Christianity

[Dubious]

How I look at things goes like this: I believe we are duty-bound, ethically and also morally, to at least try to find some common ground with those who are very much opposed to us and to whom we might be opposed. So the entire charade of stating that you will disconnect, and then send up the list of complaints, is silly. The purpose of a forum like this, that is in an ideal sense, is to engage. The real problem is how best to carry that out.

If you think my thinking is limited or operates too conventionally -- correct me. Show me how you have overcome this limitation. Yet I am inclined to think that perhaps you are not fully honest with yourself.

The part about *thinking for yourself* is nonetheless interesting. It is a good point for conversation. And though I certainly agree that one should think for oneself I am more compelled to ask myself and to be preoccupied with what it is ethical and moral to think and to do. In my own case I have, as an exercise, exposed myself to a great many viewpoints and perspectives and I am uncertain which to choose. So my thinking has been to remain undecided and uncommitted until I have certainty.

I'm writing here to apologize. I was overreacting to your posts which is something I generally try to avoid though realizing a disinterested mastery can never be achieved by anyone. But lately I was beginning to lose control; there are reasons which have more to do with me personally than anything you or anyone posted.

Note, I'm not asking you to reengage with me. It's perhaps best that we don't, but we'll see. My point in this post is simply that my overbearing sensitivity lately - call a spade a spade! - is not my usual style in responding.... and that's all I want to say!

[Dontaskme]

But who is making the theory?

Whoever is interested in making Evolutionism rational.

But again, this is just an idea in the human mind. Point to the mind? where is the mind located is a question that can only be answered using another idea. ..so what and where exactly is an idea? ...I've no idea! huh! except to say HERENOW. NOWHERE. ...now point to here? ..you'll find here to be everywhere you point. ..everywhere IC, and not an actual local place that can be separated out as if it had a separate existence in and of itself.

Does the universe NEED to have THEORY to exist?

Of course not. Such theories attempt to describe how something happened; they don't make anything happen.

Exactly.

...the 'knower entity' cannot know itself without splitting itself in two.

Who is the "knower"?

If the question needs to be asked, then it's because the answer to the question is not known. There are only questions IC, only questions. Not-knowing is the one question to all our answers.

Sentience does not require thought.

Yes, actually, it does. Sentience IS thought. No thought, no sentience.

Sentience is the capacity to experience and know sensation, and knowing sensation is only after the sensation has happened...The thought ( I feel sensation ) comes only after the sensation..not before.

Thought can only be known and referred to via memory association.. which is an artificial space-time reality imposed upon the unknowable reality. Memory is not the actual realtime present moment of what is always and ever this immediate here and now that can NEVER be known. Knowing is only after the event, never before. Knowing knowledge is an artificial representation of what is always this seamless not-knowing live presentation...known conceptually as LIFE

Sentience is AUTOMATIC

Oh. You mean, "Thinking just happens." But if doesn't happen in non-sentient things. And how non-thinking things became sentient...well, that's one of the problems with the Progressivist Evolutionary narrative.

Well you invented this Progressivist Evolutionary narrative, so it's your problem, since you are the one who is identifing with the narrative as if it's an actual real story that happened.

Point to the ''thinker'' IC...where is the thinker located? ... if you already know...then you will be able to control a thought before it appears, you could stop it from ever appearing...Alas, I do not think that is possible ...do you?

.

[Belinda]

Water always seeks the lowest level: apparently this applies to some forum participants as well.

Congrats, B: you found the basement...

But it applies to everyone. One's social class, age, and sex are all predictors of personal taste .

[Alexis Jacobi]

I was overreacting to your posts which is something I generally try to avoid though realizing a disinterested mastery can never be achieved by anyone.

I hope that you will eventually let me know what exactly you were reacting to. I am not sure I understand your general position very well.

[henry quirk]

Water always seeks the lowest level: apparently this applies to some forum participants as well.

Congrats, B: you found the basement...

But it applies to everyone. One's social class, age, and sex are all predictors of personal taste .

Predictors (unreliable), mebbe; determiners, no.

There are no bindin' dictates: there are only influences and pressures.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I don't think that. What I do think is that you're using a kind of detached and arid set of sociological over-generalizations as a way of keeping the topic of your own salvation distant from reaching you.

I will suggest that you have only a foggy idea of what I am doing in this conversation and in my general project of research and study. And this is why I said that each of us has the duty to a) understand our own position and to reveal what we are *really up to* and b) try to understand why the other people around us think and believe as they do. And the only way we can grasp what other people are about is through listening to them. If we succeed in being capable of repeating back to them, fairly and honestly, what their position actually is we will have made great progress.

Having read you and listened to you for quite some time I have gleaned from you that you have a very murky idea about what salvation is. And the way I see you as a Christian apologist is to see you as a member of a generally Evangelical sect. So in this way, following the method that I think is crucial, I try to *locate* you so that I can understand where you stand and why you take the positions that you do. The entire idea, the entire notion, of salvation as spoken of by evangelical Christians is thoroughly murky. What you have said is that 'salvation is to have become released from the consequences of sin'. I have a great many different thoughts about the *standard belief-system* of Evangelicals and at the core I am not at all convinced that they (to speak generally) are on the right track.

Which points of course to attempts to define what the *right track* is. I do not think that you have any interest at all in exploring or defining a *right track* because you have assumed for yourself the status of 'true Christian' as against all others, and that you simply declare your status. Self-declaration. Your essential position has to do and can only have to do if one is *saved* on *non-saved* and in relation to that status all other questions, problems and considerations are literally irrelevant. And if I am right in stating what I think is your core position, I can only tell you what I believe is true: this cannot be right. It is simply not enough. And so I regard the self-declared *saved* status of many evangelical Christian types as being a false position. And if my sense of it is true I then have to define why this position is incomplete and work to create a better definition.

So again I simply reveal what my position is so that you and anyone else can better understand it and thus interact with me.

You are fundamentally wrong when you say "What I do think is that you're using a kind of detached and arid set of sociological over-generalizations as a way of keeping the topic of your own salvation distant from reaching you" and though I am not in any way bothered that you feel you can say such things (I encourage you and all others to say exactly what they do think and thus to reveal their real position) I regard your certainly, your assessment and judgment really, as a manifestation of your core arrogance. But I also go on to define what I mean by *arrogance*.

And for this reason zero-in on Judaic imperialism. It is an imperialism in the idea-realm of course. And in relation to it I propose the possibility of a different attitude. There is no doubt that I fully understand the complexity and difficulty of what I propose as an alternative. This is very difficult territory. That is, to be critical of a core notion within Christianity while at the same time sensing a need to be fair and just.

It's a bad strategy...a fatal one. These are not merely academic questions. They require a personal commitment.

First, you make the assertion that my concerns are 'academic' and now you go on to argue against that straw man. This is standard procedure for you yet I do not think you are aware of it.

I do not think that you can make much progress understanding that other people differ from you and why they differ from you. Why? Simple! You are absolutely self-convinced that you are right. Or rather that God is right and that you are only repeating what God says. Your entire modus operandi is in this. You will not be able to break out of this and, in fact, I do not recommend that you do.

I am talking to you. It's only you who have charge of your own soul. But are you hearing?

Here you use the psychological tools that are typical of standard Evangelicals. These are all transparent tactics of conventional apologetics.

And I only say that it is a very very good idea to focus on the questions that have to do with the status of our own soul. But what this really means -- for a given person -- is not decided or administered by you. You will say something like *Of course it isn't! It is GOD who administers...* and that you are just the mouthpiece.

My position is that what spiritual connection really means, and what is demanded of us in this present, is far more involved than you can allow yourself to be aware.

I'm saying, Alexis, that in treating matters of salvation as academic, you're keeping yourself aridly distant from the challenge that Christ puts to you. And that's a dangerous thing to do. These are not matters for detached study; these are things that you hear and life, or refuse and die by.

Sure, I do understand the *basic rap* of Evangelical apologetics. I think most do. My position is not to disagree with what I have called an *essence* in what you say and there is no point in anything I have said where I deny the importance of a deep examination of oneself and where one stands at a *soul level*. And it is you who *cannot hear for all that you have ears!"

Now what is the core reason why you cannot (will not) hear? That is where the question lies. I have merely suggested it is to be located in Judaic imperialism. And in course of time -- it may take months -- I will work to understand better.

[Alexis Jacobi]

GOOD FRIDAY
MORNING OFFICE

THE Church commemorates every day the bloody sacrifice of Jesus
Christ on the cross by a true and real unbloody sacrifice, in which she
offers to God the same body and blood that were given for the sins of the
world. But on Good Friday she offers no sacrifice, nor is there any con-
secration of the Holy Eucharist; the Priest receiving the sacred Host
which he had consecrated the day before. So that, in the office which
is performed, instead of the Mass, she contents herself with a bare repre-
sentation of the passion, and makes it her chief business to expose to the
faithful Jesus Christ crucified for them. For this end she reads such
Lessons and Tracts as contain predictions of his coming for their redemp-
tion, and types of his immolation on the cross, and then she reads the
history of the passion, as related by St. John, to show how the Law and
the prophets were verified by the Gospel.

The faithful by these Lessons are instructed in the mystery of this day,
and therefore beg with the Priest the fruit and application of this pas-
sion, by praying for all sorts of persons, even Schismatics, Heretics,
Jews, and Pagans. None are excluded from the suffrages of the Church
on a day when Jesus Christ prayed for his persecutors,and offered his
blood to his Father for the salvation of those who shed it.

Next, both Priest and people adore Jesus Christ crucified, expressing
their adoration by kneeling thrice before they kiss the cross. The vene-
ration of the cross is as ancient as Christianity itself. If at the bare name
of Jesus every knee should bend, what feelings should arise in a Chris-
tian breast at the sight of the sacred sign of redemption? It is not to
the frail materials of the cross that we pay our adoration, but to Him who
on it offered for our sins the sacrifice of propitiation.

I do note the irony of making so many different statements about core Christian belief on Good Friday. So while the Church prays for the Schismatics (that means you Immanuel!), Heretics, Jews, and Pagans . . .

. . . the Schismatics, Heretics, Jews, and Pagans should also offer their prayers back toward them.

[It may seem as if I am making light of this, all this, but that is not at all the case.]



[Cornelis Engebrechtsz; Netherlandish, ca. 1461–1527). Date: ca. 1525–27.]

[promethean75]

^^^ Seriously look at how morbid that is. You got a few guys hanging from roman torture devices while people cry and mourn at their feet.

That's how Christianity gets in. The candidate is significantly weakened by being shamed and exposed to all kinds of morbidity; original sin, sacrifice, eternity in hell, execution of the main dude, global floods that kill er'body, swarms of locusts and diseases and shit.

It's like a fuckin horror movie even a Hitchcock couldn't produce if he tried.

I'm with Fritz. I could never believe in a 'god' that didn't dance. That shit up there is just ugly. I'ont even wanna think about it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

^^^ Seriously look at how morbid that is. You got a few guys hanging from roman torture devices while people cry and mourn at their feet.

There are other angles . . . (Tissot: Ce que voyait Notre-Seigneur sur la Croix).



Just wait a few days though . . .

[Immanuel Can]

Sentience is the capacity to experience and know sensation

No, it does not require "sensation." One can contemplate within the mind, absent any particular sensation.

Well you invented this Progressivist Evolutionary narrative,

Actually, I did not. It was Evolutionists who invented it, and I'm not one of them.

Point to the ''thinker'' IC

"Point" indicates a physical action. You can't "point" to courage, love, envy or other emotions, or to intelligence or badness or to numeracy, such as the property of having six of something, nor can you "point" physically to an idea, such as unity or divisibility.

But these things are still real, and so is thinking. So the problem is in the way you frame your objection, not in thinking itself. Many non-physical things exist.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't think that. What I do think is that you're using a kind of detached and arid set of sociological over-generalizations as a way of keeping the topic of your own salvation distant from reaching you.

I will suggest that you have only a foggy idea of what I am doing in this conversation and in my general project of research and study.

And yet, you call it "a project of research and study," not, say, "a search for the truth." That's your explanation of it, not mine.

So I'm not so "foggy" as you imagine.

Having read you and listened to you for quite some time I have gleaned from you that you have a very murky idea about what salvation is.

Having read and listened to you, I can see you have none.

The entire idea, the entire notion, of salvation as spoken of by evangelical Christians is thoroughly murky.

To you, yes: to us, no. Christ Himself promised it would be just that way. He said, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear," but also to His disciples He said, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest they are told in parables, so that while seeing they may not see, and while hearing they may not understand." (Luke 8:10) This is because God does not make Himself known to mere skeptics, but only to those who are willing to produce a little faith in Him: and though it be as small as a mustard seed(Matt. 17:20), He will not despise that. But "without faith it is impossible to please Him, for the one who comes to God must believe that He exists, and that He proves to be One who rewards those who seek Him." (Heb. 11:6)

If one doesn't believe that, one will simply never know God...and that, because He says so.

Your problem right now, Alexis, is that you want to think about Christianity as a sociolgical proposition: intellectually...without commitment...merely historically...academically...politically...all of which, by themselves are not evil, but that simply do not lead to the knowledge of God.

The first question, and the only question that allows the knowledge of God, is this: what will you do with Jesus Christ? After that, everything else is a footnote.

Happy Easter.

So again I simply reveal what my position is so that you and anyone else can better understand it and thus interact with me.

I understand it much better than you think I do, or that you give me credit for doing, I think you'll find. But that's fine: the important thing is not where I am; it's where you're going to be.

It's a bad strategy...a fatal one. These are not merely academic questions. They require a personal commitment.

First, you make the assertion that my concerns are 'academic' and now you go on to argue against that straw man. This is standard procedure for you yet I do not think you are aware of it.

Then disabuse me of my error. What is your personal commitment to Christ? And if I have done you wrong in anything I have said, I will repent and apologize here. Gladly.

And I only say that it is a very very good idea to focus on the questions that have to do with the status of our own soul. But what this really means -- for a given person -- is not decided or administered by you.

I never said it was. But you are right: I will say that the Judge is the one who judges...However, against your expectation, I will say that I do not need to speak for Him, as He has already spoken on these matters. My job is merely that of announcing that, not of deciding anything at all.

I'm saying, Alexis, that in treating matters of salvation as academic, you're keeping yourself aridly distant from the challenge that Christ puts to you. And that's a dangerous thing to do. These are not matters for detached study; these are things that you hear and life, or refuse and die by.

Sure, I do understand the *basic rap* of Evangelical apologetics. I think most do.

I think they don't. And Christ says they don't. One has to have "ears to hear." Others will find they simply dismiss. See the parable of the sower and the seed. (Matthew 13)

...it is you who *cannot hear for all that you have ears!"

Interesting. So it's possible for one who's not listening to imagine he's the one with the "ears"?

My encouragement is this: there's nothing more important than the disposition of ones own soul, as Christ Himself has said. To treat spiritual matters as academic, and the personal challenge as merely a sociological curiousity is to play games with one's own soul.

There are some questions one can address without such dangers. This is not one of them.

[Dubious]

I was overreacting to your posts which is something I generally try to avoid though realizing a disinterested mastery can never be achieved by anyone.

I hope that you will eventually let me know what exactly you were reacting to. I am not sure I understand your general position very well.

My general position is based on what remains mystical in nature, rather than the thought laminations we invest ourselves with to create meanings we can't find abroad. But there was never or can be any fixed position to dedicate oneself to. But I'm only speaking of myself here. To each his own.

As mentioned, I was being oversensitive. About what I don't even specifically know! It's not my normal style.

[iambiguous]

On the other hand, he has no capacity I have seen here to demonstrate that the Christian God trumps Aristotle's when the question posed is "which one"?

You seem to be labouring under the delusion you have an audience other than me. If anybody's paying attention to us, I suspect it's few, and often none.

What's the "audience" have to do with it? He's the one who keeps pointing out that just because those who are not Christians claim the One True Path to immortality and salvation that doesn't make it true. We are still ever and always confronted with "which one" it really is. I'm just noting that would include Aristotle's God as well. Right? His or ICs? Which one?

Then without offering us a shred of hard evidence he avers that...

In any case, Aristotle was wrong about God. He was right about the rules of logic, though. And the rules of logic -- which are as indifferent to agendas as the laws of mathematics are -- say that not more than one view of God can be correct.

And then somehow he connects the dots between "logic" and "Christianity". Not more than one view of God can be correct but "shortly" he will provide us with the evidence that it is his Christian God.

And that's before we get all of the many, many additional Gods that have come down the pike historically. Not to mention all of the No God religious paths.

You can't explain it?

I attempted to...

No, what fascinates me is that, with objective morality at stake on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation at stake on the other side, an omniscient and omnipotent Christian God hasn't been able to bring all of us mere mortals over to the One True Path. Even among Christians and Muslims and Jews there are bitter disputes over what the God of Abraham expects of them. Indeed, that's why Henry's God makes more sense here. He sets it all in motion and then pulls back altogether. But your God? He dumps Judgment Day on us but doesn't make it crystal clear what the One True Path is.

Oh, I see.

Your assumption is that God would want to make everybody believe in Him, if He exists. Well, that would certainly finish off your free will, and any choice you might make with regard to God.

Is that a price you'd be willing to pay?

On the contrary, I'm willing to accept his "intellectual assumptions" about an omniscient God and human autonomy, but given human autonomy here how exactly is he addressing the point I raise about what is at stake given that the Christian God is not even being able to provide mere mortals with a Scripture able to bring those who worship and adore the God of Abraham together? Historically, rather the opposite, right?

That is precisely what one has to decide freely, for oneself. One must decide if the God described in the Bible is true or not. And the same, of course, could be said for any other "gods" people offer one. Or one could simply refuse, and declare Atheism, and never know.

Either way, that task is our task here, on Earth: to decide if God has spoken, and if so, how, and what you and I are going to do about it.

I don't have any problem with that. I merely suggest that "decisions" here are rooted existentially in dasein. And that we are talking about a "leap of faith" in regard to a God, the God, my God in a world where there are many, many, many denominations all claiming that their path is the One True Path. A world where this alleged omnipotent God seems woefully deficient in making it crystal clear which path it is.

No. They're "rooted" in who God is. One's mere "dasein" or existential imaginings about God can be wrong. And you know that's true, precisely because there are so many contradictory views on tap.

Sigh...

Back again to admitting the historical parameters of this...

https://thebestschools.org/magazine/wor ... -starters/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...but insisting that his own Christian God is The One. And, in fact, "shortly" he'll provide us with the proof of this.

Instead, here is the proof" that he prefers:

...this alleged omnipotent God seems woefully deficient in making it crystal clear which path it is.

Quite the contrary. I think it's very clear.

And if Christians are at all right, God has, in fact, sent His Son to tell the world exactly how things are. One cannot imagine anything stronger He could have done, without so overwhelming any possibility of doubt that free will itself would become impossible.

The facts of who God is.

If God is a Person, as Christianity says He is, then He has a character, an identity, intentions, purposes, and so on, just as you do. And to worship God, one must know who He is...really is...in fact.

Note to others:

You tell me how much we should respect the intellectual depth of someone who argues this in order to answer the question "which one"? Let's try to imagine Aristotle's reaction to it.

Sure, in church or in Sunday School or around the dinner table this sort of thing would suffice...but in a philosophy forum?

What evidence that this Christian God of yours [and not all the other ones] really does exist?

I keep trying to get to that. But so far, you won't tell me what evidence you would even accept on that score.

The problem is, if you will accept nothing, nothing can be done for you. But if you will set the bar in some sensible place, I can attempt to provide what you will believe.

So what would you accept as evidence of God?

Again, unbelievable. Over and again I noted I'd accept the sort of evidence that Christians could provide to demonstrate that Popes occupied the Vatican down through the ages. Evidence of this sort demonstrating that the Christian God occupies Heaven.

What could be simpler? But he then becomes what, over at ILP, I call Mr. Wiggle. Ever and always wiggling out of providing such proof. Always some excuse for why the Pope example is not legitimate.

Here are the three possible views on God.

1. Atheism -- there are no gods.
2. Polytheism -- there are plural or many gods.
3. Monotheism -- there is only one God.

Now, we could discuss what kind of gods or God there might be..what their/His nature might be, what their/His moral intentions might be, and so on. But those are secondary questions, because if there are no gods, then those questions cannot even be asked; so for now, we'll leave them aside.

We have, above, the three possible views of the question of whether god(s) exists. There are no possible answers that do not fall into one of these three categories, as you can see.

Logic tells us that one of them has to be true. Why? Because there are no possibilities not covered by the three claims, right? Take you time, plug in any religion or ideology you know, and it will fit into one of the three. So there are no other answers possible.

What else can you deduce? Well, logically, not only is one of them guaranteed to be true, but two of the three are guaranteed to be false. Why? Because they directly contradict one another. If there is one or many gods, Atheism is false. If there are no gods, then the last two are false. If there is one God, then both Atheism and Polytheism are false; and if there are many gods, then both Atheism and Monotheism are false.

So what you end up with is that every person believes that most of the world is wrong. There are no exceptions to that, except a person who cannot do logic and so can't even understand or unravel the trilemma above.

So, if you share his definitions and deductions here, his distinctions are "logically" true. And if you don't and prefer actual hard evidence that it is his Christian God that is the one true path?

Well, once again, you are out of luck.

Similarly, if you do not share his moral convictions regarding such things as abortion then "logically" you are wrong because "logically", in defining and deducing the Christian God into existence the answer to the question "which one?" is simple: his. His God, his objective morality. So, if you share his definitions and deductions here, his distinctions are "logically" true.

It's not options that count here, it's the extent to which the Polytheists and the Monotheists are able to demonstrate to us that these Gods and this God do in fact exist. And, if so, why their own and not all the others?

Instead, any number of them will try to turn it all around and insist, "let the atheists demonstrate that they don't exist. As though that is the more logical approach here.

The part he ever and always wiggles out of actually responding to with hard evidence.

Oh. So your assumption is that if God were real, he wouldn't let anybody disbelieve in Him?

My assumption is that with so much at stake here -- immortality, salvation, Judgment Day, Heaven and Hell -- God's Word would be such that no one with half a brain could ever possibly not believe in Him. People wouldn't have to take Kierkegaardian "leaps of faith" or place wagers on "I" for all the rest of eternity. God would make it beyond all doubt the easiest choice around. Of course the Christian God path is the one to salvation. Only a complete fool could not apprehend that.

So God would compel people to believe in Him? He would have no reason for wanting us to have a choice, you think?

If the Scripture went straight to the point with respect to Judgment Day and Heaven and Hell, it would be abundantly clear that the Christian Path is the One True Path.

Instead, here's his idea of "proof":

You're right: God's given you time. And he's given His Word for you to read and consider, and He's personally come in His Son and died for you, in order to convince you. He's been raised from the dead to prove that God's offer is sincere, and also that the time is not infinite: the Judge is coming. Moreoever, at this moment, He's sent somebody who knows Him into your "dasein," your existential sphere, to speak to you about your need of salvation.

He now owes you no more. And you have a decision to make.

Again, as though all of those who embrace a God other than the Christian God don't have their own "Scripture" here to convey to me. Those Gods, in turn, I will be assured don't owe me any more either.

But that doesn't get us around to answering this: Which one?

If any of them.

And, again, all those who are entirely sincere in choosing another God or who are never even aware of Christianity. Or does that qualify them for a "get out of Hell free" card?

You can leave that with God. He can make Himself known many ways, as Romans 1 will tell you.

As though that makes my point here go away!!

IC comes into the world at this juncture historically, in a particular culture and community and family that for years inculcated him to understand the world around him just as they did. Whether that childhood was good or bad or in between doesn't change that. Some children are more preconscious than others, sure, but to speak of having "a lot of freedom" as a kid to view the world as we might as adults is ludicrous.

Well, if Cultural / Environmental Determinism, which is what you're invoking here, were true, then it would be utterly impossible for anybody to believe anything not programmed into them. But since people quite routinely depart the traditions and cultures in which they were raised, that's clearly not the case.

He's the one calling all this "determinism" of course. I'm merely noting how our personal experiences go a long way toward shaping our value judgments. The common sense part.

For many they are well into their teen years before they bump into someone or something that makes them pull back and question their reality more critically, more comprehensively. For me it was Reverend Deerdorff at the Protestant Community Church. But then I met the Vietnam War and Danny and Mac. And everything changed dramatically again.

So you admit to having had "conversion" experiences, such as from Protestantism to Atheism, and that you've abandoned whatever you were taught in your youth and had more mature views since, yet you insist others cannot? That seems more than a little unlikely.

I'm not arguing that we can't move beyond our childhood indoctrination, only that we can never be entirely certain of how the past and the present are intertwined. And that, as adults, we only have so much understanding and control over the experiences we encounter.

The point is what can I really know about IC's experiences and what can he really know about mine?

Well, right: you don't know me at all. It's amazing to me that you feel qualified to decide I'm "indoctrinated," based on no evidence at all.

That's my point, of course. IC has lived his life. And his experiences led him to Christianity. My experiences once led me to Christianity as well. But then another entirely different set of circumstances led me to atheism. The same with everyone else here. Their experiences are going to be more or less likely to lead them to Christianity. That's the existential nature of identity here.

On the other hand, if IC were able to provide us with demonstrable proof that the Christian God is the One True Path, all of those different experiences would become moot. Here is evidence that a God, the God is the Christian God. Show me that evidence and I'll become a Christian again ASAP.

And that's my point: given this, where is the hard evidence to close the gap between what we believe about God "in our head" and what we are able to demonstrate to others that [as rational human beings] they are obligated to believe in turn.

As I say, we haven't gotten to it yet, because you continue to doubt the groundwork we need to establish so I can present you with such evidence. So I keep having to go back and deal with the basics.

I know, I know: "shortly".

Yes. Tell me what you'll accept, and I'll see what I can give you.

Over and over and over again: evidence that the Christian God does in fact exist on par with evidence that Popes do in fact occupy the Vatican.

Now watch him "wiggle wiggle wiggle" out of going there. Again.

Mount Tambora, Indonesia? You know that one?

Okay, let's go. What's your question about the Tambora tragedy? What do you want to ask, with regard to it, or what challenge would you like to put to me because of it?

71,000 to 250,000 men, women and children perished in it. What was the Christians God's point in triggering the eruption? That less than 10% of Indonesia's population is Christian? Or is it just tucked away in the Christian God's "mysterious ways" folder?

Do you know Susan Neiman's book, Evil In Modern Thought? She begins with the earthquake in Portugal. She's asking the same questions, namely, if God exists, why would he allow a disaster to happen?

Indeed, Harold Kushner asked the same question regarding many, many "acts of God". And lots of other things as well. In fact his book starts by laying out all of the excruciating pain and suffering mere mortals have endured...prompting him to conclude that the God of Abraham was indeed in over His head in setting into motion a world He was not all-powerful enough to contain or control.

Although my own reading of the OT led me to a different conclusion. How is that God not to be construed as anything other than a sadistic monster? Just imagine our reaction if one of us today were to do what He did back then.

Anyway, what's her explanation? Is his explanation the same?

Neiman's Jewish by birth, as is Kushner. And she thrashes around quite a bit. In the end, she opts simply to argue that we have to keep asking the question, and not to ask the question is not an option; but she also kind of despairs of an answer. She partly accepts that human-caused tragedies like the Holocaust are human-caused, but she never manages to solve things like Tambora.

Well, I can certainly respect that point of view. On the other hand, though the Holocaust was the work of those like Hitler, an omnipotent God could have prevented it from happening....but did not.

And, just out of curiosity, it's Judgment Day. The God of Abraham passes judgment on Christians, Muslims and Jews. Who goes up and who goes down given that only Christians recognize Jesus Christ as their personal savior. Even though Jesus Christ was Himself a Jew. As for the Muslims? That's always mystified me.

For our purposes, what's most useful in her analysis is the intelligent division between human-caused and what she calls "natural evils," which includes things like Tambora.

Okay, but nature's existence is of itself an act of God. So doesn't that make God evil?

[Belinda]

Water always seeks the lowest level: apparently this applies to some forum participants as well.

Congrats, B: you found the basement...

But it applies to everyone. One's social class, age, and sex are all predictors of personal taste .

Predictors (unreliable), mebbe; determiners, no.

There are no bindin' dictates: there are only influences and pressures.

Predictors are based on statistical evidence so anyone can try to buck the trends and some succeed.

[Dubious]

For almost 2000 years the West has succumbed to the morbidity of a god-guru being sacrificed for our sins starting with Adam. The only thing required in consequence is to believe in Jesus to be saved.

What a sick story! If man is a sick animal, this has only made him worse. Nevertheless, it remains my personal tradition to play Bach's Easter Oratorio and the Berlioz Requiem every Good Friday.