Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

Do you have any statement to make on Christian Platonism? What do you make of that synthesis?

You'll have to be more specific. Platonism is, on many points, quite different from Christianity.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You'll have to be more specific. Platonism is, on many points, quite different from Christianity.

Of course that is true. But in relation to my views I would say that Platonism has infused Christianity.

[Immanuel Can]

You'll have to be more specific. Platonism is, on many points, quite different from Christianity.

Of course that is true. But in relation to my views I would say that Platonism has infused Christianity.

It has really infused the Roman Catholic tradition. It has really infused the so-called "Christian" West. But what's the evidence, as you see it, that it's infused Christianity qua Christianity?

[Dubious]

If you read the Book, you'd already know what's wrong with that theory.

Enlighten me!

Read the Book. You'll be enlightened without my help.

I have read the book and not only once. I also read history and biblical scholarship, so enlighten me. You're again in a situation where you can't seem to explain yourself and only follow up with glib responses.

...since Christianity is, in fact, a derivative of Judaism. Were there any gentiles among Christ's apostles or associates? What can we REALLY know about Christ and his ministry except that it was a completely Jewish movement.

We know so little about the real Jesus that even his existence is questionable, though many, including myself, believe he did. There is no reason not to since there was nothing unusual about it, being one of many who preached as he did. It remains one of history's ultimate ironies that Jesus even from scripture, had no regard for gentiles, and yet it was the gentiles and not the Jews who ultimately accepted him...which turned out to be bad news for the Jews!

[Immanuel Can]

I have read the book and not only once.

I mean, read it with your eyes open. The other way doesn't count.

[Dubious]

I have read the book and not only once.

I mean, read it with your eyes open. The other way doesn't count.

You don't have a clue in how to reply. Nothing new here...same as always!

[Immanuel Can]

I have read the book and not only once.

I mean, read it with your eyes open. The other way doesn't count.

You don't have a clue in how to reply. Nothing new here...same as always!

If you had read the Bible, you wouldn't have been saying what you were, and you and I wouldn't be having this discussion anymore. It's that simple.

[Sculptor]

I mean, read it with your eyes open. The other way doesn't count.

You don't have a clue in how to reply. Nothing new here...same as always!

If you had read the Bible, you wouldn't have been saying what you were, and you and I wouldn't be having this discussion anymore. It's that simple.

Since when has the Bible been a guide to CHristianity?

[Immanuel Can]

Since when has the Bible been a guide to CHristianity?

[Dubious]

I mean, read it with your eyes open. The other way doesn't count.

You don't have a clue in how to reply. Nothing new here...same as always!

If you had read the Bible, you wouldn't have been saying what you were, and you and I wouldn't be having this discussion anymore. It's that simple.

I read the NT a few times, but admittedly it was a long time ago. I never read all of the OT; much of it is incredibly boring but have read some of the more famous parts. Having done so, I was never naive or gullible enough in this day and age to think I'm reading sacred scripture. The raison d'être of faith never required any kind of rationality being, in fact, inimical to it. On this site you're the outstanding example of that.

One reason why I read as much as I once did of the bible is because of the language, the poetry of the King James version. It's a masterpiece of style, not unlike Shakespeare in many parts and certainly worth the read. But to regard it as the word of god requires its own unique brand of mental aberration, which any effort to immunize against will only make worse. Faith, especially blind faith, hunkers down responding with absurdities or simply not responding whenever reason or any historical imperative approaches. Yours is the Dorothy Martin, aka, Marian Keech type of entelechy which forcefully disregards all science, history, logic and research to maintain what amounts to gross absurdities if accepted as literal.

Anyone who allows himself to be so infected, attempting to rationalize the irrational, cannot be trusted on anything they say.

[Immanuel Can]

I read...they say.

Nothing even remotely worth my time here.

You don't like me, you don't like Christians; you don't like the Bible and you don't like God...

Yawn.

[Dubious]

You don't like me...

Whatever could have given you that idea!

I only dislike liars and hypocrites.

[Immanuel Can]

You don't like me...

Whatever could have given you that idea!

I only dislike liars and hypocrites.

To state the screamingly obvious, you don't know me. You have no idea at all who I am, and whether or not I am a hypocrite or not, and whether or not I believe what I am saying. You're being totally gratuitious.

That's why your estimation means less than dust.

[Dubious]

You don't like me...

Whatever could have given you that idea!

I only dislike liars and hypocrites.

To state the screamingly obvious, you don't know me. You have no idea at all who I am, and whether or not I am a hypocrite or not, and whether or not I believe what I am saying. You're being totally gratuitious.

That's why your estimation means less than dust.

After thousands of posts, it's somewhat impossible not to know you. There are many here, but not the newcomers, who have very accurately described you going back years based on them.

But is there a possibility that you DON'T believe what you're saying, simply entertaining yourself; you imply as much!

[Immanuel Can]

After thousands of posts,...

I literally cannot be bothered with you any longer. I have more important things to do...like bathing my cat.