Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

Or, you could provide your definition of "Christian" right now, so we who are doubtful could examine it for ourselves, and see if you've got a point.

Your choice.

Question: If I were to copy and paste here a definition (there are varied ones but they are generally the same) and say *This is what Christianity refers to (or what defines a Christian)" would you consider that valid?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I'll assume that you will say *yes*:

Here is a definition created by Evangelicals (the branch with which you are associated):

The term “Christian,” as we understand it, refers to anyone, man, woman, or child, who trusts in Jesus Christ as his or her Savior and Lord and who strives to follow Him in every area of life. As evangelicals, we place great stress on the importance of an individual’s personal relationship with Jesus Christ. We believe that this relationship is lived out by way of prayer, study of God’s Word, fellowship with God’s people, and service to others in Jesus’ name. There’s an important sense in which Christian faith has to be expressed in the context of community with other believers. But in the final analysis, it’s an intensely personal and individual matter, not a question of church membership or doctrinal orientation. The Bible backs us up in this regard: ” Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Romans 10:13; Joel 2:32).

That said, we should point out that Focus on the Family has always been on the side of what C. S. Lewis called Mere Christianity. Lewis used this term to refer to that body of core Christian truths which is common to believers from all kinds of church backgrounds. In other words, we are not committed to a particular denominational understanding of what it means to be a “Christian.” We’re an interdenominational ministry, and we strive to remain faithful to the spirit of St. Augustine’s famous motto: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”

It’s worth adding that our definition of Christianity also takes serious account of the pronouncements of the historic councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon. These councils formulated important theological definitions and made crucial statements about the Trinitarian nature of God and the “hypostatic union” of the human and the divine natures in Jesus Christ. As we see it, these biblical principles are indispensable in gauging the true “Christianness” of any particular body of religious teachings.

To say this another way, we don’t necessarily believe that a “Christian” is simply anybody who claims to “believe in Jesus” and to “follow His teachings.” If this were true, we would have to concede that the Gnostics, the Manicheans, the Arians, the Marcionites, the Docetists, and the first-century Judaizers, and that damned Alexis Jacobi, were also faithful members of the fold. This is something that the writers of the New Testament and the Fathers of the early church were clearly unwilling to do.

The definition of Catholic Christianity is different. Would you like me to present that definition?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Your ongoing reticence on the point suggests either that your theory is too fragile to survive such examination, or that even you don't understand it well enough to provide such. I see no other obvious conclusion from that.

No you moron, anyone can access the definition in 2 seconds through Goggle.

Now you have it. Is that what you were looking for?

[iambiguous]

ME:

But I did make my point more specific:

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?

Well, you tried to excuse your error, you mean. But I'm not all that interested. I proved what you requested, and you still carry on with it.

There's no drilling a hole in water.

Note to others:

Let's back up...

IC claims that his own belief in the Christian God is not predicated on a leap of faith. He claims to know that He exists. I asked him to provide proof that his God does in fact reside in Heaven as Catholic Christians can prove that the Pope does reside in the Vatican.

What's his proof? Those videos above. And if you watch those videos and still don't believe they prove the existence of the Christian God that's only because you didn't watch them sincerely. You weren't really "paying attention". Now, from my frame of mind, thinking, feeling, saying and doing things sincerely in IC's estimation means thinking, feeling, saying and doing exactly as he does. That is what he means by "proving" whatever anyone requests.

Now, come on, how seriously can you take someone who "thinks" like that? Yet some here do engage him seriously.

So, sure, it might be me. For those who do take him seriously, please attempt to explain why. What actual intellectually sound points is he making about the Christian God? How does everything he claim not eventually get around to the Word? He's right about something because it says so in the Bible. And even when [as I have] you ask him to note where in the Bible, he simply insists that if you read it yourself [sincerely] you'll understand.

For example:

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.

Okay, instead of piss poor, let's say that the Christian God did an inadequate job of "conveying unequivocally, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that His is the One True Path."

I don't agree. He made it very clear.

In that case, please note the passages in the Bible that demonstrate this. Passages such that Christians can go to those adherents of other religious denominations and say, "this proves beyond all doubt that there is ample empirical, material, phenomenological evidence that the Christian God and not your God exists."

In other words, not just stuff out of John and Romans...passages where something is claimed to be true of or about God merely because it is in the Bible.

Thus...

And your answer is "read the Bible".

No, it's read specifically the explanation of that found in Romans 1.

Okay, note the passage there that those who embrace other Gods can read and think, "that settles it then, the Christian God really is the one true God".

Well, I watched those videos a few times. I thought I watched them sincerely but obviously I didn't. Because, as you will no doubt insist, no one who does watch them sincerely could ever possibly doubt that in fact they do demonstrate that the Christian God does reside in Heaven.

Did you imagine that videos would be the equivalent of the Word of God, so that sincerity was guaranteed to produce understanding of videos? You're too trusting. All they are is a philosopher's approach to the topic, from whatever knowledge he/she has to offer, to help you think through these things in a secular way. But they do contain really good arguments, if you're paying attention.

You were the one who posted those videos when our discussion revolved around demonstrating that the Christian God did in fact reside in Heaven.

And there you go again: proof that the Christian God does exist is in the Word of God. And the Word of God is proven to be true because it's in the Bible.

That's really all you have, isn't it? Going around and around in that particular circle.

So, all I can wonder is the extent to which you know that you are doing this. If, for example, you have a "condition", your thinking might be such that you are simply unable to grasp it at all. Or you are so intent on wanting to believe what you do because it comforts and consoles you, you are hard wired to think only what accomplishes that.

The mystery of mind itself. The ubiquitous presence of defense mechanisms to anchor us psychologically to the One True Path. And the path itself might be anything, right?

HIM:

In that case, please note the passages in the Bible that demonstrate this.

Romans 1.

Uh, absolutely shameless?

Note to others:

Again, entertainment aside, some of you here continue to exchange posts with IC as though he does deserve to be taken seriously. As though he does note things about the Christian God that warrant serious discussion and debate.

And I'd appreciate any attempts to explain to me what I myself keep missing in his posts.

Also, IC recommended above that we read "Does God Exist?" from issue 99 of PN by William Lane Craig. An article that apparently doesn't fall back on the Word to establish God's existence. I'll give it a shot and get back to you.

[Immanuel Can]

That's the first really true thing you've said in this message: it's simply a "pejorative" you are "using" to avoid dealing with the argument.

A pejorative indicates contempt or disapproval.

Yes, it does. And it has nothing to do with an argument. It's simply ad hominem.

[Immanuel Can]

it's clear you're not interested at all in Christianity itself.

...you must be aware that given that this is a public space...

Certainly. And you must be aware that it's a philosophical space, one in which you can be asked to define or justify your terms.

This isn't hard, AJ. What you're being asked to do is absolutely routine.

[Immanuel Can]

Or, you could provide your definition of "Christian" right now, so we who are doubtful could examine it for ourselves, and see if you've got a point.

Your choice.

Question: If I were to copy and paste here a definition (there are varied ones but they are generally the same) and say *This is what Christianity refers to (or what defines a Christian)" would you consider that valid?

I'd examine it, of course.

Because "Christian" is actually not a straightforward and uncomplicated term, due to the proliferation of false claimants and alternate definitions, and because one of the poor but common definitions listed in all the dictionaries, is merely "anybody who calls himself a 'Christian."

Sure, such a definition will appear in dictionaries, as one among others. But that's a definition any scholar of religions, secular or religous, will instantly reject as inadequate; for clearly, that would make every false claimant a true one. For example, it would make Scientologists out to be "Christian," since they once used the label "Christian Science," or Mormons "Christian," since they call themselves "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." But even you, I suspect would not find such a definition compatible with any theory about historical Europe. So even if you still like your theory, you should be able to say which nominally "Christian" groups you mean to refer to, and which not.

Now, if your definition turns out to be good, intelligent, plausible, theologically sound, and applicable to your theory, I'd be happy to accept it. But I haven't even seen it yet, so I can't validate it for you.

[Immanuel Can]

Your ongoing reticence on the point suggests either that your theory is too fragile to survive such examination, or that even you don't understand it well enough to provide such. I see no other obvious conclusion from that.

No you moron...

Aaaaad hominem!

Just can't help yourself.

[Immanuel Can]

Also, IC recommended above that we read "Does God Exist?" from issue 99 of PN by William Lane Craig. An article that apparently doesn't fall back on the Word to establish God's existence. I'll give it a shot and get back to you.

Actually, I provided it to Age as a rebuttal to his claim that no such article exists. But in fact, I do think people can benefit from a reading of it. Carry on.

[iambiguous]

As promised, my own reaction to a PN article on the existence of God. An article that Immanuel Can recommended as one that does not fall back largely on The Word...a Bible, a Scripture. Words in a Scripture such that God is said to exist because it says so in the Scripture.

Does God Exist?
William Lane Craig says there are good reasons for thinking that He does.

On April 8, 1966, Time magazine carried a lead story for which the cover was completely black except for three words emblazoned in bright, red letters against the dark background: “IS GOD DEAD?” The story described the so-called ‘Death of God’ movement then current in American theology. But, to paraphrase Mark Twain, it seemed that the news of God’s demise was “greatly exaggerated.” For at the same time that theologians were writing God’s obituary, a new generation of young philosophers was re-discovering His vitality.

On the other hand, philosophers [young and old] are "human all too human". In other words, they are confronted with the task of establishing "how one ought to live morally in a world of conflicting goods that ceaselessly unfolds in interactions awash in contingency, chance and change."

And groping with what, for many, is the terrifying reality of death. Oblivion. Nothingness or immortality and salvation? Immortality and salvation [for most] given the existence of God.

Back in the 1940s and ’50s it was widely believed among philosophers that any talk about God is meaningless, since it is not verifiable by the five senses.

Here, of course, I have my own four "factors" to consider:

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of your particular God
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods promising paths to immortality and salvation were championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in God
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God

The collapse of this Verificationism was perhaps the most important philosophical event of the twentieth century. Its downfall meant a resurgence of metaphysics, along with other traditional problems of philosophy which Verificationism had suppressed.

In other words, given a particular context, whatever that means. After all, philosophical conclusions are one thing in regard to the Big Questions...

Why something instead of nothing?
Why this something and not something else?
Where does the human condition fit in the whole understanding of existence itself?
What of solipsism, sim worlds, dream worlds alternate Matrix worlds, etc.?
Does God exist?

...but [often] another thing altogether when we attempt to connect the dots between our "metaphysical" answers and the reality of our actual day to day existence.

Accompanying this resurgence came something altogether unanticipated: a renaissance of Christian philosophy.

Okay, so note the most sophisticated attempts to connect the dots between Christian philosophy and the lives that Christians live given their own interactions with those who embrace a different God...or believe in no God at all.



By the way, I reacted to another article by Craig over at ILP: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p ... g#p2732302

[Alexis Jacobi]

it's clear you're not interested at all in Christianity itself.

...you must be aware that given that this is a public space...

Certainly. And you must be aware that it's a philosophical space, one in which you can be asked to define or justify your terms.

This isn't hard, AJ. What you're being asked to do is absolutely routine.

You have no ground to be able to demand anything of anyone else. You regularly avoid cooperating with others when they ask you to answer questions. This was made excruciatingly plain with the interchange between you and Harry.

To get, you have to give.

And you are no philosopher. There is nothing philosophical in any aspect of what you do. In no sense do you conduct yourself philosophically except in sham, as a pose. You are a fanatically religious Christian zealot involved strictly in an apologetic project here. Ni mas ni menos.

You carry on as a religious zealot.

And when you earn these descriptions, and then when you complain about them (*ad hominem* you shout) you use your objections to muddy the waters further and avoid the necessary responses. Your tactics are transparent Immanuel.

Is this beginning to become more clear?

In any case: I provided a description of Evangelical Christianity. You got what you wanted right?

What now?

[Immanuel Can]

...you must be aware that given that this is a public space...

Certainly. And you must be aware that it's a philosophical space, one in which you can be asked to define or justify your terms.

This isn't hard, AJ. What you're being asked to do is absolutely routine.

You have no ground to be able to demand anything of anyone else.

"Demand"? There was no such thought in my mind. "Reasonable request" is what it was.

You're on a philosophy forum. That means you can be asked to explain, justify, define, rationalize, or any other such thing...and shouldn't get thin-skinned about it.

And you are no philosopher.

AAAAAAAAD Hominem.

I've had puppies that have more self-control than you're exhibiting.

I provided a description of Evangelical Christianity.

That's your definition of the people who, you say, shaped Europe?

I asked for you to justify YOUR OWN definition of whom YOU were speaking about, when you claimed they had created historical Western, European society. You haven't even started.

[iambiguous]

"Demand"? There was no such thought in my mind. "Reasonable request" is what it was.

In that case, how are my requests below not reasonable?

Okay, instead of piss poor, let's say that the Christian God did an inadequate job of "conveying unequivocally, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that His is the One True Path."

I don't agree. He made it very clear.

In that case, please note the passages in the Bible that demonstrate this. Passages such that Christians can go to those adherents of other religious denominations and say, "this proves beyond all doubt that there is ample empirical, material, phenomenological evidence that the Christian God and not your God exists."

In other words, not just stuff out of John and Romans...passages where something is claimed to be true of or about God merely because it is in the Bible.

Thus...

And your answer is "read the Bible".

No, it's read specifically the explanation of that found in Romans 1.

Okay, note the passage there that those who embrace other Gods can read and think, "that settles it then, the Christian God really is the one true God".

[Immanuel Can]

"Demand"? There was no such thought in my mind. "Reasonable request" is what it was.

In that case, how are my requests below not reasonable?

I answered them. If you didn't like the answer...I don't know what to tell you about that.

[iambiguous]

Okay, instead of piss poor, let's say that the Christian God did an inadequate job of "conveying unequivocally, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that His is the One True Path."

I don't agree. He made it very clear.

In that case, please note the passages in the Bible that demonstrate this. Passages such that Christians can go to those adherents of other religious denominations and say, "this proves beyond all doubt that there is ample empirical, material, phenomenological evidence that the Christian God and not your God exists."

In other words, not just stuff out of John and Romans...passages where something is claimed to be true of or about God merely because it is in the Bible.

Thus...

And your answer is "read the Bible".

No, it's read specifically the explanation of that found in Romans 1.

Okay, note the passage there that those who embrace other Gods can read and think, "that settles it then, the Christian God really is the one true God".

I answered them. If you didn't like the answer...I don't know what to tell you about that.

Okay, an absolutely shameless "condition" it is then.

Seriously and sincerely, how can you not be embarrassed by your exchanges with me here? Only a "condition" can explain it. Unless, again, you are actually playing this character "Immanuel Can" in order to expose just how preposterous some can be in defending Christianity.



Unless, of course, someone here can link me to where you did respond substantively to my requests above.

Also, are there other Christians here who go beyond a "leap of faith" and insist that the Christian God does in fact exist? Can you note those passages from the Bible?