Christianity

[Harbal]

Well, I always marvel that people aren't more concerned that their Materialism, or Physicalism, or Darwinianism, or whatever they happen to choose in order to fend off any concerns about God

I think a lot of people who believe in God also accept that evolution is the case. I don't really see a conflict, unless you hold to the Bible being a literal description of events, which few do.

itself allegedly precipitates them into eternal nothingness, void, blackness forever. And that's their best-case-scenario. It always occurs to me that they aren't nearly concerned enough about that "threat" that is implied by their own worldview,

But eternal nothingness is not something that anyone will ever experience, is it? After death, there is nothing, or no one, to experience it. That doesn't seem too bad to me, and certainly not something I find threatening. It seems to me that you advocate the designing of your world view to suit your preferred outcome, rather than the reality of your own experience and observation.

But if this life itself has any objective meaning

I never understand what that means. Words have meaning; when we speak or write them down they mean something, but life is a state of existence, not a message. How can it mean something?

as opposed to merely the delusions of subjective "meaning" we make up momentarily between the womb and the tomb, as the Existentialists put it

So, whatever "meaning" is, you prefer to have it imposed on you, rather than be free to find your own?

And it seems to me quite charitable to tell people that objective meaning in life is not the impossibility that their Materialism or Physicalism or Naturalism implies it is, but could be actual -- and could be good.

You call it charitable, whereas I call it interfering.

So rather than "threaten" people with Hell, or "scare" them, isn't it better to offer people hope of eternal life?

If you are sure they want eternal life, and you are in a position to deliver it, then I suppose it's okay to offer it to them.

And if one, like a Christian, actually believes in that, wouldn't it be an act of singular cruelty and unkindness not to mention it?

"Give us a child till he's 7 and we'll have him for life"

[Lacewing]

The world is full of such people, yes? Spreading one wacky thing or another they believe in.

Is your world like that?

Mine just has people in it who are trying to figure things out, and tend to tell you what they think is true. Probably some lie. Probably some are sincere. It's not often easy to tell. But I think it's worth listening to them, all the same.

Oh really? I guess you've got your saintly robes on at the moment and don't remember the times you've had strong opinions about the crazy things that lots of people do or don't believe.

[tillingborn]

Noah collected two of every species of butterfly...

You didn't listen to Darwin's title.

Darwin didn't try to explain the existence of variations within species; he claimed to explain "The Origin of Species." His theory is supposed to describe not how white butterflies can morph into blue ones...

You didn't listen to what I wrote:

at least 15 000 species of butterfly

We're not talking about 15 000 differently coloured versions of the same species, it is as I wrote 15 000 species of butterfly. There is vastly more genetic variation amongst butterflies than there is between the different species of great ape, you know: bonobos, chimpanzees, orangutans, gorillas and us. We are morphologically similar and share all but a few percent of our genes, and unless you are persuaded by an Iron Age book, quite obviously have common ancestors.

Theologically, the only argument with a payoff vis-a-vis Christianity would be the argument that man evolved, and thus was not the unique creation made "in the image of God," as Genesis claims.

What a contrast between the empirical demands you place on the theory you like, for which it is enough that it says so in a book, and the theory you don't like, for which you invent objections that simply don't apply:

If human evolution were true, would it not be the case that there would have been millions upon millions of dead humanoids with failed adaptations manifesting?

It is the case. There are millions of people alive today with genetic disorders, which are failed adaptations. Others are stillborn because of some fatal adaptation. The miscarriage rate is over 10% among women who know they are pregnant and perhaps as much as 50% overall.

And would not some of these, surely, have been fossilized? Why should we find that we even have to try to find the necessary human fossils of transitional forms, let alone the millions of "false starts" that Evolutionism requires us to believe there had to be?

You might wonder where all the bones of the creatures that have died in the last hundred years are. Nature is very adept are recycling valuable minerals; it takes special circumstances for skeletons to survive long enough to fossilise.

So if you can show that man evolved, you've got a critique of Christianity...and, I would concede, a very serious one.

I can show you, but I can't make you believe something that undermines what you choose to believe.

[puto]

This discussion is just a diatribe of opinions of people's ability to speak that does not make them smart. Most of this discussion, is you name the fallacy because most of the argument is a fallacy. Try and argue, the British Analytical this would give you at least a thesis. Each discipline argues from their viewpoint. Philosophy has its own requirements for life. Sociology has its own requirements for life. Psychology has its own requirements for life. Each tradition then breaks down into its own theories. Find your thesis and argue from and for it and be a philosopher.

[tillingborn]

This discussion is just a diatribe of opinions of people's ability to speak that does not make them smart.

Then don't read it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

That's an interesting claim...coming from somebody who adamantly refuses to define what he means by "Christian." However, that boat's sailed...you won't do it, it seems. So there's no use in me pointing it out again.

This is a bad-faith assertion you invented sometime back. It is false through-and-through. Yet I don’t oppose it because it is also a trap.

You are right: I won’t do it. I.e. I won’t play that game with you. The boat never sailed to correct your metaphor …

I made very serious efforts to study the roots of Catholicism and quite possibly have a better general understanding than you. But Protestant Evangelism, your domain, while I have a strong sense of it I did not study.

Protestant Evangelism is a modern twist (or invention-modification).

Most importantly I now reject what I figure you consider the most important aspect of your Christian “picture”. I reject it at a theological level and that I can and do explain. Recently I spelled it out more clearly. That forthcomingness defines my approach here. Honesty, directness and good-faith.

[Alexis Jacobi]

And it seems to me quite charitable to tell people that objective meaning in life is not the impossibility that their Materialism or Physicalism or Naturalism implies it is, but could be actual -- and could be good.

You call it charitable, whereas I call it interfering.

One way or another, like it or not, you must define ‘world’ and ‘meaning’. You can avoid that though but you can never not be involved in it one way or another. Any idea you have of ‘world’ and ‘meaning’ you will communicate, one way or another. Directly, or indirectly.

Definitions, and value-declarations are impositions.

“Don’t interfere!”, from Harbal, on a forum dedicated to Occidental philosophy is rich indeed. And the irony is extraordinary.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Sorry: I can see you don't know anything at all about what "Christians" actually do or think. I don't want to be difficult, but you're wrong both times.

Demonstrate this.

[Harbal]

“Don’t interfere!”, from Harbal, on a forum dedicated to Occidental philosophy is rich indeed. And the irony is extraordinary.

Thank you; I do like to think my contribution here is extraordinary.

[Alexis Jacobi]

“Don’t interfere!”, from Harbal, on a forum dedicated to Occidental philosophy is rich indeed. And the irony is extraordinary.

Thank you; I do like to think my contribution here is extraordinary.

If I had a picture of you I’d hang it on my wall. Wait! I do!

[Alexis Jacobi]

But that is not the case for the creation of man and woman. And Genesis is much more explicit about that, too.

Genesis is a Jewish-Hebrew possession. The meaning of it, it seems to me, can best be understood by examining the account through that lens. I do not of course believe any of that (the Hebrew exegesis: Derash) I appreciate it for what it is. And as exegesis it is infinitely more nuanced and layered than the typical Christian-Catholic account.

In that derash the story remains a story. An imagined account that, in modernity, no one takes seriously. The story has value on another level.

So it is as I said: you won’t admit it directly but you take the Genesis account as “real history”. On a par with paleontology. Doing this you perversely blend two distinct epistemologies. Here, the ridiculous is born! Behold!

(God should be angry with you but He is occupied with other things and can’t be bothered ….)

Still, your version is interpretation and is derash. It serves a function. As such stories do for children, and adults, alike.

Myself, I just see ‘story’ and that story is comparable to other religious mythological accounts. If there is a ‘greater meaning’ it is behind the story’s terms.

You more than anyone I’ve encountered have helped me to sort this out. This is why the ‘believing religionist’ can be understood to be in the grip of illusion (trapped by allusion). But living in or through allusions is what we all must do, one way or another.

Modernity provides detachment. And this detachment has a positive and a negative side. We can’t live within a story we know is a story! We seek propositions about life and meaning that are irreducible.

You solve this by believing ten impossible things before lunch! You show how Roly-Poly Man found his center of gravity.

Interesting, no?

[Belinda]

This discussion is just a diatribe of opinions of people's ability to speak that does not make them smart. Most of this discussion, is you name the fallacy because most of the argument is a fallacy. Try and argue, the British Analytical this would give you at least a thesis. Each discipline argues from their viewpoint. Philosophy has its own requirements for life. Sociology has its own requirements for life. Psychology has its own requirements for life. Each tradition then breaks down into its own theories. Find your thesis and argue from and for it and be a philosopher.

Since the Age of Enlightenment ( Europe, approximately 18th centy) what all academic scientific disciplines have in common is scepticism.

While it's impossible for any individual to be wholly objective proper scientists aim to be as objective as possible.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I never understand what that means. Words have meaning; when we speak or write them down they mean something, but life is a state of existence, not a message. How can it mean something?

You’d never bothered to think about this till now. Watch out! If you keep repeating it, it turns into a Question, and then life answers the question. Man’s history is in the answer.

You exist within a soma (body) that asks questions. Man is a question. Life is — really! — a message.

Now that you discovered this I assume Harbal’s content and focus will change. No more Alfred E. Newman! A philosopher is born! And we witnessed it.

Damn!

[Alexis Jacobi]

"Give us a child till he's 7 and we'll have him for life"

Similarly, let’s propose a modern and postmodern child. By ‘seven’ he was formed. He is an ‘outcome’ of specific processes.

“Don’t interfere with him!”

Alfred had his genesis too, ya know!

[Belinda]

But that is not the case for the creation of man and woman. And Genesis is much more explicit about that, too.

Genesis is a Jewish-Hebrew possession. The meaning of it, it seems to me, can best be understood by examining the account through that lens. I do not of course believe any of that (the Hebrew exegesis: Derash) I appreciate it for what it is. And as exegesis it is infinitely more nuanced and layered than the typical Christian-Catholic account.

In that derash the story remains a story. An imagined account that, in modernity, no one takes seriously. The story has value on another level.

So it is as I said: you won’t admit it directly but you take the Genesis account as “real history”. On a par with paleontology. Doing this you perversely blend two distinct epistemologies. Here, the ridiculous is born! Behold!

(God should be angry with you but He is occupied with other things and can’t be bothered ….)

Still, your version is interpretation and is derash. It serves a function. As such stories do for children, and adults, alike.

Myself, I just see ‘story’ and that story is comparable to other religious mythological accounts. If there is a ‘greater meaning’ it is behind the story’s terms.

You more than anyone I’ve encountered have helped me to sort this out. This is why the ‘believing religionist’ can be understood to be in the grip of illusion (trapped by allusion). But living in or through allusions is what we all must do, one way or another.

Modernity provides detachment. And this detachment has a positive and a negative side. We can’t live within a story we know is a story! We seek propositions about life and meaning that are irreducible.

You solve this by believing ten impossible things before lunch! You show how Roly-Poly Man found his center of gravity.

Interesting, no?

Exegesis is very interesting, but interpretation is more immediately useful.I think this sums up what you wrote. I wish you would try harder to use plain English.