Christianity

[iambiguous]

Someone wants to know what a Christian is because they were told that unless they accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior they will burn in Hell for all of eternity. So you tell them to read the Christian Bible. They read the Bible and ask, "how do I know it is true?" And you tell them, "Because it's the word of God". They then point out that there are others who believe in different Gods and they also have a Scripture. They ask you "why should I believe it is your God and not one of the others"? You link them to the videos, and insist, "after viewing these there is no way that any rational human being can ever doubt it is the Christian God".

This is your fabricated conversation, obviously. It's one I have never offered. And I have offered you much better arguments.

Aside from the argument that the Christian God does in fact reside in Heaven because it says so in the Christian Bible...what arguments?

But I am very impressed with the fact that any suggestion of there being rational evidence puts you into a terror.

Huh?!!! Few here would be more thrilled if provided with rational evidence for the existence of the Christian God -- or any loving, just and merciful God -- than I would! I'd openly and honestly accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior in a heartbeat if it was revealed that He did in fact exist and was indeed the One True Path to immortality and salvation.

I'm not like Sculptor and his ilk here who worship No God like it was a religion itself. I want there to be a God! I want to feel as comforted, consoled and in sync with The Way as I once was as a devout Christian myself.

And, sure, God is always one possible explanation for the existence of existence itself.

In fact, I tend to focus less of the existence of God, and more on the fact that if He does exist why is it not reasonable given this...

"...an endless procession of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and tornadoes and hurricanes and great floods and great droughts and great fires and deadly viral and bacterial plagues and miscarriages and hundreds and hundreds of medical and mental afflictions and extinction events...making life on Earth a living hell for countless millions of men, women and children down through the ages..."

...to suppose He is a sadistic monster. Cue Harold Kushner?

And I'm interested in how you're desperately seeking somebody to watch them for you, and to provide you with some way to convince you that in hiding from them, you haven't missed anything.

Note to others:

Let's get serious about this. Back when I first started exchanging posts with IC...back when it was actually more than just entertainment for me...he insisted that his belief in God was not just a Kierkegaardian leap of faith. And, just to be clear, I will always respect those. Instead, he insisted that the Christian God did in fact reside in Heaven. That's when he linked me to those videos. But right from the start I made it clear that my time was valuable to me and I would only watch the videos if he provided me with something from them that would entice me enough to take them seriously. That, yes, in other words, after viewing them, I would have no choice but to believe the Christian God did in fact reside in Heaven. Why? Because no rational man or women could watch them and not be convinced.

Now, for months I've been after him to provide that crucial clip/segment from them. Nothing.

But all he can do of course is to turn it all back around on me:

I can sense your anxiety in your conduct. You're really afraid to face a challenge.

Your lack of nerve betrays you. You're afraid your view will not stand up even to rudimentary critique. That's why you're so desperate not to look at the evidence.

But, again, I go beyond challenging him here...I dare him to produce the evidence that the Christian God resides in Heaven. Videos or otherwise.

So, please, put pressure on him yourself to produce the evidence. Or, sure, continue on with those pie in the sky "word games" he loves so much.

[Immanuel Can]

what arguments?

Posts here are not deleted. Feel free to go back and reread.

But I am very impressed with the fact that any suggestion of there being rational evidence puts you into a terror.

Huh?!!! Few here would be more thrilled if provided with rational evidence for the existence of the Christian God -- or any loving, just and merciful God -- than I would!

That doesn't explain your allergy to the evidence.

But I'll believe you. Go watch the videos, and we'll talk.

I once was as a devout Christian myself.

There are different definitions of what that means. Some here don't think the word "Christian" even has a definition. So I'll have to ask you what you mean.

...if He does exist why is it not reasonable given...an endless procession of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and tornadoes and hurricanes and great floods and great droughts and great fires and deadly viral and bacterial plagues and miscarriages and hundreds and hundreds of medical and mental afflictions and extinction events...making life on Earth a living hell for countless millions of men, women and children down through the ages..."

That's the question of why evil exists. And it's a question that theologians have taken very seriously, and that they have written copiously about. Have you read any of that? Have you even looked up what any of them said?

How about starting with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k64YJYBUFLM or this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxj8ag8Ntd4&t=38s

But all he can do of course is to turn it all back around on me:

There it is again: you won't even investigate. Your time's too "valuable." But you can waste a whole lot more time typing here.

[Harbal]

That's the question of why evil exists. And it's a question that theologians have taken very seriously, and that they have written copiously about. Have you read any of that? Have you even looked up what any of them said?

How about starting with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k64YJYBUFLM or this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxj8ag8Ntd4&t=38s

I don't believe in evil, I just think things can be bad -or very bad- from our point of view. I don't think the fact that there are bad (evil, if you must) people in the world, who inflict intense suffering on other people, is an argument against the existence of God. As for free will; it depends on exactly what we mean by the term, and also on factors that are beyond our current knowledge and understanding. Even so, to behave like a Hitler, or a Stalin, one needs to have the personality, character and psychological deformity to ebable it. Those things are not something anybody freely chooses to have.

[Immanuel Can]

That's the question of why evil exists. And it's a question that theologians have taken very seriously, and that they have written copiously about. Have you read any of that? Have you even looked up what any of them said?

How about starting with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k64YJYBUFLM or this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxj8ag8Ntd4&t=38s

I don't believe in evil, I just think things can be bad -or very bad- from our point of view. I don't think the fact that there are bad (evil, if you must) people in the world, who inflict intense suffering on other people, is an argument against the existence of God.

Fair enough.

One might call such things "unwanted," or "unhelpful," or "even," in some relative sense "bad" -- as in "bad for the project I have in mind," whatever that might be. But one can hardly call them "evil," if there is no objective reality to such an assessment. Things that we don't like, in such a world, not matter how strongly we dislike them or find them inhibitive to our purposes, are not "evil." They're just "not wanted."

But we might even add, that the existence of evil would be a powerful argument FOR God; for if such things are objectively evil, then one would have to ask where such a value judgment could be grounded. And it's surely not in the mere accidents of an indifferent universe. It would have to be in a universe in which an objective moral order was present, encoded in the nature of things, "evil" being what inhibits or harms the "good" intended within the Creation itself. No, if things are actually evil, evil in more than a merely emotive usage of the term -- and if Theists owe anybody some kind of apologia for them -- then it would require that an objective Standard of good and evil also exists, and a universe with a moral nature...and we're back to the God Hypothesis by the shortest route.

I'm pretty sure Biggie doesn't want to go there. But that's the tree up which he's currently barking, whether he realizes it or not. If his question makes sense, if it refers to anything real and objective, and if hurricanes, plagues and such are "evil," or, for that matter, if murders and rapes are, then something has to justify that assumption not just to Biggie, but to his imagined hordes of onwatching admirers, and to me as well -- for it is to me, in their alleged presence, he poses the question.

As a Theist, I do regard the question of evil as a serious one, and one worthy of an answer. But I cannot see on what basis Biggie can, since he denies there exists any entity capable of grounding a universal claim of something being "evil." He would be safer to think, for purposes of his own skepticism, as you do, that "evil" simply does not exist, except as a purely personal statement of his own liking or disliking some event or thing.

As for free will; it depends on exactly what we mean by the term, and also on factors that are beyond our current knowledge and understanding.

I agree. We get in all sorts of confusions if we don't get a common understanding of what "free" entails, and what is being said about "will." It is a related topic, but not quite where Biggie's at, at the present moment, it seems. He seems more concerned about what some have called "natural evils," such things as accidents, landslides, floods and plagues. When the question of human will is brought in, then evil becomes a whole lot easier to explain: people do an awful lot of it.

Even so, to behave like a Hitler, or a Stalin, one needs to have the personality, character and psychological deformity to ebable it. Those things are not something anybody freely chooses to have.

Oh, I doubt that.

I've never found the "he was just a psychopath" sort of explanation very plausible, even in such cases. And empirically, what we find is that such men were often capable of moral reflection, and even aware of good moral judgment; they just chose a different path. We can see this because they had the cunning to try to deny or conceal their misdeeds -- that being proof that they were reasoning, and were capable of understanding their evil as evil.

I would save the "psychopath" explanation for cases in which the perpetrator was literally so deranged that he HAD no free will capable of being engaged, and so never denied, concealed or otherwise made efforts to extenuate or hide what he did. Other than those extreme cases, which are very few, I would suggest that alleged "psychopaths" are far more often made by their own choices than born that way.

[Harbal]

I've never found the "he was just a psychopath" sort of explanation very plausible, even in such cases. And empirically, what we find is that such men were often capable of moral reflection, and even aware of good moral judgment; they just chose a different path. We can see this because they had the cunning to try to deny or conceal their misdeeds -- that being proof that they were reasoning, and were capable of understanding their evil as evil.

I would save the "psychopath" explanation for cases in which the perpetrator was literally so deranged that he HAD no free will capable of being engaged, and so never denied, concealed or otherwise made efforts to extenuate or hide what he did. Other than those extreme cases, which are very few, I would suggest that alleged "psychopaths" are far more often made by their own choices than born that way.

I'm not defending the psychopath, or even saying we should make allowances for him when he does something bad, that's another issue. What I am saying is that psychopathy is a recognised condition, and people don't choose to have that condition. I don't like the fact that there are psychopaths among us, so the more medical science can learn about it the better. If it is ever fully understood, I doubt it will turn out that the forces of evil are responsible for it.

[iambiguous]

Go watch the videos, and we'll talk.

Let's get serious about this. Back when I first started exchanging posts with IC...back when it was actually more than just entertainment for me...he insisted that his belief in God was not just a Kierkegaardian leap of faith. And, just to be clear, I will always respect those. Instead, he insisted that the Christian God did in fact reside in Heaven. That's when he linked me to those videos. But right from the start I made it clear that my time was valuable to me and I would only watch the videos if he provided me with something from them that would entice me enough to take them seriously. That, yes, in other words, after viewing them, I would have no choice but to believe the Christian God did in fact reside in Heaven. Why? Because no rational man or women could watch them and not be convinced.

Now, for months I've been after him to provide that crucial clip/segment from them. Nothing.

Note to others:

With so much at stake on both sides of the grave, what would you give to find someone able to demonstrate that a God, the God, their God does in fact exist beyond an existential leap of faith?

Now, IC claims that such proof can be found in those videos. But he won't note the most crucial evidence of all from them.

Can anyone here at least attempt to explain why they believe he won't? If you had such evidence, wouldn't you be including it in every single post?



Note to henry quirk:

You're his BFF here. With your own soul on the line for all of eternity, he certainly must have provided this evidence to you. Are you saved?



Note to others:

As henry has me in his penalty box, please pass this on to him.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Theologies serve functions

Well, that can be said of anything...it "serves a function."

That doesn't tell anyone whether or not that is ALL it does, nor does it suggest whether the "function" in question is main value of the theology. There could well be theology that is true, but fails to serve your wanted "functions." I think there certain are such.

This is one among so many examples of why I perceive you as operating in basic bad-faith. I am required with that statement to explain what I mean and to speculate about the origin of this bad-faith. Since you see yourself, without any doubt, as operating from the place of truth, and are situated in truth, any argument that does not start from the same point must be false; can only be false. You take on, in your odd way, all comers. You send up (what looks to me to be) a front of seriousness and even thoughtfulness. But now examine what I said and then what you said in response.

I said *theologies serve functions*. That is, that within theologies we can discover many different currents and perhaps 'purposes'. For example I have often described Yahweh as embodying Hebrew idea-imperialism -- the declaration that *we* have been chosen by god but that the same god that especially chose us is also your god but really *we* are the ultimate arbiters of what god said and what god means. Obviously, and certainly from my perspective, this ventriloquy indicates not only the voice of certain people (a priest class I have stated) feigning the voice of god, but it really points to an entire clandestine motivation in handling and presenting the voice of god. This can be examined in any theological-religious structure and hierarchy. You are very clear about the same when you critique the RC Church for example.

Now, what I have just said, I gather, is utterly intolerable to you as an idea if the idea is turned in any way against the *sacred core* you believe you are defending and explaining. You cannot even entertain the idea because of the (further) ramifications of what it may mean and indeed (as I assert) it does mean. Still though, I have clearly pointed to a 'function' of the sort that I indicated.

But you refuse to consider it and you refuse to address it. Instead you go to work on it with bad-faith tactics. You attempt to undermine the assertion, which fair-minded people would recognize, by extending the assertion to what can be said of *anything*. And as you well know I did not say, and never have indicated, that I do not recognize other important things done by theology, yet in fact I do. And I have often written about this.

None of this matters to you! It all turns in a circle: because I do not agree with you on fundamental points, and because you know you are right (and there is literally no possibility that you are wrong), you really have no allegiance to fair conversation or up-front rational conversation. So you resort to bad-faith. You fail to even consider what I mean by 'function' and you dismiss the concern altogether.

There could well be theology that is true, but fails to serve your wanted "functions." I think there certain are such.

This is a tricky sentence! There is only one theology that is true and that is Christian theology. If there is another theology that is true please name it. What you really are asserting is that, despite anything I or anyone else says, the exact Christian story that you hold to (theology) is absolutely true through-and-through. And you express dismay, or something like intellectual offense, that I refuse to *see* what you see and thus agree with you.

If you were much less a religious fanatic, and less a Protestant Evangelical zealot, you'd be capable of having a real conversation, one that is not a sham-conversation conducted, as I say, by a religious enthusiast for those purposes.

Once one gets this about you -- it is a sort of reduction -- then what you are doing becomes far more clear. You avoid altogether any sort of conversation that does not fit into your religious paradigm and your apologetic project. For that reason one must conclude you are involved in dubious and also devious tactics and that you do not operate in *good-faith* as it is normally understood.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not defending the psychopath, or even saying we should make allowances for him when he does something bad, that's another issue.

I wasn't thinking you were.

I was just pointing out that they have free will, save in cases of genuine mental derangement. And we know, because they excuse, hide or cover up their actions.

...people don't choose to have that condition.

But I'm suggesting they're still choosing their actions, as demonstrated by their attempts to conceal and their responses to being found out.

There are such things as "high-functioning psychopaths," often found in particular careers like the army, or investment banking, or something else that requires extraordinary indifference of some kind. They're not functioning in an anti-social way, because the personality type fits the role in society they occupy, and that's a functional role. As for the others, maybe psychopathy gives them a greater temptation to bad behaviour; but temptation is not determination. So long as they're choosing it, they're guilty.

I don't like the fact that there are psychopaths among us, so the more medical science can learn about it the better. If it is ever fully understood, I doubt it will turn out that the forces of evil are responsible for it.

I think it will depend on how they chose to actualize their personality traits. If they found healthy and pro-social ways to be, they won't be evil at all. But obviously, not everybody with that condition chooses to actualize their personality in pro-social ways; and they're responsible for those choices, except in cases wherein complete mental derangement rendered them incapable of choice.

But those cases are easy to detect. They don't have the wits or the sense of morality to conceal what they do.

[Immanuel Can]

Now, IC claims that such proof can be found in those videos.

Still terrified of them, are you? Fascinating that you won't look.

Well, not much courage there, I have to say. I think maybe you are suspicious your unfaith couldn't survive the experience.

[Immanuel Can]

Theologies serve functions

Well, that can be said of anything...it "serves a function."

That doesn't tell anyone whether or not that is ALL it does, nor does it suggest whether the "function" in question is main value of the theology. There could well be theology that is true, but fails to serve your wanted "functions." I think there certain are such.

I perceive you ...

How you perceive me, I'm caring for less and less by the minute.

The fact that you avoid every challenge to your theories and play ad hominem instead of trying to figure out the answers to them is much more telling.

I said *theologies serve functions*.

I heard you. It was an entirely uninteresting observation, because ANYTHING can "serve functions."

Now, what I have just said, I gather, is utterly intolerable to you as an idea

Not intolerable.

Silly. Trivial. Trite. Of no interest. It doesn't rise to the level of even being challenging.

There could well be theology that is true, but fails to serve your wanted "functions." I think there certainly are such.

This is a tricky sentence!

Not a bit. It says what I mean.

If a theology contradicts the "functions" you hope to attribute to it, it will fail to "function" for you. But that will be a blow against your expectations, not against the theology in question. It can still be right; your expectations of it could be absurd.

you express dismay, or something like intellectual offense, that I refuse to *see* what you see and thus agree with you.

Heh. No "dismay."

But it's apparent you're choosing not to think critically about anything you already want to believe. That's a bit unfortunate, but only for you.

You avoid altogether any sort of conversation that does not fit into your religious paradigm and your apologetic project.

What an irony. What projection!

Here's the guy who will not let go of his European civilization theory, no matter how much goes against it, can't bear to examine it, refine it or change it...saying I'm the one doing the avoiding.

I'm so amused.

[iambiguous]

Now, IC claims that such proof can be found in those videos.

Still terrified of them, are you? Fascinating that you won't look.

Well, not much courage there, I have to say. I think maybe you are suspicious your unfaith couldn't survive the experience.

Absolutely shameless.

Really, what can I say about others here who still take him seriously. Who, what, think they can reason with him about Christianity?

Still, he must have gotten some here to watch all those videos. If you are one of them, by all means, note the segment that unequivocally convinced you that the Christian God does in fact reside in Heaven. Evidence that is on par with demonstrating that the Pope resides in the Vatican.

It's settled then: a "condition". Incurable I'm guessing.

[Immanuel Can]

Still, he must have gotten some here to watch all those videos.

I would think so, if anybody's paying attention. Not everybody is scared.

[iambiguous]

Still, he must have gotten some here to watch all those videos.

I would think so, if anybody's paying attention. Not everybody is scared.

Well, there you go then. Those here who were not afraid to watch them...come forward with what you think he would construe to be the most powerful evidence in them that the Christian God does in fact reside in Heaven.

Also, I have a compromise proposal.

Let IC link us to the particular video he believes comes closest to demonstrating that the Christian God does in fact exist.

I promise to watch it in its entirety.

[Immanuel Can]

Let IC link us to the particular video he believes comes closest to demonstrating that the Christian God does in fact exist.

Nope. I'm not doing your work for you. Do you have your mamma chew your food?

[iambiguous]

Let IC link us to the particular video he believes comes closest to demonstrating that the Christian God does in fact exist.

Nope. I'm not doing your work for you. Do you have your mamma chew your food?

Now he's just a clown.

Is it possible for one to be a phonier Christian than him? Over the years I have known any number of Christians [and God world folks] I respected completely. Those, for example, who truly struggled with their faith...but were able to hold on to it.

But this being a philosophy forum derived from a philosophy magazine, IC, in my view, has absolutely no business being here at all.

Unless, of course, I'm wrong.