Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

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

...someone here can link me to where you did respond substantively to my requests above.

Scroll back. It's not hard.

I've said it three times before, but I'll say it now, too: Romans 1. Read verses 18-32. You can't miss it.

[iambiguous]

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

...someone here can link me to where you did respond substantively to my requests above.

Scroll back. It's not hard.

I've said it three times before, but I'll say it now, too: Romans 1. Read verses 18-32. You can't miss it.

Now that's entertainment!!!

Again, I would appreciate anyone linking me to those passages that he claims to have provided me such that anyone reading them could not possibly doubt that they are proof that the Christian God does in fact exist. And not just "proof" that if you believe everything written in the Bible, that "proves" He exists because, otherwise, what's it doing in the Bible in the first place?

[iambiguous]

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.

Carry on I shall:

"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."

Let's see how he does given my scrutiny.




Note to Mr. Craig:

If this ever comes to your attention, please feel free to comment on my own spiritual prejudices.

[Immanuel Can]

...someone here can link me to where you did respond substantively to my requests above.

Scroll back. It's not hard.

I've said it three times before, but I'll say it now, too: Romans 1. Read verses 18-32. You can't miss it.

...he claims to have provided me such that anyone reading them could not possibly doubt that they are proof that the Christian God does in fact exist..."

That is a claim I never made. You do this all the time, Biggie...you write your own wrong script, and then accuse somebody of saying something that only you ever said.

Here's the truth: here's exactly what you asked for:

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."

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 7:42 pm
I don't agree. He made it very clear.

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

So literally, what you asked for was any passage that "conveys...etc....that His is the One True Path." And that is exactly what you received.

You could also have this one: Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me. (John 14:6, emphasis mine)

Thus you have your proof that God "conveys" in the Bible and in the Person of His Son, that "His is the One True Path."

If you didn't like what you got, the problem was 100% in what you asked for, not in what you got. And if you wanted something different, then you should have asked for it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

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.

Your assertion has been that I do not have a grasp of what Christianity is or that, according to you, my definition is defective. You have made this assertion repeatedly and, in my view, in bad-faith. You have established (as often happens on these fora) a demand that I (as you here say) "explain, justify, define, rationalize" a definition that does not require my own definition. Anyone who has read even minimally such titles as "What is Christianity" (there are hundreds) or skimmed any number of web-pages can access the definition, written by Christians, of what Christianity is and what it entails (to practice it).

I presented to you a 4 paragraph description of how Evangelicals define it and what is required to *be a Christian*.

Now, you have switched your requirement to this:

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.

What you are doing here is also in bad-faith. You do this regularly and it is part of your *argument-technique* (such as it is).

The description of how early Christians, and Christian philosophy and ideals, came to spread in the Occident and how this process deeply informs the following centuries, is a matter that is also written about extensively in hundreds and certainly thousands of books. A long while back I referred you to the titles that I had read.

My definition is irrelevant to those histories. The histories themselves provide the outline of what happened. And as well the same sort of information can be found, certainly, on any number of different Internet websites.

I have nothing to *justify*. And everything that I wrote, months back, and the opinions I have about general Christian culture remain the same.

But little of this is now what I am focused on. And what I am focused on is what I have been writing about over the last days and weeks. You present to me an *animating spirit* which you have incorporated into your personality that I associate with the construct named "Yahweh". I suppose it could be said that I am *unraveling* this construct. And many interesting perspectives and conclusions arise as this is done.

Once again I have carefully addressed what appears to be a *concern* of yours. But I know, and I think you know as well, that this is all tactical diversion on your part. This does not matter. Because I know what my project is and it does not depend on your cooperation with it.

I have now decided that you must be burned at the stake! Not because you are a Christian but because you are the most annoying asshole I think I have ever encountered in cyberspace!

[iambiguous]

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."

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 7:42 pm
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".

So literally, what you asked for was any passage that "conveys...etc....that His is the One True Path." And that is exactly what you received.

You could also have this one: Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me. (John 14:6, emphasis mine)

Thus you have your proof that God "conveys" in the Bible and in the Person of His Son, that "His is the One True Path."

If you didn't like what you got, the problem was 100% in what you asked for, not in what you got. And if you wanted something different, then you should have asked for it.

Again, he actually believes that quoting the Christian Bible proves that the Christian Bible is true!!!

There is clearly something on the blink in his brain, in my opinion. Whether it is congenital [and completely beyond his control] or rooted more in the "psychology of objectivism" [giving us hope that he can be brought back around to reality] is anyone's guess. Including, perhaps, even his own.

Anyway, for those here who worship and adore another God altogether, read these words...

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me."

How does this not prove to you that the Christian God is the one true God?

I mean, come on, it says so right in the Christian Bible, doesn't it?!!

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can claims Jesus actually said

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me. (John 14:6, emphasis mine)

I don't know The Bible very well. However I imagine the above may have been said by Jesus in a context that makes it a reasonable claim. For instance in Palestine at the time of Jesus the latter may have been pretty nearly the only credible representative of the Prophetic tradition. It seems the synagogue was in trouble from Jews who thought the way was via worldly power and keeping in with the Roman regime.

Really it takes a Biblical scholar and historian to estimate which of the sayings of Jesus actually were said by Jesus and were not later insertions.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Immanuel Can claims Jesus actually said

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me. (John 14:6, emphasis mine)

I don't know The Bible very well. However I imagine the above may have been said by Jesus in a context that makes it a reasonable claim. For instance in Palestine at the time of Jesus the latter may have been pretty nearly the only credible representative of the Prophetic tradition. It seems the synagogue was in trouble from Jews who thought the way was via worldly power and keeping in with the Roman regime.

Really it takes a Biblical scholar and historian to estimate which of the sayings of Jesus actually were said by Jesus and were not later insertions.

The Johannine Gospel is (according to those who study it *critically*) the least likely to contain actual statements said by the figure Jesus. The Gospel of John is moreover an interpretive theological document in itself. They contend that the statements that the man Jesus likely did make were shorter, pithy statements, often with ironic twists, that would have been part of the sermons he gave. [An LA Times article].

An example of that ironic pithiness would be:

Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye therefore wise as serpents and harmless as doves.
[Matthew 10:16]

From the article:

Funk [Robert Funk, a New Testament scholar] contended that most mainline scholars would agree with the Jesus Seminar that in the parallel Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke, plus the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas, “Jesus speaks regularly in adages or aphorisms, or in parables, or in witticisms created as rebuff or retort in the context of dialogue or debate. It is clear he did not speak in long monologues of the type found in the Gospel of John.”

“Most scholars, if they had worked through the sayings as we had, would tend to agree there is virtually nothing in the fourth Gospel (John) that goes back to Jesus,” said Robert Fortna of Vassar College. Jesus says in John “I am the good shepherd ... I am the light of the world ... I am the bread of life,” but that “is mostly the work of the author,” Fortna said. Jesus rarely refers to himself in the other Gospels.

The Jesus Seminar, a six-year project based in Sonoma to assess the historical authenticity of sayings attributed to Jesus, concluded that about half were words put into his mouth by Gospel authors and early believers in reflection of their own hopes and fears. Among the sayings rejected were the following:

John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.”

John 14:6: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

Mark 13:25, 30: (A series of apocalyptic sayings) “Then they will see ‘the Son of Man coming in the clouds’ with great power and glory. . . . Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.”

Matthew 5:11: “Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.”

Mark 10:32-34: “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death; then they will hand him over to the Gentiles; they will mock him, and spit upon him, and flog him, and kill him; and after three days he will rise again.”

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Your assertion has been that I do not have a grasp of what Christianity is or that, according to you, my definition is defective.

No, my assertion has been that you haven't even offered any.

This "Christendom" you speak of...who is in it? Who is not? What are your critieria?

I presented to you a 4 paragraph description of how Evangelicals define it and what is required to *be a Christian*.

So you're saying that "evangelicals" created Western Europe, are you?

Are you sure it wasn't the Mormons or the Scientologists? It's just as likely.

Stop whining, and give YOUR definition of who those Europeans were....and why you call them "Christians."

[Immanuel Can]

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."

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 7:42 pm
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".

So literally, what you asked for was any passage that "conveys...etc....that His is the One True Path." And that is exactly what you received.

You could also have this one: Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me. (John 14:6, emphasis mine)

Thus you have your proof that God "conveys" in the Bible and in the Person of His Son, that "His is the One True Path."

If you didn't like what you got, the problem was 100% in what you asked for, not in what you got. And if you wanted something different, then you should have asked for it.

Again, he actually believes that quoting the Christian Bible proves that the Christian Bible is true!!!

Are you high?

Look above: that's not what I said at all. Quit making things up.

Quoting it is not WHY it is the Word of God...but that's what it is, nonetheless.

[Alexis Jacobi]

...

[Alexis Jacobi]

This "Christendom" you speak of...who is in it? Who is not? What are your critieria?

Droopy Dog is in, of that I am certain.

Are you sure it wasn't the Mormons or the Scientologists?

Hmmmm. Are you broaching the topic of time-travel? Isn't that contrary to your notion of linear time?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Behold, I send you forth as Alexis Jacobis in the midst of Immanuel Cans. Be ye therefore wise as serpents and harmless as doves.

[iambiguous]

Again, he actually believes that quoting the Christian Bible proves that the Christian Bible is true!!!

There is clearly something on the blink in his brain, in my opinion. Whether it is congenital [and completely beyond his control] or rooted more in the "psychology of objectivism" [giving us hope that he can be brought back around to reality] is anyone's guess. Including, perhaps, even his own.

Anyway, for those here who worship and adore another God altogether, read these words...

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me."

How does this not prove to you that the Christian God is the one true God?

I mean, come on, it says so right in the Christian Bible, doesn't it?!!

Are you high?

Look above: that's not what I said at all. Quit making things up.

Quoting it is not WHY it is the Word of God...but that's what it is, nonetheless.

I challenge anyone here to actually make sense of this.

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me."

Even though he is quoting this from the Christian Bible in order to "prove" the existence of the Christian God, what really makes it true is that even if he didn't quote it here, it is still in the Christian Bible. That's what makes it true!!!



Still, I'll wait patiently for those here who worship other Gods to acknowledge that after reading those words [either here or in the Bible] they are ready to admit that they are switching over to IC's One True Path.

And, perhaps, with any luck, one of them can explain to us how we can learn to watch IC's videos with just enough sincerity to finally grasp how they do prove the existence not only of the Christian God but IC's very own private and personal True Christian assessment of Him.

[Agent Smith]

There are parts believable and parts unbelievable in the Biblia Sacra and the "problem" is the former leads us to atheism while the latter is supposed to, inter alia, theism.