Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

Some people writing here seem *lost* in their own narrow perspectives and they simply do not have any sufficient platform to have ideas or opinions of much relevance or importance (Harbal and Henry are two good examples).

What is my perspective, AJ?

Can you explain why you are interested in and concerned for my sense of your perspective? The statement I made does contain a general assessment. What are your thoughts on that? What more would you like and why?

[Dubious]

Yeah! Just like you can't have chicken noodle soup if the chicken or noodles are missing!

[henry quirk]

What is my perspective, AJ?

Can you explain why you are interested in and concerned for my sense of your perspective? The statement I made does contain a general assessment. What are your thoughts on that? What more would you like and why?

It wasn't general: you named me and used me to dismiss that which you find relevant & unimportant.

What I want: for you to back that assessment or withdraw it.

If my perspective is narrow and my platform picayune, you ought not have to work up a sweat tellin' me what they are, yeah?

[Alexis Jacobi]

What I want: for you to back that assessment or withdraw it.

If my perspective is narrow and my platform picayune, you ought not have to work up a sweat tellin' me what they are, yeah?

You are in fact looking for a fight. There are many people on the forum who will engage you. You can't always get what you want.

What do you think about your own perspective? Or your own position within these conversations? Or the perspectives of those others that are engaged here?

[henry quirk]

Can you explain why you are interested in and concerned for my sense of your perspective? The statement I made does contain a general assessment. What are your thoughts on that? What more would you like and why?

It wasn't general: you named me and used me to dismiss that which you find relevant & unimportant.

What I want: for you to back that assessment or withdraw it.

If my perspective is narrow and my platform picayune, you ought not have to work up a sweat tellin' me what they are, yeah?

You are in fact looking for a fight. There are many people on the forum who will engage you.

If you can back your assessment there ought not be a fight. If accurate: how can I defend against it, or disagree with it? Please, what's my perspective, AJ.

[Alexis Jacobi]

It wasn't general: you named me and used me to dismiss that which you find relevant & unimportant.

What I want: for you to back that assessment or withdraw it.

If my perspective is narrow and my platform picayune, you ought not have to work up a sweat tellin' me what they are, yeah?

You are in fact looking for a fight. There are many people on the forum who will engage you.

If you can back your assessment there ought not be a fight. If accurate: how can I defend against it, or disagree with it? Please, what's my perspective, AJ.

What do you think about your own perspective? Or your own position within these conversations? Or the perspectives of those others who are engaged here?

I said you are looking for a fight. That has nothing to do with whether I can, or can't, express my opinions. They are two different things.

I wrote a broad critique of how I see Harbal -- his situation. What did you think of that?

[Immanuel Can]

Pu-leeese....

So, no response, just resentment and abuse. Yep, par for the course, recently.

But nothing of much concern.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Pu-leeese....

So, no response, just resentment and abuse. Yep, par for the course, recently.

But nothing of much concern.

Except I have said a great deal in recent posts, all of which you disregard. That is one of your tactics, Immanuel.

What you call 'resentment' and 'abuse' is what you get from all who engage with you. It follows the same pattern, time after time.

What do you think of the term Hebrew Idea-Imperialism?

[Immanuel Can]

I have found a way to think of morality, or the priniple of it, as being objective, albeit that I may be the only one who thinks of it in such a way. Morality is objective in the sense that it exists within the human psyche.

Hold on, though.

Leprechauns "exist within the human psyche." So does the flat-earth theory...that, too is a phenomenon of human psyche, and at one time, a universal one.

Lust, greed, aggression, covetousness, deceptiveness, hatred...all exist within the human psyche. Where else? Are they "moral"?

The human being is programmed...

Whoops! Passsive voice. That means a sentence with no "doer" specified.

Before we go on, who is your "programmer"?

...with the capacity and propencity for adopting a system of morality.

The "programmer" is an entity capable of creating this thing called "morality"? And he puts it into the human psyche? Please continue...

This is so obvious that it accounts for the fact that it never occurs to those of us who have no vested interest in resisting that thought to even bother putting it into words, which is why we don't have those words readily available when called upon to produce them.

The impulse to believe in morality is subconscious, you mean? And some of us, if we spend time thinking about it, maybe, can also process it consciously? We can "put it into words," but they cannot, because although they're "programmed" justs as we are, they "don't have those world readily available?"

Am I with you, so far?

All we need now is to explain how it came to be that impersonal forces, or evolution, "came up with" the idea to program us, universally, for a thing that has no reality outside the psyche. Once we understand that, maybe the problem of morality will indeed be solved...

...and we'll all suddenly realize that none of us really needed to be moral at all. Rather like Nietzsche said.

[Immanuel Can]

Pu-leeese....

So, no response, just resentment and abuse. Yep, par for the course, recently.

But nothing of much concern.

Except I have said a great deal in recent posts...

I notice that. You really like to "say a great deal."

But what you don't like? When your theories are not lauded, but instead are questioned. That, you do not like much.

[Alexis Jacobi]

So, no response, just resentment and abuse. Yep, par for the course, recently.

But nothing of much concern.

Except I have said a great deal in recent posts...

I notice that. You really like to "say a great deal."

But what you don't like? When your theories are not lauded, but instead are questioned. That, you do not like much.

You have offered no substantial comments on anything I have recently said. I would like to know what you think of my assertions about Hebrew idea-imperialism.

Can you make any comment?

[Immanuel Can]

You have offered no substantial comments on anything I have recently said.

Well, I essentially turned your "Christian Europe" theory to smoking dust some time ago. So I think that should count.

But lately you haven't said anything worth commenting on.

When you do, I'll let you know.

[Harry Baird]

Anything "made up" is not Christian. If you find something somebody "made up," it has no place within genuinely Christian belief.

In that case, much of what you believe is not Christian.

You really wouldn't know.

I've pointed out exactly how I do know: via its gross (and perverse) incoherence, upon which hangs the rest of the (thus largely made up itself) Story in which you believe. As expected, you ignored this, because you have no answer, and so, because you want to maintain your belief system anyway, it serves your purposes to ignore me and instead cavil on minor and irrelevant points...

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.

[...] [This is] premised on a cartoony, Catholicized view of Hell...

...this being the prime example. As AJ noticed, your intent seemed to be to diminish the severity of hell (so as to minimise the incoherence of a loving - and all-powerful - God torturing people there for eternity), yet, when challenged by AJ on this, you affirmed that hell is "considerably worse than most people can even imagine, I would think".

Your reference to the supposed Catholic view of hell, then, is merely a distraction. Deal with the core issue or don't bother.

But I will just say this: you choose your own destiny, Harry.

Take your implicit threat and shove it where the sun don't shine.

I choose divinity not because I fear a loving God sending me to an eternal hell - deranged as that idea is - but because God is loving, which means that it is something that God would never do.

[Immanuel Can]

...its gross (and perverse) incoherence...

"I don't understand" doesn't mean "it's grossly, perversely incoherent."

It just means "I don't understand...at the moment."

...your intent seemed to be to diminish the severity of hell

Did you read what I wrote?

If you did, you could not accuse me of "minimizing" it. "Maximizing," maybe...but not "minimizing."

But I will just say this: you choose your own destiny, Harry.

Take your implicit threat ...

It's not a threat.

It's what God promises.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You have offered no substantial comments on anything I have recently said.

Well, I essentially turned your "Christian Europe" theory to smoking dust some time ago. So I think that should count.

But lately you haven't said anything worth commenting on.

When you do, I'll let you know.