Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

God is a farce. If he exists, and the Bible is true, then he's utterly barbaric.

[Jesus said] "The good person brings out of his good treasure good things; and the evil person brings out of his evil treasure evil things.

But I tell you that for every careless word that people speak, they will give an account of it on the day of judgment.

For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

(Matthew 12: 35-37)

[Gary Childress]

God is a farce. If he exists, and the Bible is true, then he's utterly barbaric.

[Jesus said] "The good person brings out of his good treasure good things; and the evil person brings out of his evil treasure evil things.

But I tell you that for every careless word that people speak, they will give an account of it on the day of judgment.

For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

(Matthew 12: 35-37)

No freedom of speech under God's watch I take it? If God can't handle human anguish, then he shouldn't have made a world full of it, I would think. Poor God. Someone call a waambulance for him!

[Immanuel Can]

God is a farce. If he exists, and the Bible is true, then he's utterly barbaric.

[Jesus said] "The good person brings out of his good treasure good things; and the evil person brings out of his evil treasure evil things.

But I tell you that for every careless word that people speak, they will give an account of it on the day of judgment.

For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

(Matthew 12: 35-37)

No freedom of speech under God's watch I take it?

Quite the opposite. Total freedom of speech...and consequences, accordingly.

Freedom always comes paired with responsibility. You can say what you want. And you can answer for what you say.

As they used to say, "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."

[Gary Childress]

[Jesus said] "The good person brings out of his good treasure good things; and the evil person brings out of his evil treasure evil things.

But I tell you that for every careless word that people speak, they will give an account of it on the day of judgment.

For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

(Matthew 12: 35-37)

No freedom of speech under God's watch I take it?

Quite the opposite. Total freedom of speech...and consequences, accordingly.

Freedom always comes paired with responsibility. You can say what you want. And you can answer for what you say.

As they used to say, "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."

IC, if you want to worship a God who boasts that he's going to condemn people whose only crime is to speak poorly about him, that's your business. Go find some satanic worshipers, I'm sure you'll have plenty of common ground with them.

[Immanuel Can]

No freedom of speech under God's watch I take it?

Quite the opposite. Total freedom of speech...and consequences, accordingly.

Freedom always comes paired with responsibility. You can say what you want. And you can answer for what you say.

As they used to say, "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."

IC, if you want to worship a God who boasts that he's going to condemn people whose only crime is to speak poorly about him, that's your business.

I'm just telling you how it is. You don't get to insult God freely, and then walk away clean. That doesn't happen.

"Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a person sows, this he will also reap." (Galatians 6:7)

You don't want to know? Fine. But when you have to answer for what you say, you will have freely put yourself in that position.

Only children imagine freedom comes without responsibility. Any adult knows better. There are always consequences to every choice.

[Gary Childress]

Quite the opposite. Total freedom of speech...and consequences, accordingly.

Freedom always comes paired with responsibility. You can say what you want. And you can answer for what you say.

As they used to say, "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."

IC, if you want to worship a God who boasts that he's going to condemn people whose only crime is to speak poorly about him, that's your business.

I'm just telling you how it is. You don't get to insult God freely, and then walk away clean. That doesn't happen.

"Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a person sows, this he will also reap." (Galatians 6:7)

You don't want to know? Fine. But when you have to answer for what you say, you will have freely put yourself in that position.

Only children imagine freedom comes without responsibility. Any adult knows better. There are always consequences to every choice.

IC, you don't know any more about God than I do. But you freely choose to worship a God who behaves like an overgrown child. You do you, though.

[Immanuel Can]

IC, you don't know any more about God than I do.

Well, that's assumptive, of course. One thing you must know: I do know enough to point you to the relevant passages in the Bible, don't I? That would seem to be something.

What you do with it...well, that's your choice, and your consequences. Just be careful with yourself.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Christianity is a conscious process. An individual first feels the need to be Christian. If they don't feel the need, then they are not a Christian. The world cannot satisfy the needs at the center of the heart and the Christian feels this need.

The Dawkins and Hitchens video clips IC posted indicate a way to see a divine originator as necessary. My view is that Existence (that existence exists) is proof enough. So my orientation toward divinity, and higher consciousness and awareness, does not and cannot waiver.

But which “God-conceptualization” is the most accurate one? There the problem lies. The fact is they are all absurd. They are ‘metaphysical dreams’ constructed in imagination.

If a God is deduced from the Creation itself, even from Being (that existence exists), this God is unlike any god-concept yet dreamed up. Forever trying to define God, all god-conceptualizations seem always to fall short. And here we all are, in this ultra-strange Reality that holds fast to its secrets.

Life is a conscious process for those inclined to be conscious. It is not hard to see that all the religious traditions produce ultra-conscious figures. All of those men (and sometimes women) felt a ‘need’. What you are describing seems to me universal.

But no one will ever dissuade me of the immense value and relevancy of our own Christian traditions. If you sense that I advocate for some contrary perspective it seems that way because my own view is not easy to communicate.

(This message heroically tapped out on my phone with my right thumb!)

[promethean75]

Good shit Gary but you gotta remember this anthropomorphic 'god' you criticize doesn't really exist, so don't stomp off and pull a Woody Allen.

Ya know some theodicists actually believe 'God' exists and that 'he' is malevolent or incompetent. It's the angry atheist syndrome. They go through life like their being bullied and conspired against by this imaginary 'god' that made everything so difficult for them. You get the idea. Just make sure you remember we're arguing that this 'god' wouldn't exist because a 'god' wouldn't create a world like this.

How familiar are you with the 'best of all possible worlds' theory that got going with Leibniz? And have you read up on the Euthyphro dilemma and the problem of evil argument?

And of course everything one would hope was true - purpose, immortal life, reuniting with lost loved ones, etc. - wouldn't be any less possible, if such things were possible, if there wasn't a 'god'. In other words, it wouldn't logically follow that because we are immortal spirits, there is a 'god'. Or I should say if it did logically follow - that for some reason if the world had human animals with souls in it, a 'god' would have to exist also - we couldn't know how, and we'd not have to give up our open-mindedness if we became atheists, because of that. If we can't be sure a 'god' doesn't need to exist for us to have souls, we can't be sure 'he' has to exist for us to have souls, either.

Everything thought to be lost with the abandonment of the 'god' concept is really still there. This is not saying those ideas aren't entirely ridiculous. I'm only saying that if they are or aren't true, it wouldn't be because 'god' doesn't exist.

[Nick_A]

Christianity is a conscious process. An individual first feels the need to be Christian. If they don't feel the need, then they are not a Christian. The world cannot satisfy the needs at the center of the heart and the Christian feels this need.

The Dawkins and Hitchens video clips IC posted indicate a way to see a divine originator as necessary. My view is that Existence (that existence exists) is proof enough. So my orientation toward divinity, and higher consciousness and awareness, does not and cannot waiver.

But which “God-conceptualization” is the most accurate one? There the problem lies. The fact is they are all absurd. They are ‘metaphysical dreams’ constructed in imagination.

If a God is deduced from the Creation itself, even from Being (that existence exists), this God is unlike any god-concept yet dreamed up. Forever trying to define God, all god-conceptualizations seem always to fall short. And here we all are, in this ultra-strange Reality that holds fast to its secrets.

I agree with you as far as Christian traditions. The closer we are to the source, the more free we are from man made secularization. But can Christianity in the world evolve to minimize the effects of secularization and the normal results of fragmentation so as to inwardly turn to the inner light with the whole of oneself?

Life is a conscious process for those inclined to be conscious. It is not hard to see that all the religious traditions produce ultra-conscious figures. All of those men (and sometimes women) felt a ‘need’. What you are describing seems to me universal.

But no one will ever dissuade me of the immense value and relevancy of our own Christian traditions. If you sense that I advocate for some contrary perspective it seems that way because my own view is not easy to communicate.

(This message heroically tapped out on my phone with my right thumb!)

I just posted a thread called the Evolution of Religion. viewtopic.php?f=11&t=35010 I'd like to get your take on it. Is God for you strictly a personal God outside of Man or do you see our source as within us and something we can awaken to?

[Belinda]

Nick_A asked: " Is God for you strictly a personal God outside of Man or do you see our source as within us and something we can awaken to?".

This question above poses not two, but three options.

1. Personal God outside of Man. Defines the literalist religionist and aids social control by authority.

2. Source as within us. Defines the psychological religionist. Some if not most of Jesus' alleged sayings fit with this option.

3. Something we can awaken to. Defines the mystical religionist. While religious mystics have included many honourable rebels against political institutions , mysticism is not democratic as it's a special ability that not everyone can do.

[Immanuel Can]

Nick_A asked: " Is God for you strictly a personal God outside of Man or do you see our source as within us and something we can awaken to?".

This question above poses not two, but three options.

Well, let's consider those three options, then.

1. Personal God outside of Man.

Man believes in God as objectively real, and acts accordingly. Logic, reason, evidence and science become important components of the investigation into His nature and identity, as His existence is empirical. And revelation becomes relevant as well, should God have decided to do anything to communicate His existence.

2. Source as within us.

Well, each of us already knows he/she is not God. We're contingent beings, beings with a birth and a death, and as such cannot be God. Given this view, there is no objective God, salvation, afterlife, or grounds for morality, even if some of us persist in behaving in "moral" ways out of habit or choice. Subjectivism is absolute. Truth cannot be located because of differences in subjectivity. Reality no longer decides anything.

3. Something we can awaken to.

Is both delusional (having no reference to external reality) and entirely dependent on personal emotion or interior experience. There is no common truth about God. Logic, evidence, reason and science are offline on the whole question, because they also are external and factual; and instead, whatever mental impression a private individual has becomes decisive of everything. Truth is not a shared property: one human sees things differently from another, and since none have any objective reference to reality anyway, every person is locked into a private, subjective imagining of things, without rules, guidance or basis of doubting anything. There is no critical thinking, no falsification of impressions, and no means of arbitration between competing "visions."

So we could valorize numbers 2 and 3, as you have done, B. But only at the cost of hiding their rather considerable drawbacks.

[popeye1945]

Religious perspective----------- https://www.tiktok.com/@thegenxcrew/vid ... xP01V&_r=1

[iambiguous]

Anyway, if, down the road, you do stumble upon something that is in the general vicinity of actual empirical proof that the Christian God does in fact reside in Heaven, pass it along to the Pope, alleged by many to reside in the Vatican. Then, if we can find actual empirical proof that he does in fact reside there, perhaps he can pass it along to the rest of world.

Already done, and you ignored it. I did it two messages ago, as I recall. But I'll summarize here.

You say you've never been to the Vatican. You say you know about the Pope from suppostion and by the word of others. That's what you've got. And if you think that's a tough epistemic to attain, you're kidding yourself.

Just about anything meets that low a bar. It's hard, indeed NOT to meet it.

All I can do here of course is to appeal to others...

In your opinion, please tell me what you think his point here has to do with him providing me with actual empirical proof of the Christian God residing in Heaven that is in the general vicinity of actual empirical proof that can be provided in order to demonstrate that the Pope does in fact reside in the Vatican.

Does IC live in a sim world, a dream world, a Matrix reality?

After all, with the stakes so extraordinarily high here -- objective morality on this side of the grave, immortality and salvation on the other side of it -- I can only stress that with so many denominations out there all clamoring to assure us that their own spiritual path is the One True Path, nothing could possibly be more vital than the religious faith actually on the One True Path provding us with the evidence that this is in fact the case.

Is this or is this not true?

Indeed, given your own "epistemic" sense of reality, which path are you convinced is the One True Path?

Indeed, if that be the case, imagine how embarrassed I'll be then!

Note to others:

Those videos are still there: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... SjDNeMaRoX

And while IC has declined to note the most powerful empirical proof he garnered from viewing them, by all means, note that yourself.

Look, I want to believe in the Christian God again. I want there to be an essential meaning and purpose in my life. I want to believe that immortality and salvation are the Real Deal.

And, trust me, if the evidence is there that, in turn, He is the Real Deal, watch how fast I apologize profusely to IC and praise the Lord.

I don't expect so. I think you'll just claim that the epistemic standard you yourself gave is no longer good enough, and demand something more.

What exactly is my own "epistemic standard" here? How would the evidence most here would accept to convince them that the Pope does in fact reside in the Vatican be any different from the evidence provided that the Christian God does in fact reside in Heaven?

Me, personally, I wouldn't demand proof that is any different for either one of them.

Suppose, say, it is announced to the world that in fact there have never been any Popes that resided in the Vatican. Actual irrefutable proof was provided that the whole thing was a hoax right from the start. Imagine the startling reaction of millions upon millions around the globe. Well, same thing if actual irrefutable proof was provided that the Christian God does in fact reside in Heaven. Same extraordinary reaction around the world.

And, according to any number of Christians, this event is indeed just around the corner, right? The Second Coming.

How about you? Are you into the "Left Behind" scenario? And, if so, do you yourself have any demonstrable evidence of this extraordinary event to come?

I wouldn't blame you...it was a lame standard. But having hinged all your skepticism on such a low epistemic "bar," you can hardly backtrack without obvious self-contradiction...so now it will be interesting to see what verbal gymnastics and mental contortions you put yourself through in order to say, "When I said the Pope in the Vatican, I didn't mean the same epistemic test."

Note to others:

Truly, what does any of this have to do with, say, my point here:

I can respect those who base their religious convictions on a leap of faith to God. Faith after all implies a belief in something you know you are not able to demonstrate as in fact true. And God is one possible explanation for existence itself. But you insist that your belief is not just a leap of faith. You claim to know that the Christian God does in fact exist in Heaven. But you demonstrate it only by applying your own private and personal "standards" derived entirely from what you do believe "in your head".

If someone comes to think exactly like you do in their head then you have "proven" it.

Note to others:

"Epistemic test"? More technical philosophical jargon to distract us from the fact that, even in regard to the "proof" of his own claims said by him to be found in those 16 youtube videos above, he won't even go there himself to point it out to us?

Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle?

You have to think exactly like he does in order to be right about anything. But he is not obligated to demonstrate to you empirically, materially, phenomenologically, existentially etc., why that is the case.

Though, sure, if you are convinced that he has accomplished this, please link me to the proof on this thread or any other.

Oh, and PS -- Even Dawkins and Hitchens admit there IS evidence for God. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHXXacBAm2A Going to watch that one?

Yeah, I watched it. And I was looking for two things:

1] demonstrable evidence that this God is the Christian God and not one of the other ones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
2] the sort of proof that would [again] be on par with proof that the Pope does in fact reside in the Vatican

In that regard, you tell me.

Not to mention the fact that this "finely tuned Goldilocks effect" brought into existence here on planet Earth earthquakes, tsunamis, super-volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, and the extinction events brought on by asteroids and comets and other "Heavenly bodies". Not to mention as well the AIDS and Covid 19 viruses, the bubonic plaque and hundreds and hundreds of terrible health afflictions.

[Immanuel Can]

All I can do here of course is to appeal to others...

Yes, I imagine that's true.