Christianity

[Belinda]

I am querying "we will merely continue sniping at each other". Even if your objection is meant only about you and AJ, you could willynilly learn from each other. For instance I myself tried applying what you object to about AJ to see if it also fits me, as I do in fact take philosophy seriously.

You may take philosophy seriously, Belinda, but, unless I have seriously misjudged you, you don't expect people to hang on your every word and accuse them of degeneracy if they don't. Besides, he's not here to share philosophical thoughts, he's To be fair, I'm known for giving people too many chances in life

I dislike AJ's prose but the very effort of trying to cut through AJ's bramble thicket is sometimes fruitful.

Well I dislike his fruit, Belinda.

I too suspect AQ is on a recruiting mission for some unpleasant political movement. I wish someone more politically aware than I would spell it out. I meant that that the effort to understand AJ exercises my brain. I believe there may be more than sound and fury in his posts, though what they signify escapes me. AJ's prose can not be helping him to recruit sympathisers.

When I do philosophy I thrive on objections to what I say. Without disagreements nobody would ever learn anything new.

Well I dislike his fruit, Belinda.

I try to be less gullible, more apt at detecting motives.

[Harbal]

I meant that that the effort to understand AJ exercises my brain. I believe there may be more than sound and fury in his posts, though what they signify escapes me.

His subject is not one that particularly interests me, so I don't have the motivation to make an effort. The bits that I have read, and understood, I find a bit disturbing. I don't think I would want to be a member of the society he would create.

AJ's prose can not be helping him to recruit sympathisers.

I agree. It's the kind of stuff that would only appeal to the already converted.

When I do philosophy I thrive on objections to what I say.

I think Alexis Jacobi also thrives on objections to what he says, so I would encourage as many folks as possible to contribute to his well being.

[FlashDangerpants]

I too suspect AQ is on a recruiting mission for some unpleasant political movement. I wish someone more politically aware than I would spell it out. I meant that that the effort to understand AJ exercises my brain. I believe there may be more than sound and fury in his posts, though what they signify escapes me. AJ's prose can not be helping him to recruit sympathisers.

The thing beyond "sound and fury" in his posts is Blood and Soil.

[iambiguous]

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

(IV) God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.

In recent decades scientists have been stunned by the discovery that the initial conditions of the Big Bang were fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent life with a precision and delicacy that literally defy human comprehension. This fine-tuning is of two sorts. First, when the laws of nature are expressed as equations, you find appearing in them certain constants, such as the gravitational constant. The values of these constants are independent of the laws of nature. Second, in addition to these constants, there are certain arbitrary quantities which define the initial conditions on which the laws of nature operate – for example, the amount of entropy (disorder) in the universe.

For most of us, of course, much of this is considerably problematic. Why? Because we possess neither the education nor the background needed to grasp either the mathematics or the science here. For many, all we can really do is to take our own leap of faith to what we think those who are able to grasp these things tell us. And that often comes around to the Goldilocks factor. In other words, all of the many, many mind-boggling things that had to be just right in order for the human species to exist at all.

So, sure, attribute that to a God, the God, your God.

On the other hand, many scientists speculate that there are almost certainly countless other intelligent life forms on countless other planets in countless other galaxies in, what, countless other universes?

So, where do we mere mortals on this planet fit into all of that?

And what was God thinking when He made our own universe this...

Light travels at approximately 186,000 miles a second. That is about 6,000,000,000,000 miles a year.

The closest star to us is Alpha Centauri. It is 4.75 light-years away. 28,500,000,000,000 miles.

So, traveling at 186,000 miles a second, it would take us 4.75 years to reach it. The voyager spacecraft [just now exiting our solar system] will take 70,000 years to reach it.

To reach the center of the Milky Way galaxy it would take 100,000 light-years.

Or consider this:
"To get to the closest galaxy to ours, the Canis Major Dwarf, at Voyager's speed, it would take approximately 749,000,000 years to travel the distance of 25,000 light years! If we could travel at the speed of light, it would still take 25,000 years!"

The Andromeda galaxy is 2.537 million light years away.

...big? A place so vast, perhaps, that no mere mortal will ever find Heaven except through God on Judgment Day?

Now these constants and quantities fall into an extraordinarily narrow range of life-permitting values. Were these constants or quantities to be altered by less than a hair’s breadth, the life-permitting balance of nature would be destroyed, and life would not exist.

Okay, I'm always one of the few atheists that will concede this point. The Goldilocks factor is not just a coincidence at all...it's actual proof that a God, the God [if not necessarily your God] does exist.

That's why, after conceding this, I come around to this part:

...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....

In other words, pick one:

1] Harold Kushner's God
2] God the sadistic monster
3] God the mysterious

Number 3, right?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I too suspect AQ is on a recruiting mission for some unpleasant political movement. I wish someone more politically aware than I would spell it out. I meant that that the effort to understand AJ exercises my brain. I believe there may be more than sound and fury in his posts, though what they signify escapes me. AJ's prose can not be helping him to recruit sympathisers.

When I do philosophy I thrive on objections to what I say. Without disagreements nobody would ever learn anything new.

I can clarify every aspect of what I am up to and what interests me without ambiguity. So I will give you some answers: One, in no sense am I *recruiting* for any political movement. I have said (a dozen times) that I do not have an activist's aptitude. I am interested in discussing the IDEAS which inform political and social perspectives and in seeing which stand up to scrutiny.

If what you mean is really that in your view any discussion or reference of what you call *unpleasant* political ideas is equal to recruitment then I believe you have revealed more of what your position entails: suppression, casting moral blame, limiting discussion, etc. (But here I am just guessing). What I can say, and with certainty, is that on many forums it is not possible to discuss ideas that are seen as being on the outside of what is morally permissible. What that implies is censorship. What most interests me philosophically is the sort of censorship that arises within the person before the thought is fully coalesced. That is to say those mechanisms that get installed in people that inhibit them from being capable of free thought.

I am certain that those are the predominant mechanisms that most who write here operate with.

I wish someone more politically aware than I would spell it out.

How funny this is to me. Hilarious really! There is no one here who has this capability.

I meant that that the effort to understand AJ exercises my brain.

There are two (at least) elements here. I accept that you find my writing style turgid (to quote Immanuel). Fair enough. But I really do not think my posts are at all incomprehensible. For example the last one written to Tillingborn. It is expressed clearly and directly. But if there is any part that is not understood let me know. I will clarify.

The other part of this is that I have been actively reading a range of authors who deal in very different terms than are common and accepted. And their ideas are not simple. And over the course of 10 years (speaking honestly and confessionally) I perceive that I have been in a process of de-indoctrination. I see our typical Liberal outlook as a form of indoctrination. And the topic interests me but, at the same time, I am leery of it because of the reaction any discussion of anti-Liberal ideas receives: moral fury and condemnation.

All of this does fit into the larger conversation of Christianity. So it is not off-topic.

I do not care about 'finding sympathizers'. That is not my object. I first look for people who can discuss a topic -- any topic! -- dispassionately and perseveringly.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The thing beyond "sound and fury" in his posts is Blood and Soil.

And this is definitely true, but not quite in the way he means it (associated with Nazism, etc.) It has become ideologically illegal, for a group of reasons, to speak about (be concerned about) 'blood' (one's physical matrix) and *soil* one's relationship to the place one lives, one's *right* to possess and control that place. But though these topics are ones that (in this case Flash) will work to suppress with condemnatory moral force (or his weak attempt at it) other people in this world, and in the larger community, and in the US, Australia, England and in Europe and many other places are thinking about. And with solid justification. But when they do so they immediately receive 'moral beating' just as Flash is attempting. It has led to 'cancellation', to getting de-banked, and a whole set of other actions with often very negative effects.

So I reverse the condemnatory assumption and I transvalue it: it is moral to think in such terms. It is moral to have those concerns. It is moral to talk about them. Present an argument that refutes this. (You can't and you won't).

However, it is just one concern within a group of valid concerns.

[henry quirk]

it is moral to think in such terms. It is moral to have those concerns. It is moral to talk about them

Of course it is. Atomistically: My home, my family, my bloodline. Molecularly: our nation, our people, our culture.

Not seein' why you're squeamish about this (and you are squeamish...you've been hinting at this topic for pages but never steppin' up...now you have, so let's get to it [the thread is becomin' interesting again]).

Speak your mind, defend yourself, pay no mind to the howlin' animals (beyond defendin' against them).

I'll start: I have a right to associate with who I choose based in whatever criteria I find moral & sensible. My family, for example, are those I share blood with, and those who I share culture with. They are my first concern. I won't hobble them to service the greater community, nor will I submerge my family in some gumbo of non-identity or identity defined by the other. In the same way, My nation (a free [self-responsible, -directing] people) comes first. Corporate monkeys, slackasses, parasites, herd members, collectivists (in other words: most of the folks in-forum) are not welcome.

Tie in to, in my view, true Christianity: the life and words of the man rebuke the *State and its agents and dependents, and celebrate a particular, peculiar, culture (way of life).

-----

There, beat that, AJ, as an incendiary, sure-to-rouse-the-rabble, opener.




*the primary machine for domesticating and homogenizing people

[seeds]

Okay, I'm always one of the few atheists that will concede this point. The Goldilocks factor is not just a coincidence at all...it's actual proof that a God, the God [if not necessarily your God] does exist.

That's why, after conceding this, I come around to this part:

...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....

In other words, pick one:

1] Harold Kushner's God
2] God the sadistic monster
3] God the mysterious

Number 3, right?

If viewed in the proper light, there's nothing "mysterious" about our relationship to the Creator of this universe, for it is no more mysterious than the relationship that a human embryo has to its mother.

Are you mystified by the observable (obvious) reality that a human mother functions at a higher level of being and consciousness than a fetus within her womb?

If not, then why is it so hard to apply the same analogy to God?

And more to the point (and to address your incessantly repeated complaint),...

...why is it so hard for you to comprehend that a living Being who is probably as far above us in intelligence and consciousness as we are above amoebas,...

...an intelligence capable of creating a hundred-billion galaxies of suns and planets out of the fabric of its very own mental essence,...

...an intelligence who somehow managed to figure out how to awaken new eternal souls (us) into existence from, again, the living fabric of its very own being,...

...is probably intelligent enough to understand what he (she/it) needs to include in the design of the universe (e.g., the things you keep complaining about) in order to achieve an intended goal?
_______

[FlashDangerpants]

Not seein' why you're squeamish about this (and you are squeamish...you've been hinting at this topic for pages but never steppin' up...now you have, so let's get to it [the thread is becomin' interesting again]).

He's a holocaust denier Henry, or rather he denies a specific element of it which he cannot openly discuss.



If you're wondering, it's the bit where it was wrong, that's what he can't commit to, that the holocaust was a bad idea.

[iambiguous]

Okay, I'm always one of the few atheists that will concede this point. The Goldilocks factor is not just a coincidence at all...it's actual proof that a God, the God [if not necessarily your God] does exist.

That's why, after conceding this, I come around to this part:

...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....

In other words, pick one:

1] Harold Kushner's God
2] God the sadistic monster
3] God the mysterious

Number 3, right?

If viewed in the proper light, there's nothing "mysterious" about our relationship to the Creator of this universe, for it is no more mysterious than the relationship that a human embryo has to its mother.

Are you mystified by the observable (obvious) reality that a human mother functions at a higher level of being and consciousness than a fetus within her womb?

If not, then why is it so hard to apply the same analogy to God?

And more to the point (and to address your incessantly repeated complaint),...

...why is it so hard for you to comprehend that a living Being who is probably as far above us in intelligence and consciousness as we are above amoebas,...

...an intelligence capable of creating a hundred-billion galaxies of suns and planets out of the fabric of its very own mental essence,...

...an intelligence who somehow managed to figure out how to awaken new eternal souls (us) into existence from, again, the living fabric of its very own being,...

...is probably intelligent enough to understand what he (she/it) needs to include in the design of the universe (e.g., the things you keep complaining about) in order to achieve an intended goal?
_______

Here, try one of these: https://www.google.com/search?q=christi ... s-wiz-serp

There you can just ramble on and on and on about things that others will believe simply because they believe in the Christian God.

But this is a philosophy forum. And those like us who take philosophy seriously have to endure those like you who come here preaching...acting as though the existence of a religious faith or [on this thread] the Christian God is, in and of itself, to be accepted by default.

Again, for those who do believe in a God, the God, their God, I ask them to bring Him here:

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of your God or religious/spiritual path
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are 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 Gods and religious/spiritual faiths
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God or religious/spiritual path

But, in my experience, for those like you that is a complete waste of time. Like trying to have a substantive discussion about God with someone like dattaswami.

Well, unless, of course, I'm wrong.

[Harbal]

I have a right to associate with who I choose based in whatever criteria I find moral & sensible.

You often pull out the word 'right', henry, and I have never been clear about what, exactly, you mean by it. I would define a right as a permission or privilege that has been granted to you by an authority with the power to protect and guarantee your freedom to exercise it. Would you be kind enough to give your definition of the word?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I have a right to associate with who I choose based in whatever criteria I find moral & sensible.

You often pull out the word 'right', henry, and I have never been clear about what, exactly, you mean by it. I would define a right as a permission or privilege that has been granted to you by an authority with the power to protect and guarantee your freedom to exercise it. Would you be kind enough to give your definition of the word?

You have not read what he writes then. He defines the right he speaks of as part-and-parcel of natural being and existence. It is not a right granted by anyone or anything but one intrinsic to being itself. It is intuitively obvious and you could prove it yourself: you do not require an authority, a State, a god, or the Baal Shem Tov, to grant you the right to the sovereignty that you know is yours when, for example, someone tries to grab you, take something from you, inflict harm on your body. You know you have a right to your very self. And no one else does unless you grant it.

This is what I have gathered from what Henry has expressed (in numerous long posts).

[Harbal]

You have not read what he writes then.

I have to confess that I haven't read everything he has written. I have, however, challenged him several times over his use of the term, 'right', and, as far as I remember, he hasn't provided a proper definition for it in any of our exchanges. I do acknowled the possibility that he may have done, but I wasn't paying attention.

He defines the right he speaks of as part-and-parcel of natural being and existence. It is not a right granted by anyone or anything but one intrinsic to being itself. It is intuitively obvious and you could prove it yourself: you do not require an authority, a State, a god, or the Baal Shem Tov, to grant you the right to the sovereignty that you know is yours when, for example, someone tries to grab you, take something from you, inflict harm on your body. You know you have a right to your very self. And no one else does unless you grant it.

This is what I have gathered from what Henry has expressed (in numerous long posts).

Thank you, Alexis. Of course, henry would have to approve what you have said on his behalf before I could accept it as his view.

[Alexis Jacobi]

He's a Holocaust denier Henry, or rather he denies a specific element of it which he cannot openly discuss.

No, not so. But what is more interesting is your adamant attempt to focus on an issue about which you have no knowledge and no background and turn it into a tool. You do this because you are aware that the surrounding culture has given you a sort of *right* to come down with both feet and with a full intensity of moral opposition on anyone who does not accept the Party Line. As long as you can get away with it you will use it to maximum benefit. But you really have no *argument* one way or the other, and no concern or even interest in the topic. I realize that everything having to do with the Shoah is in this category but so is a great deal that has to do with that war and its causes. And we all know that the historical figure Adolf Hitler has been made into the symbol of ontological malevolence in our world. What is cast on him is a miasma of psychological projection. It shields other players, other participants, and co-creators, from examination of their own selves, their own contributions.

And that is why the Argumentum ad Hitlerum is, factually, the most common reduction in all conversations of a political and social sort.

Philosophically then, we can examine this situation. And it really is a situation. It has to do with the entire way that the First and Second World Wars are interpreted and presented within the Occident. Certain views are ideologically favored and should you deviate from them you place yourself, in the eyes of others, in a dubious moral area. To force certain views and demand that they are held to and to use extreme moral coercion as a tool to enforce them is what I am talking about. Doing this, you *install* in people those mechanisms whereby they self-censor what they really see and believe, for views that they know must be held because of the consequences they will face if they don't.

Note that I expressly, and directly, said that I know the Shoah happened. I said this because to the best of my understanding it is a true statement. But for you this did not matter. Why? Because you felt that you had some angle to work, some break with conventional opinion that was *safe* for you to jump all over in your quest for a moral bludgeon. Since I knew this I opted not to play in the game you were setting up.

This sort of gaming is so common today that it needs to be examined. Ideological coercion is therefore the topic.

Now Hot Pants will have no more to say about this. He is not interested in 1) the actual topic (an aspect of Jewish history and European history and knows nothing about it), nor 2) the issue of psychological and ideological coercion and the manifold places where these operate.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I have to confess that I haven't read everything he has written.

Why does this bloody not surprise me!