Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

The end of the old authority must be the beginning of democracy.

Wouldn't that be nice.

Unfortunately, we're witnessing the end of any democracy, and the start of Globalist totalitarianism.

That seems to be the case. Jesus never promised heaven on Earth, or an easy victory over evil.

The opposite, in fact. He promised no victory over evil without Him. (Matthew 25:31-end)

[Harbal]

Well, in my case, I base that conclusion on my own experience of how the world that I know works. Certain causes always lead to certain effects, and certain things do happen, while other things never happen, so, based on these sorts of observations, I have arrived at a model with which I am able to compare any state of affairs that might be presented to me as fact. Now, the state of affairs that you, for example, present to me regarding God, most definitely does not comply with my model.

Is this not simply an elaborate way of saying, "I haven't seen it, so I don't believe it"? Or is there something else here?

No, "I haven't seen it, so I don't believe it", is an extremely simplified representation of what I said, and what I said is a brief and simple overview of my position regarding what I am prepared to accept as being possible.

Or is there something else here?

What else does there need to be?

If someone were to inform us both of the existence of the Minotaur, and urged us most strongly that we needed to take its existence seriously, how would the basis on which you evaluated the situation differ from mine? I don't know how old you are, but I'm assuming you have been around long enough to get a sense of what physical occurrences are possible in this local pocket of reality that we call Earth. I suspect that in all matters other than God, you use a similar method to mine for assessing credibility.

However, what I submit to you is this: the data you know, from your own experience already, is, at best, equivocal, not decisive in favour of Atheism or even agnosticism. The vast majority of people, looking at the same data (and this even includes people like Dawkins) feel attracted to the belief that there is design, purpose, order and even wonder in this same world your "common sense" is suggesting to you is devoid of God...and their "common sense" is telling them there well might be a God, and even that it's likely there is.

I do not know what is beyond, beneath or behind what we perceive as reality, but if we ever do get to find out, and we are capable of comprehending it, I fully expect whatever it is to be no less fantastic than God. Maybe it will actually turn out to be something that fits somebody's description of God. Even respected scientists hold a variety of theories that would up until relatively recently have been thought crazy. Maybe consciousness is a property of the universe, or perhaps there is no physical universe at all, and only potential exists, which is then realised within individual consciousnesses. I heard one scientist propose that the universe consists of pure maths. I know you disapprove of fence sitting, but if I were to put my money on any of the proposed possibilities, including God, it is highly likely that I would lose it. I can live with not knowing; it causes me no frustration or anxiety whatsoever.

I'm going to make a concession, IC, I will accept the possibility of there being God, and I will even rank that possibility equally with all the numerous other possibilities. I guess that makes me a multi-agnostic.

I suppose now that I am no longer discounting the possibility of God, which I never really was, it comes down to what type, or version, of God I would accept as a possibility. This is where it becomes clear that you and I are not even a step closer to seeing eye to eye. Your God, IC, the chap in the Bible, no way, Jose.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, in my case, I base that conclusion on my own experience of how the world that I know works. Certain causes always lead to certain effects, and certain things do happen, while other things never happen, so, based on these sorts of observations, I have arrived at a model with which I am able to compare any state of affairs that might be presented to me as fact. Now, the state of affairs that you, for example, present to me regarding God, most definitely does not comply with my model.

Is this not simply an elaborate way of saying, "I haven't seen it, so I don't believe it"? Or is there something else here?

No, "I haven't seen it, so I don't believe it", is an extremely simplified representation of what I said, and what I said is a brief and simple overview of my position regarding what I am prepared to accept as being possible.

Or is there something else here?

What else does there need to be?

Well, if "I haven't seen it, so I don't believe it" isn't the right summary, then I have to assume you have something more complex in mind...I was just wondering what it would be.

If someone were to inform us both of the existence of the Minotaur, and urged us most strongly that we needed to take its existence seriously, how would the basis on which you evaluated the situation differ from mine?

Let's suppose that most of the existing world claimed there either is, or was very likely to be, a Minotaur. Let's suppose lots of people think it's abundantly obvious there's a Minotaur, and that our very existence, with its complexity and evidence of design, our cognitive and epistemic capabilities, the logic of the universe itself, and even mathematics attest to the necessity of the existence of a Minotaur.

Then I'd check to see if there was anything to this Minotaur business...wouldn't you? Because by all accounts, Minotaurs are a serious problem, if they were to exist...but nothing close to the problem of there being a God, if one is on the outs with Him.

I don't know how old you are, but I'm assuming you have been around long enough to get a sense of what physical occurrences are possible in this local pocket of reality that we call Earth. I suspect that in all matters other than God, you use a similar method to mine for assessing credibility.

Well, that's assumptive, isn't it? What I mean is that it requires us to believe a couple of things that, I have to confess, I find really hard to believe.

One of them is that whatever I know, that's all there is. Whatever else exists has to conform to my experience. It further requires me to believe that if something isn't what I've experienced, it cannot therefore exist. And I know that's not true, because there have been tons of routine things in my life where I've realized I've never seen or done this thing before; so if I had taken that rule, I would have to say I wasn't doing or experiencing it now, either. I also find it very difficult to believe that experience itself is the only road to knowledge...or even the most certain...because it's clear it's not. I know about things like logic and mathematics, neither of which is purely empirical or experiential.

So I would say I do use the rules of life by which I operate as a guide to what is: but I see that there are many more such rules than the idea that whatever I have already experienced defines the possible.

And I'm sure you see the good reasons for that.

However, what I submit to you is this: the data you know, from your own experience already, is, at best, equivocal, not decisive in favour of Atheism or even agnosticism. The vast majority of people, looking at the same data (and this even includes people like Dawkins) feel attracted to the belief that there is design, purpose, order and even wonder in this same world your "common sense" is suggesting to you is devoid of God...and their "common sense" is telling them there well might be a God, and even that it's likely there is.

I do not know what is beyond, beneath or behind what we perceive as reality, but if we ever do get to find out, and we are capable of comprehending it, I fully expect whatever it is to be no less fantastic than God. Maybe it will actually turn out to be something that fits somebody's description of God. Even respected scientists hold a variety of theories that would up until relatively recently have been thought crazy. Maybe consciousness is a property of the universe, or perhaps there is no physical universe at all, and only potential exists, which is then realised within individual consciousnesses. I heard one scientist propose that the universe consists of pure maths. I know you disapprove of fence sitting, but if I were to put my money on any of the proposed possibilities, including God, it is highly likely that I would lose it. I can live with not knowing; it causes me no frustration or anxiety whatsoever.

Okay. One can be unperturbed about a tiger in one's house, if one is determined to disbelieve in tigers. But tigers still eat people.

I'm going to make a concession, IC, I will accept the possibility of there being God, and I will even rank that possibility equally with all the numerous other possibilities. I guess that makes me a multi-agnostic.

Yay. A new category for me to figure out.

I suppose now that I am no longer discounting the possibility of God, which I never really was, it comes down to what type, or version, of God I would accept as a possibility. This is where it becomes clear that you and I are not even a step closer to seeing eye to eye. Your God, IC, the chap in the Bible, no way, Jose.

Okay, let's roll on that.

Let's suppose there is a God. Just heuristically, let's say. That means "as a thought experiment." i.e. we just take it as an imaginative premise, without deeper commitment than that, perhaps, and see where it goes. How about that?

What makes you think, if we imagine such a God existing, that He would still not possibly be the God of the Bible?

[Lacewing]

The concept of there being 'no accounting' is not the same as being 'dead-and-done'. You are not allowing any other possibilities

Oh, there are certainly other "possibilities." I don't consider them probabilities, because most of them are inherently irrational and self-contradictory, and none of them makes an adequate account of what I believe to be the truth about God.

Thank you for acknowledging that your claim/position of other probabilities being inherently irrational and self-contradictory is based on what you believe. I would add that your belief requires and/or depends on seeing other probabilities in that way, while not seeing or acknowledging the inherently irrational and self-contradictory nature of your own belief.

But there are certainly other attempts to characterize an afterlife.

"Attempts to characterize an afterlife"... again, I'm guessing you cannot apply this to your own belief, while you apply it to non-Christian beliefs. I would agree that not only is any characterization of an afterlife an attempt, but it is also made-up and crafted by human beings based on whatever particular belief system they might subscribe to.

You could, for instance, believe in reincarnation. Or in universalism. Or in "The Singularity." These are all afterlife theories, for sure.

So which one of them do you subscribe to?

I don't subscribe to any afterlife theory because I think the potential is beyond human comprehension and models. I don't imagine that anything beyond or greater than a human life is defined in human terms/limitations. Such imaginings are, to me, inherently irrational and self-contradictory. How in the world could we imagine this incredibly vast Universe being modeled on/for humans? How can people worship a god who would be so small as that... as small as humans themselves? It's ridiculously outrageous.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Even respected scientists hold a variety of theories that would up until relatively recently have been thought crazy. Maybe consciousness is a property of the universe, or perhaps there is no physical universe at all, and only potential exists, which is then realised within individual consciousnesses. I heard one scientist propose that the universe consists of pure maths. I know you disapprove of fence sitting, but if I were to put my money on any of the proposed possibilities, including God, it is highly likely that I would lose it. I can live with not knowing; it causes me no frustration or anxiety whatsoever.

You are careening toward I don’t know what! Rein yourself in before you head too far out on The Open Seas of Thought. You’ll go mad — like Old Ahab!

Best & yours truly,

Ishmael

[Immanuel Can]

The concept of there being 'no accounting' is not the same as being 'dead-and-done'. You are not allowing any other possibilities

Oh, there are certainly other "possibilities." I don't consider them probabilities, because most of them are inherently irrational and self-contradictory, and none of them makes an adequate account of what I believe to be the truth about God.

Thank you for acknowledging that your claim/position of other probabilities being inherently irrational and self-contradictory is based on what you believe.

That's no confession. We all believe things, and hopefully, on good evidence.

Don't you believe things? Like don't you believe the Sun will come up tomorrow, that your toothpaste will help prevent tooth decay, or that if you drive your car you won't be savagely killed in a traffic accident? You might be wrong in every case, possibly: but you're pretty certain, and for good reason, that what you believe is true.

Nothing surprising there.

But there are certainly other attempts to characterize an afterlife.

"Attempts to characterize an afterlife"... again, I'm guessing you cannot apply this to your own belief, while you apply it to non-Christian beliefs. I would agree that not only is any characterization of an afterlife an attempt, but it is also made-up and crafted by human beings based on whatever particular belief system they might subscribe to.

You could, for instance, believe in reincarnation. Or in universalism. Or in "The Singularity." These are all afterlife theories, for sure.

So which one of them do you subscribe to?

I don't subscribe to any afterlife theory because I think the potential is beyond human comprehension and models.

What's your reasoning for taking that assumption?

[Lacewing]

I don't subscribe to any afterlife theory because I think the potential is beyond human comprehension and models.

What's your reasoning for taking that assumption?

Everything I observe.

[Harbal]

You are careening toward I don’t know what! Rein yourself in before you head too far out on The Open Seas of Thought. You’ll go mad — like Old Ahab!

We are, all of us, a bunch of nobodies pouring out our thoughts on a minority interest forum. What significant consequence could anything any of us say have? You shouldn't assume that we all take ourselves as seriously as you do.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't subscribe to any afterlife theory because I think the potential is beyond human comprehension and models.

What's your reasoning for taking that assumption?

Everything I observe.

That doesn't make much sense. I can't imagine what you "observe" that conduces to such a belief on your part, let alone that it's "everything."

Yet you believe it.

It seems to me that that puts the plausibility bar for belief far, far lower than I have ever put it, or ever would.

[Lacewing]

What's your reasoning for taking that assumption?

Everything I observe.

That doesn't make much sense. I can't imagine what you "observe"...

You base your beliefs on what you imagine. Yeah, we know.

...such a belief on your part

What belief is that, I.C.? The assumption of the futility of belief in an afterlife?

Yet you believe it.

What?

It seems to me that that puts the plausibility bar for belief far, far lower than I have ever put it, or ever would.

How is that possible?

[Belinda]

Wouldn't that be nice.

Unfortunately, we're witnessing the end of any democracy, and the start of Globalist totalitarianism.

That seems to be the case. Jesus never promised heaven on Earth, or an easy victory over evil.

The opposite, in fact. He promised no victory over evil without Him. (Matthew 25:31-end)

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

"Him" obviously is not Jesus Christ the man-god. "Him" is people in need.

There will always be suffering. There will always be people in need,and the beast shambling towards Bethlehem to be born is not a one-off event but a constant state of the world.

The sheep are those who have preserved their souls through serving others and the goats are those whose souls have been brutalised or bleached out of existence. There is no supernatural punishment and loss of soul is sufficient punishment.

[Immanuel Can]

Everything I observe.

That doesn't make much sense. I can't imagine what you "observe"...

You base your beliefs on what you imagine.

Having trouble reading?

...such a belief on your part

What belief is that, I.C.? The assumption of the futility of belief in an afterlife?

Is that what you believe? I thought you didn't "believe" anything.

[Immanuel Can]

That seems to be the case. Jesus never promised heaven on Earth, or an easy victory over evil.

The opposite, in fact. He promised no victory over evil without Him. (Matthew 25:31-end)

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

"Him" obviously is not Jesus Christ the man-god. "Him" is people in need.

Um...no. But I'd be fascinated by you trying to exposit the text so as to make it look like that. Go ahead, if you think you can.

...the beast shambling towards Bethlehem to be born is not a one-off event but a constant state of the world.

Ummm...no, again. It's the antichrist. But I agree with you that the spirit thereof is perpetual.

The sheep are those who have preserved their souls through serving others and the goats are those whose souls have been brutalised or bleached out of existence.

Oh, no. The goats are very much "there." Just as the "eternal punishment" is there. And the decisive factor is what they did not in relation to persons, but what, through their treatment of persons, they demonstrated their relationship to Jesus Christ to be. Notice that Jesus says, "You gave ME nothing to drink," not "You didn't give others anything to drink."

[Harbal]

Let's suppose there is a God. Just heuristically, let's say. That means "as a thought experiment." i.e. we just take it as an imaginative premise, without deeper commitment than that, perhaps, and see where it goes. How about that?

Why do I feel that you are trying -with feigned innocence- to lure me to the edge of a very slippery slope?

Very well, I am brimming with the desire to believe in something, but know not wherein to place my belief. What can you offer me?

What makes you think, if we imagine such a God existing, that He would still not possibly be the God of the Bible?

I can picture you rolling up your sleeves as we speak.

The Bible is just an old book that is full of accounts of things that, in my experience, and to the best of my knowledge, do not happen. It is also just one of many ancient religious texts that has no more legitimate claim to be taken seriously than any of the others. So, if I'm looking for God, I have no reason to think I will find him in such a book. Is that enough to kick off with?

[Immanuel Can]

Let's suppose there is a God. Just heuristically, let's say. That means "as a thought experiment." i.e. we just take it as an imaginative premise, without deeper commitment than that, perhaps, and see where it goes. How about that?

Why do I feel that you are trying -with feigned innocence- to lure me to the edge of a very slippery slope?

I'm not. I do the very same thing with Atheists, and so I say (without for a second believing Atheism myself) that IF Atheism were true, then X, Y, and Z conclusions will follow. You see me doing that quite often, if you check back.

The goal of allowing something to be taken as a "heuristic" or "thought experiment" is precisely NOT to force participants to agree IN FACT to a particular state of events or interpretation as being the truth, but to still enable them to explore what the consequences of any such belief would logically be.

Very well, I am brimming with the desire to believe in something, but know not wherein to place my belief. What can you offer me?

I'd start by asking you what the source of this "brimming" was...what made you "brim" to have something to believe in. And I'd start there, because I'd want to know what was really on the mind of the person I was talking to, in order to be relevant to his/her root concern, whatever it was.

What makes you think, if we imagine such a God existing, that He would still not possibly be the God of the Bible?

I can picture you rolling up your sleeves as we speak.

Yes. And my arms look like Popeye's.

The Bible is just an old book that is full of accounts of things that, in my experience, and to the best of my knowledge, do not happen.

Okay. Let's talk about one.

It is also just one of many ancient religious texts that has no more legitimate claim to be taken seriously than any of the others.

It is an ancient text, true. But what gives you the conclusion that none has any particular "claim to be taken more seriously than any of the others?" Would you argue, for example, that we should be as dismissive of the writings of Heroditus (who is regarded as "the father of History") as you would be of, say, the contemporaneous Myth of Erysichthon (whom the ancient Greeks describe as eating himself)? Or would you be willing to accord to one sort of ancient text a greater credibility than another?

Is that enough to kick off with?

We're good to go.