Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

Frankly dear I not sure the universe 'came into' existence at all.

Well, you should know about things like the "red shift" effect, or the observable expansion of the universe. Or maybe about entropy. Because scientifically, it's not in doubt.

Plus if the big bang were true and there wuz a god that made it happen, we'd not know anything more about the nature of this God then that arbitrary fact.

That's a secondary question...not a bad one, but secondary.

The first question is, "Is there any God at all?" We can't even ask the second question, "What kind?" Until we've already said "Yes" to the first one.

So God's "profile" can wait. If there's no God, it's a moot point what kind of "God there isn't."

[Immanuel Can]

We're professionals, IC. Now act like one.

You're professional? What's your "profession"?

Nanny? Because it's nannies that resort to saying things like, "Act like one."

[Harry Baird]

To be such a Christ-follower [as one who follows the admonitions of the Sermon of the Mount] is to be, fundamentally, a renunciant.

You are mistaken. Christ promoted a community of loving souls, not a community of renunciants. His aim is for one to ensure that one's brothers and sisters are cared for and have their needs met, not for one to isolate oneself and ignore the needs of one's brothers and sisters.

[Belinda]

IC seems to think that's the same as saying the universe is 'caring' about us

I can see you don't get metaphors. I'll be more literal.

An accidental universe has no teleology in it. Accidents don't "mean" anything. They aren't oriented or disciplined toward particular goals or ends. They have no structural coherence, and no tendency toward particular outcomes. They're random, in terms of results.

That's what makes them "accidents." If they "meant" something, or were structured toward some particular outcome, then they'd be "on purposes."

But you've got a world that makes sense, or to use the terms stipulated by others, "is harmonized." And "harmonized" with that, you've got knowing agents who can decode and read that harmony.

That doesn't look one bit "accidental." It looks teleological.

That's the fact you have to explain.

Immanuel, you really don't see it do you? The 'universe' is neither accidental nor the result of a final cause. The 'universe' is designed by necessity , necessity is not a final (teleological) cause.

"Designed by necessity" means the universe could not be otherwise than it was and is. There is no logical need to add on a hypothesis that Someone had to will that the universe was and is as it is. Human beings
can understand many of the systems that determine how the universe was and is.

[Harry Baird]

To take the entire Mississippi Valley as an example. It was one of the most amazing and completely untouched ecological systems when the Red Man lived in it.

And, obviously, it should still be to this day, but it has been defiled by the colonisers.

[Harry Baird]

This is the reason why I think it more relevant to study the Christianesque.

If you water it down, don't be surprised that there's no flavour in it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

To be such a Christ-follower [as one who follows the admonitions of the Sermon of the Mount] is to be, fundamentally, a renunciant.

You are mistaken. Christ promoted a community of loving souls, not a community of renunciants. His aim is for one to ensure that one's brothers and sisters are cared for and have their needs met, not for one to isolate oneself and ignore the needs of one's brothers and sisters.

No, I do not think I am mistaken. In order to live the sort of life that Jesus of Nazareth proposed one had to be a renunciant from the machinations of 'worldly life'. Those early communities were exactly of that sort. They operated a small and isolated pockets within the larger (sinning, erring) world.

[Alexis Jacobi]

To take the entire Mississippi Valley as an example. It was one of the most amazing and completely untouched ecological systems when the Red Man lived in it.

And, obviously, it should still be to this day, but it has been defiled by the colonisers.

All conquered territories then, by your definition, including the Northern Europe conquered and tamed, including the Indian subcontinent -- quite literally the whole world -- 'should still be as they were'.

But they are not.

[Alexis Jacobi]

This is the reason why I think it more relevant to study the Christianesque.

If you water it down, don't be surprised that there's no flavour in it.

It is not I that does this or that or anything. It is *what is*. There is no pure 'Christianity' anywhere. Absolutely nowhere. You might be able to say that such a Christianity existed with Jesus of Nazareth and his small group (which did it seems number perhaps a few hundred?)

But all other Christianity's are adaptations and, necessarily, modifications. The greater investment in ownership interest, the less it is possible to be Christian (in the original sense). The more wordly the more, by definition, christianesque.

Your metaphor does not work because I do not suggest 'watering down', I suggest just other and different levels of interpretation and adaptation.

[Immanuel Can]

The 'universe' is neither accidental nor the result of a final cause. The 'universe' is designed by necessity , necessity is not a final (teleological) cause.

No, sorry: by definition, the universe is not a "necessary being." It's a contingent one. And we can tell, very easily, scientifically, that that is exactly what it is. It could have "not existed" at all, it certainly "could be otherwise than it is," so it's not, in any precise sense, a "necessary" entity.

But your phrase "is designed" is sneaked in, in a very interesting way. Anything that's "designed" is not an "accident." So you're saying the universe was "designed"... Figure out the logical corollary...you can do it all by yourself.

So you've just got the case wrong, B. Nothing in science or logic will support that claim you've made.

[Immanuel Can]

To be such a Christ-follower [as one who follows the admonitions of the Sermon of the Mount] is to be, fundamentally, a renunciant.

You are mistaken. Christ promoted a community of loving souls, not a community of renunciants. His aim is for one to ensure that one's brothers and sisters are cared for and have their needs met, not for one to isolate oneself and ignore the needs of one's brothers and sisters.

No, I do not think I am mistaken.

Yes, you never do...

[Harry Baird]

To be such a Christ-follower [as one who follows the admonitions of the Sermon of the Mount] is to be, fundamentally, a renunciant.

You are mistaken. Christ promoted a community of loving souls, not a community of renunciants. His aim is for one to ensure that one's brothers and sisters are cared for and have their needs met, not for one to isolate oneself and ignore the needs of one's brothers and sisters.

No, I do not think I am mistaken. In order to live the sort of life that Jesus of Nazareth proposed one had to be a renunciant from the machinations of 'worldly life'. Those early communities were exactly of that sort. They operated a small and isolated pockets within the larger (sinning, erring) world.

Oh, so, you think that the "renunciation" was at the level of communities, not individuals? Well, sure, people of the same faith who believe in brotherly and sisterly love are going to commune together in brotherly and sisterly love. That's a sort of truism. And, of course, they are going to try to avoid associating with that which they consider to be sinfulness, both within and outside of their community. This, though, is a far cry from the renunciation in the individual, ascetic sense which you implied in your original post.

[Harry Baird]

All conquered territories then, by your definition, including the Northern Europe conquered and tamed, including the Indian subcontinent -- quite literally the whole world -- 'should still be as they were'.

But they are not.

Correct. I fail, though, to discern your point.

[Harry Baird]

This is the reason why I think it more relevant to study the Christianesque.

If you water it down, don't be surprised that there's no flavour in it.

It is not I that does this or that or anything. It is *what is*. There is no pure 'Christianity' anywhere. Absolutely nowhere. You might be able to say that such a Christianity existed with Jesus of Nazareth and his small group (which did it seems number perhaps a few hundred?)

But all other Christianity's are adaptations and, necessarily, modifications. The greater investment in ownership interest, the less it is possible to be Christian (in the original sense). The more wordly the more, by definition, christianesque.

Your metaphor does not work because I do not suggest 'watering down', I suggest just other and different levels of interpretation and adaptation.

The question is one of relevance, which you raised.

If you are interested in Christianity per se, then those which are relevant are the teachings of Christ.

If you are interested in the socio-political machinations of so-called Christians, then, sure, study "the Christianesque".

I think Christ's teachings will persevere long after those socio-political machinations do, though, so your studies are of limited relevance given the flow of time.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You are mistaken. Christ promoted a community of loving souls, not a community of renunciants. His aim is for one to ensure that one's brothers and sisters are cared for and have their needs met, not for one to isolate oneself and ignore the needs of one's brothers and sisters.

No, I do not think I am mistaken.

Yes, you never do...

Warning: You are right on the verge of getting SENT TO THE LIONS. Just keep it up Immanuel.