Christianity

[seeds]

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.

Here is a possible conversation that might take place in heaven sometime in the future...

• Jesus: "Emmanuel Can, because of the number of humans I have condemned to burn in hell is so vast, I'm afraid I'm going to need you to relinquish some of your fun-time here in heaven in order to help man some of the torture chambers."
  
  Emmanuel Can: "But I thought you created an army of demons to do that?"
  
  Jesus: "That's true, and me and Dad could simply create more demons to handle the workload, but why bother when I have humans such as you, who, now that you've been granted entrance into paradise, are no longer troubled by the thought of other humans being tortured.
  
  I mean, come on now, Emmanuel, you expect me to torture billions of humans, however, is it too much to ask of you to pitch-in and help?"
  
  Emmanuel Can: "No, I guess not...
  
  ...(stated with the giddy and gleeful thought in mind of how he will now personally get to torture everyone on this forum who ridiculed him).
  
  Will this conscription into your army of demons be temporary?"
  
  Jesus: "Sorry, but no. Try thinking of it as being sprung on you out of the blue every once in a while, kind of like heaven's version of jury duty.
  
  Oh,...and by the way, you have been assigned to torture your mother, father, sisters, brothers, wife, children, grandparents, and most of your friends, etc., etc..
  
  Is that a problem?"
  
  Emmanuel Can: "Not at all,...not at all.
  
  And thank you, Jesus, for the opportunity to personally show my loved ones and my forum adversaries just how stupid they were for rejecting my assertions of how beautiful, just, and "loving" Christianity's concept of heaven and hell truly is."

If we could project the conversation taking place in this thread back to the time on earth depicted in the following images,...





...I wonder if we can guess which of the characters in the images is a representation of Mr. Con?

Clearly, Mr. Con would feel much more at home had he been born in that era.
_______

[Age]

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.

In a 'karmic reincarnation world', where each 'one' comes back in 'another form', then how can the population increase?

[attofishpi]

In a 'karmic reincarnation world', where each 'one' comes back in 'another form', then how can the population increase?

Most reincarnate as human as children of the families they deserve. It's still puzzling to think at which point a soul has its very first incarnation upon the planet.
We could consider that ALL of humanity from past ages are now here present upon this fairly screwed up planet!

It makes me have a small laugh when I see politicians with little commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions talking codshit about what our future generations need...when actually we reep what we sow - these politicians will be reborn into the future..lol.

[Age]

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.

But I HAD NO expectations, and I STILL HAVE NO expectations by the way.

What happened was; 'you' were PERPLEXED as to what "iambiguous" was asking for, from 'you'. I just CLARIFIED it up for you, in my words, which I also invited "iambiguous" to CORRECT if my INTERPRETATION was WRONG in any way.

I just wrote;
But what I SEE "iambiguous" is asking 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.

I then just informed 'you' that 'There is absolutely NOTHING in that article that I could SEE that does the above'.

So, once again, I have NO expectations. I was just informing 'you' of what I think "iambiguous" was seeking from 'you' and informing 'you' that that article will NOT suffice.

If you still do NOT understand what 'it' is that "iambiguous" wants from 'you', "immanuel can", then just let us know. We will see if we can help you further.

[Age]

In a 'karmic reincarnation world', where each 'one' comes back in 'another form', then how can the population increase?

Most reincarnate as human as children of the families they deserve. It's still puzzling to think at which point a soul has its very first incarnation upon the planet.

I am still puzzled as to how from a fixed number of people, let us say two for example, that in a 'karmic reincarnated world' the number of people could increase, let alone being puzzled about ANY thing else here, YET.

But now, by the way, what does the 'soul' word mean or refer to, to you?

We could consider that ALL of humanity from past ages are now here present upon this fairly screwed up planet!

We could consider this, but if we did, then this still does NOT answer my question here, posed to you, and only deflects and detracts away from that question.

It makes me have a small laugh when I see politicians with little commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions talking codshit about what our future generations need...when actually we reep what we sow - these politicians will be reborn into the future..lol.

Okay, but HOW, in some supposed and alleged 'karmic reincarnated world' where, supposedly, each individual person 'comes back' as 'another person', could the population of people increase?

Answer this sufficiently, then you might start getting more people beginning to accept YOUR CLAIM here. Until then what you CLAIM here is an IMPOSSIBILITY, well to me anyway.

And the more you keep DEFLECTING, the more this is a sign that your CLAIM is NOT even real at all.

[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!

Dub, sarcasm is definitely your forte.
_______

How do you know I haven't had, since our last useless conversation, some kind of metanoia (which sounds more like a toenail fungus) guiding me to the one source which has made all truth manifest! Is it so hard to understand I may not want to be dead after I'm dead?

If one senses time merging into a cul-de-sac instead of an interstate highway it may be time for a compromise. Past deniers may be forgiven as happened so often even to Peter himself! Life may be undesirable for so many on this planet but looking forward to perennial announcements of good news and unblemished social behavior is a kismet devoutly to be wished even as life itself becomes less interesting through lack of sinning.

Understandably, sacrifices must be made in the here and now in collecting enough compound interest to ensure one's future far beyond what the Garden of Eden once was...one in which Alleluia will be forever sung with no further Dies Irae threats to mangle the perpetuity of unimaginable bliss.

[attofishpi]

And the more you keep DEFLECTING, the more this is a sign that your CLAIM is NOT even real at all.

You obviously have mistaken me for someone that cares.

[Age]

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...

In what way does 'YOUR' God 'see evil', "immanuel can"?

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.

And what do 'you' think 'sin' is, EXACTLY, "immanuel can"?

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.

Do 'you', "immanuel can" have 'sufficient knowledge'?

If yes, then WHERE did 'you' obtain that, alleged and supposed, 'sufficient knowledge' from EXACTLY?

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.

LOL And this coming from one who STILL BELIEVES, WHOLEHEARTEDLY and ABSOLUTELY, that God is a male gendered thing/person.

Are 'you' even AWARE "immanuel can" that one would HAVE TO HAVE a FULL UNDERSTANDING of WHO and WHAT God IS, EXACTLY, BEFORE they could, legitimately, go off sprouting about how "others" do NOT have 'an understanding' here?

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.

If only 'you' KNEW, "immanuel can". IF ONLY 'you' KNEW.

The one here who thinks or BELIEVES that it will have the best or easiest 'pass mark', at judgement time, is the one who is actually 'missing the mark' the most, and so is the one who will end up having the hardest time accepting what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY.

When 'you', human beings, FINALLY ALSO work out WHO and WHAT God is EXACTLY, and what the words like 'sin' actually mean and refer to, EXACTLY, which ACTUALLY FIT IN WITH, and WORK WITH, ALL other definitions, then 'you' could ALSO SEE just how FUNNY ALL of this WAS to OBSERVE and WATCH, and PLAY OUT, in REAL TIME.

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

The biggest SURPRISE will be on 'you' "immanuel can", as it is 'you' who HAS the biggest EXPECTATIONS here. Whereas the "others", with the least EXPECTATIONS, will be least surprised.

[Age]

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."

MORE DECEPTION and DECEIVING ATTEMPTED by "immanuel can". Which, by the way, is the OBVIOUS traits of one who is the EXACT opposite of being God-like.

And I'm reasonably confident it takes an unusual person to receive guests in the nude. But okay.

Have 'you' labelled that guy a 'loon' or an 'unusual person' for solely receiving guests when naked?

Are 'you' even AWARE that EVERY creature on the planet is born NAKED, including 'you' "immanuel can"?

And, besides this Fact even when 'you' were BORN your OWN mother could have be classed as being 'nude' or 'naked' when she ' received 'you' ', her guest.

JUDGING "others" as 'loons', 'unusual people' or as ABSOLUTELY ANY thing else just because they are 'nude' SHOWS and PROVES the ABSOLUTELY IMMATURITY and STUPIDITY that is taught through the religion known as "christianity".

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.

ANOTHER ATTEMPT at DECEIVING.

WHY NOT just WAIT to SEE what 'issues' that you have NOT addressed?

[Age]

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".

'you', "iambiguous", speak here as though 'you', 'yourself", do NOT have a so-called 'condition' ALSO?

Is this what 'you' think or BELIEVE is true?

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.

Let us NOT forget the 'NO God' disorders AS WELL.

Or, does BELIEVING that 'there is NO God' NOT a 'disorder'? Is having 'the DISBELIEF that God exists' NOT a 'disorder'?

If yes to either both or just one, then what ACTUAL PROOF do the people who BELIEVE God does NOT exist or have a DISBELIEF that God exists have for their 'condition'?

If ANY person does NOT YET have ACTUAL, IRREFUTABLE PROOF for what they BELIEVE or DISBELIEVE, then that can be SEEN as a great indication of A 'condition', and, in fact, it is the EXACT SAME 'condition'. Which, by the way, if not ALL, MOST of 'you', posters, here HAVE.

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?

Could it be a possibility that ACTUALLY ALL of 'you', adult human beings, back in the days when this is being written, have 'conditions'?

[iambiguous]

In a 'karmic reincarnation world', where each 'one' comes back in 'another form', then how can the population increase?

Most reincarnate as human as children of the families they deserve. It's still puzzling to think at which point a soul has its very first incarnation upon the planet.

I am still puzzled as to how from a fixed number of people, let us say two for example, that in a 'karmic reincarnated world' the number of people could increase, let alone being puzzled about ANY thing else here, YET.

But now, by the way, what does the 'soul' word mean or refer to, to you?

We could consider that ALL of humanity from past ages are now here present upon this fairly screwed up planet!

We could consider this, but if we did, then this still does NOT answer my question here, posed to you, and only deflects and detracts away from that question.

It makes me have a small laugh when I see politicians with little commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions talking codshit about what our future generations need...when actually we reep what we sow - these politicians will be reborn into the future..lol.

Okay, but HOW, in some supposed and alleged 'karmic reincarnated world' where, supposedly, each individual person 'comes back' as 'another person', could the population of people increase?

Answer this sufficiently, then you might start getting more people beginning to accept YOUR CLAIM here. Until then what you CLAIM here is an IMPOSSIBILITY, well to me anyway.

And the more you keep DEFLECTING, the more this is a sign that your CLAIM is NOT even real at all.

Of course: the irresistible force "condition" crashing headlong into the immovable object "condition".








but why oh why does it have to be here?!

[Age]

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.

Does ANY one here dispute that there was a human being named "jesus christ"?

If yes, then speak up now.

Until then 'your' "No" here "immanuel can" is just another ATTEMPT at DEFLECTION, and thus just ANOTHER form of DECEPTION.

We can debate WHO He was, but THAT He was, that's pretty much beyond debate.

'He' was just ANOTHER human being. NOTHING more and NOTHING less. Just like ALL of 'you', posters, are here.

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.

'you' REALLY are absolutely and completely BLIND here "immanuel can".

What "immanuel can" is doing here is IRREFUTABLE PROOF of just how BLINDED these people BECAME and REALLY WERE, back in those days, because of their BELIEFS.

Now, you can believe that, or you can choose not to. [/quote]

And 'you', OBVIOUSLY, BELIEVE that, but appear to be COMPLETELY BLIND to the Fact that 'that' is just PURE CIRCULAR arguing or reasoning. Or, 'you' can SEE and RECOGNIZE this Fact and prefer to just 'try to' DEFLECT AWAY from this being a LOGICAL FALLACY.

However, if I'm right and you're wrong, you'll find out. If you're right, neither of us will ever know it.

LOL
LOL
LOL

And, 'you' always end up back with this, as though this would suffice in and with LOGICAL REASONING and PHILOSOPHY.

Unless, of course, I'm wrong.

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

[Age]

The Bible is true because it tells the truth

But the bible does NOT tell the truth.

Within the bible it states that, "God is a he", and that God/He created the WHOLE Universe, but there is NOT doubt AT ALL that some male gendered thing/person did NOT create the WHOLE Universe, in the sense that the WHOLE Universe just BEGAN.

And, to even begin to ASSUME or BELIEVE that God is a male gendered thing is BEYOND THE ABSURD.

So, this is just one example of where the truth is NOT told in the bible, and the reason WHY this LIE is told within the bible I have ALREADY EXPLAINED.

Learning and understanding the reason WHY that LIE exists, within the bible, will help in deciphering where the other lies/falsehoods are, in that book, from thee ACTUAL Truth within that one book.

Also, what 'you' say above here "immanuel can" would be like saying ANY book that has A truth in it, then makes the WHOLE book true. Which is, OBVIOUSLY, just a Truly ABSURD and RIDICULOUS CLAIM to 'try to' make.

[Age]

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.

Where do 'you' live "alexis jacobi"?

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.

What 'rising tensions', world-wide?

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 . . .

[Age]

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.

But some of 'us' do KNOW, FOR SURE, WITHOUT ANY DOUBT.

And, for the rest of 'you', 'you' WILL come to KNOW, JUST AS WELL, ALSO.

(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.

That one only ALLUDES to 'this' because 'it' LOOKS AT and SEES 'things' from a CLOSED and DISTORTED perspective of 'things'.

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.