Christianity

[Dubious]

Got anything relevant to say, or are we done here?

The truth is always relevant!

Then for you, the answer is "No."

Only a living brain allows for the influx of truth, not to the brain dead. So in your case, the answer is indeed "No"!

[iambiguous]

And you got it.

But now you say it's not good enough.

So what will you accept?

If the answer is "nothing," then "nothing" is what you'll get...but to nobody's great surprise.

Note to the Christian God:

It's Judgment Day. IC and I arrive at the Pearly Gates. Now, which of us would You prefer to have around grappling over Your existence for all the rest of eternity?

Ah. So changing the subject and not answering? Red herring?

Hmm, he does know that my "note" above is entirely tongue in cheek, right? My main point was just to remind others of the gap between ME and HIM above. My more substantive points which he completely ignores. Instead, he merely repeats the same argument that I in fact did respond to substantively.

I don't actually blame you. Chances are, you've never even thought of it. You've been so busy declaring "God doesn't exist" that you've never even given a moment's thought of what you would expect Him to do if He did. You have no evidence you're looking for, and none you will accept.

Just for the record, I have never declared that "God doesn't exist". How on earth could an infinitesimally tiny and insignificant speck of existence that is "I" possibly know that?

No, I'm only pointing out that IC's own "private and personal" Christian God is but one of many, many, many others that are said to exist. And with so much at stake on both sides of the grave if his God is in fact the real deal, He's done a piss poor job of getting out the word.

But: is he the real deal?

IC insists that He is and in order to prove it he triumphantly points out that some believe that Jesus Christ was not just a character in a book but an actual historical figure.

As though if that can be established we need go no farther in establishing that this makes him God in Heaven.

Meanwhile the Muslims have considerably less difficulty establishing that their own Prophet was the real deal. At least historically "back then".

Then the part where Jesus Christ/God was/is a Jew and yet on Judgment Day some Christians insist that unless Jews renounce their own faith and accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior they will burn in Hell for all of eternity.

How the Hell is that understood by them?

Consequently, you shall not have your evidence until you meet God, since you will accept none...unless you do some serious thinking and change that situation now.

Okay, but it's not like Catholics will tell someone they actually have to meet the Pope in order to be sure that Popes existed in the Vatican.

Though, sure, if I die and meet his Christian God, that'll be evidence enough for me. I just suspect that a conversation with me would be considerably more stimulating for Him than one with IC.

And, of course, him being a hardcore Christian objectivist: "serious thinking" = "thinking as he does".

You could think about it. You could decide what evidence you would accept. But if you did, then you might find it or be provided it...and then what?

Again, I want to find it!

No more essentially meaningless existence, no more fractured and fragmented value judgments, no more oblivion.

I'd just have to explain to God how, introspectively and in all sincerity, I came to believe what I did about religion until someone was able to provide me with enough evidence that I could make that leap of faith again.

Just not IC.

After all, for IC, finding it revolves precisely around defining and then deducing it into existence. The "thinking man's" God.

[Dontaskme]

The truth is always relevant!

Then for you, the answer is "No."

Only a living brain allows for the influx of truth, not to the brain dead. So in your case, the answer is indeed "No"!

The ''NO'' reply from IC to Dubious is a typical response from a theist who is more inclined to be less intelligent than people who have actually put in the real effort and grind to grow a frontal lobe... God people are much less likely to question topics/ideas...because according to their logic it stops at ''GOD DID IT''
...and so everything else is just completely irrelevant.


IC has proved this over and over again by constantly and deliberately avoiding the difficult questions and ideas. Why, because he knows that he can only bluff his way through life...he knows he knows nothing, and cannot handle that truth, because it's never enough for him.


BE ware...here there are snakes in the grass. Reality is not for sale.

Funny how he accuses others of buying from the snake, any yet denies he does the same.

.

[Dontaskme]

Now lets take a look at what is meant by the ''snake-oil salesman''.

The cunning snake convinced Eve to eat the forbidden fruit of the “tree of knowledge,” telling her that “when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” When God learned of Adam and Eve's transgression, he banished both of them from Eden and cursed the snake for its role

Basically translated as saying...You were never meant to KNOW... Rather, You were only meant to BE... and in being you would be in perfect flow with THE REALITY of life exactly as it was meant to BE, and that somewhere along the line of being, you would self-discover that only you could know yourself as and through your own direct experience, insofar as only you would know experience as and through direct immediate experience which would present itself as difference.. eg: good and evil, wrong and right, pleasure and pain etc, etc...It's that simple, and that goes as well, for all the other myriad of sentient animals to discover as they mature. You already know that good is good and bad is bad through experience, no ''other'' one need to inform you of these opposites, as they are self-evident to you...they ARE YOU

To put this all into clear perspective... religion was just a human CONCEPTUAL instruction manual ...written by yours truly...aka insert any author you care to imagine...because only the human animal evolved to know concepts, and ask questions. Other animals did not, other animals do not question, nor do they know concepts...Reality is not conceptual, only the human mind is conceptual...albeit in an illusory sense of the WORD

What am I asked the human?....AND THE ANSWER CAME.....Im MAN U AL



YOU'RE the God damn tree of knowledge...the tree does not give knowledge to you...you are the tree.

[Belinda]

Dubious cited an article about the syncretic history of God. The author wrote a nice metaphor regarding how in Judaic culture the advent of the OT prophets was a watershed event, and in Hellenistic culture the advent of Plato and Socrates had been a watershed event. These "watersheds" occurred during the same three or four centuries. There were similar cultural watersheds in Europe and Asia during the same Axial period as described by Karl Jaspers.

Karen Armstrong wrote an easier read called "A History of God" which describes these Axial events and more. The book in decent condition now costs a few pennies from secondhand sellers, and I recommend it. She is a proper historian , a breed that often seems to be lacking among religionists.

[Immanuel Can]

The tenets of Christian belief depend on a whole range of definitions. And those definitions are also exclusions.

Well, you define "Christian" as "anybody who says they are," which means there is only one definition, and no doctrine. And that definition only excludes those who say they are not Christian.

So you don't believe that.

This operates through *idea domination*.

That's not a sensible phrase. The best (truest) ideas should always "dominate." What else would you want? Inclusion of lies?

You asked if theoretically, such a thing would be possible to Him. The rest, you made up out of whole cloth.

No, you propose to me that God can do the specific thing that you believe he will do eventually. [/quote]
No, I did not. You proposed it, and I agreed only that *in theory* God could do it, as you suggested. I did not at all say He will do it eventually, or even that He ever would want to do it.

There are many things God could do in theory that God does not do. He could, for example, drown the world in turpentine or turn the cells in your body into baby oil. Are you suggesting, then, that eventually He will?

...it is written in Scripture that therefore it is true (and will happen).

Count on that. What Scripture says will be, will be.

I believe it is part of Christian myth.

Because?

In this context you tell me that If one believes that God exists, that one can or should believe that God can do or will do the specific predicted thing: end our world, destroy the wicked, and begin another world on a different order.

I tell you what God says He will do, providing His Word as evidence. I cannot make you take it. But it will happen, nonetheless.

You very much do define God in very specific ways. And one of those ways is by asserting omnipotence.

Look back. You used the word, not I. I never did what you say I did.

Rather, I nuanced the term so it would be correct. But you ignored that, and returned to your own blank definition of "omnipotence."

I have to wonder: are you forgetful, or are you gaslighting?

If the latter, it's not working. I remember what I said, and why I said it. But it is making me doubt your accuracy or your sincerity, which up to now, I have been disinclined to do.

Let's stick to truth, shall we?

But we can leave that to the side for now.

You leave aside the question of Judgment at your own peril. As somebody who likes you, I encourage you not to.

...his will is not contingent or dependent on any assertion that you make.

That's true, for sure.

But equally true is that your refusal to think about Judgment won't make it go away.

You also didn't ask if He actually DOES that sort of thing, which is quite a different question.

Well, I do not believe that God actually ended 'the world' with the mythical event described in Genesis (the Flood).

Are you aware that some sort of "flood story" is nearly universal, in ancient cultures? Here's a partial list...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths

Humanity was not ended and reduced to a few families and did not then repopulate the Earth.

And you know this by...what?

You're fighting the truth here, Alexis. But if you win, you loose. So stop fighting.

[Immanuel Can]

Ah. So changing the subject and not answering? Red herring?

Hmm, he does know that my "note" above is entirely tongue in cheek, right?

I note the complete lack of an answer. Again.

...in fact did respond to substantively.

You got your evidence. Then you said you wouldn't accept it.

I'm only pointing out that IC's own "private and personal" Christian God is but one of many, many, many others that are said to exist.

And I point out that "4" is only one of the infinite number of wrong answers people could offer to "What is 2+2?" Even an infinite number of wrong answers counts for nothing.

But: is he the real deal?

It doesn't matter. Even an inveterate liar is obliged to tell the truth half the time. So the character of the speaker does not determine the truth of the utterance. That's ad hominem fallacy.

Consequently, you shall not have your evidence until you meet God, since you will accept none...unless you do some serious thinking and change that situation now.

Okay, but it's not like Catholics will tell someone they actually have to meet the Pope in order to be sure that Popes existed in the Vatican.

Hey, you set the test.

I just met it...very easily. Right before you refused to accept your own test.

Though, sure, if I die and meet his Christian God, that'll be evidence enough for me. I just suspect that a conversation with me would be considerably more stimulating for Him than one with IC.

No doubt. And you can find out when you have that conversation.

I wouldn't wait until then, though, were I you. For if nothing else, to stand before God is a moment of utmost seriousness; and there are consequences to not taking that moment seriously.

You could think about it. You could decide what evidence you would accept. But if you did, then you might find it or be provided it...and then what?

Again, I want to find it!

Great.

What evidence will you accept?

[Alexis Jacobi]

There are no Christians on this thread whose logical minds are open to Jesus' Resurrection. It is to be expected on a largely secular site.

Let us try to get clear about what is going on in this thread. First let us recognize that even among those who have a relationship to Christianity and, say, Christian assertion or Christian truth, that there is a great deal of disagreement. So I have tried to point this out. That is, we come from positions and orientations (*locations* is my term) that when examined closely reveal non-agreement. And here I am speaking about people who are *believers* (of a sort).

On the other side and here in this thread are people who adamantly, or one might say absolutely, do not believe. They are non-Christians and even in this neutral sense anti-Christian.

Now the question I ask you Nick is where exactly do you stand and what is your locality in this conversation? I can say that I think I grasp it. You refer to an inner dimension of Christian belief that is like that which Needleman reveals (the source he interviewed and learned from -- and this is to say a Christian mystic). You also reference Naomi Klein, Albert Einstein and Plato and you offer these as ways that a person, those who you write for, could come to understand and appreciate the Christian path. In this what I note is that all your references and shall I say admonitions are directed toward 'the inner man'. Your ultimate question is Who here believes in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from death to eternal life? and contained in your question is an either/or. If you believe this, you are a Christian, if you don't you are not.

Along with IC you push the issue by asking (and more or less demanding) an answer to the core question. And you set it up as the question, and the answer, which will determine everything. And these core questions are, obviously, essential faith questions. You are right to note that this is a 'secular platform' and that philosophy must ask questions, or take stances, that faith-positions can't, won't or don't. But noting this -- the localities of those participating here -- is in my view merely a prelude to getting to the *brass tacks* of what the real issue is. To define *the real issue* is, I suggest, very difficult. But I propose that it can be done. At least it can be generally outlined. How could we go about defining 'what the real issues are'?

The shotgun approach. There is a political and sociological element here that is very strong. Many no longer want to be on the side, nor do they agree with the consequential beliefs of many 'average' or 'common Christians' in social, political, geo-political, economic and other areas. How can this be talked about? I will make one reference that illustrates it: George Bush the younger and his Evangelical Christian position and the apparent backgrounding of his belief in Christian apocalypse-ism. But through this one reference I am referencing an extremely wide range of socio-political issues.

So what needs to be seen and needs to be faced all hinges in -- and here I'll use a convenient term -- The Culture Wars. And The Culture Wars arise out of vast metaphysical shifts in how people see Reality. How they define Reality. It should be, and I suppose it is, completely evident to at least most here (?) that those who define the Christian God also define thousands of other elements that proceed out of this basic definition. And those who do not recognize or define the Christian God, obviously, naturally orient themselves on a very very different base. Whatever that oppositional base is, it is varied as well. And those who are in opposition (to the Christian worldview) also do not agree! So there is further conflicts and struggles even there (and sometimes especially there).

Since I say that much of Christian Belief looks to me to be Judaic Imperialism in the idea-realm I have, I think obviously, indicated my posture and locality within a very problematic zone. Do you (you-singular and you-plural) want me to fill this out? Do you want me to be more explicit? But this question is really an ur-question: How far are you (singular and plural) willing to go in a thorough and depth-oriented investigation of these issuea and 'the core issues' that are evident and operational in our present?

My sense is: Not very far. A bit, yes, but not as far as is needed.

Notice how Plato distinguishes between soul and body.

Plato said that even after death, the soul exists and is able to think. He believed that as bodies die, the soul is continually reborn (metempsychosis) in subsequent bodies.

Christianity suggests that a person with the seed of a soul can become a higher quality of being we know of as the New Man. Secularism being caught up in the body cannot consider the conscious evolution and maturity of the seed of the soul. Naturally this potential is nonsense for secularism

It is peculiar that so many accept mechanical evolution as a given but have become closed to its transition into conscious evolution or the dualistic animal mind becoming the triune human mind

[Alexis Jacobi]

Well, you define "Christian" as "anybody who says they are," which means there is only one definition, and no doctrine. And that definition only excludes those who say they are not Christian.

I prefer to work with and present my ideas and my views through the essay-form. Just as I did right above. When you take a post of mine and then chop it up I find it makes it really difficult to respond coherently and carefully so I will refrain.

As I have said numerous times there is much more to be gained from clarifying where the different participants in this conversation come from (what their core position is, where they are 'located', etc.) than in haggling over specific belief-points.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Note: Nick I have the name wrong of the person you often refer to as one who explains a sensible Christianity. I believe her last name is Klein but I now see that I have forgotten).

[Alexis Jacobi]

AJ wrote: This operates through *idea domination*.

IC responded: That's not a sensible phrase. The best (truest) ideas should always "dominate." What else would you want? Inclusion of lies?

What I actually said was Judaic imperialism. I also defined this as idea-domination. And I further define this as handling or wielding idea-structures and this includes narrative in many different areas.

So if I refer to anything at all I refer to something quite large, quite broad. It hinges into notions of worldview and 'perceptual stance'. So what I say, what I propose, is that the Christian belief-system is 'wielded' within a range of social and political domains.

The reason why a substantially or fully dominating Christianity as a larger ruling power collapsed, or is collapsing, is a complex issue that requires careful examination and exposition.

I would not ever take issue with this statement: "The best and truest ideas should prevail".

[Immanuel Can]

When you take a post of mine and then chop it up I find it makes it really difficult to respond coherently and carefully so I will refrain.

I have to select from it, for two reasons: one is that not everything in it requires a response. Some things, I do not wish to contest, because I already believe them. Other things do not need a reply because they are simply repetitions of earlier things. Others do not require a response because they're simply non-sequiturs, or rhetorical, or in some other way irrelevant to the point; and the second reason for not repeating every message in every ensuing message is that it would cause the overall length of each post to double, which could not long be sustained in the forum format.

So it's how things have to be. And you do it, too. You don't repeat every message I ever send you. Sometimes, you don't respond at all. But that's your choice: conversation, about any subject, is an option.

Now, if you want to have every comment repeated every single time and addressed in detail, this is going to turn into the longest and least relevant forum on the internet.

So it's just something you and I have to live with, given where were are.

[Alexis Jacobi]

That’s all fine and understood. My last post to Nick outlines where I think the fruitful issues and questions lie.

Or — if you were to write out a long form essay — how would you predicate and describe the core issues as you see them?

[Alexis Jacobi]

So it's how things have to be. And you do it, too. You don't repeat every message I ever send you. Sometimes, you don't respond at all. But that's your choice: conversation, about any subject, is an option.

My comment was not intended as criticism. I am attempting to refocus.

It is true that I have not responded to numerous things. But always I am aware of what they are. And my general discourse remains as I have (generally) outlined it.

I think it wise to clarify what we are really talking about and in what agreement and opposition hinge on.

[iambiguous]

First of all, note what I have basically reduced his end of this exchange [with me] down to. A series of one or two line "arguments".

Ah. So changing the subject and not answering? Red herring?

Hmm, he does know that my "note" above is entirely tongue in cheek, right? My main point was just to remind others of the gap between ME and HIM above. My more substantive points which he completely ignores. Instead, he merely repeats the same argument that I in fact did respond to substantively.

Which just continues here.

I note the complete lack of an answer. Again.

On the contrary, I noted that the "note to God" was tongue in cheek. And that, in my opinion, the red herring here revolves around the "answers" he gives...far short on substance.

Then, as always, it's up to others here to weigh in with their own subjective reactions.

Unless, perhaps, there are Christians here who are able to provide us with evidence that the Christian God does in fact exist in Heaven on par with Christians able to provide us with evidence that the Pope does in fact exist in the Vatican.

Indeed, it would be interesting to have the Pope himself provide us with that evidence. Instead, I suspect, as with IC, Pope Francis's belief in God is just another existential leap of faith.

And I can respect all existential leaps of faith. Kierkegaardian or otherwise. Just as I can respect all "wagers", Pascalian or otherwise. Existence itself is a profound mystery. God is one possible explanation. And religion can be approached with more or less intelligence.

That's why one of my favorite religious characters is Father Ralph de Bricassart from The Thorn Birds. His commitment to God is as a man, surely. Ambition is his Achilles heel. But he also truly does struggle with his faith. He takes it very, very seriously and often agonizes over his own leap.

Indeed, imagine him coming back to this:

You got your evidence. Then you said you wouldn't accept it.

Never in a million years.

I'm only pointing out that IC's own "private and personal" Christian God is but one of many, many, many others that are said to exist.

And I point out that "4" is only one of the infinite number of wrong answers people could offer to "What is 2+2?" Even an infinite number of wrong answers counts for nothing.

See how his mind "works" here? All of these religious and spiritual paths to choose from -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions -- but 2 + 2 here still equals the Christian God.

He doesn't flat out say that of course. But put your own "math" skills to work and [like me] suspect that me might just as well have.

So, again, I ponder attempts to demonstrate that the Christian God may well be the God in Heaven:

But: is he the real deal?

And here is IC's reaction:

It doesn't matter.

With objective morality at stake on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation at stake on the other, it doesn't matter that mere mortals embrace the "real deal" God for their very soul?!

And what on earth is this...

Even an inveterate liar is obliged to tell the truth half the time. So the character of the speaker does not determine the truth of the utterance. That's ad hominem fallacy.

...even supposed to mean?

Is it now about his own stellar character and my...depraved one? I truly don't get where he is going with this.

Anyone care to interpret it in light of our exchange so far?

Consequently, you shall not have your evidence until you meet God, since you will accept none...unless you do some serious thinking and change that situation now.

Okay, but it's not like Catholics will tell someone they actually have to meet the Pope in order to be sure that Popes existed in the Vatican.

Hey, you set the test.

I just met it...very easily. Right before you refused to accept your own test.

Okay, back again to how his argument that proof Jesus Christ was an actual historical figure -- some mere mortal claiming to be who he said he was back then -- somehow "demonstrates" the existence of the Christian God in Heaven.

Though, sure, if I die and meet his Christian God, that'll be evidence enough for me. I just suspect that a conversation with me would be considerably more stimulating for Him than one with IC.

No doubt. And you can find out when you have that conversation.

Unless, of course, I'm having that conversation with one of the many, many, many, many, many other Gods that are claimed to exist. Or -- gasp! -- with no God at all?

I wouldn't wait until then, though, were I you. For if nothing else, to stand before God is a moment of utmost seriousness; and there are consequences to not taking that moment seriously.

Oh, few take as deeply introspective a dive into the deep end of the pool here as I have over the years. My own grappling with all this doesn't strike me as anything at all like his own: shallow and getting shallower all the time.

Otherwise how do you explain what he has allowed himself [of late] to be reduced to in his reaction to me?

All I can hope for is that if a God there be He'd prefer the likes of my ilk to the likes of his.

To wit:

Again, I want to find it!

Great.

What evidence will you accept?