Christianity

[Harry Baird]

To stoke the fires for the sole end of combustion, then?

Oh, wait, now I get it. Even better: to attempt to demonstrate that there is no universally agreed-upon Christian doctrine on the everlasting nature of hell.

Setting aside whether or not that even matters, given what the Bible actually says and can reasonably be understood to say, that's not the point. The point is what Immanuel Can believes and promotes, since he's the dude who's making the claims that I'm contesting.

[henry quirk]

In other words: it ain't about Christianity...it's personal.

You're disqualified.

[Harry Baird]

In other words: it ain't about Christianity...it's personal.

You're disqualified.

You ignored this:

given what the Bible actually says and can reasonably be understood to say

In other words, I do have a non-personal view. To be explicit: my view is that the Bible endorses an eternal hell, and, since mainstream Christianity at least ostensibly is based on the Bible, "the" Christian view is that hell is eternal.

Immanuel Can seems to share this view. Thus, it is both personal and generic.

[Lacewing]

I'm the guy who wants nobody to go to Hell...and I'm "the Devil," am I?

Well of course you are, Mannie...

I've often gotten the impression he's working for the 'other side' and wondered whether or not he knows it. He practically drools with glee over his condemnations of people. And based on his communication and responses on this forum, he's the most dishonest and twisted example of a Christian I've ever experienced. Many reasonable people on this forum see and voice the same. If he is a Christian in his heart, it is not coming through in his communication. Rather, it appears that he uses it as a platform to stand above others.

Make no mistake: each of your opponents -- the reformer, the perv, the psych-case, the hippy, etc. -- are deathly afraid of damnation, which is surprisin' since every last claims Hell is hooey. Closet'd Christians (among other things) raiilin' against that which they publicly dismiss and privately fear is true.

You have no idea what is privately true for people, Henry. You're very stupid to think that you do. There is no Hell or damnation for a lot of people. If you believe in it for yourself, that's your trip. And some people are going to think that's a dumb trip. Claiming that they're secretly afraid of your dumb trip is a level of stupid that surpasses your normal level of stupid.

[seeds]

Mr. Can does not believe in or accept the very premise upon which Christianity is founded,...

(that being an inherited guilt derived from an "Original Sin" committed by Adam and Eve - an inherited guilt that needs a "savior" to wash clean from one's soul before dying)

Huh. I didn't know that.

I'll let you judge for yourself as to why I say such a thing about Mr. Can.

Clearly, the premise upon which Christianity is founded was established in the context of a "mythological fable" in which two newly created (and child-like) humans (Adam and Eve) were unable to resist the persuasive words of the most powerful "silver-tongued" demon in all of reality - Satan...

...who, masquerading in the guise of a "talking snake," gave Eve all kinds of interesting and enticing reasons as to why she and Adam should go ahead and eat the fruit from a tree that God specifically forbade them to eat.

First of all, why in the world would an allegedly "omniscient" God...

(a Being who would have known - at all times - precisely what was taking place in the garden he created)

...allow his newly created (innocent and gullible) children to be left alone with the evilest and most insidiously clever demon in all of existence?

I mean, setting aside the obvious fact that God probably shouldn't have put that particular tree in the garden in the first place, nevertheless, wouldn't a little bit of routine "garden pest control" have nipped this original sin business in the bud,...



...and thus precluded the need for God to "sacrifice" the life of his only begotten son - Jesus?

(Btw, in regard to this "sacrifice" business, the truth is that God merely offered-up Jesus to receive an extremely nasty whoopin' (thanks dad), for God would have known that Jesus [an eternally living member of the triune Godhead] wasn't really going to die in any literal or permanent sense. But I digress.)

Anyway, getting back to the point of this post, which is in reference to Mr. Con's hypocrisy in pretending to be a bona fide Christian,...

...The end result of that mythological (phantasmagorical) fiasco described above is, again, the creation of the false premise upon which Christianity is founded, which is centered on the need for a "savior" (a "sacrificial lamb") to step in and absorb all of the guilt that we each inherited from a mythological situation that never actually took place in any real sense.

All of which is summed-up nicely in a short blurb from the Encyclopedia Britannica that I previously uploaded for Mr. Con as a counter to his contradictory nonsense (emphasis mine)...

Original sin, in Christian doctrine, the condition or state of sin into which each human being is born; also, the origin (i.e., the cause, or source) of this state.

Traditionally, the origin has been ascribed to the sin of the first man, Adam, who disobeyed God in eating the forbidden fruit (of knowledge of good and evil) and, in consequence, transmitted his sin and guilt by heredity to his descendants.

Notice that the guilt of Adam's highly specific sin (the eating of the forbidden fruit) is what we have each inherited.

In other words, according to Christianity, all humans are born guilty by reason of our ancient ancestor's (Adam's) transgression.

However,...

...according to Mr. Con in a debate he had with Belinda in an alternate thread...

The present economic wealth of Europe and the US is founded upon and still benefits from the slave trade

...to which Mr. Con asserted...

Do you want to make children guilty for what their distant forefathers chose to do? In what court would that be considered "justice"?

You don't become guilty by being born. That's ridiculous...

...So I call "hogwash" on that.

...to which I responded with...

Wow, that's one of the most brazenly hypocritical things I have ever heard a Christian say.

Indeed, you have just inadvertently (and correctly) admitted that the very premise upon which Christianity is founded...

(i.e., "original sin")

...is not only ridiculous, but "hogwash."

Now, Mr. Con said in this current thread that he has straightened me out on that issue a couple of times.

Unfortunately, Mr. Con's idea of straightening me out comes in the form of his customary method of branching-off into obfuscating tangents where he twists and contorts the facts provided to him, along with accusing me (and the rest of the world) of not understanding the true meaning of the term "Original Sin."

And I have no doubt that his response to all of this (should he choose to give one) will be a reaffirmation of his insistence that the concept of "Original Sin" doesn't mean what I and the Britannica blurb have pointed out.

To "straighten me out" he will say things such as this...

You're still misunderstanding the term. "Original sin" we might say, is something like inheriting a gene for a dread disease like cystic fibrosis:...

But when pressed for the historical source of this "inherited" curse (as in from whom or what was it "inherited" from?), he either ignores the question, or doubles down on his accusation of how everyone else is misunderstanding the concept.

The silly irony of this debate is that all of this wind and bluster we are all directing at each other is over nothing more than a load of mythological nonsense that, again, never actually took place in any real context.

In which case we may as well be arguing over the details of how the Japanese deity Izanagi knocked-up his sister Izanami, who then gave birth to the islands of Japan.

And the even greater irony is that I actually admire Mr. Con's unshakable tenacity and intelligently articulate style of argumentation, but, regrettably for him, he ruins and taints it all with his obvious dishonesty.
_______

[Harry Baird]

Seeds, as I have recently on more than one occasion said of AJ's posts, in more or less these words: in that post, you excelled yourself, sir. Bravo. (And, again, I snip its contents only to avoid congesting this thread).

[Immanuel Can]

It's not a game. It was a conversation.

Now, it's not.

It was never a conversation.

Yes, I see that now.

Well, you're never going to engage my questions, and I'm never going to concede your errant presuppositions. So we really don't have any common basis from which to proceed.

So it's not a conversation. Not much else can be said.

[Harry Baird]

[With missing context reinserted]

It was never a conversation. It was my proof to you of the incoherence of [your] belief system

Yes, I see that now.

Good. So, you also see that, by default, by your refusing to even acknowledge that I've made it, let alone pointing out any false premise in it, you concede my argument: that Christianity as you conceive of it is fundamentally incoherent.

Unless or until you engage with that argument (or even just the question on which it is based), that will remain the case: your belief system is wrecked, and you thus have no basis on which to threaten the rest of us with eternal damnation.

The invitation remains open for you to respond - otherwise, you remain a Satanic sympathiser and enabler.

[Harry Baird]

I've often gotten the impression he's working for the 'other side'

It's not just an impression, it's the objective truth. Anybody who claims that God, who is both (in his opinion) omnipotent and (by any reasonable understanding) fundamentally good, would commit one of the beings He created to (pretty much) literally the worst possible imaginable circumstance is in effect claiming our good God to be (pretty much) the most evil being imaginable. That's by definition working for the other side.

and wondered whether or not he knows it.

Nah, he's just a useful idiot who's been fooled by the people around him.

[Dubious]

And the even greater irony is that I actually admire Mr. Con's unshakable tenacity and intelligently articulate style of argumentation, but, regrettably for him, he ruins and taints it all with his obvious dishonesty.
_______

Unshakable tenacity is seldom a virtue but in fact a major defect if it leads to a fanaticism forced to defend itself by any and all devious means imaginable without which it remains indefensible. It's also at that point which is usually arrived at somewhat early in most of Mr. Can's severely deformed explanations that any intelligently articulate style of argumentation defaults to a complete farce in preempting objections and questions; instead of becoming articulate they become thoroughly coarse and unrefined to any arguments challenging his infallible belief in the bible as god's unquestionable truths.

But, I guess one shouldn't blame anyone too much in those circumstances since one can only defend the absurd with the absurd. If that weren't true, the infrastructures of faith - which metaphorically are still insulated in their own Garden of Eden - would undergo a severe reality check when evicted.

[Harry Baird]

in that post, you excelled yourself, sir.

Doh, I fell prey to the old gender supposition. Please forgive me, seeds, if "sir" should have been "ma'am".

[seeds]

in that post, you excelled yourself, sir.

Doh, I fell prey to the old gender supposition. Please forgive me, seeds, if "sir" should have been "ma'am".

Nah, dude here.

And thank you, Harry, for the kind words.
_______

[Age]

I've often gotten the impression he's working for the 'other side'

It's not just an impression, it's the objective truth. Anybody who claims that God, who is both (in his opinion) omnipotent and (by any reasonable understanding) fundamentally good, would commit one of the beings He created to (pretty much) literally the worst possible imaginable circumstance is in effect claiming our good God to be (pretty much) the most evil being imaginable. That's by definition working for the other side.

Although "immanuel can" is on the '"other side", as "immanuel can" is, literally, playing the 'devil' here, so to are ALL of 'you', posters, here MISINTERPRETING and MISUNDERSTANDING what was Truly intended and Truly meant by the words in the bible, and this 'MISSING THE MARK' is, literally, what the word 'sinning' means and refers to. Thus, 'the devil in action'.

When read properly and correctly what the words in the bible mean or refer to, EXACTLY, then it ALL makes PERFECT SENSE and is NOT contradictory AT ALL, like the way the bible is being read and MISINTERPRETED here by "immanuel can" and by ALL of the "others" here.

and wondered whether or not he knows it.

Nah, he's just a useful idiot who's been fooled by the people around him.

AND, fooled by "its" own 'self, as well as fooling "its" own 'self'.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I simply do not think there can be one life only. One span. That idea is inconsistent with an immortal soul.

An immortal soul is only our reconstruction serving as a bridge into an afterlife. There is nothing more to it than that. In that sense it has purpose and meaning for us, or those who need it. The dead neither require nor desire any such sequel. The concept of an immortal soul is as inherently ridiculous as the biblical mandate one must believe in Jesus to be saved. It never ceases to amaze that by virtue of being human an extra dimension of existence should be appended beyond what is given...being that part which insists on having more. What is your 70 or 80 years worth in a universe which has billions more to go? Weird that one can simply incubate an immortal soul which commences in mortality whose remnants, once defunct, are prelude to an endless life however it may manifest. An infinitesimal incipient to the eternal...or is there some other explanation as to what immortal soul is meant to denote?

No Dubious, I think you may be wrong. And I am sure that if I were to know more of your philosophical view, which is grounded in a pretty strict materialism, the logic of your reasoning would make sense, of course, but I am unsure it would really be true.

The concept of an immortal soul is as inherently ridiculous as the biblical mandate one must believe in Jesus to be saved.

No, it does not follow. The notion behind the statement that a man requires salvation has soundness if it is correctly understood. But the notion does involve a sort of 'diagramming' of reality which you, for sure, object to. That is the idea of 'higher intelligences' and all that is connoted by the idea of divinity or God. I do not reject these ideas. But I do not have any problem seeing them through different lenses. But I can certainly accept and respect that you do not see things in these ways.

It is not hard to understand why in your view the idea of 'immortal soul' has become preposterous. But I do not think your position as such has any particular weight or merit. It is (it seems to be) just an opinion that you hold.

...or is there some other explanation as to what immortal soul is meant to denote?

It depends on what explanatory system one resorts to, right? If you asked me personally why I have the idea it is because of my own experiences. That is, experiences I'd describe of a *spiritual* nature. Do I consider these an *absolute proof*? Certainly not. But the ideas (perceptions) are resilient and for that reason I hold to them.

[Immanuel Can]

...by your refusing to even acknowledge that I've made it, let alone pointing out any false premise in it, you concede...

Of course not.

I simple refuse to accept any of the premises you've tried to compel upon me. And, of course, I explained why they were false. But you neither liked my answer, nor asked to understand my objections. As you say, this was never a conversation, apparently.

Well, okay.

Unless or until you engage with that argument (or even just the question on which it is based), that will remain the case: your belief system is wrecked,

You're so funny, Harry.

Your claim amounts to, "Unless you accept the script I'm trying to hand you, you have been destroyed..."

No, Harry...no such problem for me, and no such luck for you. Neither my beliefs nor the truth of any matter is going to rise and fall on your approval...I'm sorry to tell you.

...you thus have no basis on which to threaten the rest of us with eternal damnation.

I've not "threatened" anyone, Harry. What an odd idea!

In fact, I've given you quotation, chapter and verse, to show you beyond any question that your debate is with the Bible, not me. You can tie me to a stake and roast me, if you can figure out how...it won't change a darn thing. There's no "threat" there, and I am utterly incapable of bringing about anything that is not destined to happen anyway. How could you imagine otherwise?

But here's the truth: if there's a Great Judgment coming, the only favour I can do for you is to warn you of it. To fail to do so would be an act of hideous negligence, if not of outright contempt for your soul. (That you may not believe that, is one thing. That I do believe it, that's quite another. We each have our role to play, and must play it ethically, of course.)

And if, as you wish to assert, I were simply wrong, there is no harm done. Take a page from Taylor Swift, and "shake it off." Why should you perturb your soul about things that you have successfully decided have no basis in fact, or even in possibility? Be at peace: all is well.

All you really have to be concerned about is whether or not there's any chance I'm right, and the Bible does say what I've showed you it says, and it is the Word of God speaking to you. But you've already said that's not possible, haven't you? So again, what's the source of the consternation?

Bottom line: If you're certain, if you don't mind staking your own future on that, then no harm done. But if you're wrong, I've done you the biggest favour I could possibly do a human being, by alerting you to the danger and telling you there's a way to avoid it, before it comes.

I leave it with you.