Christianity

[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?

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.

Although "immanuel can" BELIEVES that 'it' is A MASTER of DECEIT and DEFLECTION here, the ONLY one that 'it' is REALLY FOOLING is "itself", and just a few "others" only. As 'you' can ALSO CLEARLY SEE "iambiguous", "immanuel can" is ONLY 'TRYING TO" DEFLECT and DECEIVE. 'it' can NOT ACTUALLY DO IT, because this kind of Dishonesty can NOT get past thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.

[Age]

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.

I HAVE ANSWERED 'your' question, in STANDARD ENGLISH (whatever that may REALLY BE).

Now, let us SEE what 'your' ANSWER IS. And, if you do NOT even ATTEMPT to answer 'it', OPENLY and Honestly, then, ONCE AGAIN, 'you' are RUNNING AWAY and HIDING. Which is what this thread is turning out to be SHOWING and REVEALING about 'you', "immanuel can", the self-professed "christian".

[Age]

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.

Would it be easier to just re-word your question to "immanuel can"? That way 'it' has absolutely NOTHING to come back at 'you' with. Besides, of course, just the answer 'you' are SEEKING, or MORE PROOF of just how CUNNING and CONNIVING "immanuel can" REALLY IS.

[Age]

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.

I HAVE put 'it' in PLAIN ENGLISH for 'you', "immanuel can". So, 'you' have NO EXCUSES NOW.

[Age]

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.

If that is what you BELIEVE and SAY, then okay.

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.

That is where the life of 'what', EXACTLY, is?

[Immanuel Can]

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."

Start with this, Age.

[Age]

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."

Start with this, Age.

There is absolutely NOTHING there that I could SEE that does the above.

And, if you BELIEVE there is, then will you SHARE that with us?

If you do NOT, then this will be taken as there is NOTHING there regarding the above.

[Immanuel Can]

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."

Start with this, Age.

There is absolutely NOTHING there that I could SEE that does the above.

Read the W.L. Craig article, for one.

[Agent Smith]

Christianity
Britain used to refer to itself as a Christian country.
There seems to be little agreement as to what we are today.
In modern terms:
Christianity is not about simple freedom of the individual will.
Christianity is not about simple obedience to moral codes.
Christianity is about informed conformity to altruist values.
Human and other rights and duties are legal constructs based on values.

How would you respond if I said Christianity is (just) a meme?

[Age]

Start with this, Age.

There is absolutely NOTHING there that I could SEE that does the above.

Read the W.L. Craig article, for one.

I DID.

AND, I ALSO SAID and WROTE:

If you think or BELIEVE that there is some thing in that article, which does the above, then will you SHARE that with us.

And, if you do NOT share ANY thing with us, then this will be taken as there is NOTHING there regarding the above.

As you have NOT shared ANY thing with us, then that there is NOTHING in that article, which does the above, REMAINS.

All 'you' are doing here "immanuel can" is your usual ATTEMPT at DECEPTION and DEFLECTION. ONCE AGAIN, 'you' have so far FAILED ABSOLUTELY to back up and support 'your' CLAIM.

[Harry Baird]

The question is closed, Mr Can, despite your sophistical attempts to lever it open.

That's not "the question."

I have no idea what you're referring to.

The question I'm referring to is "Can an infinite punishment to right a wrong ever be proportionate when the wrong is finite?"

The answer, of course, is, "By definition, no".

Case closed.

The problems remain.

These "problems" are of your own imagination. They are red herrings you've constructed so as to avoid a direct answer to the original question, which you still have not answered, despite blithely responding to AJ, liberally paraphrased, "Well, golly gosh and gee whiz, I just can't think of any question I haven't answered. Nope, nothing's coming to mind."

You are, as AJ put it, f***ing with us.

Here the key question is again:

Is it either loving or just to condemn a person, for finite crimes or even simply for mere inheritance of some supposed "original sin", to an eternity of a hell which is, in your own words, "considerably worse than most people can even imagine"?

You will, of course, again fail to answer it, probably by quibbling over its framing or trying to turn the question back on me. A direct response is simply too much for you.

Moving on to your imaginary problems:

• Harry has provided no justification for "justice" on the basis of his own worldview.

Irrelevant, but I've pointed out to you that I explained in detail my grounding of the related concept of morality in our lengthy exchange from my initial spate of posting to this board. My grounding for justice is similar.

No problem.

There is, however, a problem for you: your grounding of justice falls foul of Euthyphro's Dilemma, so you have none yourself, and thus no basis on which to require one from me.

• Harry seems oblivious to the realization that Harry Baird's definition isn't everybody else's.

My definition is the dictionary definition, so, yes, it is everybody else's. Based on inspiration from hq, I provided a slightly more specific contextual definition which makes explicit the implicit notions of "righting wrongs" and "proportionality". You've affirmed that this definition is not wrong (so far as it goes).

No obliviousness. No problem.

• Harry shows no awareness at all of cultural differences in "justice," even within his own culture, let alone worldwide.

False but anyway irrelevant given that the question (quoted above) and the argument based on it (in that same quoted post) require only a broad conception of justice as per the dictionary definition.

No problem.

• We've still not been given any criteria for detecting "proportionality."

We don't need any in this context, given that infinite punishment is by definition not proportionate with respect to finite crimes - sin(fulness) in this case.

No problem.

• Harry can't identify the two elements he wants us to agree are "proportional" to each other.

Obviously, they are on the one hand the dispositional sinfulness (your stipulation) and (resultant) sin(s) that were perpetrated during a finite life, and thus are finite, and, on the other hand, the infinite punishment for same. And, obviously, I'm saying that the latter is by definition not proportionate with respect to the former.

No problem.

• Knowing what Harry would need to know, in order to warrant the conclusion he wants, would actually require Harry to be omniscient.

Nonsense. All that's required is the knowledge of what justice means. You've already agreed that the contextual definition I've supplied is not wrong - so, clearly, omniscience is not required... unless... oh boy... wait, don't tell me... I'm talking with God?!

So you can close the discussion, for sure.

For sure. You've had your chance to provide either an answer to the question at the heart of it, or a refutation of the argument based on that question. You couldn't do it. There's nothing left to discuss, unless/until you concede the argument.

[Belinda]

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."

Start with this, Age.

That picture is by William Blake who was opposed to religions. Blake drew God as an official measurer . Note the deity in the picture is blind. The deity in the picture is the God of religions who is blind to the suffering of poor people.

[attofishpi]

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."

Start with this, Age.

That picture is by William Blake who was opposed to religions. Blake drew God as an official measurer . Note the deity in the picture is blind. The deity in the picture is the God of religions who is blind to the suffering of poor people.

This thread is beyond ridiculous, but at times I feel...ah, lets jump in again.

So.

EVERYONE is so short of sight that they actually believe that this life is their 1st LIFE --> the point of existence that shall play out-and as per the theists-shall be judged upon. That is RIDICULOUS - at such a point in time - NONE are born equal.

Thus everyone needs to think far more 4th dimensionally. That you have been incarnated into your current existence based upon your prior incarnations upon planet Earth. ..and Belinda as per your statement that God is blind to the suffering of poor people - actually no, it's ALL karmic - the rich or more to the point the greedy that betray others for their wealth, become the poor - incarnate as such - OH WHAT A BEAUTIFUL SYSTEM - once one comprehends karmic reincarnation.

[BigMike]

Thus everyone needs to think far more 4th dimensionally. That you have been incarnated into your current existence based upon your prior incarnations upon planet Earth. ..and Belinda as per your statement that God is blind to the suffering of poor people - actually no, it's ALL karmic - the rich or more to the point the greedy that betray others for their wealth, become the poor - incarnate as such - OH WHAT A BEAUTIFUL SYSTEM - once one comprehends karmic reincarnation.

Oh no, it's yet another example of those deranged individuals. Yeah, "this thread is beyond ridiculous."

[Immanuel Can]

There is absolutely NOTHING there that I could SEE that does the above.

Read the W.L. Craig article, for one.

I DID.

If it didn't meet your expectations, then say what your expectations really were. We'll see what we can do for you.