Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

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?

I thought you said He never existed. Now you say He did, but wasn't who He claimed to be? Which argument did you want to go with?

Come on, IC, all entertainment aside, you know damn well that the point here revolves not around whether Jesus existed as a historical figure but around Him, a Jew, being the Christian God.

Sure. But that's not what you said. I wonder why you didn't say what you meant, in the first place?

why one Earth did the Christian God do such a piss poor job with a Scripture that does not make it unequivocally, beyond any doubt whatsoever, clear that His is the One True Path?

I think anybody who reads it sincerely will come to the right conclusion.

But Romans 1 answers your question in the most comprehensive and definitive way: men don't know God because they don't want to, not because the evidence isn't there.

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.

That is exactly right.

And that is why it is a decision every person must make for himself...and very, very carefully. Nothing, literally nothing, is more important.

Sigh...

And there they are. All the other advocates of all the other denominations out there thumping you upside the head with their Scriptures and reminding you of the same thing.

Exactly as they should!

And you, your job is to make the right determination among them, and then to commit to your choice and live by it. And take the results you assign yourself.

Have you done your job?

[Harry Baird]

So, yep, a straight, direct "yes" or "no" to the key question continues to be too difficult for you to muster.

People are only ever condemned because they choose to be.

Then why in Revelation are the condemned described as being "thrown into" the lake of fire?

If they really chose to be condemned, then they would be jumping into the lake of fire.

Clearly, this is something that is being done to them against their wills.

[Harry Baird]

No third alternative to Euthyphro's Dilemma, huh? I didn't think so.

Fake dilemma. It requires polytheism.

Uh. Nope. The original occurred in a polytheistic culture but the dilemma works just as well on monotheism: just replace "the gods" with "God".

[Alexis Jacobi]

If you were to leave an "untouchable" to his "karma," so he could have enough "samsara" to be reincarned better on the next turning of the wheel of being, would you regard that as "justice"?

The notion of the varnas (stations in life) and hierarchical orders is not much different from the States of the Realm: Oratores ("those who pray"), Bellatores ("those who fight"), and Laboratores ("those who work").

In that manner of conception each state had its requisites that needed to be fulfilled. And then, of course, each having conducted themselves properly and righteously, all things were resolved in the heaven after-world.

In the Vedic conception there are 4 states.

Brahmins: vedic scholars or priests or teachers.
Kshatriyas: administrators or rulers or warriors.
Vaishyas: agriculturalists or farmers or merchants.
Shudras: artisans or laborers or service providers.

The untouchable class is a true underclass. No one is quite sure how it came to be:

Nripendra Kumar Dutt, a professor of history, theorized that the concept of untouchability originated from the "pariah"-like treatment accorded to the indigenous people of India by the early Dravidians, and that the concept was borrowed by the Indo-Aryans from the Dravidians. Scholars such as R. S. Sharma have rejected this theory, arguing that there is no evidence that Dravidians practised untouchability before coming into contact with the Indo-Aryans

According to Sarah Pinto, an anthropologist, modern untouchability in India applies to people whose work relates to "meat, and bodily fluids".

In the Vedic conception, which now only exists as a shadow, the various Estates of man had a social and cultural function. The object of virtue was to 1) recognize and accept one's station and the responsibilities it demanded, and 2) to fulfill them nobly and honorably. To try to be something one was not, was non-virtue.

What was 'justice' in this system? Justice was determined by divine lot, as it were. You had to accept what god gave you, based on your karma, and seek to build better karma for better births and better future stations. In other Vedantic philosophy people can in fact work to incarnate in other spheres or worlds (lokas). You can conceive of this like a different 'planet'. Some people then get so fed up with the deteriorating state of things that they opt to transfer themselves to *higher planets*.

When Lacewing disappears for extended periods I assume she has translated to a higher plane . . . (but then she comes back and beats on me!)

Samsara in not the right world if you mean "merit". Samsara is a state of ignorance where you understand nothing and are merely pushed around by circumstances. Vidya is needed for that state.

Vidya (Sanskrit: विद्या, IAST: vidyā) figures prominently in all texts pertaining to Indian philosophy – meaning science, learning, knowledge, and scholarship. Most importantly, it refers to valid knowledge, which cannot be contradicted, and true knowledge, which is the intuitively-gained knowledge of the self. Vidya is not mere intellectual knowledge, for the Vedas demand understanding.

[Immanuel Can]

People are only ever condemned because they choose to be.

Then why in Revelation are the condemned described as being "thrown into" the lake of fire?

When people choose what they choose, they don't always like the consequences. There's nothing even remotely unusual about people doing evil but wanting good outcomes. But that's not what "justice" is.

God never promises the lost they'll "like" Hell...in fact, He guarantees they will not, and implores them not to choose it. But choices are choices, if they're genuine; and being a chooser means you inherit what you've chosen...whether you like it or not.

[Immanuel Can]

No third alternative to Euthyphro's Dilemma, huh? I didn't think so.

Fake dilemma. It requires polytheism.

Uh. Nope. The original occurred in a polytheistic culture but the dilemma works just as well on monotheism: just replace "the gods" with "God".

Uh. Nope.

It's the major premise in Socrates's argument...that virtue or goodness must be something other than "what the god's approve," because different gods approve different things. Without that, without polytheism and differential opinions about the good, even Socrates wouldn't try to make that case.

Plug in "God," and all you get is that good is what God approves, and He approves it because He is good. The statements are now coordinated, not disjunctive, to one another. The either-or is gone. It's both.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Cleric, Knight, Workman

The Knight is actually telling my story of Jesus as the serpent in the Garden. (FYI)

Everyone wants the truth but some just aren't prepared to strive for it!

[Harry Baird]

Fake dilemma. It requires polytheism.

Uh. Nope. The original occurred in a polytheistic culture but the dilemma works just as well on monotheism: just replace "the gods" with "God".

Uh. Nope.

It's the major premise in Socrates's argument...that virtue or goodness must be something other than "what the god's approve," because different gods approve different things.

That's not what came to be known as the Euthyphro Dilemma, dude. None of the dialogue you quoted in an earlier message included the Dilemma itself. The Dilemma itself isn't based on differences of opinion between the gods.

Here's Wikipedia's explanation:

The Euthyphro dilemma is found in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks Euthyphro, "Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" (10a)

Although it was originally applied to the ancient Greek pantheon, the dilemma has implications for modern monotheistic religions. Gottfried Leibniz asked whether the good and just "is good and just because God wills it or whether God wills it because it is good and just".[1] Ever since Plato's original discussion, this question has presented a problem for some theists, though others have thought it a false dilemma, and it continues to be an object of theological and philosophical discussion today.

[Immanuel Can]

Samsara in not the right world if you mean "merit".

I didn't.

"Samsara" is "suffering" on the wheel of being. It's said, in Hinduism and Buddhism, that it's caused by ignorance of the illusory character of material existence, and unhealthy attachment through "desire." larize, because Hinduism and Buddhism are suffocating to these things.

[Immanuel Can]

The Dilemma itself isn't based on differences of opinion between the gods.

Yeah, it is. You have, from Socrates himself, not only the evidence but his reasons, as well.

I gave it to you verbatim.

"Although it was originally applied to the ancient Greek pantheon, the dilemma has implications for modern monotheistic religions."

Just a great example of Wiki parroting the mistakes of its contributors. That's the problem with a source put together by consensus rather than by knowledge.

[Harry Baird]

The Dilemma itself isn't based on differences of opinion between the gods.

Yeah, it is.

Hooboy. Doubling down on a claim that I showed you is false? OK, dude, I'm out.

[iambiguous]

I thought you said He never existed. Now you say He did, but wasn't who He claimed to be? Which argument did you want to go with?

Come on, IC, all entertainment aside, you know damn well that the point here revolves not around whether Jesus existed as a historical figure but around Him, a Jew, being the Christian God. Around how each of us here connect the dots between the behaviors we choose on this side of the grave and Judgment Day. Around you demonstrating to us that the Christian God does in fact reside in Heaven as others can demonstrate that the Pope resides in the Vatican.

Let's not lose sight of the whole point of religion, okay?

Sure. But that's not what you said. I wonder why you didn't say what you meant, in the first place?

Come on, Mr. Wiggle, here, yet again, you are being absolutely shameless. In fact, in this mode, I suspect that you too may well be afflicted with a "condition" yourself. Not nearly as debilitating as Age's, perhaps, but, still, you post what you do here because it is "beyond your control".

But, okay, let's agree that I said it wrong the first time. How about the way I said it above instead?

Again, however, my point is that, given what is at stake for all of us on this side of the grave [moral Commandments], and on the other side of it [immortality and salvation] why one Earth did the Christian God do such a piss poor job with a Scripture that does not make it unequivocally, beyond any doubt whatsoever, clear that His is the One True Path?

What, we should just read the Book of John and take His account of it? Please. What religion doesn't have their own rendition of that: the Word.

I think anybody who reads it sincerely will come to the right conclusion.

Ah, of course: back to going around and around in circles.

If you read the Bible sincerely you will know that it is true. But if you read it and don't believe it is true you didn't read it sincerely.

Just out of curiosity, do you know that you are doing this? Or does that never even occur to you? If, say, you do have a "condition".

Then [of course] back to the Word:

But Romans 1 answers your question in the most comprehensive and definitive way: men don't know God because they don't want to, not because the evidence isn't there.

Same thing of course. Romans 1 will answer your question if you want it to. If it doesn't answer your question it's because you didn't want it to sincerely.

As for your own evidence...those videos, right?

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.

That is exactly right.

And that is why it is a decision every person must make for himself...and very, very carefully. Nothing, literally nothing, is more important.

Sigh...

And there they are. All the other advocates of all the other denominations out there thumping you upside the head with their Scriptures and reminding you of the same thing.

Still, if it's any consolation, their Gods are no less incompetent in demonstrating their own existence. It's just that, in my view, the Christian God, if He does exist, must be particularly embarrassed by your efforts here.

Exactly as they should!

And you, your job is to make the right determination among them, and then to commit to your choice and live by it. And take the results you assign yourself.

Have you done your job?

No, exactly as you should they will tell you. Have you done your job?

Though, again, if it's any consolation, they too are going around and around in the same circles that you are.

[Immanuel Can]

The Dilemma itself isn't based on differences of opinion between the gods.

Yeah, it is.

Hooboy. Doubling down on a claim that I showed you is false? OK, dude, I'm out.

You didn't "show" anything of the kind. In fact, I explained exactly why that assumption is wrong.

Let me put it as simply as possible: no multiple gods = no divergence as to what is "just." "Justice" is one thing, one thing only, and the thing God says it is.

[Immanuel Can]

But, okay, let's agree that I said it wrong the first time.

You could just have said that.

Again, however, my point is that, given what is at stake for all of us on this side of the grave [moral Commandments], and on the other side of it [immortality and salvation] why one Earth did the Christian God do such a piss poor job with a Scripture that does not make it unequivocally, beyond any doubt whatsoever, clear that His is the One True Path?

As insulting as your wording is, I answered this. If you don't like my answer, that's one thing; if you didn't read it, it's another.

What, we should just read the Book of John and take His account of it?

Please show me where I said "we should just read the Book of John?"

And if I never said it, why did you?

I think anybody who reads it sincerely will come to the right conclusion.

If you read the Bible sincerely you will know that it is true.

I don't need to argue it with you. Read Romans 1. It says you should know, and you do know. You just don't want to know.

All the other advocates of all the other denominations out there thumping you upside the head with their Scriptures and reminding you of the same thing.

I answered this. You should read my answer.

Exactly as they should!
And you, your job is to make the right determination among them, and then to commit to your choice and live by it. And take the results you assign yourself.

Have you done your job?

No, exactly as you should they will tell you. Have you done your job?

Yes.

Have you?

[Belinda]

The moral codes that religions enshrine are the most functional components of any religion. (Mythologies and ritual practices are superstructures.) Moral philosophy is arguably the most important branch of philosophy.

I also claim Jesus of Nazareth was a philosopher whose life and work supported the view of the Prophets in opposition to the view of the Kings.

The mystical, the supernatural, the magical events on which all religions are based prove difficult to rationalize philosophically in our modernity.

But the moral questions raised in Judaism, Vedanta or Buddhism can certainly be philosophized.

The Christian view or attitude (way of life) can also be a philosophical position it seems to me. But it falls apart or its foundations disintegrate when examined critically.

I don’t see a way round this problem do you?

I find it impossible, largely, to locate a definite Jesus. But I like the view you present.

You say mythologies are basic: I say morality is basic. What both views have in common is man's quest for meaning. The quest for meaning is essential since it became a fact that man can't live by bread alone.

Which Christian foundations "fall apart"? The moral, the mythic, or the ritual? Is the force that prises foundations apart psychological or ideological?
If the destructive force is ideological that is what the struggle between OT Kings and Prophets is about.
There is not much wrong with the human psyche but it's being attacked by ideologies based on ignorance and fear.