Christianity

[attofishpi]

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."

"deranged individual" = oh shit, there is an actual Christian that thinks as an individual.

OR have you got something more to say you fucking dickhead?

[Immanuel Can]

Moving on to your imaginary problems:

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

Irrelevant,

Hardly. If even your own worldview cannot provide a rational account of why you are owed "justice," then you can't expect any...and have no complaint.

Euthyphro's Dilemma,

Old hat. It's been asked-and-answered by many, many apologists, and personally by me, on this board, on several occasions. Not a problem at all, unless you're a polytheist.

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

My definition is the dictionary definition,

And your dictionary is your "Scripture"?

You clearly don't know what a "dictionary" is, then. It's not the last word in anything; it's somebody's attempt to provide some sort of synonym or explanation within a particular cultural context...in Oxford's case, the English definition of "justice," in general terms.

But dictionaries also provide definitions, but no justifications. And you can see that, because you'll not only find the word "justice" defined therein, but also "unicorn" and "pixie."

But if you think otherwise, then meet my challenge of explaining how your account of justice works within the Hindu system. Good luck.

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

False

True, as above illustrates.

• 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

You're defining the "crimes," and calling them "finite." God does not see evil that way...neither as merely a matter of "transgressions," nor as "finite." But I've pointed all that out to you, and you ignore it, so I'll not repeat.

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

...were perpetrated during a finite life...

There it is, again. You're back to thinking in terms of "transgressions," and giving now weight to "disposition." "Disposition" isn't finite: it includes not just what you've already done, but what you're going to do, given opportunity, as well as what kind of person you're determined to be, and what kind of relationship you have to God. These are permanent concerns, not merely tit-for-tat responses to actions.

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

Nonsense.

True, as illustrated above.

Harry's still thinking a "sin" is one thing...a "transgression," and "finite." This is why, according to his personal but unlegitimated version of "justice," judgment looks unfair. He doesn't have sufficient knowledge even to make such a judgment, though, because he can say nothing about the motives and internal workings, or private dealings, of other men. Nor does he have an understanding of evil as being a constitutional issue (as if "transgressions" appear without there being a "transgressor" who is acting from a "transgressive" heart fixed in opposition to God.) Nor does he know what God ought to weigh in judgment; but he acts as if he does, and publicly passes his own judgment against God.

But in any case, it really doesn't matter how it looks to Harry Baird. If God is just, and if God knows what he's doing, then Harry Baird's lack of understanding is not an insurance policy against judgment.

It just means that what happens will come to him, at least at first, as a surprise.

[Immanuel Can]

That picture is by William Blake who was opposed to religions.

He was a Swedenborgian, actually. He was not at all opposed to relgions, and this is one of his many religious paintings and poems...in fact, you could argue that really, all of them are religious...just not conventional. Blake famously claimed, as a child, to see angels sitting in trees, personally. He also would sit with his wife in his back garden, naked, reciting Paradise Lost -- and receiving guests.

A genius and a loon he was, but hardly an Atheist.

[attofishpi]

Moving on to your imaginary problems:

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

Irrelevant,

Hardly. If even your own worldview cannot provide a rational account of why you are owed "justice," then you can't expect any...and have no complaint.

Well. Look at you...still using the term "JUSTICE" as an out.

Immanuel...forget the term, move on as clearly you are confused by it..and after all it's JUST_ICE.

Take another tack.

I am considering that you have your judgement day within the next FOUGHT NIGHT (but only on a day that ends with Y)

Is it morally reasonable for a wo/man to burn with excruciating pain for the rest of eternity?

ps. Your answer needs to be well considered as per your self judgement that is coming.

[Alexis Jacobi]

He also would sit with his wife in his back garden, naked, reciting Paradise Lost -- and receiving guests.

A genius and a loon he was, but hardly an Atheist.

You've hit on something: all the people that you *argue* with here (I mean those who communicate their ideas to you which you never comment on in any meaningful or respectful way) share a great deal with Blake. That is, they have an immediate, personal relationship to the divinity they experience and speak from that experience.

You speak only from a acutely defined dogmatism. Truthfully, Blake would have detested to be in your presence. And he would, certainly, have seen you as aligned with God's opposite. You are not just somewhat unsuccessful in bringing people over to your side (Walker sort of tends in your direction however) you are in fact an utter failure. As a response to you (this is so in my case) I have to go back and redefine everything. As I have been saying the entire structure (of Judaism and Christianity) have been built on foundations with very significant problems. Through just one example (that brought out by Harry) we have all of seen the problem.

It would, nethertheless, be impossible to *build a religion* on a Blake-like foundation. Blake is the beginning of a turn away from any such structure. He is thus an emblem of processes begun in Protestantism and various revolutionary political and social movements. To allow for the sort of *vision* that moved Blake, to seek after such *vision*, will open one to new and different ways of seeing and being. It is a conundrum. The function of strong religions are to corral and control masses of the practitioners. But visionaries always react against conventional forces.

My view is that it takes a very mature mind to 1) allow visionary experience while 2) simultaneously recognizing the value and the need of more strictly organized religious and ethical principles. The question and issue of what happened in the culture (the Sixties really) to weaken the base on which conventional Christianity stands requires a difficult but worthwhile conversation.

You have not, naturally, and you did not at any point address in any way the issue brought to your attention by Harry. But we did our work.

Blake also wrote: "the Creator of this World is a very Cruel Being" and right there he shows that he sees more about the real nature of this world than you allow. What I have said is similar: If the world and the cosmos we see around us is the creation of a god, then the real nature of that god must be reassessed. The old Story, the old Pictures, simply do not help us any longer.

For most of us here, and those who have some type of spiritual life, we can only see the god that you elevate as a Demiurge. You are not describing god, you are describing your mental problems and some internal condition in your psychology. We may be uncertain about ultimate definitions but we cannot go along with what you are presenting. Quote from Biblical texts until your fingers atrophy, Immanuel, it won't change.

You have created for yourself an Internet character and personality that reminds me of Pastor Gregorius in Haljmar Söderberg's novel Dr Glas. The purpose of that character is to inspire contempt for all his *piousness*. You seem to relish the ugly character you have created here. If it works for you keep up with it! Also I am reminded of Vergérus in some of Bergman's films. You are, certainly, personally contemptible (this does not at all help your missionary work!) but what is hardest for most people is to deal with a man so deeply committed to Bible literalism which you are incapable of examining with a *philosophical eye*.

Naturally, those who are thorough atheists simply dismiss all religious mythology as sheer invention.

[Immanuel Can]

He also would sit with his wife in his back garden, naked, reciting Paradise Lost -- and receiving guests.

A genius and a loon he was, but hardly an Atheist.

You've hit on something: all the people that you *argue* with here...share a great deal with Blake.

It's not nice to call them "loons." And I'm reasonably confident it takes an unusual person to receive guests in the nude. But okay.

You have not, naturally, and you did not at any point address in any way the issue brought to your attention by Harry.

Which "issue" do you think I've not "addressed"?

Or do you just mean, "You did not agree with Harry"? That's quite a different allegation, and one that no philospher should be particularly concerned about.

[iambiguous]

He also would sit with his wife in his back garden, naked, reciting Paradise Lost -- and receiving guests.

A genius and a loon he was, but hardly an Atheist.

You've hit on something: all the people that you *argue* with here (I mean those who communicate their ideas to you which you never comment on in any meaningful or respectful way) share a great deal with Blake. That is, they have an immediate, personal relationship to the divinity they experience and speak from that experience.

You speak only from a acutely defined dogmatism. Truthfully, Blake would have detested to be in your presence. And he would, certainly, have seen you as aligned with God's opposite. You are not just somewhat unsuccessful in bringing people over to your side (Walker sort of tends in your direction however) you are in fact an utter failure. As a response to you (this is so in my case) I have to go back and redefine everything. As I have been saying the entire structure (of Judaism and Christianity) have been built on foundations with very significant problems. Through just one example (that brought out by Harry) we have all of seen the problem.

It would, nethertheless, be impossible to *build a religion* on a Blake-like foundation. Blake is the beginning of a turn away from any such structure. He is thus an emblem of processes begun in Protestantism and various revolutionary political and social movements. To allow for the sort of *vision* that moved Blake, to seek after such *vision*, will open one to new and different ways of seeing and being. It is a conundrum. The function of strong religions are to corral and control masses of the practitioners. But visionaries always react against conventional forces.

My view is that it takes a very mature mind to 1) allow visionary experience while 2) simultaneously recognizing the value and the need of more strictly organized religious and ethical principles. The question and issue of what happened in the culture (the Sixties really) to weaken the base on which conventional Christianity stands requires a difficult but worthwhile conversation.

You have not, naturally, and you did not at any point address in any way the issue brought to your attention by Harry. But we did our work.

Blake also wrote: "the Creator of this World is a very Cruel Being" and right there he shows that he sees more about the real nature of this world than you allow. What I have said is similar: If the world and the cosmos we see around us is the creation of a god, then the real nature of that god must be reassessed. The old Story, the old Pictures, simply do not help us any longer.

For most of us here, and those who have some type of spiritual life, we can only see the god that you elevate as a Demiurge. You are not describing god, you are describing your mental problems and some internal condition in your psychology. We may be uncertain about ultimate definitions but we cannot go along with what you are presenting. Quote from Biblical texts until your fingers atrophy, Immanuel, it won't change.

You have created for yourself an Internet character and personality that reminds me of Pastor Gregorius in Haljmar Söderberg's novel Dr Glas. The purpose of that character is to inspire contempt for all his *piousness*. You seem to relish the ugly character you have created here. If it works for you keep up with it! Also I am reminded of Vergérus in some of Bergman's films. You are, certainly, personally contemptible (this does not at all help your missionary work!) but what is hardest for most people is to deal with a man so deeply committed to Bible literalism which you are incapable of examining with a *philosophical eye*.

Naturally, those who are thorough atheists simply dismiss all religious mythology as sheer invention.

my emphasis


Yes, there are those here who choose to engage IC in discussions that are based on the assumption that he is not afflicted with a "condition". That he is not the classic example of what Oliver Stone encompassed in a character's view that "Hell is the impossibility of reason."

His whole shtick revolves around this:

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

Around The Word.

At best, you can humor him in the hope that one day he [and others here even more afflicted] will recognize that it is a "condition". But how likely is that since the whole point of having the "condition" is basically to comfort and console yourself in this at times truly grim world.

There's just something about philosophy venues that attracts folks with "condiditions". Especially the "a God, the God, my God" disorders.

Unless, of course, I'm wrong.

And, true enough, there are plenty of folks here convinced that I am the one afflicted with a "condition".

I don't think so, but that's one of the signs, right?

[Immanuel Can]

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

No, Jesus Christ existed because history shows he did, and no credible historian doubts it. We can debate WHO He was, but THAT He was, that's pretty much beyond debate.

The Bible is true because it tells the truth about the living Word of God, Jesus Christ and about man, and about sin, and about judgment, and about prophecy, and, as it turns out, about a whole lot of things, including who God is.

Now, you can believe that, or you can choose not to. However, if I'm right and you're wrong, you'll find out. If you're right, neither of us will ever know it.

Unless, of course, I'm wrong.

That's alright...you'll be getting getting used to it by now.

[Harry Baird]

Of course, of course: the key question is once again ignored; snipped; obliterated from the response.

If even your own worldview cannot provide a rational account of why you are owed "justice,"

It can and does - but, as I keep on telling you, I'm not going to repeat our exchange from several years back.

Euthyphro's Dilemma,

Old hat. It's been asked-and-answered [...] personally by me, on this board

I know, because I've seen you do it, which is how I know that your answer fails.

The traditional dilemma is based on an assertion something like this:

#1 Morality/justice are grounded in God because they are decreed by God.

The dilemma then goes something like this:

(1A) Are morality/justice whatever God happens to decree, or (1B) does what God decree conform to the standards of morality/justice?

If 1A, then morality/justice are arbitrary; if 1B, then morality/justice are not grounded in God but in some external standard. In neither case have we grounded morality/justice.

You respond to this dilemma by changing assertion #1 into something like this:

#2 Morality/justice are grounded in God because they are identical with God's character/nature.

This doesn't, though, solve the dilemma, it simply changes its expression a little, to something like this:

(2A) Are morality/justice whatever God's character/nature happens to be, or (2B) does God's character/nature conform to the standards of morality/justice?

If 2A, then morality/justice are arbitrary; if 2B, then morality/justice are not grounded in God but in some external standard. In neither case have we grounded morality/justice.

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

My definition is the dictionary definition,

And your dictionary is your "Scripture"?

What?

You clearly don't know what a "dictionary" is, then. It's not the last word in anything; it's somebody's attempt to provide some sort of synonym or explanation within a particular cultural context...in Oxford's case, the English definition of "justice," in general terms.

But dictionaries also provide definitions, but no justifications. And you can see that, because you'll not only find the word "justice" defined therein, but also "unicorn" and "pixie."

But if you think otherwise, then meet my challenge of explaining how your account of justice works within the Hindu system. Good luck.

What a lot of desperate babble. I use a word in a question and argument according to its dictionary definition, and this is how you respond? That words have meanings is apparently just too much for you to deal with.

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

False

True, as above illustrates.

"Above" illustrates only your woeful inability to respond directly and honestly to a simple, direct question (and an argument based upon it) using words according to their usual meanings.

• 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

You're defining the "crimes,"

No, you, as a Christian, are. I'm simply pointing out the consequences of that definition.

and calling them "finite." God does not see evil that way...neither as merely a matter of "transgressions," nor as "finite."

Oh, so, not only does God as you see Him redefine "justice", but also "finitude". Big Brother would be so proud.

"Disposition" isn't finite: it includes not just what you've already done, but what you're going to do, given opportunity, as well as what kind of person you're determined to be, and what kind of relationship you have to God. These are permanent concerns, not merely tit-for-tat responses to actions.

(Emphasis added in the above)

Riiight, so, on your account, God sees in advance all that a person is going to be and do, or would be and do if given the opportunity, and knows that, because of what He foresees that person will (would) be and do, if He brings that person into existence, He will ultimately after that person's brief life on Earth be condemning that person to burn in hell for eternity...

...and then happily brings that person into existence.

Apparently, this is supposed to convince us that on your account, God is loving and just...

This is your sophistical means of getting around the obvious finitude of a disposition held during a person's lifetime on this planet: to include an eternity of that disposition into the future, and to then claim that a person should be punished eternally not just for that which they have been and done, but for that which they would be and do if given the opportunity; in other words, to preemptively punish them. This is simply sick and twisted: so far from loving and just that it's beyond belief - literally, it cannot be believed.

Let's consider this idea more closely though: the implication is that the infinitude of punishment into eternity is proportionate with the infinitude of a person's sinful disposition into eternity, and thus is just. The further implication, then, is that one moment of sinful disposition justifies a corresponding moment of a torment which is, in your own words, "considerably worse than most people can even imagine". People are punished, then, in the most abhorrent of ways, not for what they do but for what they are. Again: this is simply sick and twisted: so far from loving and just that it literally cannot be believed.

Maybe, though, Immanuel Can really is God, because he seems to be capable of believing that which literally cannot be believed...

Harry's still thinking a "sin" is one thing...a "transgression," and "finite." This is why, according to his personal but unlegitimated version of "justice," judgment looks unfair. He doesn't have sufficient knowledge even to make such a judgment, though, because he can say nothing about the motives and internal workings, or private dealings, of other men.

Whatever those motives, internal workings, and private dealings are, they are finite, and infinite punishment is, because by definition disproportionate, unjust.

Nor does he have an understanding of evil as being a constitutional issue (as if "transgressions" appear without there being a "transgressor" who is acting from a "transgressive" heart fixed in opposition to God.) Nor does he know what God ought to weigh in judgment; but he acts as if he does, and publicly passes his own judgment against God.

Dude, blather on about my understanding all you like, but infinite punishment for finite crimes remains disproportionate and thus unjust.

[Harry Baird]

The Bible is true because it tells the truth

I'm so glad you cleared that up for us.

[Alexis Jacobi]

It's not nice to call them "loons." And I'm reasonably confident it takes an unusual person to receive guests in the nude. But okay.

Another interesting topic or issue. Harry and I have an Internet friend (Deebs we will call him) who believes that religion itself, and certainly the extreme forms of it, is a kind of madness or unbalance.

There is, to one degree or another, a sort of neuroticism in those supplications to an invisible god who, in so many ways, is non-evident. In my own case I think my understanding of god is so ingrained that I could never become a thorough atheist. But I must say that this long conversation — and you — have aided me in seeing the ‘heart of darkness’ in the demiurgic relationship.

So if I were to say “extended conversations on god ‘god’ and God” of this sort are in fact a little batty — looney if you wish — I would not be far from the truth.

Still, I really do think we have covered much important and relevant ground. Whole new areas have opened up for me in any case.

I regard life as crazy-making. Especially where I live you see the raw and the exposed side of it. I also see people, in these circumstances, praying fervently in the church pews. I know they are suffering terrible events and such and I understand.

So everyone is a little mad, a little looney, and the rising tensions world-wide certainly don’t help.

For me, Droopy Dog’s advent on the spiritual plane has been a great psychic balm. Do you know much about his life? Have you ever read his Woof or Lifting A Leg?

All Gnostics know that Paradise Lost is to be recited in the nude. But if I told you why you’d not understand . . .

[Alexis Jacobi]

If you're right, neither of us will ever know it..

Here is a mistake. We really do not know if our consciousness remains, somehow, after we have died. It is truly the unknown country.

(To be distinguished of course from ‘country matters’ . . . )



The both of you, and all of us, could well wake up in a world we had no knowledge of at all. Seeds alludes to this in some parts of her exposition.

You Immanuel can only *see* through your concretized metaphors. But the metaphor is never the picture or never what is pictorialized. The picture is a reference or an allusion.

[iambiguous]

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

No, Jesus Christ existed because history shows he did, and no credible historian doubts it. We can debate WHO He was, but THAT He was, that's pretty much beyond debate.

That some dude back then calling himself Jesus went around [like Muhammad or Gautama Buddha] proclaiming himself to be the embodiment of the One True Path to enlightenment and immortality and salvation wouldn't surprise me. History is full of them. But that this proves the existence of the Christian God?

Though, okay, sure, link us to those videos again.

Maybe I missed something.

Then straight back up into your "condition":

The Bible is true because it tells the truth about the living Word of God, Jesus Christ and about man, and about sin, and about judgment, and about prophecy, and, as it turns out, about a whole lot of things, including who God is.

The Bible is true because it's the Bible? Got it.

Now, you can believe that, or you can choose not to. However, if I'm right and you're wrong, you'll find out. If you're right, neither of us will ever know it.

On the other hand, there are many folks here -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions -- who will tell you that you can believe what they do or not. However, if they are right and you're wrong, you'll find out.

Unless, of course, I'm wrong.

That's alright...you'll be getting getting used to it by now.

No, I merely recognize this: that given the gap between what [existentially] I have come to believe about God and religion and all that there is to be known about them going back to all that there is to be known about the manner in which the human condition itself fits into the ontological parameters of existence itself, it is almost certainly true that I am wrong about a lot of things.

And that only those afflicted with one or another measure of one or another "condition" can possibly convince themselves that what they believe about God and religion really is that which all rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn.



Note to others:

See what I mean? Try entertaining yourself with him.

[Dubious]

The Bible is true because it tells the truth about the living Word of God, Jesus Christ and about man, and about sin, and about judgment, and about prophecy, and, as it turns out, about a whole lot of things, including who God is.

...and no amount of science fact, history, logic, and simple common sense is going to negate the ultimate reality of the bible. One wonders why these fools who can't accept that simple fact continue to argue endlessly against someone who has seen the light, who knows the truth. Vanity of vanities in assuming anyone of those negationists of god inspired scripture can ever win against the written word of god.

Fools all of them and doomed as well!

[seeds]

The Bible is true because it tells the truth about the living Word of God, Jesus Christ and about man, and about sin, and about judgment, and about prophecy, and, as it turns out, about a whole lot of things, including who God is.

...and no amount of science fact, history, logic, and simple common sense is going to negate the ultimate reality of the bible. One wonders why these fools who can't accept that simple fact continue to argue endlessly against someone who has seen the light, who knows the truth. Vanity of vanities in assuming anyone of those negationists of god inspired scripture can ever win against the written word of god.

Fools all of them and doomed as well!

Dub, sarcasm is definitely your forte.
_______