything.

D fuck is that supposed to mean...and you talk about me not making sense.

It's very simple.

All it means is that the diurnal hydrodynamics of the Red Sea do not represent an argument that God cannot part it. And the fact that the world has proceeded without a Judgment intervening so far does not amount to an argument that the Creator cannot ring down the curtain whenever He wishes.

[Lacewing]

So in thinking this over -- what I call your presentation, your group of assertions (as indeed they are) -- my assessment is that you are captured within an eddy that goes round and round and round in circles. Until, of course, something acts on it.

What I would say is that what you are asserting in those paragraphs certain seems true and seems like sound advice, but I think I could successfully argue that in fact it is not good advice. It is really no advice at all. It is simply evidence of being *trapped* in self-assertions that mimic *truth*, that must seem and feel true, but are really false. It is more likely that these self-deceptions will result in distortion, deception, manipulation, blindness (if also perhaps immobility) than in whatever is proposed to be their necessary opposite...

So, instead of agreeing with you (in the way you seem to want)...

Well, the above is what you are asserting with such familiarity that it sounds as if you could be talking about yourself.

Such projections are another reason it's nice to step away from this forum. I'm not interested in sorting through all of that to somehow reveal/demonstrate the limited scope of someone's assessment. I do not need anyone's agreement. I'm not fixated on a certain position. It's understandable that many people may not fathom even the possibility of that or how it can work (and how it does work very well for many other people). Sometimes it seems there is no language for crossing certain chasms.

[Dontaskme]

One is that life is not a "game," obviously. "Games" have arbitrary rules that are as variable as the games people can want to play. But a second is that there is no feature of the past that creates a duty upon God to perpetuate the present conditions of anything.

D fuck is that supposed to mean...and you talk about me not making sense.

It's very simple.

All it means is that the diurnal hydrodynamics of the Red Sea do not represent an argument that God cannot part it. And the fact that the world has proceeded without a Judgment intervening so far does not amount to an argument that the Creator cannot ring down the curtain whenever He wishes.

So what, I have no idea what is going to happen next, for all I know I could be killed instantly by a speeding car driven by a drunk driver while I'm innocently walking on the pavement where I am supposed to feel safe. One minute I'm here aware of my surroundings, and the next minute there's absolutely nothing I can know or be aware of.

Shit happens all the time IC...when ever shit wants to hit fan, there is nothing you or anyone can do about it. So your story is not unique, so so what, we're all going to die one way or another, so what difference does it make how we die?

No need to make up silly shit that God is out to get us, anytime soon if God so wishes, anyone can know that's just another story.

Oh poor me, poor me, I'm going to die one day, so fucking what, what's the big deal, I love the idea of being dead, actually.

[Immanuel Can]

I have no idea...

We finally agree.

[Dontaskme]

I have no idea...

We finally agree.

congrats

You won the philosophical debate. You must be so proud.

[Nick_A]

Yet you believe you can understand Christianity which requires transcending dualistic critical thinking.

That which appears to transcend NEVER transcends.

Christian bullshit seems to want to be taking over the world, and that never ceases to crease me up.

The darkness of Plato's cave or the darkness of the world governed by the prince of darkness governs the world and assures humanity continues to follow natural cycles including the cycle of war and peace. Society as a whole is the Great Beast and like other beasts follow natural cycles beginning with birth, maturity and ending with death. Secularized religion is normal for the darkness of Plato's Cave and what you call Christian bullshit is a part. Remember 99% of rat poison is good corn. It is that 1% or the arsenic that makes it deadly.

Christianity as opposed to man made Christendom requires being aware of and remembering the 1% which prevents a person from experiencing human meaning and purpose and keeps him turning in circles

[Nick_A]

The student explained that even God cannot beat the ace of trumps with the deuce. To do so destroys the game.

That's a poor analogy, for many reasons. One is that life is not a "game," obviously. "Games" have arbitrary rules that are as variable as the games people can want to play. But a second is that there is no feature of the past that creates a duty upon God to perpetuate the present conditions of anything. The "Laws" of Nature are not bigger than the Creator. He does not "owe it" to anything to ensure that things continue as they have indefinitely: and judging by 2 Peter, as quoted earlier, He promises He will not.


Why wasn't creation made perfect? Obviously the laws resolving in imperfection was a necessity for the universe to serve its purpose. We know there are no straight lines in nature. Suppose the psych of man follows these same laws and we turn in circles.

The universe was born as part of a great cycle, matures , and finally dies only to repeat. In the East it is the breath of Brahma. Inhalation is the process of evolution or the act of returning to the source. Exhalation is the process of creating no-thing into every-thing at different levels of reality. It does seem Peter is describing this process.

Christianity on this thread is centered around God. The Christianity I know of is centered around the Christ. The Christ is the intermediary between Man and the ineffable Father along the vertical Great Chain of Being. How many would know of the mission of the Christ on earth and the layers of meaning within the Cross. If a person wants to feel Christianity, what does it mean to carry ones cross and why we can't do it? But people prefer to argue about Conceptions of God and call it Christian? What's wrong with this picture?

In fact, Creation itself was an interruption to "the status quo," so to speak; so it's inevitable that God can, should He choose, do anything He wishes with it. Who will tell him "No"?

If creation is a necessity for the body of God, it works exactly as it should. If adjustments are necessary within the machine of creation, they are handled by the demiurge

The real question is whether or not He does, or will do. And that's a question no appeal to the past or the status quo can even address.

[Dontaskme]

The darkness of Plato's cave or the darkness of the world governed by the prince of darkness governs the world and assures humanity continues to follow natural cycles including the cycle of war and peace. Society as a whole is the Great Beast and like other beasts follow natural cycles beginning with birth, maturity and ending with death. Secularized religion is normal for the darkness of Plato's Cave and what you call Christian bullshit is a part. Remember 99% of rat poison is good corn. It is that 1% or the arsenic that makes it deadly.

Christianity as opposed to man made Christendom requires being aware of and remembering the 1% which prevents a person from experiencing human meaning and purpose and keeps him turning in circles

Well it's a convincing story, but it's meaning has about as much use as a chocolate teapot. The real truth is that for thinking sentient life, there can occur a realisation of the true nature of all sentient life on earth, which is not pretty, with no purpose or reason for any of it, and not the other way around. And when that truth dawns, is when the ego is seen through for the illusion it is. The main goal of the human ego is to buttress itself into believing it has a real place to stake it's flag of self-importance in a reality that is otherwise absolutely unfathomable to it. So in it's despair, the thinking organism clings to it's mentally created story of purpose and meaning, until it is seen for what it actually is. The ego employs a clever tactic to control every other thinking organism into denying them of their actual true nature which is their animalistic origins. And is why the human thinking organism is even capable of thinking up this beastly story in the first place, it's possible because the beast is the beast no matter how much the beast tries to deny it, in it's fake attempt to be over and above the rest of nature. In reality, human existence has no more importance and meaning than pond scum.



.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I'm not fixated on a certain position. It's understandable that many people may not fathom even the possibility of that or how it can work (and how it does work very well for many other people). Sometimes it seems there is no language for crossing certain chasms.

I do the best I can reading and analyzing what you write. You say you are not ‘fixated’ on a ‘certain’ position. But do you have any position at all? or no position? Oddly then it seems you can morph and transmogrify between any ‘position’ while having none at all. Is it that you just don’t want to be ‘located’?

You are right: I am one among those who cannot fathom the positions you wish to hold and assert, yet without actually assuming responsibility for them. It seems to me that you have some responsibility to explain yourself, or defend yourself, but am I right to perceive that at a decisive moment . . . you drop out of the discussion? What were you doing in the discussion in the first place?

It is also a valid and necessary project to try to locate your positions within intellectual currents operating today. What else should be done on a philosophical forum? I believe it fair to say that one notable element of your position is that it is anti-Christian and/or counter-Christian.

And that is a very common trend and activity that certainly can be examined critically.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Well it's a convincing story, but it's meaning has about as much use as a chocolate teapot. The real truth is that for thinking sentient life,

1) there can occur a realisation of the true nature of all sentient life on earth, which is not pretty, with no purpose or reason for any of it, and not the other way around. And when that truth dawns,

2) is when the ego is seen through for the illusion it is.

3) The main goal of the human ego is to buttress itself into believing it has a real place to stake it's flag of self-importance in a reality that is otherwise absolutely unfathomable to it. So in it's despair, the thinking organism clings to it's mentally created story of purpose and meaning, until it is seen for what it actually is.

4) The ego employs a clever tactic to control every other thinking organism into denying them of their actual true nature which is their animalistic origins. And is why the human thinking organism is even capable of thinking up this beastly story in the first place, it's possible because the beast is the beast no matter how much the beast tries to deny it, in it's fake attempt to be over and above the rest of nature.

5) In reality, human existence has no more importance and meaning than pond scum.

I thought to try to isolate your *assertions* and then comment on them. All assertions of this sort have a function, of course, and it is helpful to try to isolate and highlight the function and the purpose of the assertion. All assertions (of this sort) are arrived at through reasoning and processes involving reason. So one can then examine the reasonableness of what is asserted. I do note in your assertions that you say (and I sort of agree) that *life is unfathomable* and you also imply that it is not possible to fathom it -- yet this assertion can be and must be challenged, mustn't it? because on what basis can you make this ultimate assertion?

What I do find truthful in what you assert, or logically consistent, is your assertion that the natural world proceeds according to its own designs and operates according to its own laws. But when man enters the scene, this seems obvious, man's *interpretation-machine* turns on. We are all called to *interpret*, aren't we? You disagree that interpretation is possible, or you disagree that any select interpretation is *right* (?) yet it is clear that you are making interpretive statements.

And your interpretive statements must lead (mustn't they?) to whole sets of interpretive decisions -- to a sort of interpretive praxis of life. On the basis of what you know to be true, and which you declare with absolute certainty, I am curious to understand how you would teach your own children? Wouldn't you be forced, more or less, to teach a life-philosophy consistent with nihilistic view?

I think that your description of the natural world is largely right however, at least I also see the Natural World through that interpretive lens. Where I disagree with you is in your anthropology -- your apparent *doctrine of man*. And I suppose that one could delve into your views and seek out the causal chain that has led to you thinking in this way.

If meaning exists or is discovered, let's say, in human life, meaning therefore exists. Yet you deny meaning even as you simultaneously assert an anti-meaning, which is also a meaning. How could one determine if you are right?