Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

FFS, man - what reasonable definition is twenty effing pages long?

I’ve read 6-7 such primers either in whole or part over the last few years. A 20 page general definition is brief.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I wonder that you started it, then. But okay.

Have a nice day.

I started it mischievously. Knowing that were you to seriously try to explain or defend nut-case level beliefs that where you actually stand would be explicitly revealed.

You didn’t disappoint!

[Harry Baird]

I see. But we can presumably still see the (flooded-out) Garden by satellite, right?

I wouldn't suppose so. It's been an awfully long time, by any reckoning. I'd expect a couple of feet of silt or sand over top of it, if it were there at all. And gardens are biological things, not like architectural structures. It's not like we have any technology that can tell us whether or not a plot of woodlands was ever a garden.

Also: after the flood, are we still supernaturally barred from the (flooded-out) Garden?

That's an impossible question. If the garden's gone, there's nothing left for us to be "barred" from.

I see. So, the real estate agents have it wrong. It's not all about "Location! Location! Location!"

I see. So, back in the day, God was all like, "Hey, fellas, go f**k your sisters.

So, not a serious question, just an opportunity to mock any answer?

Convince me that mockery isn't deserved. You're trying to tell me that the human race bootstrapped itself on incest, despite incest being a Divine prohibition (in Christianity), on the basis that the prohibition didn't come until later - yet at the same time Christianity proposes that God's law is unchanging. It sure seems to have changed here!

[Harry Baird]

A 20 page general definition is brief.

Hmm. I think anything that long is (by definition, ha) not a definition. It might be an elaboration, an explanation, a treatise, or whatever - but it's too long to be a definition, or at least, the sort of definition I had in mind for a discussion on a philosophy forum.

[Harry Baird]

A 20 page general definition is brief.

Hmm. I think anything that long is (by definition, ha) not a definition. It might be an elaboration, an explanation, a treatise, or whatever - but it's too long to be a definition, or at least, the sort of definition I had in mind for a discussion on a philosophy forum.

Also, how accurate was the working definition from your perspective that I provided?

[Immanuel Can]

I wonder that you started it, then. But okay.

Have a nice day.

I started it mischievously.

Interesting. You've turned out to be quite a different character than when I first knew you. And one I don't like nearly so well, I must say. I regret the loss of your more sage observations in favour of this ideologically-possessed and hostile sort of character you seem to want to manifest now.

But I guess I can understand it: I shot your dog, your pet theory. I guess nobody thanks anybody for that.

[Immanuel Can]

Convince me that mockery isn't deserved.

No, thank you. I'm happy to let you do as you please. If you can't see any serious issues here, you can't see any serious issues: nothing can be done about that.

Have a nice day, I guess.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Also, how accurate was the working definition from your perspective that I provided?

Not worth commenting on. But I do have a better sense of what you are seeking: a statement about how I interpret Christianity given my post-Christian position.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I wonder that you started it, then. But okay.

Have a nice day.

I started it mischievously.

Interesting. You've turned out to be quite a different character than when I first knew you. And one I don't like nearly so well, I must say. I regret the loss of your more sage observations in favour of this ideologically-possessed and hostile sort of character you seem to want to manifest now.

But I guess I can understand it: I shot your dog, your pet theory. I guess nobody thanks anybody for that.

My dog still lives, apparently. Reload.

Liking, not liking: irrelevant in all senses.

[Dontaskme]

Convince me that mockery isn't deserved.

No, thank you. I'm happy to let you do as you please. If you can't see any serious issues here, you can't see any serious issues: nothing can be done about that.

Have a nice day, I guess.

God is what survives the evidence that nothing deserves to be thought.

[Phil8659]

Convince me that mockery isn't deserved.

No, thank you. I'm happy to let you do as you please. If you can't see any serious issues here, you can't see any serious issues: nothing can be done about that.

Have a nice day, I guess.

God is what survives the evidence that nothing deserves to be thought.

Why your blender don't need fixin, it works just fine. But I don't think you supposed to put pizza and egg shells in it to make a power drink.

[Belinda]

Convince me that mockery isn't deserved.

No, thank you. I'm happy to let you do as you please. If you can't see any serious issues here, you can't see any serious issues: nothing can be done about that.

Have a nice day, I guess.

God is what survives the evidence that nothing deserves to be thought.

I agree however I'd try to explain: something has to be happening for it to be even possible for me to find nothing happening there after all. This is why God is sometimes explained as the 'the ground of being'.

For instance if at one time I believed cholera was caused by a miasma and subsequently discovered cholera is caused by germs, the feared signs and symptoms of cholera have been present throughout all the interpretations one of which, miasma theory of disease, by today's lights "did not deserve to be thought". But the signs and symptoms of cholera and cholera's effects do "deserve to be thought" . Modern people would not try to propitiate some putative god of cholera, but modern people can and do worship that which " deserves".

[Belinda]

No, thank you. I'm happy to let you do as you please. If you can't see any serious issues here, you can't see any serious issues: nothing can be done about that.

Have a nice day, I guess.

God is what survives the evidence that nothing deserves to be thought.

Why your blender don't need fixin, it works just fine. But I don't think you supposed to put pizza and egg shells in it to make a power drink.

But what DAM wrote is not some add-on hypothesis. What DAM wrote is a general principle.

[Phil8659]

God is what survives the evidence that nothing deserves to be thought.

Why your blender don't need fixin, it works just fine. But I don't think you supposed to put pizza and egg shells in it to make a power drink.

But what DAM wrote is not some add-on hypothesis. What DAM wrote is a general principle.

Really, where did you learn to parse a sentence.
And, what makes you think an illiterate conception of the word God is a general principle, or any principle at all, but a generally ignorant result of illiteracy?
See my post Do Languages exist. Probably won't learn anything, but it is all I got.

[Harry Baird]

If you can't see any serious issues here, you can't see any serious issues: nothing can be done about that.

A serious post without mockery for you:

The idea that the human race descended from just one mating pair whose children had to commit incest with one another to propagate the species doesn't make sense to me. For a start, there's the whole incest thing, which as well as being sickening is inconsistent with God's later commandment against incest. That commandment doesn't really make a lot of sense in this scenario anyway, since if we're all descended from just one mating pair, then we're all related anyhow, and, short of universal celibacy and the sudden end of the human race, incest of a sort is unavoidable.

Next: I don't see why there would be the bunch of different human races with substantially different genetic/phenotypic traits that there are if we all descend from just two people (of some given race; I'm not sure that's specified in the Bible), presumably only a few thousand years ago on the literalist account to which you presumably subscribe - such that even if you did (do?) believe in micro-evolution, there's not enough time for it to take place.

Finally, according to the story, God is clearly capable of creating humans, so it doesn't make sense to me that He'd create only two of 'em, with the need this creates for incest, rather than a whole bunch of 'em, genetically unrelated, so that there's no need for incest (which He clearly is NOT a fan of).

Have a nice day, I guess.

Cheers! Same to you.