Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

I get the charm of purely speculative questions: they entertain. They allow mind-bending fantasies that can, like science fiction, be fun if not necessaritly accurate. But beyond that, I really don't see how the speculation helps. As I say, we have clear revelation instead. And speculative hypotheses only ever tend to speculative conclusions, not known ones.

No, this is not charm and this is not 'charming speculation', nor is it purely speculative. It is generally accepted, given the scope of the universe, that other life forms exist.

But what it is, and indeed it is, is an expansion of the very notion of a Savior into other non-Earth territory. Why? To see how the story would play out if it were the case that other civilizations existed.

But my impression? It is that you resist playing, as it were, within this speculative territory. And I am sure that you have your reasons. What are they?

[Immanuel Can]

Logos: the Word of God, or principle of divine reason and creative order, identified in the Gospel of John with the second person of the Trinity incarnate in Jesus Christ.

In this sense the Word is the creative act of the Creation. True, you did not say it in this way. I take it as the general and accepted meaning and as much else besides.

There's a flaw in that definition, and it's a serious one: it puts the abstraction first, as if it IS the description.

"The Word" is not a mere "principle." That's an abstraction. "The Word" is a Person, preeminently, but one who embodies the rational and personal expression of the Eternal God, and thus covers the principle derivatively. "The Word" IS not "the creative act"; the creative act was performed BY The Word. That's what John is saying.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God." The Word pre-existed creation. That's primary.

But then, secondarily, "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being..." (John 1:1-3) Jesus Christ was the means by which all things were created -- by Him and for Him.

[Immanuel Can]

It is generally accepted, given the scope of the universe, that other life forms exist.

I think that's not so. At best, it's an entertaining popular fantasy. We do not know it is right: and given the requisite fine-tuning of the universe, we have good reason to doubt that it is. Either way, though, it floats no boats.

One thing it is not, as you point out yourself, is a premise associated with any proof.

To see how the story would play out if it were the case that other civilizations existed.

And just how could one know that? One could not. At most, one could speculate, guess, imagine, fantasize or otherwise indulge in whimsy. But as with aliens, no element of that has any chance at all of "getting back to Earth," it seems to me.

But my impression? It is that you resist playing, as it were, within this speculative territory. And I am sure that you have your reasons. What are they?

Oh, that's very simple: I can't see any way it helps us. It seems wasteful. Life is too short to expend much energy on mere whimsy. That's why I was asking for some kind of practical "payoff," so to speak.

[Alexis Jacobi]

There's a flaw in that definition, and it's a serious one: it puts the abstraction first, as if it IS the description.

Let us put it this way: this definition, for you, is insufficient and lacking:

Logos: the Word of God, or principle of divine reason and creative order, identified in the Gospel of John with the second person of the Trinity incarnate in Jesus Christ.

But what I would say, and what I do say, is that the notion of Logos was spoken about, thought about, in many many different ways. And all theology partakes of that nature, if you will. Things are said in one way, then in another, and the allusion is put forth.

I do accept that, for you, there is a flaw in the definition I offer. I do not have the same issue with it. I can accept "principle of divine reason and creative order" and there is something there to work with. Enough for me in any case. Is that all there is? Certainly not.

[Immanuel Can]

Enough for me in any case. Is that all there is? Certainly not.

Well, then, where do we go from here?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Oh, that's very simple: I can't see any way it helps us. It seems wasteful. Life is too short to expend much energy on mere whimsy. That's why I was asking for some kind of practical "payoff," so to speak.

I suppose you have gathered, correctly if so, that I do not see it as whimsy, nor wasteful, nor vain.

But I have no defensible reason to oppose you in how you see it.

[Immanuel Can]

Oh, that's very simple: I can't see any way it helps us. It seems wasteful. Life is too short to expend much energy on mere whimsy. That's why I was asking for some kind of practical "payoff," so to speak.

I suppose you have gathered, correctly if so, that I do not see it as whimsy, nor wasteful, nor vain.

Granted. But I can't tell why you don't.

But I have no defensible reason to oppose you in how you see it.

Well, that would explain it, I suppose.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Well, then, where do we go from here?

I am not sure what you mean. Where would you like to go?

Presently, I have sat down to reread The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church (Hatch, 1895). My studies have indicated, clearly to me, that this is an important set of assertions and understandings. I may then circle back around to rereading Dodd and his Johannine Letters. It is very difficult reading because he quotes long Greek sentences. My Greek is very basic.

In respect to your strict notions about what Christianity is, and what it is not, I am largely in disagreement. I understand the position you take, it is not that different from standard Protestant exposition on the topic (!) but I do not dismiss it, necessarily. It is a critical position, erroneous in many areas (and blind to some of its own errors), that I have examined before and found lacking. Not without all sense obviously, but insufficient.

If I say "I am not convinced that you have the sole truthful definition of what is necessary in Christian belief" I would be making a true statement. As you likely have surmised I see numerous levels to it, not just one. You are, in this sense, mono-maniacal (and I mean this in a non-negative sense). What Chriwstianity is, for you, is not a number of things but one absolute thing, and no other. Your strict view closes the door on a great many things I feel are terribly relevant.

For my part I often seek out conversations as a sort of platform while I am involved in considering certain ideas, and that is what I am doing here. Obviously I do this for my own reasons and for my own ends.

There is no particular 'place' to go to or get to.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Well, that would explain it, I suppose.

Except not as you have just taken it!

[Alexis Jacobi]

Either way, though, it floats no boats.

The boat that might have floated did not leave harbor.

It might have to be refitted with warp-drive engines. Have they yet mastered that technology?

[Immanuel Can]

It is a critical position, erroneous in many areas (and blind to some of its own errors), that I have examined before and found lacking.

Well, I'm open to hearing about that. What are some of these "areas"?

Your strict view closes the door on a great many things I feel are terribly relevant.

Again, I'm open to hearing what these things might be.

There is no particular 'place' to go to or get to.

Well, we have the two above, now.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, that would explain it, I suppose.

Except not as you have just taken it!

Then feel free to elucidate.

[Immanuel Can]

Either way, though, it floats no boats.

The boat that might have floated did not leave harbor.

It might have to be refitted with warp-drive engines. Have they yet mastered that technology?

Apparently not. It remains a Star Trek confection.

Of course, that which is depicted on screen does not automatically become "science," no matter how much it may tickle the public imagination.

[Dontaskme]

I cannot understand the purpose or value of the assertion *You do not exist* or *I do not exist*. As if we who are here doing thus-and-such are not really here doing thus-and-such.

If this is your core predicate (Is it?) then what am I to think and conclude about the other ideas you assert with similar certainty and forcefulness?

You should be more concerned with the belief that dead people can come back alive as in the Christian belief of the rising of Christ from the dead.

We cannot know we are dead, therefore we cannot know we are alive. Nothing is alive because nothing is dead. That statement is written by no one, and read by no one.

Knowing, as in knowledge is a fictional story that's all. Knowledge can only point to the illusory nature of reality in that it is one without a second.

Nonduality teaches this fundamental and absolute principle.


IC, does not believe reality is Nondual..

Whereas, I do.

Who's belief is right? ....this question is an ever and infinite open ended question....that just happens to run out of road when the rubber finally hits it.

That's all there is to say about that.


.

[Dubious]

That's because I don't accuse people of ad hominems unless they try to evade the issues by way of personal insult against the speaker -- the very definition of ad hominem...just as you are attempting to do right now.

Face it IC, you're just an ad hom magnet. That is sure to happen when considering oneself superior to all who haven't accepted or received the word of Jesus that one must believe in him to be saved. If you kept your superiority complex to yourself as most theists are prone to do instead of advertising it on a philosophy forum, the belief contract between you and your god would have remained confidential.

The fact remains, for fact it is, you are very prone to claim ad homs every time you don't like the reply using that as excuse for its invalidity. In fact, I don't know anyone on the site who complains about having received so many ad homs as you have. Could it be it's just an excuse to deflect an argument or question you feel uncomfortable with? I think that quite possible since there are few who make as many absurd statements as you. Ever think that this constant declaration of ad homs makes you look wimpy?

OMG, another ad hom!!

To repeat! What I do find thoroughly objectionable is when it’s used as a weapon to denounce those who no-longer are able or willing to accept what they inherently know can’t be true.

Even a modest inspection of that claim will disprove it.

If it were so easy to disprove you would be more than happy to have thrown it in my face long ago. So why haven't you?

As for me, the probability of my after-state being equal to precisely the one before it is not one I doubt in the least.

I cannot congratulate you on that confidence. I'm certain it is going to betray you. I'd prefer to encourage you to be open to rethinking that freedom from doubt.
But we shall see. For if you were to turn out to be right, neither you nor I will ever know it; but I am right, then it is certain that both you and I will know it.

The world is understood in terms of probability. What you expect has a probability of near zero based on every kind of scientific and historical analysis, none of which includes faith since that would cause distortion. The hero of Christianity is actually Paul, the one who started the movement; it certainly wasn't Jesus who had no credibility with his own people. If it weren't for Paul, Jesus would have been consigned to the ash-heap of history or at best remembered only as a footnote; the NT wouldn't exist.

But supposing you're right that there will be some kind of Last Judgement event. What certainty is there that Jesus had anything to do with it or anything like a heaven or hell arrangement afterword? Hinduism is far more complex and sophisticated in regard to any after-death destiny; also much older and wiser than Christianity. The ancients of that time and place would not have succumbed to anything so simplistic as needing to believe in Jesus or some other god to be saved. This has the effect of making Jesus a virtual Santa Claus figure...was I good, was I bad...did I believe in him and pray for forgiveness of sins, etc! Even the Jews, his own people, weren't that gullible! It would be interesting to know what goes on in the mind causing it to believe in such an overt absurdity and any normal credence requirement long outcast.