Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

My argument is that you do not deal in facts.

Then your "argument" (i.e. your opinion) is incorrect.

No, I do not think it is. I think you are so invested in your beliefs -- as you know I describe them as aspects or derivatives of Hebrew Idea-Imperialism -- that if you were to change them, you would likely crack into pieces. It would be an event of such psychic and psychological magnitude that your very *self* would lose its grip.

As I said, I will soon begin to provide some examples of Hebrew Idea-Imperialism. This takes time to do this and to do it well. I will get to it soon.

You work from the base of a twisted and a sick god-concept. Yet I do not think that this means that a god-concept should be done away with. I think we are in a time when a great deal of what we thought in previous times, and upon which our world (civilization) was constructed is now in flux. I notice that you do not comment on any of what I have written about in relation to this theme. But that is typical of you!

Religious fanaticism has you in its grip. I have instructed the lions to gnaw at you with a type of thoughtful, spiritual intensity. As you suffer at their paws many things will be made clear.

I have said many times that I do not think that Christianity, and Christian concepts, can be or should be done away with or dismissed with no further consideration. All that I have hitherto said on that theme I stand behind.

But I do think that general Christian concepts must be revised and, as you know, I regard you as a special breed: a Zionist Christian caught up in structures of narratives through which you and many others are overtly manipulated. Most who write here do not understand that your strand of Christianity is relatively recent. What I point to is that your Evangelical Christianity is really part of a political and social ideology and must be seen in that light. As such it can and it should be examined far more critically.

[Walker]

You did not, because you cannot - it is impossible - resolve or even attempt to address the absurd contradiction at the heart of your prepackaged system of belief: the deranged idea that a loving God would burn people in hell for eternity.

Rational resolutions that adhere to word definitions can be transmitted but reception of other than confusion is more rare than one would think on a philosophy forum. However, why not.

The label of “deranged,” is caused by comparing a notion of what should be, to reality.
In reality:

- God manifests to man through the physics of naturally occurring events, whether or not man accurately understands those physics and if he does not, the event is called a miracle.
- Hell can only exist in the present as both a concept, and as perceived conditions that match the concept.
- In reality, hell exists as the natural effect of causes.
- Like hell, eternity can only exist in the present as either a concept or in actuality.
- Therefore hell, which is the natural effect of causes, exists eternally, which is how people burn in hell for eternity.
- Those in hell only have a moment out of hell as an illusion, to make hell burn hotter when it yanks attention back to reality.
- Anything that God does is not outside the natural laws of physics. Man’s limited understanding of physics does not define natural law with enough authority to declare exceptions to what’s possible.

[Harry Baird]

The label of “deranged,” is caused by comparing a notion of what should be, to reality.

No, it's based on recognising that a person believes, at a fundamental level, in an absurd and vile contradiction. Contradictions can't be "reality".

It seems that you believe or are attempting to justify the notion that "in reality", a loving God burns people in hell for eternity.

If so, then you, too, are deranged, or at least playing at it.

[Walker]

The label of “deranged,” is caused by comparing a notion of what should be, to reality.

No, it's based on recognising that a person believes, at a fundamental level, in an absurd and vile contradiction. Contradictions can't be "reality".

It seems that you believe or are attempting to justify the notion that "in reality", a loving God burns people in hell for eternity.

If so, then you, too, are deranged, or at least playing at it.

No, the sole purpose, successfully achieved, was to refute your assertion of impossible.

[Harry Baird]

No, the sole purpose, successfully achieved, was to refute your assertion of impossible.

Your "refutation" is incoherent nonsense.

To take a few examples:

"God manifests to man through the physics of naturally occurring events" followed up with "hell exists as the natural effect of causes", implying that an omnipotent God can do nothing about a person in hell because it's in some sense just "natural", which binds God. This is sophistical gibberish.

"eternity can only exist in the present". What a load of crap. The present is a single moment in time: eternity is an infinity of time.

"Anything that God does is not outside the natural laws of physics." Here, you contend that the omnipotent designer of the laws of physics cannot operate outside of them. Obviously a load of crock.

You've achieved nothing but to demonstrate your enthusiastic willingness to support via contrived "arguments" a sick, twisted contradiction.

[Harbal]

It seems absurd until I remember nothing else is possible for those defending their life in imagination reacting to the darkness of Plato's Cave without questioning the human condition and why we are as we are.

I went to the trouble of finding out a bit more about what Plato was getting at. I could well be misinterpreting him, or just getting it plain wrong, but I don't see him as meaning what you take him to mean. In my understanding, Christianity would be one of the shadows on the cave wall. The Church, people like IC, and even Simone Weil are making those shadows. You are seeing the projections of other people's "realities", who are creating the shadows on your cave wall by reproducing the ones on their own walls. Leaving the cave and going out into the light is about seeing the true reality of the word, where men don't walk on water, or come back to life after they have died.

[Belinda]

We'll see.

Well, we will if I'm right. If you're right, nobody will ever know...not even you.

Talk more about this.
When you say If I am right no one will ever know not even me -- what do you mean?

If we both one day stand before God to give our account, we'll both know I was right. If Atheism (or reincarnationism, or Deism, or some other -ism) is true, neither of us ever will. We'll be dead and gone, none the wiser.

But if I'm right...

You say "one day" which indicates the judgement event will be temporal not eternal. To assign the judgement event to one day in time leaves the question of what will happen after the judgement event.

Why would you not believe the judgement of God happens in the eternal Now?

[Harbal]

If we both one day stand before God to give our account, we'll both know I was right. If Atheism (or reincarnationism, or Deism, or some other -ism) is true, neither of us ever will. We'll be dead and gone, none the wiser.

But if I'm right...

But what if the Muslims are right? You'll be fucked then, won't you?

Unless, of course, you have a history of doing good deeds here on earth, in which case you might get away with it.

[Harry Baird]

But what if the Muslims are right? You'll be fucked then, won't you?

Could a moderator please intervene here? This language is just obscene.

[Harbal]

Could a moderator please intervene here? This language is just obscene.

But what can a moderator do about it now that you've already seen it?

And you've even quoted it, to make matters worse.

[Harry Baird]

Could a moderator please intervene here? This language is just obscene.

But what can a moderator do about it now that you've already seen it?

Rest assured, dear Harbal, that my tongue was planted firmly in my cheek. Those who have followed this thread scrupulously will understand exactly why.

[Harbal]

Rest assured, dear Harbal, that my tongue was planted firmly in my cheek. Those who have followed this thread scrupulously will understand exactly why.

Okay, Harry. Cool.

[Harry Baird]

Your point though is spot on. What if it is the Koran rather than the Bible that is God's revelation? How would we know? How does IC know? And what odds do you offer that he will ignore these questions just as he ignores the appalling contradiction at the heart of his prepackaged belief system when it is presented to him?

[Harbal]

Your point though is spot on. What if it is the Koran rather than the Bible that is God's revelation? How would we know? How does IC know? And what odds do you offer that he will ignore these questions just as he ignores the appalling contradiction at the heart of his prepackaged belief system when it is presented to him?

But IC is certain he is right, which I think is very much out of place on a philosophy forum. One of the first things I came to realise when I became interested in philosophy was that it is a mistake to be absolutely certain about anything.

[Harry Baird]

But IC is certain he is right, which I think is very much out of place on a philosophy forum. One of the first things I came to realise when I became interested in philosophy was that it is a mistake to be absolutely certain about anything.

Well, there are some things that we genuinely can be absolutely certain about, but I get your point - you're talking about the Big Question about what the [censored] is going on in this place, and, in my current state, I certainly agree that we (I) have no absolutely certain answer to that, and should always question those who claim to, and keep on updating our provisional views.

IC might be certain that he is right, but he certainly is not. The Story on which he places his bet is sickeningly, and fatally, flawed.