Christianity

[Walker]

Don’t fuck with me, Immanuel.

Go on, IC, fuck with him.

Sounds like a double dog dare.

[iambiguous]

If that is actually you, then I have no doubt that by that time, you will know Him. For He has promised, "You shall find me when you seek me with all your heart."

On the other hand, it is one thing to say, and quite another to do.

Same thing. That's all you ever have.

Ever and always going back to the Word.
Ever and always defending it by going around and around in circles:

1] Jesus Christ and the Christian God exist because it says so in the New Testament
2] the New Testament is true because it is the Word of Jesus Christ and the Christian God

If I don't find Christ, it's not because He doesn't exist, it's because I really did not seek Him with all my heart. After all, you have already "proven" that He exists on YouTube. I'm the one who lacks true "introspective honesty and sincerity and integrity". Why? Because those that don't lack them find Him.

You don't even have the intellectual honesty and integrity to admit to yourself how here you just go around and around and around in your "spiritual" circles because it comforts and consoles you to. God...the mother of all psychological defense mechanisms.

Well, unless, of course, you really are able to go beyond your YouTube video "proof" that the Christian God resides in Heaven as others are able to demonstrate that Pope Francis resides in the Vatican. And no doubt will until the day he dies.

Right. For two reasons: one, others do find Him, and two, that's what He promised.

You can choose to believe Him, or not. But if you've never put in the kind of serious search it takes, and never really given it much more than dismissive thought, then don't expect much. Nobody ever finds him that way.

No one...and I mean no one...is more adept at wiggling out of actually responding to the points I raise here than you are. Well, now that henry has put me in the penalty box anyway.

Of course, that is exactly what all of the many, many other religious denominations are reminding the Christians. Only it's you and they who refuse to put in the serious search.

Better, perhaps, to embrace henry's God. Search all you want but He is gone.

Is this confirmation...that along with henry, all Muslims and Jews will burn in Hell? Even though Jesus Christ was Himself a Jew.

Talk about going in circles. Read again. If you can't believe the words you read, I can't help you.

Quite the contrary. I'm not insisting that others should embrace my arguments because they are posted here. And that, because they are posted here, they must be true.

No scripture from me. In fact, I'm the first to admit that my own conclusions here are but subjective assessments rooted existentially in dasein...and ever and always subject to change given new experiences, relationships and access to new information and knowledge.

Also, given that I merely entertain myself with you, I don't even take this seriously myself.

Okay, note for me articles in Philosophy Now magazine that do speak of Christianity as you do...by relying almost exclusively on The Word.

Oh, I dont' know of any there. But then, that's not what you asked me for: check back, and see. You asked for "articles," not just "PN articles."

Oh, I see. The fact that this forum [and this exchange] is derived from Philosophy Now magazine is not relevant at all here.

But, okay, note an article from a publication of your choice that discusses the Christian God without falling back on the assumption that such an assessment is derived from the Word. From the Christian Bible itself.

PN is a great publication: but it's not the ultimate model for philosophy, and wisely doesn't try to be. If you mistook it for that, I suspect you've never actually read it.

What then, in your view, would the ultimate model for a philosophy publication be? Does it exist? If so, then an article from that.

[Immanuel Can]

But, okay, note an article from a publication of your choice that discusses the Christian God without falling back on the assumption that such an assessment is derived from the Word. From the Christian Bible itself.

Can you disambiguate your question, please? At first glance, it now seems to be the opposite of what you asked before, and I don't want to give you what you aren't asking for.

State plainly please: do you want an article that discusses the Christian God, but contains no Scripture? From what kind of source?

And what does your sentence fragment, "From the Christian Bible itself" attach to? It's just a prepositional phrase without its own subject or verb...so it's very hard to tell what you intended it to signal, in relation to the prior sentence.

[iambiguous]

But, okay, note an article from a publication of your choice that discusses the Christian God without falling back on the assumption that such an assessment is derived from the Word. From the Christian Bible itself.

Can you disambiguate your question, please? At first glance, it now seems to be the opposite of what you asked before, and I don't want to give you what you aren't asking for.

State plainly please: do you want an article that discusses the Christian God, but contains no Scripture? From what kind of source?

And what does your sentence fragment, "From the Christian Bible itself" attach to? It's just a prepositional phrase without its own subject or verb...so it's very hard to tell what you intended it to signal, in relation to the prior sentence.

I challenge anyone here to note why it is not entirely appropriate for me to post this...

ABSOLUTELY SHAMELESS!

...in response to this particular "wiggle, wiggle, wiggle" snippet from him.

Also, for those of you who actually do take him seriously in discussing Christianity, how do you go about justifying that?

To yourselves, in other words.

[Immanuel Can]

But, okay, note an article from a publication of your choice that discusses the Christian God without falling back on the assumption that such an assessment is derived from the Word. From the Christian Bible itself.

Can you disambiguate your question, please? At first glance, it now seems to be the opposite of what you asked before, and I don't want to give you what you aren't asking for.

State plainly please: do you want an article that discusses the Christian God, but contains no Scripture? From what kind of source?

And what does your sentence fragment, "From the Christian Bible itself" attach to? It's just a prepositional phrase without its own subject or verb...so it's very hard to tell what you intended it to signal, in relation to the prior sentence.

I challenge anyone...

How about you just answer the question...in Standard English, this time? And I'll answer your challenge for you.

[iambiguous]

Can you disambiguate your question, please? At first glance, it now seems to be the opposite of what you asked before, and I don't want to give you what you aren't asking for.

State plainly please: do you want an article that discusses the Christian God, but contains no Scripture? From what kind of source?

And what does your sentence fragment, "From the Christian Bible itself" attach to? It's just a prepositional phrase without its own subject or verb...so it's very hard to tell what you intended it to signal, in relation to the prior sentence.

I challenge anyone...

How about you just answer the question...in Standard English, this time? And I'll answer your challenge for you.

ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY AND BEYOND A SHADOW OF ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER SHAMELESS!!

You know, in a free will world.

[Immanuel Can]

I challenge anyone...

How about you just answer the question...in Standard English, this time? And I'll answer your challenge for you.

ABSOLUTELY...

So no, you can't put it in plain English?

Well, that would seem a minimal request. But if it's too high a bar for you to clear, then I guess you're on your own.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I'm not your enemy, if you're pursuing the truth.

You brought me to Droopy Dog and for that I will be eternally grateful.

[iambiguous]

How about you just answer the question...in Standard English, this time? And I'll answer your challenge for you.

ABSOLUTELY...

So no, you can't put it in plain English?

Well, that would seem a minimal request. But if it's too high a bar for you to clear, then I guess you're on your own.

Note to the Christian God:

See, I told you!

[Age]

From whence arrives this KNOWING?

From within the deepest center of EVERY 'thing', or from what is also sometimes known as from 'the heart', which is where thee One and ONLY, (ALWAYS OPEN KNOWING) Mind exists.

KNOWING is ALWAYS HERE in thee (Truly OPEN) Mind.

Age, what exactly do you mean by heart?

What I mean by 'heart' here in the words that preceded the words, 'or from what is also sometimes known as from the heart'. That is; From within the deepest center of EVER 'thing'.

What I mean, EXACTLY, by the 'heart' word is; From the very CENTER, or from the very HEART, of Everything.

Are you referring to the physical organ?

NO.

The physical organ known as the 'heart' does NOTHING REALLY MORE than just 'pump blood'.

[Age]

you have never answered any of the crucial questions posed.

LIke what?

Don’t fuck with me, Immanuel.

WHY NOT just PROVIDE the ACTUAL answer?

That way "immanuel can" has NOTHING to 'stand on'.

See, there are times when "immanuel can" will NEVER answer ANY of the questions I pose to 'it', and this is because "immanuel can" could NOT do so, OPENLY and Honestly, WITHOUT CONTRADICTING 'itself' sometimes, and at other times because "immanuel can" does NOT KNOW what the answer IS, EXACTLY.

BUT, "immanuel can" will NEVER ask me, "Like what?" BECAUSE "immanuel can" does NOT want me to HIGHLIGHT and SHOW just how LITTLE "immanuel can" KNOWS about "christianity" AND 'God', themselves.

[Walker]

What I mean, EXACTLY, by the 'heart' word is; From the very CENTER, or from the very HEART, of Everything.

Are you referring to the physical organ?

NO.

The physical organ known as the 'heart' does NOTHING REALLY MORE than just 'pump blood'.

The heart space is the physical seat of consciousness in the body from which reasoning that takes place with brain activity, derives.

For example, this can be experienced by the physical pain of a reactionary heart-ache, which can be an intense initial conscious reaction to an observation, and which thought subsequently analyzes in order to determine why that feeling happened, what the implications are, what one should do to relieve the heart ache, and all the other thoughts that might pop up as a result of that initial conscious perception from the heart space that feeds awareness.

Long ago when working in a warehouse, a lifer there told me of his open heart surgery, the intrusion into that heart space. He said it really messes with your head, with your emotions. He said he would find himself crying for no reason. I think he was surprised that it was causing him to tell me those things.

You're right, I think it is not the heart itself, but has something to do with the nerves in that region of the torso. That's a primal place of consciousness that keeps the body alive, keeps that heart twitching without fail.

That's where the life is.

[Age]

LIke what?

Don’t fuck with me, Immanuel.

No, really. What "crucial questions posed" have I not answered? Be specific.

WHY do you NOT ask me questions like this one here "immanuel can"?

Look, I get it. Keeping things "helicopter height," flying over the landscape, leaving everything in fuzzy focus is attractive. It allows one to make gross generalizations that look plausible...at least to minds also flying at helicopter height. People who are thinking weakly support us, agree, pat us on the back, and we move on -- because that's what we wanted: affirmation. We were never really looking for truth, but rather for a position from which we could be reassured, and could continue to be as we are.

And this is WHY "immanuel can" INSISTS God is true, but WHENEVER QUESTIONED over this CLAIM, "immanuel can" just keeps things VERY FUZZY. Which is EXACTLY like "immanuel can", 'itself'. 'it' has NO PROOF, just a VERY STRONG BELIEF, and a VERY FUZZY "logic", ONLY.

When somebody came along and said "be specific," he immediately looked like our enemy. How dare he call us down from helicopter height, where we have all we need, and make us work and move on the ground level, where generalizations are so much harder to see and sustain? Worse still, he will deprive us of our affirmation, our agreeable (if-superficial) public, and make us rethink things we've used the helicopter position to close. How could he be so rude?

And yet, if what we were on were a search for the truth, instead of a the search for affirmation, then we'd be pleased to go down to the ground level and look at the real-world details: that would offer us a chance to ground our theory, and make it really strong; or just as good, it would offer us the means to refine and improve our theory, so it actually was closer to the truth.

But if that was not what we wanted in the first place, then we can have nothing but ire.

So what do you think, AJ? Does it help or hurt your theory if you adopt a specific definition of "Christian"?

What IS 'your' specific definition of "christian", "immanuel can"?

So far, you seem to want to stay in the helicopter, speaking of a kind of broad "Christendom" that never really existed, but which looks plausible if you keep the whole matter at the mere self-identification level, where we believe that everything that anybody ever applied the word "Christian" to deserved to have it. But if going down to the ground and dealing with the specifics hurts your theory, then how much was your theory actually worth, in the first place?

And, if 'you' EVER come back 'down to earth' "immanuel can" and 'you' find that the specifics hurts or destroys 'your' theory/s or BELIEF/S, then, REALLY, how much was 'your' theory/s or BELIEF/S ACTUALLY worth, in the first place?

And if the only way it can survive is by keeping everything up in the helicopter, then how much is it worth to have the affirmation of people who operate at the same level, even were there a million of them?

This is ANOTHER GREAT question to ask "your" 'self' "immanuel can"?

Worth thinking about.

Yes, they are worth thinking about "immanuel can".

All I've ever asked of you is to say what the chief noun and adjective you are using in your theory means, in real-world, down-to-earth terms. And so far....nothing.

AND 'I' have asked 'you' the same question "immanuel can". But, 'you', like "others", prefer to STAY and REMAIN in the clouds, where 'it' is all FUZZY and where the view is BLURRED.

I'm not your enemy, if you're pursuing the truth.

But 'you' are 'your' OWN WORST ENEMY "immanuel can", along with 'your' other fellow adult human beings.

But if you're staying in the helicopter, we can't keep company in a common theory. The distance between there and where reality lives is just too great.

As 'you', adult human beings, WILL ACTUALLY COME-TO-SEE soon enough.

[Age]

If that is actually you, then I have no doubt that by that time, you will know Him. For He has promised, "You shall find me when you seek me with all your heart."

On the other hand, it is one thing to say, and quite another to do.

Same thing. That's all you ever have.

Ever and always going back to the Word.
Ever and always defending it by going around and around in circles:

1] Jesus Christ and the Christian God exist because it says so in the New Testament
2] the New Testament is true because it is the Word of Jesus Christ and the Christian God

If I don't find Christ, it's not because He doesn't exist, it's because I really did not seek Him with all my heart. After all, you have already "proven" that He exists on YouTube. I'm the one who lacks true "introspective honesty and sincerity and integrity". Why? Because those that don't lack them find Him.

You don't even have the intellectual honesty and integrity to admit to yourself how here you just go around and around and around in your "spiritual" circles because it comforts and consoles you to. God...the mother of all psychological defense mechanisms.

Well, unless, of course, you really are able to go beyond your YouTube video "proof" that the Christian God resides in Heaven as others are able to demonstrate that Pope Francis resides in the Vatican. And no doubt will until the day he dies.

Right. For two reasons: one, others do find Him, and two, that's what He promised.

You can choose to believe Him, or not. But if you've never put in the kind of serious search it takes, and never really given it much more than dismissive thought, then don't expect much. Nobody ever finds him that way.

No one...and I mean no one...is more adept at wiggling out of actually responding to the points I raise here than you are.

I would second this and also say that "immanuel can" is the most manipulative one here regarding 'wiggling out' of actually responding to points raised by a lot of people here.

"immanuel can" is so manipulative that some people are even FOOLED into thinking "immanuel can" is articulate or proficient in 'reasoning' and/or 'arguing'. BUT, when DELVED INTO DEEPLY what is CLEARLY SEEN is that "immanuel can" is NOT just FOOLING and TRICKING "others" but "immanuel can" is even DECEIVING "its" OWN 'self'. Which is, EXACTLY, what the stories about God and devil are ACTUALLY ABOUT.

This is becomes CRYSTAL CLEAR and FULLY UNDERSTOOD when HOW the Mind and the brain ACTUALLY WORK is much better understood.

Well, now that henry has put me in the penalty box anyway.

Of course, that is exactly what all of the many, many other religious denominations are reminding the Christians. Only it's you and they who refuse to put in the serious search.

Better, perhaps, to embrace henry's God. Search all you want but He is gone.

Is this confirmation...that along with henry, all Muslims and Jews will burn in Hell? Even though Jesus Christ was Himself a Jew.

Talk about going in circles. Read again. If you can't believe the words you read, I can't help you.

Quite the contrary. I'm not insisting that others should embrace my arguments because they are posted here. And that, because they are posted here, they must be true.

No scripture from me. In fact, I'm the first to admit that my own conclusions here are but subjective assessments rooted existentially in dasein...and ever and always subject to change given new experiences, relationships and access to new information and knowledge.

Also, given that I merely entertain myself with you, I don't even take this seriously myself.

Okay, note for me articles in Philosophy Now magazine that do speak of Christianity as you do...by relying almost exclusively on The Word.

Oh, I dont' know of any there. But then, that's not what you asked me for: check back, and see. You asked for "articles," not just "PN articles."

Oh, I see. The fact that this forum [and this exchange] is derived from Philosophy Now magazine is not relevant at all here.

But, okay, note an article from a publication of your choice that discusses the Christian God without falling back on the assumption that such an assessment is derived from the Word. From the Christian Bible itself.

PN is a great publication: but it's not the ultimate model for philosophy, and wisely doesn't try to be. If you mistook it for that, I suspect you've never actually read it.

What then, in your view, would the ultimate model for a philosophy publication be? Does it exist? If so, then an article from that.

What can be CLEARLY NOTICED here, ONCE MORE, is "immanuel can's" "unique gift" at being ABLE TO 'wiggle out of, AGAIN, of actually responding to the points being raised here.

What can be CLEARLY SEEN here is even after "immanuel can" has been given the opportunity to USE absolutely ANY publication, upon the WHOLE planet, which discusses the "christian" God without falling back on the assumption that such an assessment is derived from 'the Word', "immanuel can" FAILS ABSOLUTELY to do so. AND, THEN TWISTS and DISTORTS 'things' AROUND so that a whole OTHER discussion comes about. And this is WHY "immanuel can" is the MASTER of DECEIT and DECEPTION here, in this forum. That is; the True DEVIL, 'itself', and EXACTLY what was MEANT be 'the devil', in books like the one known as the bible.

[Age]

But, okay, note an article from a publication of your choice that discusses the Christian God without falling back on the assumption that such an assessment is derived from the Word. From the Christian Bible itself.

Can you disambiguate your question, please? At first glance, it now seems to be the opposite of what you asked before, and I don't want to give you what you aren't asking for.

State plainly please: do you want an article that discusses the Christian God, but contains no Scripture? From what kind of source?

NO, and NO.

What is being sought is for 'you' to PROVIDE absolutely ANY publication EVER written that EXPLAINS WHO and WHAT God IS, EXACTLY, WITHOUT FALLING BACK on the DECEIVING, or CIRCULAR REASONING OF, "God MUST BE TRUE, BECAUSE 'it' is written in the bible, AND what is written in the bible IS the WORD of God."

This might NOT be what "iambiguous" is/was seeking from 'you' "immanuel can", but 'I' AM NOW.

So, we AWAIT 'you' FULFILLING this request, or for 'your' DECEITFUL words, ONCE MORE, or for 'you' just COWERING, RUNNING AWAY, and HIDING, ONCE AGAIN.

We do NOT want ANY MORE DECEPTION NOR LIES from 'you', NOR do we want ANY MORE CONTRADICTIONS EITHER.

We just want plain old straight up OPENNESS and Honesty from 'you'. Just like we ALWAYS HAVE.

And what does your sentence fragment, "From the Christian Bible itself" attach to? It's just a prepositional phrase without its own subject or verb...so it's very hard to tell what you intended it to signal, in relation to the prior sentence.

To me this looks like a NORMAL ATTEMPT from 'you' to DECEIVE, but just in case 'you' REALLY ARE CLUELESS here, what was MEANT, well from my perspective anyway, IS, (and please correct me if I am wrong here "iambiguous):

But what I SEE "iambiguous" is ask for and requesting from 'you', "immanuel can", is that 'you' just note an article, from a publication of your choice, which discusses the Christian God, without falling back on the assumption that such an assessment is derived from the Word,of God, from within the Christian Bible itself.

AGAIN, if this is WRONG in anyway "iambiguous", then please CORRECT 'it'.