Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Not me. It's not my word.

Your call. Your fate. Choose carefully. One day, you'll answer for this moment.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Not me. It's not my word.

Your call. Your fate. Choose carefully. One day, you'll answer for this moment.

Well I am answering now. I have explained to you a moral decision and I have explained why the decision is right & proper. You can continue in the same vein if you wish to (these dark insinuations of future disaster) with me, with others here, with anyone in your apologetic and missionary work, but what I am trying to communicate to you is that I am immune to this. And for the reasons I carefully explained.

[promethean75]

"Your call. Your fate. Choose carefully. One day, you'll answer for this moment." - IC


"The despairing.-- Christianity possesses the hunters instinct for all those who can by one means or another be brought to despair - of which only a portion of mankind is capable. It is constantly on their track, it lies in wait for them. IC attempted the experiment of seeing whether, with the aid of the most incisive knowledge, everyone could not be brought to despair: the experiment miscarried, to his twofold despair." - FN

"Destiny of Christianity. -- Christianity came into existence in order to lighten the heart; but now it has first to burden the heart so as afterwards to be able to lighten it. Consequently it shall perish." -FN

[Immanuel Can]

"Your call. Your fate. Choose carefully. One day, you'll answer for this moment." - IC
Christianity possesses the hunters instinct for all those who can by one means or another be brought to despair - of which only a portion of mankind is capable.

Ummm...no. We just tell you what God says.

We don't have to tell you what to do...you do that yourself.

From Jesus Christ, in The Sermon on the Mount:

"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.”

[Harry Baird]

God is an idea that's all.

We disagree on this, but that's OK.

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)

I certainly agree to the extent that it is far, far preferable for moral choices to be made voluntarily - and, yes, because we care about the consequences of our actions - not by them being forced upon us. This is the ideal. Unfortunately, some people don't care, and so, at times, we have to, as a society and as individuals, protect ourselves from their harmful choices through the use of force.

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..

Given that I am a dualist and you are a non-dualist, I often enough struggle to agree with the content of your posts, but there's a lot in the above passage with which I do agree - and it is well-written too.

The possibility of seeing life as a gift: yes. Respecting a world of order: yes. The need for a subjective assessment of the value of our survival, and the need for subjective value judgements in general: yes.

[promethean75]

you just gave me an idea for a porno. instead of 'Sermon on the Mount' it would be called 'Sherman on the Mount', and it would be about a jewish gigolo who had sex with all the women in the village.

It would be badly produced with horrible actors who can't memorize long lines or develop any kind of plot line.

[Belinda]

you just gave me an idea for a porno. instead of 'Sermon on the Mount' it would be called 'Sherman on the Mount', and it would be about a jewish gigolo who had sex with all the women in the village.

It would be badly produced with horrible actors who can't memorize long lines or develop any kind of plot line.

I'm not superstitious but blasphemy does make me feel bad.

[Harry Baird]

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

What assumption?

By the way, I just want to clarify a misreading of yours of an earlier response of mine. I originally figured I'd just let the misreading slide, but I've now decided that it's important (for your understanding) to point out:

In this post you asserted a misreading of what I'd written in this post. You misread me as having written that I have confirmed for myself that I can live without breath, when I in fact had written the exact opposite.

Maybe this clarification will help with your understanding of my point.

I suggest you LOOK AT what is ACTUALLY True

So do I. The problem, in many cases - very much including that of the metaphysical reality and nature (or unreality) of divinity - is how to determine what that is. It's not a simple problem to solve.

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

Etc, etc. Dude, you asked me to explain what I thought. I have not claimed anywhere that I can definitively prove or demonstrate my thoughts to be true - they are just my best understanding based on my life experiences, understanding, and inferences.

I'm not interested in being interrogated in a series of potentially exponentially expanding questions - potentially exponential since you challenge everything a person has to say in each post to which you respond. The burden is on me and your other correspondents in general to limit the proliferation of the exchange since you clearly have no such capacity to regulate it yourself.

[Harry Baird]

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?

Yes! It has. In fact, that's what I'm saying is the case (with perhaps some quibbling over your critique of its moral system).

But I get it: your point is rather that there is nothing special about Christianity; that any random such religion or system of belief will more or less inevitably get some things right.

That's fine and true to an extent. I happen to think that there's more to it than that when it comes to that which is true in Christianity, but hey, that's just me doing me.

[Harry Baird]

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".

It's thinking of this sort that has led me to a conception of God different than the standard Abrahamic one. I tend towards taking the last option, and thus towards a type of dualism, in which God is constantly doing what He can to combat evil, with no guaranteed (but certainly hoped-for) final outcome.

[Nick_A]

Amazing. This thread has proven that no one understands Christianity and also that IC argues that Christianity is a religion of fear. He asserts the importance of belief. But if a person cannot love their friends, how are they to love their enemies? What do they believe? Has the great depth of Christianity been reduced to petty insults? Is it really so surprising that the teachings of the Christ had devolved into the Spanish Inquisition?

[Harry Baird]

It's not a threat

It certainly functions as one.

it's not mine.

You've chosen to believe it, have adopted it, and have gone on to wield against others, despite not knowing that it's true (and there being good arguments against it being true), so, for all intents and purposes, yes, it is yours.

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)

Oh? That doesn't look like the Lord's writing to me. It looks like some other guy's writing. Can you share with me something that the Lord actually did write regarding this threat, and which can be incontrovertibly identified as his writing?

[Harry Baird]

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.

Go on then.

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.

Well, I'm highly unlikely to read a whole book on the matter. Got anything to say in your own words, or at least much more concise, and readily accessible online? And again, to repeat the point: I am anyway open to the idea of the reality of the resurrection, and tend towards believing that it happened. What I'd need clearly demonstrated though is its purported implication: that to believe it as a reality saves an individual from the endless fires of hell. I don't, however, expect that that can be demonstrated, so I'm asking more to prove that than because I have any expectation of you providing a plausible answer. I am not at all wholly ignorant on the matter.

[promethean75]

"I'm not superstitious but blasphemy does make me feel bad."

If 'god' can't laugh at my jokes, I refuse to worship him.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Nick: I only understand what I understand — about life really. That is the “understanding” you referred to. My understandings often coincide with what I have learned through old-school Catholic spiritual and ethical writings.

What I do understand — that’s the best I can do.