Christianity

[Walker]

To the extent that I understand what you're saying

What I said about consciousness was in the context of unbelief.

There is always room in consciousness for physical pain

There is room in consciousness for both physical pain, and there is room for no suffering during physical pain. However, when belief is total, there no room for unbelief. When belief is total, one does not choose to believe, and one cannot choose to not believe. Such total belief invites grace, but does not guarantee that the invitation will be accepted.

[Dubious]

already saw that movie...EDBF3919-78B1-4991-9A55-70767DF6338F.jpeg...pay no attention to the computer behind the curtain

Movies aren't real.

you missed the point
which is not surprisin' at all

I don't think so but in case I did, what's the point?

[Age]

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?

I know that Reader's Digest lists are NOT kosher in your view.

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.

Okay thank you for, now, POINTING OUT my misreading and thus my mistake. (But I would prefer ALL my mistakes, misreadings, and wrongs in my writings are ALL POINTED OUT and SHOWN, when they are FIRST NOTICED.)

You wrote that you can verify personally, for yourself, that, at present, you are unable to live without air or oxygen, correct?

And you also wrote that nobody else can personally verify that you are unable to live without air or oxygen though - for all they know, I am some sage who has learnt how to avoid it, correct?

Do you envision absolutely ANY one who thinks or BELIEVES that 'you', "harry baird", are some so-called "sage" who has learned how to, and can, live without air or oxygen?

Anyway, if you also wrote that nobody can personally verify that any other person is equally unable to live without air or oxygen, then this is False and Wrong, because it IS very SIMPLE and very EASY to verify if 'you', or ANY other human being, is able to live without air or oxygen. All one has to do is just prevent another from air or oxygen, and SEE if they can keep living, or NOT.

Oh, and by the way, if one is a so-called 'sage', then is that one still classed as a 'human being', or a 'sage'?

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.

But 'it' has ALREADY been SOLVED.

'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.

And I just expressed what I 'think', and KNOW by the way, IS ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY True.

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.

Here is ANOTHER False, Wrong, AND Incorrect CLAIM.

But anyway I so-call 'interrogate' because it is through simple, OPEN, clarifying questioning, and Truly Honest answers/responses provided, WHERE thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of things can be UNCOVERED, FOUND, and SEEN.

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.

Am I under some sort of OBLIGATION to HOW MUCH I WRITE and SAY here, in this PUBLIC FORUM?

Also, the 'limiting of exchange', by one, can be just FURTHER PROOF of how that one REALLY does NOT YET FULLY KNOW in regards to what 'it' talks about and says or claims.

I have ALREADY SHOWN how what you CLAIM here is NOT true. And, I can even provide FURTHER IRREFUTABLE PROOF that your CLAIM is NOT true, but if you do NOT like to continue in 'exchange', then this, itself, could be FURTHER PROOF that I have ALREADY ACHEIVED what I just SAID and CLAIMED I did or that you are NOT ABLE TO back up and support your CLAIM AT ALL, REALLY.

I suggest that if one wants to come into this forum and make CLAIMS, then they be ABLE TO back up and support that CLAIM with IRREFUTABLE Truth UNDER ALL forms of scrutiny, or interrogation.

Otherwise WHY come here and make the CLAIM to begin with?

Either one has IRREFUTABLE PROOF, or they do NOT. If they DO NOT, then what they CLAIM is just what they think or BELIEVE is true, and so may NOT necessarily even be true AT ALL.

[Age]

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,

The story that some male human figure created the WHOLE Universe is NO more absurd than the myth and story that the WHOLE Universe BEGAN, and BEGAN from either NO 'thing' or from some OTHER 'thing', like a so-called 'big bang' or ANY OTHER thing.

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?

Has ANY one CLAIMED or even suggested that a human being or ANY 'thing' being punished for a human being's 'sin' was a so-called 'good thing'?

Also, and by the way, the word 'sin' was just ANOTHER of the MANY words being MISINTERPRETED by 'you', human beings, in the days when this was being written.

[Age]

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".

WHY subtract ANY of them?

And if you did, then WHY;

If you subtract 1. then God, (and NOT a "He" NOR even a "he". Here is just ANOTHER example of human beings persisting with OBVIOUSLY False, ABSURD and ILLOGICAL notions, back in the days when this was being written,) anyway, WHY would God answer what 'you' CLAIM here? What you CLAIM is ALSO just OBVIOUSLY False, ABSURD, and ILLOGICAL. What the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE True answer IS, by the way, is NOT what you CLAIM here.

If you subtract 2, then WHY would God, SUPPOSEDLY, answer with what 'you' CLAIM here? Again, the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE answer is MUCH DIFFERENT.

The same with when 'you' subtract 3. WHY do it in the FIRST PLACE, and WHY THEN do 'you' provide some OBVIOUSLY False, ABSURD, and ILLOGICAL answer, to your OWN doing of 'subtracting'?

[Harry Baird]

What assumption?

I know that Reader's Digest lists are NOT kosher in your view.

That's another misreading. Those parenthetical comments were directed to, and were a cheeky dig at, AJ (Alexis Jacobis), as indicated in the comments themselves.

Re the whole being able to live without breath example, I now regret offering it. Here, though, is a summary of the sentiments behind it, however poorly they came across in the first place:

These sort of truths are empirical and contingent, not logical. In some possible world, they are false (modal logic: again, look it up). They can be "proved" only contingently. If the standard of proof of some putative One Truth is equally contingent (e.g., as you suggest, that everybody believes it), then that standard of proof is not strong enough for me (personally). I'm looking for a more rigorous standard of proof, which, admittedly, might not be on offer.

The rest of your self-aggrandising ramblings and defences are of no interest to me.

[Age]

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.

LOL
LOL

The so-called 'Lord' does NOT make such so-called "offers", and the 'Lord' would ESPECIALLY NOT ONLY make that 'offer' to SOME people and NOT absolutely EVERY one.

The MORE 'you' 'TRY TO' DEFEND your INTERPRETATION and BELIEFS here "immanuel can" the MORE 'you' WILL FAIL and FAULTER. As SHOWN and WITNESSED ALREADY.

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

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;

You will be 'saved' from 'what', EXACTLY?

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

But the 'heart', 'pumps blood'. So, the FIRST FAULT and FLAW here.

BELIEVING, itself, does NOT result in 'righteousness'. 'you', OBVIOUSLY BELIEVE that 'you' are ALWAYS right here "immanuel can", but 'you' are one of the MOST wicked and sinful here.

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

LOL 'your' version of 'everyone' is VERY, VERY SMALL compared to the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth. But this is what ACTUALLY ARISES from a VERY CLOSED or NARROWED field of view perspective of things.

Will that be you? Only you can say.

Talk about DELUSION, at its FINEST.

[Harry Baird]

You have adopted it, endorse it, and wield it against others, so, functionally, yes, you are enough a part of it to bear responsibility for it as a threat.

Nope. Not my words.

Irrelevant. As I said, you have adopted and endorsed them, and wield them against others, so, functionally, there's no difference.

Just God's truth.

You bear the consequences for your belief in an internally inconsistent monster of a God. But I'm not threatening you with eternal damnation for that grotesque belief, not even by proxy.

[Age]

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.

WHO, then, wrote the words under the name "immanuel can"?

'you', "immanuel can", OBVIOUSLY wrote those words, and if 'you' are NOT ABLE TO STAND BEHIND them, then I suggest you do NOT REPEAT them. Understood?

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

LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL

If 'you' ACTUALLY BELIEVE this OBVIOUS NONSENSE, then 'you' are FAIR MORE STUPIDER than I FIRST REALIZED "immanuel can".

For the number 1. person here 'TRYING TO' defend "christianity" "immanuel can" 'you' are REALLY making a complete mockery of it.

[Age]

"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.

'you', "immanuel can", have absolutely NO idea AT ALL what God is REALLY SAYING, and MEANING.

LOL 'you' are STILL under the ILLUSION that God is some 'male' gendered THING.

Which just the ABSURDITY of this, speaks for the rest of what 'you' THINK 'you' BELIEVE is true.

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.”

AND, as I just POINTED OUT and SHOWED, the RIDICULOUSNESS and ABSURDNESS of CLAIMING God as some 'male' gendered THING IS, and WILL ALWAYS BE, 'condemned' as just plain old STUPIDITY, led AND followed.

And this is just only one of 'your' words "immanuel can".

[Age]

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.

But there is absolutely NOTHING 'special' about ANY of human beings' ideas or views. EACH and EVERY one of those ideas and views just arises because of what EACH and EVERY one of 'you' has just experienced. Absolutely NOTHING 'special' about that AT ALL.

That WITHIN just about EACH and EVERY idea or view there is at least 'some' thing right is ALSO of NO 'speciality' NOR 'notoriety'. This is just absolutely NATURAL, and 'normal'.

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.

JUST LIKE EVERY one else here is just 'them' doing 'them'. After all this is what 'you', human beings, just NATURALLY DO anyway.

[Age]

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.

God IS CONSTANTLY doing what God does to 'combat evil'. That is; SPEAK and GUIDE. If, however, 'you', adult human beings, are ACTUALLY LISTENING TO and SEEING, or NOT, is the question. Which, the answer to, is VERY OBVIOUS.

[Harry Baird]

'you', human beings

I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why 'you' are not a human being, and what 'you' actually are, you nutter.

[Age]

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?

It was the case that "jesus christ" WAS 'the teacher'. But, unfortunately, 'you', adult human beings, and the way 'you' have become, have turned this around to 'trying to' express 'the teaching of jesus christ' as though 'you' ACTUALLY BELIEVE what they WERE.

What ALL of 'you' are doing here is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what WAS ONCE being 'taught'. But this is EXACTLY what comes from NOT LISTENING, and NOT SEEING.

[Age]

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.

In what sense or context, EXACTLY?

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.