Christianity

[Harry Baird]

I said none of what you attribute to me, of course.

Of course, because it would be too damning to say out loud. It's all true though.

Straw man and ad hominem in one response?

Logical fallacies are applicable only when one is making an argument. I wasn't. I was making an observation on the perversion of your belief system.

With a further red herring thrown in

I was evading nothing, so it can't have been a red herring.

the legitimation problem

...is a figment of your imagination. The word has an inter-subjectively understood meaning, which I've quoted from multiple dictionaries. That's all the "legitimation" required. Or are dictionaries somehow no longer legitimate?

By the way, where in the Bible is justice defined and "legitimated"? C&V, please. Are you able to provide the very "legitimation" you accuse me of failing to provide?

I'm sort of flattered.

You should be. I don't spend this much time arguing with just anybody. You're interesting because in some contexts you're a very capable debater who makes cogent points, but you're also a fundamentalist who's adopted the premise that the Bible is the true word of God, and you seem to prefer to defend any irrational idea rather than challenge that premise - even when given very, very good reasons to reject it.

[Harry Baird]

[Immanuel Can proposes] a revisionist reexamination of Jesus in the Gospels (but not in apocryphal Jesus-centered literature nor in Gnosticism) but seen through a lens of strict Bible inerrancy. That is, Bible literalism.

Yep. That's his fundamental premise, which he is obdurately unwilling to reconsider. It is the given; bedrock; unimpeachable; unchallengeable. To abandon it would rent his world asunder.

As Seeds points out there is a large degree of strange absurdity when the delivered resident of Heaven focuses attention on a beloved child now in the eternal hands of torturing demons. Immanuel has both denied the imagery by saying this is 'Catholic embellishment' but yet confirmed it by saying it will be even worse than what can be imagined. He has taken away with the left hand but then replaced the horror with the right.

Exactly. It's an interesting manoeuvre. A sort of attempted magic trick, but one that we can all see through, and which somehow doesn't seem to embarrass him at all - again, because it props up his fundamental, unchallengeable premise.

But what is most interesting is that by even thinking of a heaven-world or a hell-world we are indulging in a play within our imagination. I think this must be remembered. As far as I know it is not possible to verify, for oneself, what heaven-world await or what hell-worlds await -- except through all the stories that have come down to us (pictures essentially).

I think it should also be remembered though that especially in these days of enhanced resuscitation techniques, many people who die via cardiac arrest in particular, and are, incredibly, later brought back to life, have near-death experiences (NDEs) which might give us some insight into at least the initial stages of "life after death" (via veridical experiences, they at the very least demonstrate that consciousness can exist independently of the physical, biological brain-body complex). There is a vast literature on this topic, including scientific research. And, yes, some NDEs involve hellish experiences too.

What interests me most (and this comes through all my writing) is the contemporary cultural and sociological aspect to all of this. There are millions and millions of people like Immanuel 'out there' who are viewing the world through these lenses. It all takes place in their *imagined world* but they apply it as if it is real to the occurring world of contemporary events and goings-on.

And what is your assessment of those aspects of it? To what extent do they represent danger or at least a risk, especially to the rest of us?

[Dubious]

...by becoming more totalitarian. Theism has never been democratic wherever it's in control. Whenever it infringes on the separate mandates of governments it becomes dangerous.

[attofishpi]

I said none of what you attribute to me, of course.

Of course, because it would be too damning to say out loud. It's all true though.

Harry, you do understand why IC sticks to his guns no matter how irrational the stuff he clings to in the bible is...he is scared that God might be disappointed (*or worse) with him if he QUESTIONS the "word of God" !

[Harry Baird]

...by becoming more totalitarian. Theism has never been democratic wherever it's in control. Whenever it infringes on the separate mandates of governments it becomes dangerous.

Fair point. Theocracy isn't even necessarily responsive to the adherents of its religion - it is more often a top-down governance by clerics, and, as you point out, prone to totalitarianism.

[Harry Baird]

Harry, you do understand why IC sticks to his guns no matter how irrational the stuff he clings to in the bible is...he is scared that God might be disappointed (*or worse) with him if he QUESTIONS the "word of God" !

Also a fair point. How awful to be driven by fear rather than hope. Fundamentalist Christianity seems to be a strange mix of the two.

[attofishpi]

Harry, you do understand why IC sticks to his guns no matter how irrational the stuff he clings to in the bible is...he is scared that God might be disappointed (*or worse) with him if he QUESTIONS the "word of God" !

Also a fair point. How awful to be driven by fear rather than hope. Fundamentalist Christianity seems to be a strange mix of the two.

I know. ..the irony, God knows and is disappointed by the stupid arse kissing kunts. (more than than IT is with short of sight atheists..that have behaved)

[Belinda]

Seeds quoted Meister Eckhardt:

“The seed of God is in us: Pear seeds grow into pear trees; Hazel seeds into hazel trees; And God seeds into God.”

This is a restatement of Aristotle's idea of forms, which was that each species has a form of perfection that individuals strive to meet. We must respect Aristotle's experience and acute observations as a hands-on marine biologist.
However Darwin knocked Aristotelian forms theory into the long grass.

[Immanuel Can]

the legitimation problem

...is a figment of your imagination.

Let's see if you're right.

Now, who disagrees with you? How about Jurgen Habermas (author of "The Legitimation Crisis")? What about Hans Blumenberg (author of "The Legitimation of the Modern Age")? And in specific, with regard to the difficulties of legitimating "justice" as a concept, what about Rawls, Dworking, Sen or Wolterstorff, each of whom wrote at least one volume trying to deal with the question you say is "a figment of your imagination"?

What about the vexations of "social justice" versus "personal justice" as we see these things played out every day in our newspapers? Do you think the issues are easy and straightforward? Do you suppose you can say to both sides, "Just read my dictionary's definition, and all your problems will be solved"? Or is it possible that, just maybe, you're unaware of a serious problem because nobody's ever called you to step up to it before?

In point of fact, you'll find that any philosopher worth his salt knows that legitimation is a very serious problem, especially because of the refusal to entertain God as a part of that legitimation; and that among our current difficulties, legitimation of a concept of justice is one of the hardest of all.

To say when "justice" is being done seems to depend entirely on the worldview one holds. The concept is no more stable than that. And until we discover which worldview, if any, is the real one, "justice" is going to remain as vague, wobbly and evasive as it's always been.

So, Harry, you need an account of what "justice" is, before you can accuse anyone...or any God...of falling short of that conception. And you need some evidence that the human race was promised to be given that specific attainment of "justice" in the first place, or nothing can be said to be unfair. You can't appeal to Charles Darwin or Herbert Spencer or Friedrich Nietzsche or Ayn Rand to promise you "justice."

Is that a bar you can clear? Or are you determined simply to continue in unawareness that the leap exists at all?

[Harry Baird]

So, Harry, you need an account of what "justice" is, before you can accuse anyone...or any God...of falling short of that conception.

No. You continue to avoid the elephant in the room: while there is some room for discussion as to what exactly "justice" entails, there is no sane, reasonable (dictionary) definition of justice in which infinite ("unimaginable") punishment for finite transgressions during a finite life is just. You continue to avoid (ignore) this totally reasonable point, and, thus, you continue to engage with me in bad faith.

[Harry Baird]

Darwin knocked Aristotelian forms theory into the long grass.

Hmm. It seems to me that (Neo)Darwinianism is flailing. Darwin himself flagged various possibilities that he was concerned would falsify his theory if they turned out to be the case, which they have. It is doubtful that even Darwin would be a Darwinian in the modern age.

[Immanuel Can]

So, Harry, you need an account of what "justice" is, before you can accuse anyone...or any God...of falling short of that conception.

No.

Yes. And all those philosophers I pointed out to you agree with me you do. Check them out.

[Harry Baird]

[I refuse to even acknowledge the elephant in the room, let alone to address it. I thus continue to engage in bad faith, and cannot in any way be taken seriously.]

Righty-ho, then.

[Belinda]

Darwin knocked Aristotelian forms theory into the long grass.

Hmm. It seems to me that (Neo)Darwinianism is flailing. Darwin himself flagged various possibilities that he was concerned would falsify his theory if they turned out to be the case, which they have. It is doubtful that even Darwin would be a Darwinian in the modern age.

That is news to me. If I have time I will try to Google natural selection as the origin of species.

[Immanuel Can]

[I refuse to even acknowledge the elephant in the room, let alone to address it. I thus continue to engage in bad faith, and cannot in any way be taken seriously.]

Righty-ho, then.

Interesting.

You would rather "script" for me yourself, putting words into my mouth (allegedly) and then dismissing your own creations than deal with what I acutally DO say. And you're running from the preponderance of philosophical opinion as fast as you can.

I wonder if that doesn't show exactly how vulnerable you know you are, by way of making the accusation in the first place. You're trying to invoke an objective conception of "justice," one that requires there to be an objective Source and Promiser of justice...in order to accuse the Source and Promiser of justice of failure to deliver what you insist He cannot exist to owe you.

And you cannot see the incoherence of that? I think you do.