Christianity

[Harry Baird]

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?

Historically.

[Age]

It's not a threat

It certainly functions as one.

Then it's not a threat from me, if you prefer to see it as one.

How is, "Do what I tell you, or you will end up in an eternal hell-fire", NOT 'a thread' but 'an offer', EXACTLY.

If an adult said to a child, "If you do NOT do what I tell you to do now, you will get a whipping everyday for the rest of your life", 'an offer' or 'a threat', "immanuel can"?

And, because 'you' are NOT a Truly Honest human being, we are NOT expecting 'you' to answer this AT ALL.

it's not mine.

You've chosen to believe it,

Yes...

...and have gone on to wield against others,

No, I just report it. I "wield" nothing. I have no relevant power to do so. Would you prefer I lie to you?

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.

He is. It's for everyone. If that includes you, you're in.

[Age]

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.

Yep. Well said.

The only caveat I'd add is that if God is not omnipotent, and dualism is (as I suspect) the case, then there might anyway be a hell (created by His opposite) which God lacks the power to destroy, at least at the moment. The hope then would be that eventually evil is conquered, and hell is not eternal.

You will be glad to know that 'your hope' is fulfilled, and was achieved very simply and very easily, by the way.

I know, of course, that you disagree with this sort of dualism. It is perhaps a little too dark for you? As you know, I have had some dark spiritual experiences which have led my thinking in this direction.

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.

Again, well said. If dualism is wrong and there indeed is a God who lacks nothing in the way of power, then this is obviously the path He'd prefer and choose for us friends whom He's created.

But God HAS ALL the power in BOTH of these two so-called 'dualism' and 'nondualism' worlds or ideas.

[Harry Baird]

The hope then would be that eventually evil is conquered, and hell is not eternal.

You will be glad to know that 'your hope' is fulfilled, and was achieved very simply and very easily, by the way.

I would be, if it were true, but there seems to still be plenty of evil left in this world, so, why would I believe you?

[Age]

Here's everything you could possibly want to know about that, in what has been called "the most comprehensive defense of Jesus' resurrection anywhere," by one of the pre-eminent Biblical scholars and theologians today. Let's see what you make of the evidence. https://www.amazon.com/Case-Resurrectio ... 0825427886.

Unfortunately, I'm not much of a reader, so I'm unlikely to read that book.

In any case, I think you misunderstand. I'm very open to the possibility that Jesus resurrected.

What I'm asking you to prove though is that Jesus actually, and truthfully, claimed that only those who believed that he resurrected would be saved from an eternity of fiery agony in hell. Moreover, I'd then expect a rationale for how this could be in the slightest bit reasonable on the part of a wholly good God.

I haven't read the link, however, regarding your request for a proof based on rationality ...

- To believe with all your being leaves no room for not believing.
- In other words, to believe with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind, is not a choice.

- Eternity can only exist right now, in the present.

- Thus, one who believes so totally and completely leaves no room in consciousness for unbelief, and thus is perpetually saved from the feiry, burning, pain of hell of mental anguish, which is a physical pain felt in the noggin ... saved now, and now, and now … add a bunch more nows and you have eternity.


Is this consistent with Christian thought?

The term or phrase "christian thought" and what that refers to EXACTLY, could refer to some thing as big or as infinite as what 'eternity' is. For within EACH and EVERY so-called "christian" there are countless DIFFERENT thoughts and thinking, and this is not even taking into account how "non-christians" refer to what "christian thought" is, EXACTLY.

But what you said above is more or less consistent with what thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS anyway.

[Age]

- Thus, one who believes so totally and completely leaves no room in consciousness for unbelief, and thus is perpetually saved from the feiry, burning, pain of hell of mental anguish, which is a physical pain felt in the noggin ... saved now, and now, and now … add a bunch more nows and you have eternity.

To the extent that I understand what you're saying, I don't think that I agree with it. It seems to amount to "Remain in the present, submitting entirely to belief, and you can (will) feel no pain, not even that of hell." I don't think that it works like that.

While one is BELIEVING that they are feeling 'no pain', and this BELIEF is last ALWAYS, then ARE and WILL ALWAYS feel 'no pain'.

Is this consistent with Christian thought?

Maybe with some Christian thought. Probably not with the entirety of it. Some Christians are no doubt going to want to say, "There is always room in consciousness for physical pain, and that's exactly what you'll feel in hell."

How do 'you', supposedly, KNOW?

[Age]

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.

When 'you' speak like this "immanuel can", 'you' are SHOWING and REVEALING just how Truly WEAK and SCARED 'you' REALLY are here.

Be BRAVE and just ADMIT that they are YOUR WORDS, that 'you' USED, under YOUR name here. The label "immanuel can" provided here was given and supplied by 'you' and EACH and EVERY word under that label are YOUR WORDS, which 'you' have CLEARLY EXPRESSED, and WANT SEEN, and LISTENED TO.

Just God's truth.

Saying, "Just God's truth", just SHOWS and REVEALS how Truly WEAK and USELESS 'you' REALLY ARE in being ABLE TO back up and support YOUR CLAIMS here.

'you' come into the forum and WRITE and CLAIM that 'you' ACTUALLY KNOW what 'you' are talking about, but when CHALLENGED you come back with, oh "these are NOT my words", "they are just God's words".

It is OBVIOUS that ALL WORDS come through 'you', human beings. God NEVER FORCED absolutely ANY one of 'you' to WRITE and SAY what 'you' do. 'you' CHOOSE to USE 'the words' that EACH and EVERY one of 'you' do. So, PLEASE take at least SOME responsibility for 'your' OWN doing here. 'you' will NOT then look so PATHETIC and USELESS.

It existed long before I did, and will exist long after I'm gone.

But YOUR False and Wrong INTERPRETATION/S of 'those words' will be LONG GONE and DEAD.

You can deal with it, or try to dodge it. But you won't answer to me.

LOL
LOL
LOL

'you' continue on with the MOST DISTORTED and ABSURD INTERPRETATIONS of what thee ACTUAL Truth IS here "immanuel can". And the ACTUAL PROOF that YOUR INTERPRETATIONS are the MOST DISTORTED and ABSURD, and thus also completely and utterly False and Wrong is 'your' INABILITY to take responsibility for your OWN WORDS and INTERPRETATIONS and to be ABLE TO back them up and support them.

[Harry Baird]

While one is BELIEVING that they are feeling 'no pain', and this BELIEF is last ALWAYS, then ARE and WILL ALWAYS feel 'no pain'.

I see: believing something makes it real, just as, if everybody believes something, it's true. That's quite the epistemology you've got going there, pal.

Maybe with some Christian thought. Probably not with the entirety of it. Some Christians are no doubt going to want to say, "There is always room in consciousness for physical pain, and that's exactly what you'll feel in hell."

How do 'you', supposedly, KNOW?

Why don't 'you' learn to read? I qualified my opinions with "maybe", "probably", and "some". I made no claim to know.

[Age]

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.

Maybe I wasn't clear but not being critical. But if we believe we know Christianity and profess to believe in Jesus with our mouth, why can't we practice what we preach and often do the opposite?

One reason is because of what is being BELIEVED, and BELIEF itself.

See, 'you', adult human beings, ACTUALLY BELIEVE that it is NOT 'you', individually, who is doing the Wrong, in the world, and that it is always someone ELSE who does.

And this is PROVED IRREFUTABLY True by and through 'your' INACTIONS when I question 'you' about the Wrong that 'you' EACH and ALL of 'you' do DO.

'you' are ALL as big a HYPOCRITIC as EACH "other" IS. 'you' ALL, individually, LOOK AT "each other" and NOT as "yourselves", and collectively LOOK AT some 'thing' else, and NOT AT "yourselves".

Matthew 23 describes Christian hypocrisy:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

13 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. [14]

15 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.

16 “Woe to you, blind guides! You say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gold of the temple is bound by that oath.’ 17 You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? 18 You also say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gift on the altar is bound by that oath.’ 19 You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 Therefore, anyone who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21 And anyone who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. 22 And anyone who swears by heaven swears by God’s throne and by the one who sits on it........................................

And Jesus continues but you get the picture. Even I C will admit that he doesn't practice what he preaches. Is he going to hell? People in philosophy forums like to argue Christianity but how many admit they cannot practice it so cannot be said to understand it since understanding is defined by what we do, not what we know. Does that mean we all go to hell? Contemplating why we don't understand Christianity IMO is real philosophy.

In the days when this was being written 'you' were ALL in a REAL 'hell'. To PROVE this True ALL one HAS TO DO is just 'LOOK AROUND you', as some would say.

The beauty IS THERE to be SEEN and CHERISED, but your 'love of money' HAS and IS DESTROYING 'that beauty'. BUT, by just CHANGING your WANTS and DESIRES, the DESTRUCTION, and thus 'the hell' can STOP, and the beauty and 'the heaven' can begin again, and continue. ALWAYS if that is what you CHOOSE.

[Age]

Maybe there will come a day when we dispense with the old-fashioned gods created millenniums ago and recreate a more modernized version if gods are still required. As quantum computing becomes more powerful and artificial intelligence less artificial, perhaps we'll create a hologram we can interact with. That could actually be a truer version than all the excess BS in the bible which has mind-poisioned so many throughout the ages.

The so-called 'BS' or 'bullshit' in the bible is just YOUR OWN MISINTERPRETATIONS of what was ACTUALLY being SAID, and MEANT.

It would be a way of turning erstwhile scripture into literature flattening its effect.

Have you NOT been so-called "mind-poisioned" absolutely ANYWHERE here "yourself" "dubious"?

If you think or BELIEVE 'no', then I will let you in on a secret. The Mind can NOT be 'poisoned'. However, the human brain HAS BEEN poisoned by the MANY Wrong, and MISSED, INTERPRETATIONS of what IS ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY True, Right, AND Correct. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True throughout this thread, forum, and human history, hiterto when this was being written.

Strange and ironic to say both the Old and New Testament gods seem less intelligent than a lot of humans who have delivered something worthwhile and not merely godfather threats of damnation if you don't subscribe to their version of self-endorsed divinity.

But the 'damnation' ENVISIONED or IMAGINED here by most of 'you', human beings, is JUST ANOTHER example of ANOTHER MISINTERPRETATION of what was ACTUALLY SAID, and MEANT.

The 'poison' is STILL getting passed along, from brain to brain, effecting the lot of 'you'.

It takes a truly diseased mind to still believe that something so ungodly could come from a god.

But 'god' is NOT some thing that is nor was expected to have ever created absolutely ANY thing good.

Also, what is 'it' that you are referring to here as so-called 'ungodly'?

I'd literally give the entire useless bible for more music by Mozart or Wagner.

Well does NOT say NOR mean much AT ALL.

That music and that book can be obtained from just about anywhere.

There's more of the sacred in that than all the words of which the bible is composed.

So, what do 'the sacred' words even refer to, EXACTLY?

When, and IF, you describe 'this' for us here, then we might be able to show and reveal how there is more of 'the sacred' in some thing else than there is in ALL of the words ever written by 'you', human beings, so far. But, obviously, we will just have to wait for you first, to SEE.

[Dubious]

Until you tell us what planet you're from or what galaxy I have no comments. Nevertheless, "we humans" appreciate all your efforts to set us straight!

I noticed in many of your posts you are an LOL aficionado, so please accept the following as an acknowledgment of your superior alien intelligence! We humans have been searching, via Seti, for someone like you for a long time. Finally things are looking up!

[Age]

Even I C will admit that he doesn't practice what he preaches.

Yes, he will frankly admit he is just as flawed and failing as many, perhaps more than some.

And here we have ANOTHER example of the HYPOCRITE at work.

That is; "Absolutely EVERY thing I do Wrong is BECAUSE I am just a so-called "flawed and failing human being" but whenever ANY one else does Wrong, then that is because that are bad or evil, and those ones will go to hell because they ARE bad or evil". But I will NOT go to hell because I ALWAYS do good and right".

The ABSURDITY and RIDICULOUSNESS of this SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.

WHY whenever "another" does some thing that is NOT liked by an individual, then the "other" is NOT a "flawed or failing human being", who needs help and support, and NOT judgment and punishment, but rather is a very bad person, who SHOULD BE judged and punished.

The HYPOCRISY among 'you', adult human beings, is BLINDING.

But that's the necessity of salvation. One doesn't "save" oneself. One is "saved" by Somebody Else. And one is not saved by one's own merits, but by His rescue.

Supposedly 'saved' from 'what', EXACTLY?

The Truth, by the way, 'you' might find ENLIGHTENING.

Consider: why do you think Christianity has so many terms like, "forgiveness," "redemption," "salvation," and "regeneration"? Would you think these are terms that appeal to people who believe that they're "saving" themselves by being intrinsically perfect or behaviourally infallible?

Here we have an example of some of the EXCUSE/S these people would USE for when they get CAUGHT OUT doing Wrong, "themselves". "Oh I am NOT perfect".

If you did, then you don't know what those terms mean, at all, obviously. They all refer to the action, not of being perfect oneself, but of being made into something by God.

LOL What do you think and propose is the 'thing' that God is wanting to make 'you' into, some kind of non perfect thing that just KEEPS DESTROYING and RUINING the One and ONLY home 'you' ALL have for "yourselves"?

Each time 'you' 'TRY TO' DEFEND 'your' BELIEFS here "immanuel can", 'you' end up just looking like the FOOL.

Absolutely EVERY thing, at EVERY moment, is in its PERFECT PLACE and POSITION. That is; of being in EXACT Right PLACE and POSITION, IN the evolutionary process, of thee One coming to KNOW thy or Its Self.

People in philosophy forums like to argue Christianity but how many admit they cannot practice it

All true Christians know full well they cannot save themselves.

LOL "All true Christians". Here is ANOTHER example of when an individual thinks that what it does is the REAL or TRUE version, or thing, but if absolutely ANY one else DIFFERS in absolutely ANY way other way of 'what they, "themselves", do', then they are of 'the other' (tribe) and are NOT of the REAL, or TRUE, way.

Again, the HYPOCRISY, and the STUPIDITY here, is BLINDING.

Are 'you' REALLY STILL NOT YET AWARE "immanuel can" that there are NOT two human beings who have the EXACT SAME version of what being a so-called "true Christian" IS?

And, if 'you' only KNEW what the REAL and True Picture and Story IS, EXACTLY, then 'you' would ALREADY be AWARE just HOW MUCH 'helping' and thus 'saving' 'one's self' here is REALLY INVOLVED. But 'you' WILL UNDERSTAND this MUCH BETTER when you come to KNOW thy Self, and thus be ABLE TO answer the question, 'Who am 'I', EXACTLY? properly AND correctly.

Anybody who doesn't know that is definitionally not a Christian. (Eph. 2:8-9)

If only 'you' KNEW "immanuel can". If only 'you' KNEW.

Contemplating why we don't understand Christianity IMO is real philosophy.

You're right: most people have not the foggiest idea what Christianity really is.

And 'you', "immanuel can", being probably the biggest example here of this.

That's because it's not a subject that God intends to allow you to dissect and study like it was a bacterial slide or a lab rat.

Speaking perfectly by one of those being the MOST UNCHRISTIAN-LIKE.

He calls for commitment, choice, decision. And anybody who does not come to do that goes away confused. That's how it works. (1 Cor. 1:20-21)

Spoken from one of the MOST CONFUSED here, in this forum.

[Age]

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.

VERY, VERY True.

And it is this 'no suffering during physical pain' in which the 'suffering in hell', and the 'non suffering in heaven', is meaning and referring to, EXACTLY, in part.

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.

[Age]

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.

Okay, MY MISREADING and MY MISTAKE, AGAIN.

Re the whole being able to live without breath example, I now regret offering it.

So, are you now saying that you did ACTUALLY provide an example of being able to live without air or oxygen?

Also, if you STAY with the ACTUAL WORDS that I BROUGHT INTO the discussion FIRST, then you would NOT be REGRETTING things now.

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).

By definition, there is only 'this world', where air or oxygen exists, which human beings could live and exist within. (modal logic; learn and understand it while looking up the 'relative' word also. Maybe if you go and look these up together then that might help you).

Also, instead of TELLING me to go LOOK UP some words, which you ASSUME I do NOT understand, I suggest you CLARIFY, BEFORE you make absolutely ANY suggestion or CLAIM AT ALL.

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),

LOL ONCE AGAIN, you could NOT have ended up being MORE Wrong here, even if you WANTED TO be and TRIED TO be.

I now suggest you go back to the BEGINNING, and START AGAIN.

then that standard of proof is not strong enough for me (personally).

WHO CARES?

What 'you', personally, think or believe does NOT necessarily have absolutely ANY bearing on what IS ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY True.

I'm looking for a more rigorous standard of proof, which, admittedly, might not be on offer.

Well what is or is NOT 'strong enough' a 'standard of proof', for one personally, is CERTAINLY NOT a 'rigorous standard of proof'.

If you want a 'rigorous standard of proof' for some thing or absolutely ANY thing, then that is just what can NOT be refuted.

Could this REALLY get ANY more SIMPLER and EASIER?

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

WHO CARES what is or what is NOT "of interest to you"?

You just asked for some thing.

I provide thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE answer for it.

You did NOT like 'that' answer BECAUSE it goes AGAINST your currently held BELIEFS.

Which I have just SHOWN, HIGHLIGHTED, and PROVED True here.

And this is what is of True INTEREST here, in a philosophy forum.

[Age]

'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.

LOL I NEVER claimed that i am NOT a human being.

This is just YOUR ASSUMPTION here.

I also partly explained how 'you' have a LOT MORE to LEARN and UNDERSTAND, BEFORE 'you' could even START to BEGIN to understand what 'you', human beings', ACTUALLY MEANS, and refers to, EXACTLY.

Also, the MORE 'you' SEE and BELIEVE that 'I' am a so-called "nutter", the BETTER this becomes for ALL of 'us'.