Christianity

[Age]

We WILL have to WAIT and SEE.

Nah. It's obvious right now that you have no idea what the formal term "logical possibility" means, and equally so it's obvious that you're too proud to look up its meaning and educate yourself, despite the vast resources of the internet.

LOL It is just as OBVIOUS that you have NO idea what the so-called 'formal term' 'logical possibility' means, and it is just as OBVIOUS that your ASSUMPTION here is False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.

ONE point of view I KNOW can be PROVED True. Whereas you have ALREADY PROVED True that you are NOT ABLE TO back up and support YOUR point of view

Also, a somewhat 'good' ATTEMPT AT DEFLECTION and DETRACTION.

Nah. The fundamental point is that even if everybody believes something to be true, that doesn't mean it is true.

LOL

When, and IF, you EVER STOP ASSUMING what I MEAN, and START SEEKING CLARIFICATION, then you will NOT be SEEING what you here.

"Everybody believes it" might be a reasonably pragmatic standard for truth or at least useful sociopolitical consensus, but it's not the most rigorous standard, which is that of logical necessity.

You are STILL MISSING the POINT here, completely.

As for 'logical necessity' we are STILL WAITING for YOURS regarding YOUR CLAIM here.

I'd be willing to accept a lower standard than logical necessity if that standard could be explained and justified, but I have no hope that you're capable of such a thing.

Here we have ANOTHER example of how BELIEFS affect one's ABILITY to LOOK AT and SEE things FULLY, and thus CORRECTLY.

But, now, what's all this nonsense about "you" humans? Do you claim not to be human?
If so, then what do you identify as, and how/why so?

'you' have a LOT MORE to LEARN, before you could UNDERSTAND the answers to these questions.

Well, that's a somewhat 'good' ATTEMPT AT DEFLECTION and DETRACTION.

OKAY.

[Age]

So show me one that matters, instead of penny-ante stuff like Cain's alleged wife.

They all matter. No single one is definitive, but the combination (for me) is.

On a related note, here's a presentation of the implausibilities of the general Christian story, let alone that of a strictly literalist Christianity. There are a few items that I'm not quite in agreement with, but, for the most part, I think that it's a highly compelling critique of mainstream Christianity. This is the sort of stuff which prevents me from identifying as a Christian, even though I think that there is a lot that Christianity does get right.

Like 'what', EXACTLY?

God's Checklist 2.0 [YouTube video]

[Age]

[*] The Garden of Eden, and in particular whether or not it is a literal location on planet Earth, and, if not, where its literal location is.

Well, the narrative itself tells you that nobody can find that garden again, so it's not reasonable to suppose, in either case, that it should be floating around Mesapotamia or something.

WHY do 'you', human beings, in the days this is being written, STILL PRESUME that garden is ON earth?

I had a big discussion with people about this elsewhere. But yes, I do believe that an original mating pair is how the human race came to be.

LOL And WHERE, EXACTLY, did this so-called 'original mating pair' come from, EXACTLY?

Although absolutely EVERY thing comes from a pair of things, besides these things themselves of course.

Now, you can call them whatever you like, but any biological theory would have to agree that humanity had to have its origins in a suitable mating pair. There's no alternate theory, except the old "Punctuated Equilibrium" or "Magic Monster" theory, which nobody how holds.

WHY do you LOOK AT and DISCUSS 'theories'? Especially when you could just LOOK AT and DISCUSS what is ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True, INSTEAD.

[*] Noahs' Ark, and whether that vessel contained two of every creature on Earth, and whether the planet was repopulated solely from those creatures.

Flood narratives are among the most common narratives in ancient history. Most cultures have one. And that's very interesting.

Is this all you can come back with?

[*] Jonah living in the belly of a whale for several days.

If one believes there's a God, why not?

LOL Talk about HOW BELIEFS ACTUALLY DO DISTORT Reality, Itself

On what theory would one say, "Well, there is a Supreme Being who made everything, but he's not capable of keeping one of his creatures alive?" It seems to me that the sticking point is not on Jonah, but on the existence of the Supreme Being.

But this gets to an important point: that we could disbelieve in all three, and we would still have to face the reality of Jesus Christ. That's the real centerpiece of the Biblical narrative, and of Christianity itself. And a person who disbelieved in all of the things you list, for whatever reason he felt he had, yet had the right attitude to Jesus Christ has the basics of what he needs to be a Christian.

And 'what', EXACTLY and SUPPOSEDLY, does one NEED in order to be a so-called "Christian"?

Nobody will be sent to Hell for disbelieving in Jonah's whale. But disbelieving in Jonah's God would be quite a different thing.

LOL
LOL
LOL

[Harry Baird]

I think that there is a lot that Christianity does get right.

Like 'what', EXACTLY?

Here is an incomplete list for you (please, please, don't let this make you feel guilty, AJ. I know that Reader's Digest lists are NOT kosher in your view. If it can be expressed as a 5,000 word essay that you don't have the personal capability for, then it gosh-darned ought to be - simple itemisation be damned):

1. Dualism: that good and evil are metaphysical realities, and that there are avatars of good and evil. In Christianity, the ultimates of these dualistic avatars are "God" and "Satan". I don't see these avatars in quite the same way as in Christianity, but the basic idea is sound.
2. The Golden Rule. It's more a very good rule of thumb than an absolute, but it, too, is basically sound. More generally, there is a lot of sense and value in the ethics preached by Christ.
3. The need for salvation. It seems that we are in a pickle here, however it came to be, and need assistance from above in getting ourselves out of it.
4. The reality of miracles and other spiritual (or, more broadly, "anomalous") phenomena, including those attributable to prayer. I am not convinced that these can be relied upon, but Christianity is at least right to the extent that they sometimes occur.
5. The exalted (or at least extraordinary) nature of Jesus Christ, and at least the likelihood that he is a genuine spiritual master, even if the Gospels and Epistles aren't 100% accurate in this respect.

If I kept at it and thought even deeper, I could probably add a bunch more. See how you like that for a start though.

[Dontaskme]

Is there really an eternity of fiery agony because one fails to believe? How could we know this, and how could it be justified?

I've already asked him that question, many times in fact, but no response ever comes.

Then I figured..it's probably because he does not know, it's that simple, he simply does not know. I mean how could he know a claim like that

Yes, unless there's something he's not sharing with us, he doesn't and couldn't know. The notion itself though is perhaps one of the most irrational and repugnant ones that exist: that a wholly loving, omnipotent God would condemn many of the beings He created to eternal, undying, agonising torment for eternity simply because they failed to believe a proposition which was genuinely not at all obvious to them.

God is an idea that's all. God has only one place it could exist, and that place is a 'thought' inside the hominid brain, a thought that no thinker ever makes happen.
Moral choices occur when we realise there is no compelling force on us to make that decision except our inclination to care about the consequences of our actions as and through the direct immediate experience of cause and effect...(knowing consequence)

As a conscious being we may or may not see our life as a gift. If we do, then we'll probably choose to respect a world of order which would no doubt be of some value to us. It's up to us to inherently judge whether our survival is a good thing, or we could equally not care about our survival since it is also known that there are no inherent judgements in our universe, and no absolute and objective sense of judgement that could care less whether we live or die...So it's always up to us as conscious beings to see that all that matters is our preferences regarding consequences. We may choose self-destruction or choose to stay alive, in which case insanity and sanity have the same value level, since survival no longer has a position of value for us, just as leaves are blown from a tree and the universe couldn't care less about them.. the only caring here, is our own capacity to act the role of judge, and make up our own mind as to what is seen as objectively good and of value to us, even when we know, it's all just a pretence, because we are inseparable from a universe that is itself indifferent to life and death since they are the same thing, albeit appearing as apparent difference..

[Age]

I think that there is a lot that Christianity does get right.

Like 'what', EXACTLY?

Here is an incomplete list for you (please, please, don't let this make you feel guilty, AJ. I know that Reader's Digest lists are NOT kosher in your view. If it can be expressed as a 5,000 word essay that you don't have the personal capability for, then it gosh-darned ought to be - simple itemisation be damned):

Your ASSUMPTION here is Wrong, ONCE MORE.

I suggest you LOOK AT what is ACTUALLY True, and NOT AT what you just ASSUME is true

[*] Dualism: that good and evil are metaphysical realities, and that there are avatars of good and evil. In Christianity, the ultimates of these dualistic avatars are "God" and "Satan". I don't see these avatars in quite the same way as in Christianity, but the basic idea is sound.
[*] The Golden Rule. It's more a very good rule of thumb than an absolute, but it, too, is basically sound. More generally, there is a lot of sense and value in the ethics preached by Christ.

'basically' sound is NOT the same as ACTUALLY sound, which that rule is NOT.

[*] The need for salvation. It seems that we are in a pickle here, however it came to be, and need assistance from above in getting ourselves out of it.

"Get out of " 'what', EXACTLY?

[*] The reality of miracles and other spiritual (or, more broadly, "anomalous") phenomena, including those attributable to prayer. I am not convinced that these can be relied upon, but Christianity is at least right to the extent that they sometimes occur

Like 'what', EXACTLY?

[*] The exalted (or at least extraordinary) nature of Jesus Christ, and at least the likelihood that he is a genuine spiritual master, even if the Gospels and Epistles aren't 100% accurate in this respect.

So, to you, there was one human being who a so-called ' spiritual master', (whatever that means).

If I kept at it and thought even deeper, I could probably add a bunch more. See how you like that for a start though.

[uwot]

I think that there is a lot that Christianity does get right.

Has the thought occurred to you that despite being burdened with an absurd creation myth, and a moral system based on the premise that someone else being punished for your sin is a good thing, people nonetheless get some things right?

[Belinda]

I've already asked him that question, many times in fact, but no response ever comes.

Then I figured..it's probably because he does not know, it's that simple, he simply does not know. I mean how could he know a claim like that

Yes, unless there's something he's not sharing with us, he doesn't and couldn't know. The notion itself though is perhaps one of the most irrational and repugnant ones that exist: that a wholly loving, omnipotent God would condemn many of the beings He created to eternal, undying, agonising torment for eternity simply because they failed to believe a proposition which was genuinely not at all obvious to them.

God is an idea that's all. God has only one place it could exist, and that place is a 'thought' inside the hominid brain, a thought that no thinker ever makes happen.
Moral choices occur when we realise there is no compelling force on us to make that decision except our inclination to care about the consequences of our actions as and through the direct immediate experience of cause and effect...(knowing consequence)

As a conscious being we may or may not see our life as a gift. If we do, then we'll probably choose to respect a world of order which would no doubt be of some value to us. It's up to us to inherently judge whether our survival is a good thing, or we could equally not care about our survival since it is also known that there are no inherent judgements in our universe, and no absolute and objective sense of judgement that could care less whether we live or die...So it's always up to us as conscious beings to see that all that matters is our preferences regarding consequences. We may choose self-destruction or choose to stay alive, in which case insanity and sanity have the same value level, since survival no longer has a position of value for us, just as leaves are blown from a tree and the universe couldn't care less about them.. the only caring here, is our own capacity to act the role of judge, and make up our own mind as to what is seen as objectively good and of value to us, even when we know, it's all just a pretence, because we are inseparable from a universe that is itself indifferent to life and death since they are the same thing, albeit appearing as apparent difference..

That version of God is dead. I refer to the version of God where He is 1.wholly good, 2.wholly knowing, and 3..wholly powerful.

If you subtract 1. (wholly good) then He is 2. and 3. which are compatible.
God answers "I am evil and good by turns and I don't care if evil wins the day".

If you subtract 2.(wholly knowing) then He is 1.and 3. which are compatible ; with a stretch of the imagination.
God answers " I am good but never evil and I can make evil disappear, but I don't know which is which".

If you subtract 3.(wholly powerful) then He is 1. and 2.which are compatible.
God answers " I am wise and caring but I cannot dispel evil".

[attofishpi]

I think that there is a lot that Christianity does get right.

Has the thought occurred to you that despite being burdened with an absurd creation myth, and a moral system based on the premise that someone else being punished for your sin is a good thing, people nonetheless get some things right?

Will. You do not understand IT. As most theists don't either.

PS. Don't reply, I am done with attempting to convince fervent atheists.

[Immanuel Can]

If you're ANY of a reader, then this will be something you'll read.

How much is your soul worth?

Ah, right, the good old "Read this book and be convinced by it or you'll burn in hell for eternity" tactic.

Thanks for the implicit threat. You're quite the piece of work, aren't you?

It's not a threat, and it's not mine.

It's an offer, and it's the Lord's.

Here you go:

"...if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation." (Romans 10:9-10)

That offer is for everyone who can bring themselves to take the Resurrection of Christ seriously.

Will that be you? Only you can say.

[Immanuel Can]

You know, I've had other discussions with other skeptics who criticize Him not for being at the beginning of history itself. They ask, "What about all the people before Christ came? Is it fair that He came in the early years AD, and not a few thousand years ealier? What about poor Socrates, or the other ancients? Didn't God care about them?"

Perfectly reasonable questions. What is your answer to them?

You ignored this question. I'm still interested in your answer, especially because this is part of my own critique of mainstream Christian belief. What have you got?

Lots. There are excellent answers to these questions. They're more important and interesting than Cain's wife, but less than the Resurrection.

And since you gave to me the responsibility to choose our entry point, I chose the Resurrection.

We'll get to these afterward, if you like. But first, let's see what you do with the most important issue in all of Christianity.

[Alexis Jacobi]

It's not a threat, and it's not mine. It's an offer, and it's the Lord's.

Here you go:

"...if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation." (Romans 10:9-10)

That offer is for everyone who can bring themselves to take the Resurrection of Christ seriously.

Will that be you? Only you can say.

While I understand that this formula, the formula of recognition and confession, has been central to Christian apologetics and missionary work -- and indeed it really does function like a threat (either you see this, do this or you will be lost to absolute perdition which has always functioned as a type of psycho-spiritual terrorism), I think that this formula must be rejected. Let me put it this way. If becoming a Christian involves just this (this is presented as the core dimension of 'salvation' and without it no matter what a person does or thinks he will be *lost*), the formula must be rejected by a genuinely moral being. It is, seen from a moral angle, not only absurd but sick. No one can be nor should be psychologically terrorized in this way. Conversion should not be brought about in this way.

And what I have noticed about Immanuel Can's 'argument' (such as it is) that it has essentially no other moving part. His argument (13-14,000 posts!) reduces to this.

In any case I can tell you that though I have a spiritual life, and though I am not an atheist as it is conventionally defined, and though I do have a substantial appreciation for Christianity (which I obviously define in far broader terms) I do not feel compelled to come under the power of a manipulating formula. In other words I do not think it right, proper nor moral to acquiesce to the formula in the way that it is expressed. It is a master-slave formula really and in this sense I think it is fair to say it is uniquely Hebrew.

A far better and much more moral posture toward any religious decision is one that involves freely giving one's assent to a spiritual principle, to a process of spiritual transformation (processes of growth and struggle), and as well to modifying how one lives so to contribute to growth (what other criteria should be referred to here?) in the people and the culture surrounding us. Therefore, the question, the issue and the problem, is to define what that is and what that should be and must be about.

What I have come to understand is that if the Christian formula is as IC (and the NT) says it is, and it has generally operated according to this coercive formula (often but not always), then it is this master-slave dynamic that is simply wrong. That is, immoral. And I think that because it is uniquely Hebrew and 'eastern' it is also an improper imposition on Indo-European man. So let me say that if Greece and the Greek methods of understanding, and through understanding of the development of a will to act right, defines the Greek method, and if this is seen as essentially Indo-European, then I would never ask anyone to surrender themselves to the formula when presented in those terms nor would I myself submit to it.

But this does not mean that Christianity in its wide range must necessarily be dismissed and rejected. Notwithstanding what I have just said the fact is that Christianity is a composition and included Platonic ideas and idealism and many many other strains of ideas that, let's say, balance it out. The Christian Traditions have tremendous validity. It is a hard puzzle to sort through though and, in my case, has taken a great deal of time and much reading.

I reject then the Christian Fanaticism that has so captured Immanuel Can. I regard it as a moral sickness and as a formula of insidiousness. Effectively, and perhaps most clearly expressed, I regard such a formula as immoral. It does not correspond to my sense of 'intellectus'. So as I have said I must turn away from any such formulation and turn back to ideas defines through logos.

[Immanuel Can]

It's not a threat, and it's not mine. It's an offer, and it's the Lord's.

Here you go:

"...if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation." (Romans 10:9-10)

That offer is for everyone who can bring themselves to take the Resurrection of Christ seriously.

Will that be you? Only you can say.

I think that this formula must be rejected.

Be careful. It's yourself, not anybody else, you are judging at this moment.

The "formula," as you call it, isn't mine. Not a single word of it.

What you do in response determines your relationship with the Person whose "formula" it actually is.

[Alexis Jacobi]

A far better and much more moral posture toward any religious decision is one that involves freely giving one's assent to a spiritual principle, to a process of spiritual transformation (processes of growth and struggle), and as well to modifying how one lives so to contribute to growth (what other criteria should be referred to here?) in the people and the culture surrounding us. Therefore, the question, the issue and the problem, is to define what that is and what that should be and must be about.

Therefore I think that the real question, and the far more important question is what is the right & proper way to define religious conversion? What is the purpose of a religious practice? And what is a 'religious conversion'? Obviously, if we are to conceive speculatively of a 'religious life', it must be one that makes rational sense to a citizen of a given culture. But the other issue here, and it is one that has been dealt with philosophically and in depth. For example by Arthur Darby Nock:

Originally published in 1933, Conversion: The Old and the New in Religion from Alexander the Great to Augustine of Hippo remains one of the most influential studies of religion in the Hellenistic and Roman time periods. For years, Arthur Darby Nock was one of the world’s leading authorities on the religions of later antiquity. In this book, Nock analyzes the religious environment in the Greco-Roman world to reveal what made Judaism and Christianity distinctive. Nock compares the conversion process of Christianity with other religious options of the time, noting the differences. He traces the connections between Christianity and the culture into which it was born—a culture in which Christian beliefs and practices spread within households and along already established paths of trade to bridge social divides, offering a compelling alternative to traditional and contemporary cultic options. Through a deep examination of the psychology and circumstances of the Greco-Roman period, Nock concludes that Christianity succeeded, in part, because it acquired and adapted various aspects of other religions and philosophies that possessed popular appeal. Now with a new introduction by Clare K. Rothschild (Lewis University), this new edition of Conversion revitalizes a work that continues to speak. Conversion is still an essential read for anyone attempting to understand the complex relationships among religion, culture, and the rise of Christianity.

What does it mean, today, to undergo such a 'conversion process'? What are the elements, intellectual, moral, social and psychological, of such a conversion? What did it mean to submit oneself, in days gone by, to 'the Christian cure'? It was seen as therapeutic. It involved a process of supervised conversion.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Be careful. It's yourself, not anybody else, you are judging at this moment.

The "formula," as you call it, isn't mine. Not a single word of it.

What you do in response determines your relationship with the Person whose "formula" it actually is.

There are some people, I admit, that you will be able to psychologically and morally manipulate. I do not see myself as one of them. In this regard I see you as a man needing 'conversion'. You need to grow up. You need to step out of and away from this game of psycho-spiritual manipulation. You are the subject here, in my view.

Is this becoming any clearer?

Let me repeat it again:

I reject then the Christian Fanaticism that has so captured Immanuel Can. I regard it as a moral sickness and as a formula of insidiousness. Effectively, and perhaps most clearly expressed, I regard such a formula as immoral. It does not correspond to my sense of 'intellectus'. So as I have said I must turn away from any such formulation and turn back to ideas defines through logos.