Christianity

[Harry Baird]

Emphasis added:

I'm not sure which of his published works you think is concerned with the supposed "problem" of "legitimating justice". Perhaps you can fill us in. More likely, though, you'll simply ignore me here, because it's too awkward for you to respond directly and honestly.

Finally, then, we come to (Nicholas, presumably) Wolterstorff. Again, I'm not sure which of his selected works listed by Wikipedia, or which, perhaps, of some other unlisted work, you think deals with the supposed "problem" of "legitimating justice", so, again, perhaps you can tell us, again pretending I didn't even suggest this and snipping it entirely if it's again too uncomfortable for you to deal with.

Folks, it didn't even take a crystal ball to make these perfectly fulfilled predictions.

[Harry Baird]

Take Harry. He's oblivious to the fact that any conception of "justice," or any potential that he's entitled to expect "justice" is totally derived from his upbringing in a Christian-shaped culture.

Rather, you're apparently oblivious to the fact that pretty much every culture (maybe all of them) has a conception of justice and the right to expect or at least demand it...

But please do perform the "legitimation" of Biblically-derived justice that I've requested of you several times already:

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?

Of course, you won't. You will again totally ignore and snip it. Again: no crystal ball required here, folks! Just the rule that when a question is too awkward, it's skipped without comment.

There's no promise of "justice" from Evolutionism, or from Humanism, or from Social Darwinism, or Materialism, or Physicalism, or Quantum Physics...these things have no view of what "justice" is, and absolutely no interest in legitimizing any such thing as "justice."

The concept of justice isn't even relevant to most of those fields. Nevertheless, even to those who have never even heard of the Bible, the concept of justice still exists and remains common to most (all?) of humanity - so we know that it is not the Bible which is its source.

[Harry Baird]

A philosophical question for you, Immanuel Can:

Given how badly I've wrecked you, have I been unjust?

It's not eternal, unimaginable torment, but you've got to be stinging pretty badly by now.

In argument Immanuel is “truly Christian”:

Crucified weekly, swaddled in burial cloth, entombed — yet the stone always rolls back as if moved by a Mysterious Power — and he emerges again as if nothing happened, resurrected & unscathed.

Every week, a Miracle!

Why, Alexis, I do believe you've just legitimated Immanuel Can as a Christian.

[Harry Baird]

No. There is something in the truths of religious princIples that compels many to attack them with negative emotions.

Sure, but Harry is not *many* Harry is Harry. As I said your comment was unfair and very inaccurate.

Yes. It's unfair. I am not attacking religious principles in general, only the principle that eternal, unimaginable punishment for finite transgressions is loving and just. Surely, Nick agrees with this?!

In any case, there is a lot in Christianity that I do value. The Gospels are for me in many ways inspiring and curiously profound on a visceral level.

[Nick_A]

Or it could mean leaving the cave enables us to understand the purpose and value of Christianity.

I'm sure that any value in Christianity is attainable in other ways.

"The extreme greatness of Christianity lies in the fact that it does not seek a supernatural remedy for suffering but a supernatural use for it.” ~Simone Weil

What if she is right. Buddha said life is suffering. We don't know how to suffer for our benefit. Suppose a person can carry their cross? What does it mean and how do they benefit?

I have no idea what she means, and I don't know what you mean, Nick.

I don't know what drew Simone Weil to Christianity, nor what she saw in it. Whatever she did see, I'm afraid I don't.

Simone was drawn to Christianity because her experiences as a dedicated marxist prove to her that marxist ideals were impossible. The hypocrisy of the human condition denied good intentions. It became clear that it was only through the effect of the Holy Spirit, the effect of grace, on the psych of man that could give it the quality to make freedom possible.

[Nick_A]

No. There is something in the truths of religious princIples that compels many to attack them with negative emotions.

Sure, but Harry is not *many* Harry is Harry. As I said your comment was unfair and very inaccurate.

Yes. It's unfair. I am not attacking religious principles in general, only the principle that eternal, unimaginable punishment for finite transgressions is loving and just. Surely, Nick agrees with this?!

In any case, there is a lot in Christianity that I do value. The Gospels are for me in many ways inspiring and curiously profound on a visceral level.

Harry, is the suffering of Samsara in Buddhism and Hinduism unjust or evil? From Wiki:

Saṃsāra (Sanskrit: संसार, Pali: saṃsāra; also samsara) in Buddhism and Hinduism is the beginningless cycle of repeated birth, mundane existence and dying again.[1] Samsara is considered to be dukkha, suffering, and in general unsatisfactory and painful,[2] perpetuated by desire and avidya (ignorance), and the resulting karma.[3][4][5]

Rebirths occur in six realms of existence, namely three good realms (heavenly, demi-god, human) and three evil realms (animal, ghosts, hellish).[note 1] Samsara ends if a person attains nirvana,[note 2] the "blowing out" of the desires and the gaining of true insight into impermanence and non-self reality.

Does the fact that Samsara doesn't blame God directly have anything to do with it? From what you wrote you would consider the descent into suffering unfair and an over reaction. Am I right?

[Harry Baird]

I am not attacking religious principles in general, only the principle that eternal, unimaginable punishment for finite transgressions is loving and just. Surely, Nick agrees with this?!

Harry, is the suffering of Samsara in Buddhism and Hinduism unjust or evil?

If you answer my question (quoted above), then I'll answer yours, otherwise not. Honest and reasonable standards of engagement expected.

[Nick_A]

I am not attacking religious principles in general, only the principle that eternal, unimaginable punishment for finite transgressions is loving and just. Surely, Nick agrees with this?!

Harry, is the suffering of Samsara in Buddhism and Hinduism unjust or evil?

If you answer my question (quoted above), then I'll answer yours, otherwise not. Honest and reasonable standards of engagement expected.

I presume you mean this:

Yes. It's unfair. I am not attacking religious principles in general, only the principle that eternal, unimaginable punishment for finite transgressions is loving and just. Surely, Nick agrees with this?!

In any case, there is a lot in Christianity that I do value. The Gospels are for me in many ways inspiring and curiously profound on a visceral level.

I was referring to the hatred exhibited by secular society against Christianity since it threatens its imagined superiority. That is why the Christ had to be killed However it varies for individuals. Some within society may even understand Christianity and able to distinguish it from Christendom

[Harry Baird]

Harry, is the suffering of Samsara in Buddhism and Hinduism unjust or evil?

If you answer my question (quoted above), then I'll answer yours, otherwise not. Honest and reasonable standards of engagement expected.

I presume you mean this:

Yes. It's unfair. I am not attacking religious principles in general, only the principle that eternal, unimaginable punishment for finite transgressions is loving and just. Surely, Nick agrees with this?!

In any case, there is a lot in Christianity that I do value. The Gospels are for me in many ways inspiring and curiously profound on a visceral level.

Yes, I mean that, but more specifically the question in it which I will slightly restate more explicitly:

Nick, do you agree that the principle "Eternal, unimaginable punishment for finite transgressions is loving and just" is false?

Answer that question directly and then I'll be happy to answer yours.

[Harry Baird]

Let's take the time to carefully pull apart and dissect Immanuel Can's strange manoeuvre which is his "legitimacy" defence against my argument.

That argument's references to "just" assume the standard, dictionary definition of "justice", and, on this definition, my argument is sound (at least, Immanuel Can has provided no reason to think otherwise).

I have pointed out that if we instead assume a supposedly "Biblical" definition of justice in which eternal, unimaginable punishment for finite transgressions is "just", then the Bible is engaged in doublespeak, so, let's set that possibility aside for now.

Immanuel Can, then, seems to be asking me to "legitimate" the standard, dictionary definition of "justice". There are two possibilities here:

1. Immanuel Can also accepts the standard, dictionary definition of "justice". In this case, he must have his own "legitimation" for this concept - whether explicitly or implicitly - and thus has no need for me to provide one.
2. Immanuel Can rejects on the grounds of "illegitimacy" the standard, dictionary definition of "justice". In this case, he has a burden to explain why he considers it to be illegitimate, what his alternative definition is, and how he "legitimates" his alternative definition. He must have some "legitimated" definition, given that the word is used in the Bible, on which his fundamental beliefs are based.

So, here's a direct question to you, Immanuel Can: which of the two numbered possibilities above is the case? Only you can tell us.

(Who wants to estimate the odds that this question is skipped, snipped, and utterly ignored, as if it didn't even exist - or, at least, responded to in a shifty, indirect way which avoids explicitly choosing either option?)

[Alexis Jacobi]

In any case, there is a lot in Christianity that I do value. The Gospels are for me in many ways inspiring and curiously profound on a visceral level.

Presently, my own reading and research have opened up into what I might name a ‘mythic foundation’ which does indeed resonate within many at an unconscious level.

[Nick_A]

If you answer my question (quoted above), then I'll answer yours, otherwise not. Honest and reasonable standards of engagement expected.

I presume you mean this:

Yes. It's unfair. I am not attacking religious principles in general, only the principle that eternal, unimaginable punishment for finite transgressions is loving and just. Surely, Nick agrees with this?!

In any case, there is a lot in Christianity that I do value. The Gospels are for me in many ways inspiring and curiously profound on a visceral level.

Yes, I mean that, but more specifically the question in it which I will slightly restate more explicitly:

Nick, do you agree that the principle "Eternal, unimaginable punishment for finite transgressions is loving and just" is false?

Answer that question directly and then I'll be happy to answer yours.

I'm more of a Christian Platonists so I don't believe in a personal God punishing us. The suffering in the universe is a necessity. As a result, even though divine love permeates our universe, suffering is a necessity and as a necessity which we contribute to by glorifying negative emotions, suffering is justice which we can lessen through conscience inviting the Spirit to reconcile the demands of the earth on the lower parts of the collective soul and the higher parts consciously attracted to our Source.

But the essential point for me is that suffering is not punishment, it is a necessity built into the process of our universe laws allowing it to continue serving its necessary purpose..

[Harry Baird]

In any case, there is a lot in Christianity that I do value. The Gospels are for me in many ways inspiring and curiously profound on a visceral level.

Presently, my own reading and research have opened up into what I might name a ‘mythic foundation’ which does indeed resonate within many at an unconscious level.

I'm not surprised to learn of the existence of that reading and research. I know that not everybody experiences the same effect from the Gospels that I and many others do, and I also on a rational level think that there are some flaws in its message. For example: Jesus casts out the demons from a human and into a herd of pigs, who then commit suicide by running off a cliff - this is an awfully cruel and apparently avoidable act to the poor pigs, which surely could have been foreseen and avoided by the Son of God. And, as you have pointed out, there are philosophical (/practical/realistic/political) problems with such teachings as to always "turn the other cheek".

Nevertheless, the main feeling I get when reading the Gospels is that of a sort of reverential awe at, and spiritual affinity for, the deeds (especially the miracles) and radical, uncompromising teachings of a purported Divine Avatar. The story is so fascinating and compelling, even more so because its protagonist almost certainly did exist, such that at least in part the Gospels relate actual events, however much they have been mythically made over.

[Harry Baird]

I'm more of a Christian Platonists so I don't believe in a personal God punishing us.

Understood, but that (intentionally or not) simply avoids the question. What if there was a personal God punishing us, as Immanuel Can believes? In that case, in your opinion, would eternal, unimaginable punishment (by that God) for finite transgressions be loving and just?

[Harry Baird]

suffering is a necessity

Necessitated by what? You don't believe in a personal God, so it can't be necessitated by God. By what/whom, or in virtue of what, then?

suffering is justice which we can lessen through conscience inviting the Spirit

You don't believe in a personal God, so presumably you don't believe that this Spirit is personal either. What, then, is its nature? I am unable to understand the coherence in the notion of a non-personal Spirit.

And what is the "justice" in suffering? On what basis do you make the claim that it exists?