Christianity

[Harry Baird]

Both words "mean" something.

That's right, dude. Words have meanings. I'm glad we've finally gotten you to that point. It's been a struggle, but we made it. How shall we celebrate? How about by asking a question dear to your heart, Are unicorns real? Don't forget to submit your next question at the end!

[Dubious]

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?

True, and the same is true for every word in the bible...a compendium of distortions and contradictions which its words were meant to justify.

[Immanuel Can]

Both words "mean" something.

That's right, dude. Words have meanings.

Of course. Now let's see if we can get you to understand that "have meaning" doesn't automaticallly entail "mean something real." I don't see you riding any unicorns. But "unicorn" is a word with meaning.

So what's your warrant for using the term "justice'? What gives you a claim to any?

I'm seeing that you're being deliberately evasive. You're smart enough to know what the question is, even though you pretend not to.

Ground your claim to "justice."

Go ahead.

[seeds]

...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.

I thought I had already done that, Alexis, in this post...

viewtopic.php?p=600242#p600242

...where I offered you the following explanation of the illustration:

...I personally believe that the main and most "relevant nugget" that can be mined and isolated from the "Christian Story" is the fact that Christian metaphysics proclaims that we humans are the "offspring" (children/progeny) of the Creator of this universe, who have each been created in the image of said Creator, of which is clearly depicted in the following illustration...



Indeed, the illustration metaphorically implies that in our present form, we are what I call the "Ultimate Seeds" of the "Ultimate Lifeform" (God), with God being the fully-fruitioned "adult version" of that which we are the seeds of.

In other words, our minds contain the encapsulated ["seed-like"] potential of eventually being able to create (post death) a universe out of the living (mental) fabric of our very own being, just as God has done with the living (mental) fabric of his (her/its) own Being.

I don't know how I can make the possible truth of reality any clearer (or more "natural" and "organic") than what is implied in the illustration.

Perhaps the illustration is too straightforward?

I guess I just don't understand why you're having a problem deciphering its obvious (in your face) meaning.

If you are truly interested in analyzing my take on this situation, then have a look at my website where I definitely attempt to elucidate it all with "prose," along with over a hundred more illustrations I uploaded from a book I self-published back in 2008.

Here's the link: http://www.theultimateseeds.com/
_______

[Harry Baird]

So what's your warrant for using the term "justice'?

Listen, dickhead, let's address the elephant in the room, which I've systematically done in the last few dozen pages of this thread, and will continue to do until you acknowledge reality: any claim that it is just to condemn a person for finite, potentially minor, transgressions, to infinite, unimaginable, unending, horrific torment is one of the most perverse claims that can be imagined. The only "warrant" in question is due to whoever it is that is going to rein in the sick, twisted maniac who devised this foul, abominable, doublespeak version of 'justice'.

[Immanuel Can]

So what's your warrant for using the term "justice'?

Listen, dickhead,

Ah, the impotent rage... Reeeeeed herring!

Please, do carry on...

any claim that it is just ...

The "claim" is yours. Your allegation is that God must be "unjust," given a bunch of circumstances you name.

But you don't have an objective basis for either the expectation of, or even the meaning of the word you're invoking.

So no, logically you don't get to skip that and pretend I've got to answer a claim that you can't even make cogent. You have to ante up now. Nobody's thrown off by the bluster, the obscenities and the misdirection.

If you can tell us what "justice" is, and then prove you have an objective basis for an expectation of it, then you have a case. If you can't, then all you've got is "Harry doesn't like it."

[Sculptor]

So what's your warrant for using the term "justice'?

Listen, dickhead, let's address the elephant in the room, which I've systematically done in the last few dozen pages of this thread, and will continue to do until you acknowledge reality: any claim that it is just to condemn a person for finite, potentially minor, transgressions, to infinite, unimaginable, unending, horrific torment is one of the most perverse claims that can be imagined. The only "warrant" in question is due to whoever it is that is going to rein in the sick, twisted maniac who devised this foul, abominable, doublespeak version of 'justice'.

Nicely put.

[Harry Baird]

[Y]ou don't have an objective basis for [...] the meaning of the word you're invoking [justice --Harry].

You're absolutely brazen. How appalling. The word "justice" has an inter-subjectively agreed-upon meaning, whether you like it or not, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it.

And, of course, you ignored the elephant in the room, even after I pointed it out to you, dishonest actor as you are.

[Immanuel Can]

[Y]ou don't have an objective basis for [...] the meaning of the word you're invoking [justice --Harry].

The word "justice" has an inter-subjectively agreed-upon meaning...

Like "unicorn".

So what?

If "ghost" had an "inter-subjectively agreed-upon" meaning, does that mean you'd believe in ghosts? And "alchemy" has an "inter-subjectively agreed-upon" meaning: are you an "alchemist"?

(In point of fact, "justice" is one of the most disputed concepts we have, actually. But that doesn't even matter, compared to your total inability to justify your term at all.)

[Harry Baird]

[A load of crap]

Bringing you back to the elephant in the room. Waiting for you to address it. I know, hell will freeze over before you do, but maybe you could make, you know, like, a token gesture. Something for your grandkids to remember you by. That sort of thing.

[Harry Baird]

"Honey, don't worry, God's not going to fry you for eternity if you don't join my club. It'll be OK."

You know, just some token words of comfort for the grandkids.

(Of course he's going to f***ing fry them, but we all appreciate a token word, right?)

[Immanuel Can]

[A load of crap]

I don't think you believe that.

I think you get the point. I think you're smart enough to get it...in fact, it's because you're smart that I'm certain you DO get it. I think you just can't beat it.

[Harry Baird]

I don't think you believe that.

"Oh, well, golly gosh, I just can't see the elephant in this room. What? You say you've pointed it out to me? Well, gee whizz, I still don't know. I just can't see it. (Burn, grandkids, burn. For eternity, you scum)."

[Alexis Jacobi]

[A load of crap]

I don't think you believe that.

I think you get the point. I think you're smart enough to get it...in fact, it's because you're smart that I'm certain you DO get it. I think you just can't beat it.

Another, rather stunning, apologetic tactic: to assert that the statement, the view, the declaration, the reasoning one uses, one himself does not *really* believe, yet to include a little pat on the head "you're smart enough though to get it", should not be seen as merely condescending though it appears that way. It is simply an apologetic tactic, a sort of mind-control that might have been used in a Communist prison camp, to break through the reasoning mind and to achieve *belief*.

"What you believe you see and understand, you do not really believe it."

This is why I now believe that Evangelical Christianity and these methods and tactics are extraordinarily devious. I am not at all convinced that any conversions, religious or of any other sort, should be achieved through such devious abuses of psychological tactics.

So the issue of resisting Immanuel's entire spiel has other, more significant dimensions.

[Harry Baird]

Another, rather stunning, apologetic tactic

Yes, but we should be aware that this is a guy who, were his own child or grandchild to refuse to "accept Jesus's sacrifice", would consider that child or grandchild to be condemned to eternal torment in hell. Sure, he'd do his best to proselytise to that (grand)child, but if that failed, he would literally consider that (grand)child to be on an irrevocable consignment to hell. This is one sick puppy with whom we're dealing.