Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

There are only three possible alternatives: no gods, one God, multiple gods. That's it. A rational person has to pick one of those alternatives, because there are no others even possible.

Ironically, it means that whichever alternative one picks, at least two of three must be wrong. There's no escaping that.

To understand your argument (such as it is) one must first understand the nature of and the strategies inherent in your apologetic project.

Not at all. That would be irrelevant.

One must only understand logic.

Nothing more is required.

[Nick_A]

A J

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jun 05, 2022 1:26 pm
It is a lost cause Henry. Those here are obsessed with arguing details which just moves further from the topic of Christianity. They have lost the wholeness of the forest for the sake of arguing the trees. They argue from their conditioned personalities rather then contemplating their essence. But God can only speak to their essence: the seed of the soul which has been covered by imagination. It is all a part of the fallen human condition

A J It is not fair to say we are arguing details. We seem to be talking about the general situation of both Christian faith as well as the problems of general faith in divine being. What you seem to be saying, if I understand you correctly (I think I do because it is your sole and entire thrust and your sole contribution) is that you have discovered a mystical path through which your relationship to Christianity has no problem or issues.

This is a philosophy forum so must have reason as its foundation. A person with the scientific mind of the modern age cannot take Christianity seriously based on faith. Christianity for the western scientific mind must begin with verifying and admitting the human condition as described by Paul in Romans 7.

14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature[d] a slave to the law of sin.

This isn't mystical. It is common sense. We can verify for ourselves if we are dual natured. If it is true, then what Simone Weil writes must also be true:

Imagination is always the fabric of social life and the dynamic of history. The influence of real needs and compulsions, of real interests and materials, is indirect because the crowd is never conscious of it.

Imagination and fiction make up more than three quarters of our real life.

Is the psych of man controlled by imagination or sin if you prefer? If we admit to the power of sin, then we are concerned with how to become normal. We need help and that is the purpose of the Spirit in the darkness of the world.

What is the sense of arguing what Man should DO? The real problem is admitting what we ARE so as to become consciously human rather then a creature of reaction.

[iambiguous]

I just posted this in the Ukraine crisis thread, but it seems appropriate to post it here as well.

From the Washington Post

'Pope pleads with world leaders: Don’t lead humanity into ruin

'Pope Francis has issued another impassioned plea for peace in Ukraine, this time appealing to national leaders after Sunday’s Regina Caeli prayer on Pentecost to not “lead humanity into ruin.”'

Here's the Pope pleading to Biden and Putin and NATO not to spark a nuclear war that could destroy the world.

Meanwhile his boss, the omnipotent Christian God, as always, has the final word here.

Right?

After all, what does being "all powerful" mean if not the capacity to prevent us mere mortals down here on Earth from blowing ourselves up?

How interesting it would be to hear the Pope's prayers to God. What does he tell Him? What does he ask of Him?

On the other hand, with existence itself on the line for billions around the globe, what's the alternative to God and religion?

[Dubious]

How interesting it would be to hear the Pope's prayers to God. What does he tell Him? What does he ask of Him?

...perhaps a plea to the almighty to stop being a useless twit and do something

[Annette Campbell]

The British used to call themselves a Christian nation.

There appears to be little consensus about where we are now.
In today's jargon:

Christianity is about more than just individual willpower.
Christianity is more than just following moral standards.
Christianity is about adhering to altruistic values with knowledge.
Human rights and responsibilities are legal structures based on principles.

His father, Christians believed, was God's Holy Spirit, giving Jesus both completely human and entirely divine. His early followers believed he was the Messiah, or God's messenger, sent to deliver Divine Israelites from slavery, wickedness, and mortality. God sent his son to earth in order for mankind to help comprehend God as a supportive and compassionate parent.

[Belinda]

The British used to call themselves a Christian nation.

There appears to be little consensus about where we are now.
In today's jargon:

Christianity is about more than just individual willpower.
Christianity is more than just following moral standards.
Christianity is about adhering to altruistic values with knowledge.
Human rights and responsibilities are legal structures based on principles.

His father, Christians believed, was God's Holy Spirit, giving Jesus both completely human and entirely divine. His early followers believed he was the Messiah, or God's messenger, sent to deliver Divine Israelites from slavery, wickedness, and mortality. God sent his son to earth in order for mankind to help comprehend God as a supportive and compassionate parent.

I liked your post especially the bit that explains the function of the Holy Spirit as a part of the Trinity. Your description of God's will is juvenile, and to make sense of your message I was busy translating it into adult language.

The important bit of your message is

Christianity is about adhering to altruistic values with knowledge.

This claim is the same as the claim that Jesus, following the OT prophets, valued good intentions. Before the advent of the Prophets a good man was valued by what he accomplished: after the Prophets and Jesus, a good man was valued not only by what he did but more importantly by his deepest feelings and intentions.

To leaders such as Moses it was most important that his henchmen had deep and heartfelt loyalty to the Israelite cause. Moses ruled not only by his sword but also by trying to devolve some of his authority. The Prophets put this devolution into words.

[Immanuel Can]

God sent his son to earth in order for mankind to help comprehend God as a supportive and compassionate parent.

That is partly true:

"Parent" or rather, "Father" is a Biblical teaching. God is Father.
"Compassionate," yes; but to enemies and sinners against Him, not merely like a doting grandfather. His compassion is active and vigorous, not passive.
"Supportive"? "Supportive" of what? Not of sin, not of cruelty, not of lies, not of perversion, not of evil in any form. Supportive of the good, yes.

But there are things missing from that account, too: God is Creator. God is the Source of all ultimate good. He is Life, Light and the only Way. And above all, He is holy -- no sin, no flaw, no evil can have anything to do with God. He excuses nothing, never colludes with wickedness or looks away when evil is doing its work. He's the Sovereign Lord of all. He's the Judge. He is the Righteous One. He is salvation. He is truth. He is hope. He is the eternal God.

As C.S. Lewis so powerfully put it, He is "not a tame lion." We treat Him like one at our peril.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Should I start here or end here?

But there are things missing from that account, too: God is Creator. God is the Source of all ultimate good. He is Life, Light and the only Way. And above all, He is holy -- no sin, no flaw, no evil can have anything to do with God. He excuses nothing, never colludes with wickedness or looks away when evil is doing its work. He's the Sovereign Lord of all. He's the Judge. He is the Righteous One. He is salvation. He is truth. He is hope. He is the eternal God.

[It would appear that I am engaging you in conversation by quoting you. But that is not exactly the case. I am employing your paragraph as a jumping-point.]

Here, it seems to me, we have the idea of God from a Christian perspective. One has to examine it as a construct and not, not necessarily, as a real description of 'what God is'. Certainly the description offered here is ultra-Christian and I think it coincides with a Jewish concept. This sort of concept originated in Judea (obviously) and was developed by early Christians.

What I have come to understand, over the course of this months-long conversation, is that the Christian 'idea of God' is just that: an idea, a hope, a projection in a sense. And the way I have come to understand that this idea functions in a certain way has been to observe Immanuel Can demonstrating how it is wielded. It is a classic absolutist's argument. It is established just as he says and shows: "I am not telling you this" [here the demands of the absolute God are presented] "it is God Himself". Disagree with what God says at your own peril.

In most (or many) Christian cults the *image* of this God is wielded in a social-religious context. I have come to understand that this is primarily how IC wields it. The image presented, however, remains an absolute abstraction. What I mean is this: the God that is pictured is said to exist and is said to have all the characteristic most theology ascribes to God. Yet this god-image, I think it is fair to say, is not found in any part of the world, that is the world as we understand it. The world may be unimaginably complex in all aspects of its construction, which it certainly is, and this is almost inconceivable that it is the way it is when it is examined. Same with all workings of the universe. The more we (i.e. those who look and observe and study) examine the world, the more impossibly weird and strange it looks to be. But there is no Christian God in it! If there is a god interweaving the world (one would have to assume) it is a god pretty much utterly unlike the God pictured by Christianity. The world (biological and physical life) reveals no such God! Not inside of any of us. Not in the forest or jungle. Not in the star. Not anywhere.

Except in concept.

But here is my point: there is no such 'absolutely pure' and 'absolutely removed (holy, non-evil, flawless, sinless, etc., all the terms that IC uses) God that is ever visible, or manifest, except in the descriptions that are ascribed to God by religionists. In this sense the Christian God is an 'absolute abstraction'. So that what I say seems true: this God is an idea held in the mind.

Now the purpose of establishing such an image, and such a construct, must be examined. It is irrelevant in a sense if indeed such a God exists. Belief in it changes nothing in this world, the real world, the world of reality. Sure, why not define a purely good God outside of the creation? (There is a flaw but it will have to be talked about later).

But one must examine, as I suggest, the way the god-concept is wielded. If I were to say (for example) "Yes, God must surely be all those things. I accept that. And I make efforts to be the best sort of person I can be and to live by the ethics that are practicable to me" we must now understand that what Immanuel Can will say next is "That is not enough!"

And it is at this point that the social-religious aspect of the Christian admonition shows itself. If I cannot by my own effort 'be moral', at least sufficiently to be recognized as a decent man and person (the only measure that actually seems to count I might add -- in the eyes of others surrounding me), it is asserted that no matter what I do, or don't do, I need something else. And that something else is defined by the term 'salvation': to be released from the consequences of sin.

Obviously, and I think unavoidably, no person could ever become 'sinless' or could ever do enough to become justified, and even a born-again Christian (born again in accord with IC's recommendations and outline) will, and necessarily must, continue sinning. All Christians sin. That is, they may be freed from sin's consequences but cannot ever achieve full sinlessness. But according to the Christian view it is 'salvation' that wipes away sin's consequences. Only through the grace of God.

So let's examine how these ideas, these assertions, function. A sinner gets saved and becomes a Christian. In IC's religious camp once one is forgiven one is always forgiven. There is no turning back (I am not sure how to express this) according to all born again Christians that I have conversed with (or read). Once saved, always saved.

There is nothing in the world, and nothing in you, that can 'save' you. You can only be saved by the eternal God (defined in the quoted paragraph).

So the Christian of this sort has an unusual advantage. He has the *image of God* that is absolutely beyond the world and of an absolutely ideal type. He has been released from the consequences of personal sin as well as racial (human) sin. The state of salvation cannot be revoked (to the best of my knowledge this is how it is described, at least in Protestant circles). And though all Christians will inevitably continue to sin (it is impossible to be perfect and sinless in a world so bound-up with sinfulness) the still-sinning Christian is still certain of his saved state.

In contrast, even the best of the best, the most ethical, thoughtful, considerate, selfless man or woman, if not *saved*, does not get any benefit from being good (to use a popular way of putting it). No man, woman or child, therefore, in any other clime or time who has 'heard of Jesus' or been preached to about Christian salvation, is excused from having to seek this 'salvation' that IC, and Christians generally, though there are differences in how it is conceived, defines.

It is not so much that I agree or disagree with this *idea of God*, it is more that I have begun to pay a different sort of attention to 'how it functions'.

[Immanuel Can]

But there are things missing from that account, too: God is Creator. God is the Source of all ultimate good. He is Life, Light and the only Way. And above all, He is holy -- no sin, no flaw, no evil can have anything to do with God. He excuses nothing, never colludes with wickedness or looks away when evil is doing its work. He's the Sovereign Lord of all. He's the Judge. He is the Righteous One. He is salvation. He is truth. He is hope. He is the eternal God.

Here, it seems to me, we have the idea of God from a Christian perspective...and I think it coincides with a Jewish concept.

Yep. That's right.

What I have come to understand, over the course of this months-long conversation, is that the Christian 'idea of God' is just that: an idea,

"Come to understand?" You didn't think it already?

Disagree with what God says at your own peril.

That's always true.

But here is my point: there is no such 'absolutely pure' and 'absolutely removed (holy, non-evil, flawless, sinless, etc., all the terms that IC uses) God

Imagine what He'll say to you when you meet Him.

And it is at this point that the social-religious aspect of the Christian admonition shows itself. If I cannot by my own effort 'be moral', at least sufficiently to be recognized as a decent man and person (the only measure that actually seems to count I might add -- in the eyes of others surrounding me), it is asserted that no matter what I do, or don't do, I need something else. And that something else is defined by the term 'salvation': to be released from the consequences of sin.

That's Romans 1-3.

So let's examine how these ideas, these assertions, function. A sinner gets saved and becomes a Christian...So the Christian of this sort has an unusual advantage...He has been released from the consequences of personal sin as well as racial (human) sin. The state of salvation cannot be revoked (to the best of my knowledge this is how it is described, at least in Protestant circles)...In contrast, even the best of the best, the most ethical, thoughtful, considerate, selfless man or woman, if not *saved*, does not get any benefit from being good (to use a popular way of putting it). No man, woman or child, therefore, in any other clime or time who has 'heard of Jesus' or been preached to about Christian salvation, is excused from having to seek this 'salvation' that IC, and Christians generally, though there are differences in how it is conceived, defines.

See Ephesians 2:8-9.

Your problem is not really with what I say. What you're disbelieving is the Word of God. I'm just pointing out what it says. And it "functions" in exactly the way God intends it to "function." As it is written,


For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven,
And do not return there without watering the earth
And making it produce and sprout,
And providing seed to the sower and bread to the eater;
So will My word be which goes out of My mouth;
It will not return to Me empty,
Without accomplishing what I desire,
And without succeeding in the purpose for which I sent it. (Isaiah 55:10-11)

Now, there's a passage upon which Jews and Christians all agree.

Too bad you're chosing to disbelieve it. I guess you'll find out how that "functions" in your case. But I would recommend you don't.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Your problem is not really with what I say. What you're disbelieving is the Word of God. I'm just pointing out what it says. And it "functions" in exactly the way God intends it to "function." As it is written. . .

No, my 'problem' is I think one that you cannot conceive. And if you could conceive it you'd have no choice but to see it in the only way available to you -- as a negation of God and a negation of morality.

It is not, either, that I 'disbelieve' the Gospels, or the Epistles, or all those who set set to work (mostly in the early days of Christianity) to define the system. I reread Romans chapters 1-3 (in the KJV which is exquisitely expressed)and, without doubt, I grasp what Paul is talking about. Those are all admonitions that any man, any person, who hears them (in the context of a social and religious environment in any culture I might add) would be moved to 'hear'. What is preached in Romans 1-3 is not unlike what is preached in the 16th chapter of the Bhagavad-Gita. In that, or in that alone, there is nothing so extraordinary.

I do not, either, disbelieve scripture -- that is revelation of higher dimensions of truth. But I am aware that it occurs (has occured) in many places. It is not owned by the Hebrews. So in one sense at least what I could be said to object to is the sort of exclusivity that you-plural (because it is not only you) ascribe to yourselves. I am interested in the movement (as it might be said to be) to get out from under the Hebrew-Jewish-Christian aspect of religious absolutism. But that does not mean that I advocate for immorality. It is a curious problem though. A very difficult one. Is it wrong or 'bad' to want to get out from under such an intense imposition? Isn't that a separate and demanding issue?

Your personality, and this is also true, is some part of what I object to, and that has to be put out there. And you receive similar reaction from numerous persons. What is your interpretation of that? Yet in fact the issue goes quite a bit deeper.

You continually make the mistake of shoving me over into the camp of all the others you are fighting and opposing here (and likely in all the places you write). Your object is to seek out those who will oppose you, and to stimulate them to do so. In this I notice 'game'. But it is not just you-singular who does this. Many like you do this.

Some are -- justifiably so, I think -- appalled by the open levels of corruption we notice around us. I too notice this (and oppose it).

Imagine what He'll say to you when you meet Him.

This is a curious predicating statement.

I do seek to examine 'the function' of such statements. Is that wrong in your view? If I 'meet God' I assume it will be similar to what I experience within my moral soul now. I suspect it will be intensified but I do not think it will be of a different kind. But your assumption is that I (and so many that you speak with) are outside of such experience. There, in that assumption, is at least some aspect of what I have determined is your error. It is more than a personal defect though (though it does seem to be that). But just by bringing this up, in your eyes, I am engaging in ad hominem, right?

You cannot be at all certain what I (or anyone else) has or has not encountered in their inner, moral life. And I do not think you are enough aware of why some have aspects with the way Christianity is wielded. By some . . .

And since I have often quoted exactly those lines of Isaiah, I have pondered what *the word* actually is -- in human history, in all places. The notion of logos is primary to my way of understanding things.

Too bad you're choosing to disbelieve it. I guess you'll find out how that "functions" in your case. But I would recommend you don't.

As always, when push comes to shove, you get right to the brass tacks of your argumentation!

[Immanuel Can]

Your problem is not really with what I say. What you're disbelieving is the Word of God. I'm just pointing out what it says. And it "functions" in exactly the way God intends it to "function." As it is written. . .

No, my 'problem' is I think one that you cannot conceive. And if you could conceive it you'd have no choice but to see it in the only way available to you -- as a negation of God and a negation of morality.

No, I get your negation. It's just gratutious...and hazardous to your health.

What is preached in Romans 1-3 is not unlike what is preached in the 16th chapter of the Bhagavad-Gita.

Seriously? Have you read either?

I've read both, and I'm quite certain that's not so. But I'm ready to hear if you think there's a connection.

You continually make the mistake of shoving me over into the camp of all the others you are fighting and opposing here ...

Heh. No such thing.

I don't have to "shove you" into "a camp" of anything. I find my own reasons to disagree with your view just fine.

Imagine what He'll say to you when you meet Him.

This is a curious predicating statement.

It means exactly what it says. Take a moment to think about it.

One thing it's certainly not is an occasion for arid academic speculation. If anybody lapses into that, you can be sure they haven't understood at all. They're crazier than somebody who's standing on the railroad tracks speculating about train schedules.

You cannot be at all certain what I (or anyone else) has or has not encountered in their inner, moral life.

Maybe. But what we can all be certain about are the terms God Himself sets for this encounter. And we can judge, thereby, whether or not that's the actual "encounter" we've had in our "inner life," or whether our "encounters" don't match it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

No, I get your negation. It's just gratuitous...and hazardous to your health.

Gratuitous: Unnecessary or unwarranted; unjustified.

No, I very much beg to differ. What I dealing on, what I am thinking about, is not unnecessary, unwarranted or unjustified. As far as I am aware here (in what I write) I make no immoral admonitions.

Seriously? Have you read either?

I was referring to the ethical and moral admonitions in Romans. Very similar are expressed in the Gita. And yes, I have read them.

But I'm ready to hear if you think there's a connection.

Talk about how they differ. I know there is a 'connection' between moral systems in different cultural and social contexts. If you think not, explain yourself.

I don't have to "shove you" into "a camp" of anything. I find my own reasons to disagree with your view just fine.

My supposition is that you lack self-consciousness.

What view of mine, in exact terms, are you opposed to? Speak about that (in detail and not in flippant sentences).

It means exactly what it says. Take a moment to think about it.

On what are you basing the assertion that I did not think about it? On what basis are you so certain that I need to listen to you?

But what we can all be certain about are the terms God Himself sets for this encounter.

Oh? So all those that you have been speaking with here, for years now, are certain about those terms? Are you certain that you are right?

I doubt that you are the manager of what may occur, if such occurs, when any person has an encounter with God. But I find this sort of abstract, speculative conversation ridiculous. And when you engage in it (in this way) I admit that I find you rather ridiculous!

[attofishpi]

Hello IC

What denomination of Christian church are you part of?

[Immanuel Can]

No, I get your negation. It's just gratuitous...and hazardous to your health.

Gratuitous: Unnecessary or unwarranted; unjustified.

No, I very much beg to differ. What I dealing on, what I am thinking about, is not unnecessary, unwarranted or unjustified. As far as I am aware here (in what I write) I make no immoral admonitions.

Did I write "immoral"? Nowhere will you find I did. But "unwarranted and unjustified" certainly covers the case.

Seriously? Have you read either?

I was referring to the ethical and moral admonitions in Romans. Very similar are expressed in the Gita. And yes, I have read them.

Which alleged "ethical and moral admonitions" do you think Romans has in common with the Gita?

But I'm ready to hear if you think there's a connection.

Talk about how they differ. I know there is a 'connection' between moral systems in different cultural and social contexts. If you think not, explain yourself.

No, the burden of proof's on you. On the face, they are two different documents, written by vastly different peoples at vastly different times. It's on you to show there's a commonality, not on me.

I don't have to "shove you" into "a camp" of anything. I find my own reasons to disagree with your view just fine.

My supposition is that you lack self-consciousness.

Your suppostion is...what's the word? "Gratuitous."

What view of mine, in exact terms, are you opposed to?

We've been over that, and over it, and over it. But I'll oblige you.

Three words you use differently from the way I ever use them are "God," "Christian" and "church." But there are others, too. We've done a lot of talking about how you see these words very differently. So you shouldn't really even need to ask.

It means exactly what it says. Take a moment to think about it.

On what are you basing the assertion that I did not think about it?

Because you clearly didn't understand it.

I'm still assuming you can. That's a kind assumption. Don't prove me wrong.

But what we can all be certain about are the terms God Himself sets for this encounter.

Oh? So all those that you have been speaking with here, for years now, are certain about those terms? Are you certain that you are right?

You can be certain that what the Bible says about Him, and about you, will be the case. You can even leave me totally out of the equation, and that will still be true.

So I don't ask you to believe me; but do you believe the Word of God? And the answer is between you and Him. Again, you don't even need me in the equation.

[attofishpi]

Hell_o IC

What denomination of Christian church are you part of?