Christianity

[Harry Baird]

I wasn't quite sure what you were getting at. You might have been suggesting that there was an element of a kind of intelligent, or purposeful, guidance involved in the process of biological evolution, which would have been interesting.

There could be an element of that too. I'm not saying I have all the answers, or a fixed view - it just seems inevitable that intelligence of some sort has to be involved. Whether that intelligence is Divine, angelic, alien, or whatever, I don't know.

That is why I tried to probe into what you might be hinting at; it wasn't really a challenge. Now that you've brought God into the conversation I'm afraid my interest has evaporated. But thanks for your indulgence.

No worries.

[Harry Baird]

As far as I'm aware, although I admit that I'm not aware of much, there isn't really any doubt that all life on Earth evolved from something very simple. Does that fit in with your favoured version of events?

Not so much, no, but it really depends on what you mean by "evolved". I don't think species originated via (Neo)Darwinian evolution, but, potentially, *designs* were evolved as time went on by the intelligence(s) which created them.

What is a "non-physical intelligence" ? ' Non-physical' is sort of intelligible, but 'intelligence' has several meanings. Sometimes it means information, sometimes it means cleverness, sometimes it means good at passing IQ tests. I suspect that Harry when he says intelligence he means purpose but he is trying to sound mysterious.

Mysterious? No, not at all. By intelligence I simply mean that which all of us humans possess, by which we can, for example, contemplate an outcome we desire, and plan how to achieve it (and then implement it, which almost always involves some, perhaps less intense, degree of intelligence too).

Harry is probably a believer in God as pancreator Who acted at a point in time.

I do believe in a creative God, yes, but a God whose creativity is not confined to a single point of time.

[Harry Baird]

Got an answer for the legitimation problem yet, Harry?

Still struggling to open a dictionary, Immanuel Can? I've even quoted several for you. Is it perhaps a little too difficult for you to accept that words have meanings?

There's no answer to an imaginary problem, but since you consider it to be a real one, you might want to finally answer my question:

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?

Oh, and, watch out for that tusk. There's still that pesky elephant in the room that just won't go away.

[Immanuel Can]

But to contemplate justice necessitates pondering the dreaded G word, the ground, the deniers must oppose

Indeed it does.

I think we all have an intutive sense of "justice." We may not all be able to be precise as to what it entails in every case, but it has something to do with, so to speak, "getting just what you deserve."

The problem is that we are not very good judges of what we "deserve." We tend to rather like ourselves, and to be awfully willing to excuse and extenuate any expression of evil in us as "not typical," or " momentary mistake," or "excusable, under the circumstances." And we don't go further and ask, "How was that evil action even possible to me?" or "How did I become the kind of person that would do that?" or "What does it say about me, about my real nature, that I could come up with that sort of nastiness...and with the mendacity to excuse it afterward?"

It's not unusual for criminals, in jail for offenses that get them a life sentence, even, to tell you they're "not bad people." It seems we're not very good at knowing what we're really like.

And we simply don't do that kind of introspection. And because we don't, we fail to realize that we are constitutionally, not just actively, in opposition to God and to good. And we do nothing to address that constitutional problem, because we like ourselves the way we are, and find such introspection far too painful to perform.

That's why taking what God says about justice seriously is our first real glimpse of how things actually are. We would rather delude ourselves; Scripture wakes us up to where we really are. And as painful as that can be, it's the first step toward salvation.

[Immanuel Can]

Got an answer for the legitimation problem yet, Harry?

Still struggling to open a dictionary, Immanuel Can?

You still thinking defining a word legitimates it? Sorry, Harry...you know it doesn't. I simply don't believe you're not smart enough to know that. You're being merely obtuse.

[Harry Baird]

Not so much, no, but it really depends on what you mean by "evolved". I don't think species originated via (Neo)Darwinian evolution, but, potentially, *designs* were evolved as time went on by the intelligence(s) which created them.

What is a "non-physical intelligence" ? ' Non-physical' is sort of intelligible, but 'intelligence' has several meanings. Sometimes it means information, sometimes it means cleverness, sometimes it means good at passing IQ tests. I suspect that Harry when he says intelligence he means purpose but he is trying to sound mysterious.

Mysterious? No, not at all. By intelligence I simply mean that which all of us humans possess, by which we can, for example, contemplate an outcome we desire, and plan how to achieve it (and then implement it, which almost always involves some, perhaps less intense, degree of intelligence too).

Belinda, I should also clarify that I was using "intelligence(s)" as a shorthand for "intelligent agent(s)/being(s)".

[Harry Baird]

You still thinking defining a word legitimates it?

The question at issue turns on the meaning of the word "justice" - easily accessible via a dictionary - not this red herring of "legitimation" that you've introduced.

So, back atcha: I simply don't believe you're not smart enough to know that. You're being merely obtuse.

[Immanuel Can]

You still thinking defining a word legitimates it?

The question at issue turns on the meaning of the word "justice"

No, the legitimacy of your conception of "justice."

"Meaning," as in "having a dictionary definition," can be met by "unicorn," "pixies," "phrenology," "ghost," and a whole host of other concepts that have no correspondence to reality.

...this red herring of "legitimation" that you've introduced.

So you accuse Habermas, Rawls, et al. of merely floating "red herrings," do you?

Sorry, Harry...being unaware of a serious philosophical problem is not the same as having solved it. You still have no legitimation for your conception of "justice."

[Belinda]

Not so much, no, but it really depends on what you mean by "evolved". I don't think species originated via (Neo)Darwinian evolution, but, potentially, *designs* were evolved as time went on by the intelligence(s) which created them.

What is a "non-physical intelligence" ? ' Non-physical' is sort of intelligible, but 'intelligence' has several meanings. Sometimes it means information, sometimes it means cleverness, sometimes it means good at passing IQ tests. I suspect that Harry when he says intelligence he means purpose but he is trying to sound mysterious.

Mysterious? No, not at all. By intelligence I simply mean that which all of us humans possess, by which we can, for example, contemplate an outcome we desire, and plan how to achieve it (and then implement it, which almost always involves some, perhaps less intense, degree of intelligence too).

Harry is probably a believer in God as pancreator Who acted at a point in time.

I do believe in a creative God, yes, but a God whose creativity is not confined to a single point of time.

I am glad you cleared that up. I endorse what you say except that there is seems to me to be little difference between the deity you describe and what I'd call nature. The difference is that Nature does not intend to accomplish anything whereas the deity you worthship did and does intend. I'd have thought only intelligent animals with memories and central nervous systems can intend.

[seeds]

Your diagrams are ugly, boringly obscure ,and I long since stopped even looking at them. Meister Eckhardt is much more interesting which is why I even bothered to reply to you. I never reply to rude people .

Wow, Belinda, I know that we've often disagreed with each other over the years, but I guess I never realized the level of contempt you held for me.

Furthermore, someone who says something like this...

Your diagrams are ugly, boringly obscure ,and I long since stopped even looking at them

....has no business calling me rude (unless it's a situation of it takes one to know one).

Btw, how was I being rude to you?

And lastly,...

(and you'll be happy to know that this will be the last time you'll ever have to endure any unwelcomed responses from me)

...you were the one who inserted yourself into my conversation with Alexis Jacobi and engaged me first with the following question:

Seeds, why do you prefer humans to the status of "ultimate seeds" and not for instances sewer rats, or tree colonies?

So, if you "...never reply to rude people..." then why in the world have we had so many conversations over the years?
_______

[Belinda]

Your diagrams are ugly, boringly obscure ,and I long since stopped even looking at them. Meister Eckhardt is much more interesting which is why I even bothered to reply to you. I never reply to rude people .

Wow, Belinda, I know that we've often disagreed with each other over the years, but I guess I never realized the level of contempt you held for me.

Furthermore, someone who says something like this...

Your diagrams are ugly, boringly obscure ,and I long since stopped even looking at them

....has no business calling me rude (unless it's a situation of it takes one to know one).

Btw, how was I being rude to you?

And lastly,...

(and you'll be happy to know that this will be the last time you'll ever have to endure any unwelcomed responses from me)

...you were the one who inserted yourself into my conversation with Alexis Jacobi and engaged me first with the following question:

Seeds, why do you prefer humans to the status of "ultimate seeds" and not for instances sewer rats, or tree colonies?

So, if you "...never respond to rude people..." then why in the world have we had so many conversations over the years?
_______

Because you have never until your penultimate post accused me of intellectual dishonesty. It's impossible to talk seriously with someone who believes one is intellectually dishonest.
I dislike your diagrams and I don't mind if you dislike my favourite style of expressing ideas.

[Alexis Jacobi]

What god do you believe in, then?

Why are you interested?

AJ asked: Can you cite where any of these theologians and philosophers speak about *eternal Hells*? and defend the notion of eternal punishment for those who do not, cannot, of won't *believe*?

Immanuel wrote: It's not necessary. Specific examples of any alleged "injustice" will remain utterly incoherent unless there is some objective substance to the concept, "justice." It's like saying, "Your God is too XXXX." There's no accusation, because there's no substance.

Actually it is. I am certain that those individuals you mention ceased to speculate on hellish afterworlds. Instead they focus on ethics and conduct to be applied to this world. Their theology advances and often in interesting and relevant ways. It is quite likely that they are not Bible literalists, like you, thus what they think and say has bearing.

If you could supply some quote by any of them where they discuss hell and hellish afterworlds it would be interesting at the least. I could find none, myself.

[seeds]

Your diagrams are ugly, boringly obscure ,and I long since stopped even looking at them. Meister Eckhardt is much more interesting which is why I even bothered to reply to you. I never reply to rude people .

Wow, Belinda, I know that we've often disagreed with each other over the years, but I guess I never realized the level of contempt you held for me.

Furthermore, someone who says something like this...

Your diagrams are ugly, boringly obscure ,and I long since stopped even looking at them

....has no business calling me rude (unless it's a situation of it takes one to know one).

Btw, how was I being rude to you?

And lastly,...

(and you'll be happy to know that this will be the last time you'll ever have to endure any unwelcomed responses from me)

...you were the one who inserted yourself into my conversation with Alexis Jacobi and engaged me first with the following question:

Seeds, why do you prefer humans to the status of "ultimate seeds" and not for instances sewer rats, or tree colonies?

So, if you "...never respond to rude people..." then why in the world have we had so many conversations over the years?
_______

Because you have never until your penultimate post accused me of intellectual dishonesty. It's impossible to talk seriously with someone who believes one is intellectually dishonest.
I dislike your diagrams and I don't mind if you dislike my favourite style of expressing ideas.

Belinda, I would never dream of accusing you of "intellectual dishonesty."

Though, again, I have often disagreed with you on many philosophical issues, nevertheless, I have always had the deepest respect for you and your opinions.

If I said something in my "penultimate post" that insulted you, then I most humbly apologize for the misunderstanding it caused...

...(Was it my quip about you sidetracking my point? If so, I certainly did not intend it to impugn your integrity, and, again, I sincerely apologize if you felt offended by it).

However, now that I know your true feelings about me, well....
_______

[Harry Baird]

You still thinking defining a word legitimates it?

The question at issue turns on the meaning of the word "justice"

No, the legitimacy of your conception of "justice."

There are two separate questions here. The first is, "What does 'justice' mean?" The second is, "What is the origin/source/grounding/justification/'legitimation' of justice as a concept?"

Only the first is directly relevant to the question at issue: whether or not the punishment of eternal torment is or even could be just.

The other is not, therefore, it is a red herring - which, of course, you know. You also know that you continue to ignore (to literally just excise them from your responses as though they didn't exist) both the difficult questions that I put to you and the elephant in the room, and I thus reaffirm my conclusion that despite your capacity for cogent expression at times, at other times you are shifty, shady, slippery, and lacking in intellectual integrity.

[Harry Baird]

I endorse what you say except that there is seems to me to be little difference between the deity you describe and what I'd call nature. The difference is that Nature does not intend to accomplish anything whereas the deity you worthship did and does intend.

Right - I don't see how the intricately complex and interdependent design that we see all around and within us could have its source in an unintelligent, unintentional agency. I acknowledge though that you only used one of those words, and didn't explicitly refer to Nature as "unintelligent". It seems, though, to be what you intended, intelligent as you are. Please correct me if I'm wrong (not about your intelligence. That's not in question. About your intent!).

I'd have thought only intelligent animals with memories and central nervous systems can intend.

Check out the NDE literature. It more or less proves the existence of incorporeal consciousness - no central nervous system required. Presumably, that incorporeal consciousness is still "substantive" in some (energetic) sense, but free of the biological form which otherwise "hosts" it.