Christianity

[Dubious]

That is where the error is, in my understanding. It is not that some or many of the ideas alluded to are not relevant -- indeed they are extremely important and valuable. Yet the same is true in many different religious and philosophical systems. This is what men who have broadened their perspectives through better *seeing* have come to understand.

Amusing.

On a threat about "Christianity," AJ doesn't want to know about Christianity.

It seems the only kind AJ can accept is some benign and gelded "Christendom," one that essentially means nothing in particular, but rather stands for vague metaphors "true in many different religious and philosophical sytems." That's the only thing that makes them "relevant," he says.

In other words, the one thing he can't stand is anything Christianity has to say, that is unique and challenging -- in other words, anything he doesn't already believe...anything genuinely Christian.

Amusing!

You mean "unique and challenging" in terms of absurd and stupid which takes somebody as unique as yourself to be challenged by and wholly accept?

In that case you got it made!

[Harry Baird]

If by 'principle of incarnation' you mean developing the capacity to *see* and appreciate what is non-visible, then I think I would concur.

I was simply referring to your own idea which you have expressed in various posts, such as this one, in which you explain "the notion, or the metaphor if you wish, of something ineffable that 'incarnates' into our selves and into our world. However it is always asserted that what is received 'from above' -- for example this is how the Rishis understood Vedic revelation as literally the incarnation of higher vibrations and a divine 'word' -- demands response. Obviously, this is expressed in the Christian traditions as a decision to change the way one thinks and lives. That is to say that those early Christians understood that becoming a Christian meant, literally, taking curative medicines. Submitting to a supervised process in which one consciously sacrificed the 'lower element' in order to attain and hold onto the 'higher element'. To become a catechumen was a serious affair. The process of 'conversion' took place over years."

Or, this one, a few days later, in which you explained with a longer quote what you mean with reference to "the Vedic idea that the Vedas are incarnated or condensed into the world -- and received by men who are like seers or prophets".

There's also this one, just a few hours later, in which you wrote:

"I place emphasis on *Incarnation* of metaphysical ideas into the *world* of man. What is 'salvific' therefore, in my view, are the 'possibilities' that are opened when these ideas (impulses) are received and, to put it in utilitarian terms, worked with."

There are others, but that's enough for my searching efforts for the moment!

[Immanuel Can]

Do you accept - for the purposes of my argument - the definition that, with inspiration from hq, I have constructed and shared?

It's far too vague to be functional in any way.

What is, for example, "proportionality"? With what is it being "proportional"? (We're not back to the "sin is transgression" idea, are we?) And which one of us is really competent and so well-informed as to judge what is "proportional" in a given case?

So there isn't enough information in the definition either to warrant any judgment of a case, or explain anything. Really, we can't know what you mean by it. How do we use it, for example, to decide if a particular punishment (say, Hitler's incineration, or an embezzler's suspended sentence) is "proportional," or what it would have to be "proportional" to? So you need to tell us what the "proportions" are between. For you, it looks like just actions versus eternal judgment. And since you see little problem with the actions, or don't see them as the indicators they are of the problem of human nature that gives rise to them, you are tempted put a feather on one side of the scales and a rock on the other, and then unilaterally declare imbalance or "unproportionality" or "injustice."

But we shall see if your reckoning stands...or whether the Supreme Being will require your assistance in evaluating the personal cases. I'm thinking He won't.

[*] 2. God condemns to eternal (infinite), unimaginable torment any person who, in living his/her finite life, has sinned and/or whose disposition has been one of constitutional alienation from and hatred of God, and refused to accept Jesus Christ as his/her saviour [Christian premise].

Also no good. It attempts to paint man's eternal destiny merely as a product of some kind of arbitrary divine fiat, rather than it being the natural product of a particular person having freely chosen to hate God, to love evil, and to choose the option of having no relationship with God. It also confuses action with nature, and both with the terms of salvation, as if it were an "and/or" case...which theologically, it's obviously not. There's no "or," and it's not "and." These are different aspects of a single situation called being "dead in sin."

If you don't want God, the Source of everything good, what do you think there is left to get? That's what "hell" is.

But I can see you're not closely reading what I wrote, so perhaps I'm wasting effort here.

[Immanuel Can]

Amusing!

You mean "unique and challenging"

Not a bit.

[Harry Baird]

Do you accept - for the purposes of my argument - the definition that, with inspiration from hq, I have constructed and shared?

It's far too vague to be functional in any way.

Though you say you consider it to be too vague, do you otherwise consider it to be wrong?

What is, for example, "proportionality"?

The simple idea that any harmful effects involved in the righting of a wrong should be commensurate with the harm caused by the wrong in the first place, and, in particular, should not entail significantly more harm to the perpetrator(s) than the original wrong did to the victim(s).

But let me guess: next you're going to ask me to define "commensurate", "significantly", and "harm" - and, when I do that, you'll ask me to clarify yet other words which I used to clarify them, and on and on the game of avoidance and obfuscation goes - anything to avoid acknowledging that according to a sane and reasonable definition of justice, infinite punishment for finite transgressions is manifestly unjust...

Keep on ducking, dodging, and weaving, Immanuel Can.

[*] 2. God condemns to eternal (infinite), unimaginable torment any person who, in living his/her finite life, has sinned and/or whose disposition has been one of constitutional alienation from and hatred of God, and refused to accept Jesus Christ as his/her saviour [Christian premise].

Also no good.

By which I understand you to mean "False". If so, you're being disingenuous, because it is factually accurate according to your own words and beliefs.

Let's examine your objections though:

It attempts to paint man's eternal destiny merely as a product of some kind of arbitrary divine fiat

"Merely" or not, "arbitrary" or not, it is, on your Christian view, the consequence of a divine fiat. It is God who, by fiat, determined that that's what the consequence would be. After all, according to your Christian beliefs, God is omnipotent, such that all such consequences are within His power to enact, retract, amend, and repeal.

it being the natural product of a particular person having freely chosen to hate God, to love evil, and to choose the option of having no relationship with God.

There's nothing "natural" about being thrown into a Lake of Fire to burn in unimaginable torment for eternity. God, being, in your view, omnipotent, could have determined for there to be a juster, more loving, consequence.

It also confuses action with nature, and both with the terms of salvation, as if it were an "and/or" case...which theologically, it's obviously not. There's no "or," and it's not "and." These are different aspects of a single situation called being "dead in sin."

This seems quibbling, and nothing like a fatal criticism, but feel free to suggest an amended wording which satisfies you.

If you don't want God, the Source of everything good, what do you think there is left to get? That's what "hell" is.

This is manipulative. It is not that your antagonists "don't want God" - it is that they don't believe in the Story in which this false dilemma is situated, and for good reasons, which I continue to point out to you.

As for what is left to get - there are a range of possibilities, some of which AJ and I have put to you. You simply pretend that the most creative Being who exists, who is also omnipotent, can manage only a stark binary. That's, uh, not exactly a ringing endorsement of your view of God.

[Age]

when I go to discuss THAT God with 'you', "immanuel can", 'you' cower, run away, and hide...

You're so funny, Age.

Okay.

You actually imagine you're some kind of challenge or threat.

'you' continually RUNNING AWAY, HIDING, and COWERING "immanuel can" when I QUESTION and CHALLENGE 'you' PROVES what IS ACTUALLY True here.

But everybody -- not just me -- knows you're crazy and incoherent, and don't know anything close to as much as you imagine you do, and so most of the time, they just ignore most of your messages, just as I do.

ONCE AGAIN, this one VERY QUICKLY JUMPS into 'trying to' RIDICULE and HUMILIATE the "other" hoping that this will take the light off of them.

This one's SUPERIORITY complex just will NOT let 'it' down leading to 'its' continual CONDESCENDING ways.

The PROOF that 'you' COWER and HIDE when I QUESTION or CHALLENGE 'you' in regards to 'that GOD' that 'you' so dearly put ALL your FAITH and TRUST in, can be CLEARLY SEEN within our DISCUSSIONS here.

That's why you find yourself furiously writing message after message, to which people often do not bother to respond at all. They're not paying attention anymore.

LOL

That the ones I am WRITING ABOUT do NOT pay me ANY ATTENTION, unlike 'you' keep coming back to do "immanuel can", that is; when I am NOT questioning NOR challenging 'you' about 'THAT God' of 'YOURS'. I do NOT care about AT ALL. And, in fact, if 'you', posters, here pay attention or not is of absolutely NO concern AT ALL to me, and this is because of my INTENDED AUDIENCE.

AND, ONCE AGAIN, here we can CLEARLY SEE just how QUICKLY people, back in the days when this was being written, would JUMP into making ASSUMPTIONS and CONCLUSIONS, of which they would then BELIEVE are TRUE, without EVER even just beginning to contemplate if it would be better to seek out and obtain CLARIFICATION, FIRST, or not.

People aren't afraid of you, Sport: they find you utterly uninteresting, because you can't actually track an argument, follow a lucid thought, or provide any insight.

'you' could NOT STOP CONDESCENDING even if you TRIED correct, "immanuel can"?

If you had some humility or willingness to listen, instead of just a litany of off-point objections that merely show you don't know what you're dealing with at all, they might engage with you. But you don't stay focused long enough for them to bother.

LOL

I KNOW EXACTLY what has been going on here. I INFORMED 'you', "immanuel can", that God, OBVIOUSLY, could NEVER be a male gendered 'thing', and have QUESTIONED 'you' about if 'you' KNOW WHY 'you' would call God such a RIDICULOUS and STUPID thing as a "He". BUT, 'you' just keep COWERING and HIDING from this, OBVIOUSLY, IRREFUTABLE Fact.

AND LOL 'you' speak as though 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, ALREADY HAD THE ANSWERS.

Which is ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS, especially from OUR point of view.

But maybe I'm the only guy who will explain that to you. Still, if you realized it, you could get yourself out of that unpleasant situation; so in the interest of helping you along. I point it out to you.

LOL ONCE AGAIN, 'you' resort to absolute CONDESCENDING, WITHOUT EVER ADDRESSING the ACTUAL POINTS I SHOW and RAISE.

This is just ANOTHER ATTEMPT at DEFLECTION here, while THROWING in some MORE CONDESCENSION, in the hope that 'you' would look SUPERIOR.

BUT resorting to ATTEMPTS at RIDICULE and HUMILIATION of the "other" while NEVER ADDRESSING the POINTS MADE CLEAR, SHOWS and PROVES FURTHER just HOW MUCH 'you' REALLY DO COWER and HIDE "immanuel can". And, all under the PRETENSE of being a, laughably, "christian" at the same time.

'you', "immanuel can", at times are the MOST UNCHRISTIAN-LIKE human being on the planet, let alone BEING the MOST unchristian-like poster in this forum here.

AND, this Truth 'you' do NOT like to HEAR, nor SEE.

[Age]

when I go to discuss THAT God with 'you', "immanuel can", 'you' cower, run away, and hide...

You're so funny, Age.

You actually imagine you're some kind of challenge or threat. But everybody -- not just me -- knows you're crazy and incoherent, and don't know anything close to as much as you imagine you do, and so most of the time, they just ignore most of your messages, just as I do. That's why you find yourself furiously writing message after message, to which people often do not bother to respond at all. They're not paying attention anymore.

People aren't afraid of you, Sport: they find you utterly uninteresting, because you can't actually track an argument, follow a lucid thought, or provide any insight. If you had some humility or willingness to listen, instead of just a litany of off-point objections that merely show you don't know what you're dealing with at all, they might engage with you. But you don't stay focused long enough for them to bother.

But maybe I'm the only guy who will explain that to you. Still, if you realized it, you could get yourself out of that unpleasant situation; so in the interest of helping you along. I point it out to you.

Oh, and by the way, I am NOT in ANY so-called 'unpleasant situation' AT ALL.

It is 'you', "immanuel can", who is STUCK in the UNPLEASANT SITUATION of NOT like that YOUR God could NEVER be male gendered, as well as being STUCK in your absolute INABILITY to EXPLAIN WHY 'you' would LAUGHABLY anthropomorphize God itself, not just into some human trait either but into a male gendered human being at that. Which makes what 'you', immanuel can", do here is MORE ABSURD and STUPID.

[Age]

You exude nothing but vitriol uglyness, which effortlessly gushes from your being.

No he doesn't. He shows remarkable restraint and balance considering what gets tossed his way.

'Restraint' and 'balance' is one thing, RUNNING AWAY, HIDING, and COWERING is another thing.

"immanuel can" goes on like 'it' can STAND UP for 'itself' and could BACK UP and SUPPORT 'its' CLAIMS. But, "immanuel can" has SHOWN NOTHING but FEAR and COWARDLINESS when I QUESTION and CHALLENGE 'its' words.

But this is just because "immanuel can" is playing the part of the DEVIL here, which is WHY 'it' can NOT STAND up to 'I'.

With his capacity, I don't think you would want IC on the dark side.

LOL what 'capacity'?

To be a Truly CONDESCENDING poser with a VERY HIGH SUPERIORITY COMPLEX?

"immanuel can" CERTAINLY has NO 'capacity' to be be able to back up and supports what 'it' SAYS and STATES.

LOL ALSO I do NOT just want "immanuel can" on the so-called 'dark side', what "immanuel can" is portraying here comes DIRECTLY from the 'dark side'.

Don't worry about Age. No one has the power to silence Age.

NO one has the ABILITY to REFUTE what I SAY and CLAIM ALSO, and this is BECAUSE of WHERE this KNOWING comes from EXACTLY.

[Age]

No he doesn't. He shows remarkable restraint and balance considering what gets tossed his way. With his capacity, I don't think you would want IC on the dark side.

Oh lets all bow to the greatest showman on earth our dear beloved messenger of love and light. Who cries heaps of Oh believe me, please believe me, I'm begging you to believe everything I say to you, else you are the devil out to kill me.

Oh please....tell us another grims fairy fable.

The greatest projection is self reflection. Nice one! I'm so faultlessly mighty. All it takes is remarkable restraint and perseverance, and then 'hey presto', any old BS will pass for my truth.

No, if he was on the dark side, you would be easy to crush.

LOL

"immanuel can" IS BEING CRUSHED, and this IS BECAUSE 'its' words come DIRECTLY from the 'dark side'.

Calling God a male gendered thing is about as STUPID and as DARK as one could get, and BELIEVING that God is a male gendered thing is ACTUALLY the DEVIL AT WORK.

[Age]

No, if he was on the dark side, you would be easy to crush.

What a hellish philosophy, keep going, you are on fire right now.

That's what makes the dark side devoid of light, and it's what makes hell, hell.
It crushes the spirit.
For some reason, you appear to be hellbent on crushing the spirit of IC.

And this is just BECAUSE "immanuel can" ACTUALLY BELIEVES that 'it' is SUPERIOR to "others".

Which is about one of the MOST LUDICROUS and FUNNIEST things to WATCH and OBSERVE here.

Are you an agent of the dark side?

Bishop Bullwinkle Hell To Da Naw,Naw,Naw With Da Bicycle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QxIIz1yEsA

Like MLK, Bullwinkle utilizes an answering voice.
(Bullwinkle is an anti-neiner, 'cause he says The hell with the No No No ... to Life.)

[Age]

Does the Christian God grant dispensations to those who do not worship and adore Him but who share His own political prejudices?

No, of course not. Politics have nothing to do with salvation.

But you can read all this for yourself: you don't need me to tell you. I point you to John 3. It gives you the terms of salvation.

ONCE AGAIN, "immanuel can" likes to make the CLAIM, but RUNS AWAY and HIDES when it comes time to backing up and supporting the CLAIM.

Yeah, that's my point to henry. His "one God" is not your "one God".

It's up to him to say.

Now, somebody who takes that commandment can discuss the nature and character of that God, or His expectations, and even His identity. What's clear, if we take that commandment seriously, is that no one is permitted to be either an Atheist or a Polytheist. Nor is such a one going to believe in a God that is not the God of that particular commandment...assuming he takes it as a "commandment."

In other words, henry might get a pass from the Christian God but no fucking way will an atheist!

Having trouble reading English again?

No exceptinos are mentioned. You made that up.

And, again, the irony here that the omniscient Christian God "somehow" gives us free will. But then when some of us use it honestly, sincerely and introspectively to think through the existence of God with genuine intentions, we still get tossed in Hell if we are unable to believe in Him. Your "loving, just and merciful" God.

So your intentions are pure, you say? And you're honest, sincere and thinking it through? If that's true, you will find God. if it's not, then you get what you have chosen...to insult God, and then face the consequences of your rejection of Him.

Seems very fair.

As to whether or not the God of the Bible, and hence of that commandment, is Henry's God, you'll have to ask Henry. It's not my job to declare that for him; he is of age and capability to speak to that.

I have asked him. At least before he put me in the "penalty box". And his answers were basically just the philosophical equivalent of flippant shrugs.

Then that's what you get.

[Age]

Either you get with the program or you are against the program.

Not a "program," AJ. It's nowhere near such a complicated idea. It's a thing called "truth."

You either believe the truth, or you get to believe some kind of error. And you get the natural results of what you pick. That's how the truth works...every single time.

And some BELIEVE an 'error' is true, and thus also BELIEVE that the 'error' is the 'truth'. Like, for example, some BELIEVE that God is a "he".

Which could NOT be MORE of an ERROR, and thus UNTRUE.

Absolutist? Maybe. The truth is always, absolutely, the best option. And there's absolutely no other reasonable choice. Sorry.

There is no such "Book of Life"

We'll see.

And associated with this is the need to understand that these are, really this is quite evident, the most violent assaults against the sovereignty of those people against whom it is employed like a terrible psychological weapon.

Not a bit.

The various forms of pietism, like Evangelicalism, all insist on the unalienable right to free conscience. You get to choose. In fact, salvation can come no other way. One cannot be forced to believe. That's why there was never such a thing as a pietist Inquistion or pietist Crusades...both would have been futile, given pietism.

But here's the thing about choices: their flip side is called "responsibility." You choose your values, your lifestyle, your beliefs...but you don't get to choose your own consequences, once you've made your choice. Those come naturally, automatically, and definitely.

Furthermore, no pietist can refuse to tell you what the consequences are. How else are you supposed to be able to make a personal choice? If we were to hold back the facts, we would be interfering with your autonomy, depriving you of the information you needed in order to make a genuine choice. So we would never do that.

But don't ask us to make your choices for you. And don't expect not to eat the consequences of your choices. Both are entirely your own concern.

These are supreme power-games.

No. We are uninterested in power. Completely, as a matter of fact.

I think maybe you're projecting, or maybe you've been fooled by Nietzsche, with his absurd axiom that all morality simply conceals "will to power." The truth is simpler: we have no interest in controlling you; in fact, if we did, we'd control the information we shared with you, too, in order to keep you in ignorance of the choices you have in hand.

We're absolutely committed to you being able to make a choice, and live with the consequences you choose. We're not terrorizing you, and we're not bribing you: we're telling you what your own choices entail, in exactly the terms in which God has given them to us. If you don't like it? Talk to Him. It's not our world, and not going to be. And you are not our property.

The last thing we're ever going to do is try to constrain your choice. Go ahead: do what you want to do. Believe what you choose to believe. God has granted you that power and right...and responsibility.

All we say is, "Use it wisely."

[Dontaskme]

No, if he was on the dark side, you would be easy to crush.

What a hellish philosophy, keep going, you are on fire right now.

That's what makes the dark side devoid of light, and it's what makes hell, hell.
It crushes the spirit.

Shhhh!

In truth, you are in conflict with nothing. Observe the disinterest and detachment of the universe.

''God'' is the greatest distraction in a meaningless universe. Conflict cannot survive without your participation.


DAM's SIGNATURE
It’s no coincidence that man’s best friend cannot talk.

[Walker]

Age, your capping indicates strong feelings, and that's a source of energy. Cap energy can be reapplied and useful.

Does people attentiveness ever yield to, or evolve to, principle attentiveness?

[Walker]

https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg- ... b9746.webp

Dogs are happier than folks because Dogs don't need bread to eat the shit they eat.