Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

...I am not so sure that this is fair. I have asked you, in effect: "Once you have stripped back so much as you do from Christianity - especially including the foundational concept that Christ (as Saviour) is the fundamental anchor of the Christian religion - then what is left?"

Cant say that I remember the question being asked in quite that way, but no matter.

I would not say that the idea, or let's say the metaphysical concept, of salvation has been invalidated, but it is opened as a question: what does it mean to be 'saved' and from what and to what? I do not at all consider the idea invalid. If I were forced, let's say at gunpoint, to reveal what I really think I would say that the Hebrew notion of 'salvation' (political and social rescue or deliverance) got weirdly blended with a Greco-philosophical idea which had to do, far more, with putting one's soul in order properly within the manifest world and life.

Going further (and I did talk about this, to the degree that one does talk with Immanuel) months back I mentioned that I disagree with the idea of becoming, as often Christians will say, a 'slave of God'. So I am not at all partial to the notion that God 'grants' this state of salvation. The entire Christian salvific paradigm seems skewed to me.

And on the other side of this issue or question is that of: if one defines a God of this world one must define, mustn't one? that god's will in and for this world. But what is that will?

[iambiguous]

If I were to accept that you are right, and there's no God (unless you wish to invoke another kind of god, I suppose), then there's no basis for you to claim that anything is "unfair" or "unjust." Under things like Materialism, Physicalism, Progressivism, and Social Constructivism, what ever you get is simply whatever you get.

There's no basis for a complaint, and nobody listening if you do complain. The uncaring cosmos does not care about your sense of "fairness." It's just a delusion you're having.

Well put.

In the sense that, yes, if there is no omniscient/omnipotent Creator, how are mere mortals not back to this:

"In the absence of God, all things are permitted".

That's exactly where they are. But not just that "all things are permitted," but that nothing else is ever even promised.

If life seems "unfair," then too bad; because life is all that there is. There's no "fair" or "unfair," no "just" or "unjust," there's just whatever paradise or dumpster fire actually goes on in life.

There is no court of appeal on that, either. What you got, you got. Live with it. That is the only possibility. You certainly have no grounds to complain about it, and nothing that cares if you do complain.

Hey, I'm with you here.

At least up to the part where human interactions here come back to the third factor:

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of your God or religious/spiritual path

2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?

3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in Gods and religious/spiritual faiths

4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God or religious/spiritual path

Instead, it is [from my own subjective frame of mind] your abject failure to take the Christian God to substantive discussions of the other three factors as well that prompts me to dismiss you as someone here actually worthy of discussion itself.

This part especially:

...an endless procession of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and tornadoes and hurricanes and great floods and great droughts and great fires and deadly viral and bacterial plagues and miscarriages and hundreds and hundreds of medical and mental afflictions and extinction events...making life on Earth a living hell for countless millions of men, women and children down through the ages...

To me, you're just one more fanatical objectivist who clings to his own particular font in order to anchor his precious Self to Morality on this side of the grave and Immortality and Salvation on the other side of it. There are hundreds and hundreds of them out there to choose from. Whatever, given the "psychology of objectivism", most comforts and consoles you all the way to the grave.

[Harry Baird]

...I am not so sure that this is fair. I have asked you, in effect: "Once you have stripped back so much as you do from Christianity - especially including the foundational concept that Christ (as Saviour) is the fundamental anchor of the Christian religion - then what is left?"

Cant say that I remember the question being asked in quite that way, but no matter.

Hmm. Maybe not quite that explicitly, but I did more or less say something a while back in this thread like (and I think you'll remember this): "Once you have excised the beating heart of Christ from Christianity, what is left?"

I would not say that the idea, or let's say the metaphysical concept, of salvation has been invalidated, but it is opened as a question: what does it mean to be 'saved' and from what and to what?

Quite. This is the crucial question behind the argument I've raised, which Immanuel Can so resents and has no defence against:

From what are we being saved?

The obvious answer on a fundamentalist understanding of Christianity is "Eternal torment in hell".

When you examine the argument though, it's obvious that this punishment is incommensurate with a loving and just Being, and the idea that this Being incarnated so as to be crucified so as to annul His handing out of the punishment in the first place becomes an utter farce.

I do not at all consider the idea invalid. If I were forced, let's say at gunpoint, to reveal what I really think I would say that the Hebrew notion of 'salvation' (political and social rescue or deliverance) got weirdly blended with a Greco-philosophical idea which had to do, far more, with putting one's soul in order properly within the manifest world and life.

Going further (and I did talk about this, to the degree that one does talk with Immanuel) months back I mentioned that I disagree with the idea of becoming, as often Christians will say, a 'slave of God'. So I am not at all partial to the notion that God 'grants' this state of salvation. The entire Christian salvific paradigm seems skewed to me.

For me, hell is a likely (demoniac) reality, just as heaven is a likely (divine) reality. I am a dualist. Thus, on my conception, God did not create hell, but nor does God have the power (for the moment) to dispel it. This is how I recognise that which seems to be real at the same time as avoiding the sort of perverse contradiction that those of Immanuel Can's ilk cannot.

And on the other side of this issue or question is that of: if one defines a God of this world one must define, mustn't one? that god's will in and for this world. But what is that will?

My answer is: God created a playground for God's children. That playground was invaded by a morally oppositional and wicked force. The playground became a battlefield.

[seeds]

No, the "Scholastic Model" (of which you have posed as being synonymous with the concept of the Great Chain of Being) is still there, and it (the "GCoB") simply needs to be envisioned more accurately.

If this is so then each of these, as models, is still operative and functional. Yet you say that they need revision and up-dating.

So again I think we need to linger for awhile over what exactly is and were the models that we talk about. The famous Ulysses Speech in Troilus and Cressida is often quoted when 'cosmic order' (so important to to the Medieval mind) was thought of:

The heavens themselves, the planets and this centre
Observe degree, priority and place,
Insisture, course, proportion, season, form,
Office and custom, in all line of order;
And therefore is the glorious planet Sol
In noble eminence enthroned and sphered
Amidst the other; whose medicinable eye
Corrects the ill aspects of planets evil,
And posts, like the commandment of a king,
Sans cheque to good and bad: but when the planets
In evil mixture to disorder wander,
What plagues and what portents! what mutiny!
What raging of the sea! shaking of earth!
Commotion in the winds! frights, changes, horrors,
Divert and crack, rend and deracinate
The unity and married calm of states
Quite from their fixure! O, when degree is shaked,
Which is the ladder to all high designs,
Then enterprise is sick! How could communities,
Degrees in schools and brotherhoods in cities,
Peaceful commerce from dividable shores,
The primogenitive and due of birth,
Prerogative of age, crowns, sceptres, laurels,
But by degree, stand in authentic place?
Take but degree away, untune that string,
And, hark, what discord follows! each thing meets
In mere oppugnancy: the bounded waters
Should lift their bosoms higher than the shores
And make a sop of all this solid globe:
Strength should be lord of imbecility,
And the rude son should strike his father dead:
Force should be right; or rather, right and wrong,
Between whose endless jar justice resides,
Should lose their names, and so should justice too.
Then every thing includes itself in power,
Power into will, will into appetite;
And appetite, an universal wolf,
So doubly seconded with will and power,
Must make perforce an universal prey,
And last eat up himself.

Briefly, it begins with a reference to what in Vedanta is known as Rta or hierarchical order. The surrounding cosmos is, then, a diagram of heavenly relationship. They all stand in their specific place and operate together....

We can discuss the old models until the cows come home.

However, if it is not for the reason of mining them for their valuable nuggets of inherent metaphysical information (as is implied in Hermeticism's "prisca theologia"),...

...then all we are doing is perpetuating the confusion that arises from the archaic language being used to present what, again, is (mostly) nothing more than mythological nonsense.

Indeed, your "...famous Ulysses Speech in Troilus and Cressida...", and even my use of the term "prisca theologia," are prime examples of the archaic language I am speaking of.

We don't need esoteric "poetry" anymore (as is seen in the "Ulysses Speech"), we need greater "clarity."

And I suggest that clarity can begin by understanding - once and for all - that there was no "fall" of man from some higher state to a lower state.

In other words, the temporary state of confusion we are presently experiencing during our momentary existence within the opaque confines of this universe is not some kind of cleansing punishment (or worthiness trial) that humans must endure for whatever silly reason suggested in our mythological fables.

No, our inability to see and understand what I believe is the wonderful and amazing truth of our ultimate (post-death) destiny, as is suggested in my flagship illustration...



...is simply the result of a purposeful (as in designed) attenuation of our consciousness in order to help hide that higher truth from us "seeds" so that we do not long for it or try to seek it out prematurely.

Unfortunately, our necessary (somnambulistic) level of consciousness (some more than others) is not only responsible for the current state of the "contemporary events" you mentioned earlier, but also for much of what we think of as "evilness" in humans.

However, we must try to have faith in the fact that the status quo is not permanent.

And that is not only implied in my fanciful illustration, but also in some of those mined "nuggets" from Christian metaphysics (the topic of this thread, lest we forget) which proclaim...

"...Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again..."

Or this nugget...

"...we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye..."

Or this one which states that God is going to...

"...change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body..."

Or this one...

"...it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is..."

As always, I do not insist that I cannot be wrong about all of this,...

...however, just let the implications of those nuggets sink in and see how perfectly they apply to the above illustration.
_______

[Alexis Jacobi]

...however, just let the implications of those nuggets sink in and see how perfectly they apply to the above illustration.

It would be helpful if you'd elucidate, in prose, what your diagram means. It is not strikingly obvious to me.

[Immanuel Can]

Look, Harry: I'm not trying to anger you. I'm quite calm about this. However, I find that when people result to unsavoury epithets, it's never because they feel themselves to be in a strong position, rationally speaking. It's because they sense there's a chasm of logical failure yawning for them, and they're trying to stay out of it by drawing attention to something irrelevant to the rationality of the argument.

I am under no illusion that your position is remotely strong,...

It's your own that we're talking about, Harry.

It's you that alleges that "injustice" exists. It's you that thinks you can accuse God of allowng "injustice."

But in your world, the one you imagine yourself to be in, that is, there are no such cases. Nothing is ever "unjust."

As for the world God tells us we are actually in, God, the only basis of a standard of "justice" is "The Just One." That you don't like His justice makes it not one bit less likely to pertain.

[Harry Baird]

the only basis of a standard of "justice" is "The Just One."

Yep, just like the only standard of sanity is The Eminently Sane Charles Manson. You idiot.

[Harry Baird]

The only basis of a standard of beauty is this year's Prom Queen. (P.S. She's white).

The only basis of a standard of culture is capitalistic democracy. Love those new wide-screen TVs!

The only basis of a standard of intelligence is your undergraduate professor. He knows so much!

The only basis of a standard of justice is whatever the Bible permits, whilst not explicitly deeming it just.

Sounds legit.

[Immanuel Can]

the only basis of a standard of "justice" is "The Just One."

Yep, just like the only standard of sanity is The Eminently Sane Charles Manson. You idiot.

You're abusive only because you know you're being irrational.

You have no grounds for any "justice" concept. Therefore, you have no accusation.

The truth is, you have to access the concept of objective "justice" in order to make the accusation; and you have no grounds for any belief in such.

For that, you would need God. But you refuse to believe He exists.

So now you paddle in circles, like a one-armed rower, trying to figure out what happened to your other oar. But without a conception of justice that you can defend rationally, you're helpless.

[Harry Baird]

You have no grounds for any "justice" concept.

Yeah, words only mean what they mean when the Bible doesn't use them in a different way, in which case, they're properly grounded. You idiot.

[Alexis Jacobi]

As for the world God tells us we are actually in, God, the only basis of a standard of "justice" is "The Just One." That you don't like His justice makes it not one bit less likely to pertain.

There you have it, of course: Immanuel is convinced, and there can be no doubt, and no doubt could be admitted, that the world is as it is described in the Bible, or at least in parts of the NT.

So when he argues he is not really arguing he is only repeating what is described in the Bible. However, he cannot see, and could not admit, that the entire story (the presentation of justice) is riddled with contradictions.

There is no argument possible against God's word. There might be a pretending toward 'let's be reasonable' or 'let's reason this through' but that is all a sham and only to appear discursive.

Immanuel's sole purpose is to achieve a conversion to a strict Evangelical belief-position.

You can, and we could, argue reasonably and rationally until blue in the face. But the fact is: Immanuel's position could not change. If one pillar trembles, and Heaven forbid if it falls, the entire structure is in danger of collapse. He knows this and so he does not concede one solitary point, even if 'logic' or 'reason' demand it.

Selah.

[Immanuel Can]

You have no grounds for any "justice" concept.

Yeah, words only mean what they mean when the Bible doesn't use them in a different way, in which case, they're properly grounded.

You. Your concept. Not the Biblical one. It's fine, if its assumptions are true. But you've got nothing. Your claims aren't even rationalizable if everything you claim you think about the universe is also true.

I can see you don't understand what "grounding a concept" means. At the risk of seeming pedantic, I'll help you out.

It means that you have to be able to say...at the minumum...what set of assumptions makes it rational for you to believe in your concept. That doesn't make your opponents grant you either your assumptions or your concept. It's much more modest than that, and much more basic, too: all it means is that IF your assumptions are true, THEN your concept would be warranted.

But there is no logical connection, no possible warrant, between things like Evolutionism, Progressivism, Materialism, and so on and "justice" being objective.

For that reason, your claim isn't even POTENTIALLY justified. It can't even POTENTIALLY refer to any reality, GIVEN that all your own suppositions turn out to be 100% true.

There's nothing so comprehensively losing as a proposition that isn't rational even if all its suppositions are granted. That's what the claim "we live in a godless universe, and it's unjust" amounts to.

[Harry Baird]

There might be a pretending toward 'let's be reasonable' or 'let's reason this through' but that is all a sham and only to appear discursive.

Quite. It's also a power play, which is why I rejected his B.S. "How about we have a Socratic dialogue which I control?" attempt in response to the challenge which is my argument.

[Harry Baird]

I can see you don't understand what "grounding a concept" means.

I can see you don't give a flying fig what words mean, except when you use them in sentences which you expect me to read, so let's dispense with the pretence that you're behaving at all rationally.

[Immanuel Can]

I can see you don't understand what "grounding a concept" means.

I can see you don't give a flying fig what words mean,

The word "justice" does not simply justify itself, anymore than the word "unicorn" justifies itself.

Both words "mean" something. Both are understood in a specific way by a specific group of people. But HAVING A DEFINITION DOESN'T MAKE A WORD TRUE/REALISTIC. There are no unicorns. Is there such a thing as "justice"? And is Harry owed any?

That, you will have to demonstrate. Nobody has any reason to believe you're owed anything, so long as you cannot. Nobody even has a reason to believe the concept refers to a reality, if you do not.

Let's see you ride that unicorn.