Christianity

[Harry Baird]

If, as the fundamentalist Christianity to which IC adheres claims, we are all immortal, then physical (biological) death is not truly irrevocable: it is simply the transition from here to there, wherever "there" ends up being.

It almost seems as though you would dismiss here & now when here & now can be thought of, if we're talkin' Christianity, as the stagin' area for eternal reward/punishment. Joe, murdered by Stan, has lost time in the stagin' area, his preps for the afterlife have been cut short.

Yet it's patently, glaringly obvious that eternal punishment of "unimaginable" torment is grotesquely, obscenely unjust, no matter who cuts whose staging time short. I can't fathom why you fail to acknowledge this. It's just bizarre.

[henry quirk]

Rested and now capable: what shall we talk about?

The black and white, of course!

The B & W of it...

If a man won't recognize in the other what he knows about himself (that he is free, with an inalienable right to his, and no other's, being, freedom, and works); worse, if a man won't even recognize himself as free with a natural right to his life, liberty, and property; then he is incapable of recognizing Natural Law (God). He renders himself animal or meat machine and declares all is permissible.

How's that?

[henry quirk]

Henry I guess you need to learn how to judge what to credit and what not to credit. Do you ever watch good crime dramas?

I mean you must have a standard by which you judge whether a source of information is reliable or not. So what is the standard you used to evaluate the material you quoted?

My measure is natural rights & Natural Law.

[Harry Baird]

Rested and now capable: what shall we talk about?

The black and white, of course!

The B & W of it...

If a man won't recognize in the other what he knows about himself (that he is free, with an inalienable right to his, and no other's, being, freedom, and works); worse, if a man won't even recognize himself as free with a natural right to his life, liberty, and property; then he is incapable of recognizing Natural Law (God). He renders himself animal or meat machine and declares all is permissible.

How's that?

It's fine as far as it goes, it just takes a bit of figurin' as to how it relates to the piece you shared. I think I kinda sorta get it, but if you want to add any clarifying comments, that would be helpful.

[henry quirk]

Thanks for your straightforward answer. For me, I think I get where he's coming from, but it's less black and white than he seems to portray it to be.

I think it's very black & white, nuthin' but black & white, in fact There is no gray.

But, that's a discussion for tomorrow. It's almost 11pm here and my old self is tired.

From the essay:

"The entire intellectual class of the Western world is unanimously and vehemently engaged in the desolation and abolition of the civilization by whose grace alone men like them are permitted to exist."

also

"Humanism was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them for himself without grace." Simone Weil

So the quality of grace determines Man's potential to experience universal objective justice as opposed to man made subjective justice with all its learned hypocrisy. Since the intellectual class is closed to the help of grace, it is obvious why America is a dying culture. Grace is a deep Christian idea which is why it is rarely discussed since it opposes the imaginary supremacy of secularism

Dead, and rottin' in the sun. It died when it was codified.

[henry quirk]

If, as the fundamentalist Christianity to which IC adheres claims, we are all immortal, then physical (biological) death is not truly irrevocable: it is simply the transition from here to there, wherever "there" ends up being.

It almost seems as though you would dismiss here & now when here & now can be thought of, if we're talkin' Christianity, as the stagin' area for eternal reward/punishment. Joe, murdered by Stan, has lost time in the stagin' area, his preps for the afterlife have been cut short.

Yet it's patently, glaringly obvious that eternal punishment of "unimaginable" torment is grotesquely, obscenely unjust, no matter who cuts whose staging time short. I can't fathom why you fail to acknowledge this. It's just bizarre.

I have, up-thread. As I also said, up-thread, it ain't my religion...I'm just playin' devil's advocate here.

[henry quirk]

The black and white, of course!

The B & W of it...

If a man won't recognize in the other what he knows about himself (that he is free, with an inalienable right to his, and no other's, being, freedom, and works); worse, if a man won't even recognize himself as free with a natural right to his life, liberty, and property; then he is incapable of recognizing Natural Law (God). He renders himself animal or meat machine and declares all is permissible.

How's that?

It's fine as far as it goes, it just takes a bit of figurin' as to how it relates to the piece you shared. I think I kinda sorta get it, but if you want to add any clarifying comments, that would be helpful.

As I said, up-thread...

His conclusions (the state of the world) are spot on. I don't agree, however, the dissolution of Christendom, in and of itself, is at the root of the current state of the world.

This...

If a man won't recognize in the other what he knows about himself (that he is free, with an inalienable right to his, and no other's, being, freedom, and works); worse, if a man won't even recognize himself as free with a natural right to his life, liberty, and property; then he is incapable of recognizing Natural Law (God). He renders himself animal or meat machine and declares all is permissible.

...is at the root of the state of the world.

[iambiguous]

If a man won't recognize in the other what he knows about himself (that he is free, with an inalienable right to his, and no other's, being, freedom, and works); worse, if a man won't even recognize himself as free with a natural right to his life, liberty, and property; then he is incapable of recognizing Natural Law (God). He renders himself animal or meat machine and declares all is permissible.

Note to Immanuel Can:

Does henry's intellectual contraption argument above comport with your own spiritual contraption argument regarding Christianity? Has henry basically taken the words right out of Jesus Christ's mouth in regard to the one and the only manner in which to grasp the definition and the meaning of these words: "a natural right to his life, liberty, and property".

Can you please cite references to Christ here from the New Testament.

Also, any progress in convincing henry to accept Jesus Christ as his own personal savior? And, if you fail to, and henry goes to the grave following the dictates of reason and nature stuffed into him at conception by his own Deist God, is his soul still damned to Hell?

[Harbal]

My measure is natural rights & Natural Law.

And what is that other than what just happens to seem right or wrong to you?

[henry quirk]

My measure is natural rights & Natural Law.

And what is that other than what just happens to seem right or wrong to you?

And what is it about you are a free man with a natural, inalienable right to your, and no other's, life, liberty, and property you find objectionable or disputable or wrong?

[Harbal]

And what is it about you are a free man with a natural, inalienable right to your, and no other's life, liberty, and property you find objectionable or disputable or wrong?

Any rights you have are only inalienable as long as the state defends them, or you are personally able to protect them. Even then, there is no guarantee that someone won't break into your home, shoot you and walk away with your possessions. You can grant yourself as many "natural" rights as you like, but you can't force anyone else to respect them, that is what I am saying.

[Nick_A]

My measure is natural rights & Natural Law.

And what is that other than what just happens to seem right or wrong to you?

And what is it about you are a free man with a natural, inalienable right to your, and no other's, life, liberty, and property you find objectionable or disputable or wrong?

Freedom is devolving into statist slavery just as Christianity is devolving into Christendom. Why? can anyone doubt the obvious? They will through meaningless platitudes void of understanding. The New Age crowd will say "Oh how wonderful" as the Titanic gradually sinks into the sea. Yet some must understand.

These things will destroy the human race: politics without principle, progress without compassion, wealth without work, learning without silence, religion without fearlessness and worship without awareness. Anthony de Mello

[henry quirk]

And what is it about you are a free man with a natural, inalienable right to your, and no other's life, liberty, and property you find objectionable or disputable or wrong?

Any rights you have are only inalienable as long as the state defends them, or you are personally able to protect them. Even then, there is no guarantee that someone won't break into your home, shoot you and walk away with your possessions. You can grant yourself as many "natural" rights as you like, but you can't force anyone else to respect them, that is what I am saying.

Yes, natural rights can be violated. Yes, you must defend them against violation. No, you can't coherently claim you have a right to anything other than your life, your liberty, and your property. Yes, many folks choose to ignore the natural rights of others.

With that out of the way...

What is it about you are a free man with a natural, inalienable right to your, and no other's, life, liberty, and property you find objectionable or disputable or wrong?

-----

inalienable: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred

[Harbal]

What is it about you are a free man with a natural, inalienable right to your, and no other's, life, liberty, and property you find objectionable or disputable or wrong?

I wouldn't object to natural rights if I thought they existed, henry.

[henry quirk]

What is it about you are a free man with a natural, inalienable right to your, and no other's, life, liberty, and property you find objectionable or disputable or wrong?

I wouldn't object to natural rights if I thought they existed, henry.

So: you are not a free man. Your life, your liberty, your property, these aren't yours at all.

And, to you, I am not a free man. My life, my liberty, my property, these, as you see it, aren't mine at all.

Okeedoke.