Christianity

[attofishpi]

Meanwhile, which of the following is true?
1. If it is only your fear of God that prevents you from doing terrible things, you confess to being a dangerous lunatic that needs to be controlled.
2. If you are not a dangerous lunatic, you admit that your sense of morality is independent of God.

It's 1. Fear of God is probably the only reason IC is heterosexual for a start.

He clearly believes that humanity is fallen.
Given his incontinent projection, it seems reasonable to infer that the reason is the urges he has to suppress. You might be right about his homosexuality, but my money's on him being a dangerous lunatic.

IC made it very clear to me about a year ago, that if it wasn't for the thought that there was another entity (God) watching his actions, he would take FULL advantage of others.

When I questioned him further about this, he basically stated that if there is no God, then he would be a kunt (*sorry my thesauraus isn't working)

[Lacewing]

Those who uncompromisingly believe in absurdity have no other means to defend it since logic, fact and history are relegated as counterfactual in defence of such deviations. There remains no way to defend it except by the same mindset by which it became established; add to that a thick layer of purposeful distortions and outright lies whenever an inconvenient truth...of which there are many, is thrust into an argument.

The defence methodology of theists is both hideously and disgustingly plain! How many examples does one need for this to be accepted as a certifiable fact!

Agreed! There is no honor in catering to one's ego-centric imagination (as described above): it is a dishonest and self-righteous ego trip.

...

1. If it is only your fear of God that prevents you from doing terrible things, you confess to being a dangerous lunatic that needs to be controlled.
2. If you are not a dangerous lunatic, you admit that your sense of morality is independent of God.

Excellent point! I meant to respond when I saw it earlier. I guessed he would ignore it, as he does with all excellent points that are brought up, because they do not serve him. His self-service is more important than truth. Anything that threatens his 'rightness' will be distorted if it can be, or completely ignored otherwise.

This is his demonstration of being the most true kind of Christian according to a book that he also claims to know most truly. Nevermind the underhanded methods he continually employs to support it. Yes, it may very well be that he might be a dangerous lunatic if it were not for controlling and serving himself in this way. And perhaps this is why he cannot imagine that anyone is not plagued as he is.

I think it's interesting that the darkest entities/energies are born of religion. They are empowered through the easy pretense of being the opposite of what they are and through being forgiven for that as well. This is why I think extremist religion woven into our culture is so dangerous. It gives power and free rein to very twisted, delusional thinking. And just because it claims to be associated with 'God', we're supposed to revere it! Christians should be challenging such things, NOT saying 'Oh, okay!"

[Dubious]

1. If it is only your fear of God that prevents you from doing terrible things, you confess to being a dangerous lunatic that needs to be controlled.

It's a valid point but also a simplification. It's that fear of god used as justification to commit crimes, as we would now acknowledge it, compared to past times when such travesties were routinely committed without being considered in any way criminal. The IC type would regard it his duty in the saving of souls to authorize torture sessions and auto-da-fé's against unbelievers or any heresy which counters the fixed edicts and beliefs of the church.

In effect, 'fear of god' would not prevent one from doing terrible things but actually justify it. If IC lived 500 hundred years ago, he'd be the last person you'd want to meet.

[Immanuel Can]

Your wall is every bit as high as IC's, btw, Alexis.

As hard as this may be to imagine, H., there are other ways of living and seeing things than your own.

So you think I'm too dogmatic, do you?

No. Not dogmatic. But it's all too easy to imagine that other people are sort of "you, in other clothes."

That is, that they are basically acting in ways that you would act, were you them. We all tend to see ourselves as "normal," "rational" and "realistic." And thus we can assume that others could not possibly ACTUALLY believe very differently from whatever they do, and that their knowledge and experiences must be pretty much harmonious with our own...not too radically different, anyway.

That's not dogmatic. It's just a kind of well-intended and natural projection of the self onto others. It's still often misleading.

That doesn't mean you owe me, or AJ, for that matter, to agree we've got things right...you owe us nothing, in fact, obviously. But it does mean that a person isn't necessarily inauthentic or "behind a wall" for thinking very differently from the way you are inclined to.

You have misunderstood the "wall" comment. It is nothing to do with your thinking, or its being different from the way I am inclined to think. You have an agenda, and pursue it with an alarming single-mindedness; you treat every interaction you have here as an opportunity to proselytise; you are absolutely relentless, and trying to reason with you often feels like trying to reason with a machine.

Look at the topic at the top of the page. If I'm a Christian, and the topic is Christianity, with what sort of voice would you expect me to speak? Would it be that of a somewhat cynical secularist who is not really a Christian? Or would you expect me to speak as an actual Christian, and tell you the truth about what I actually think?

That you may know which it is, I always provide references. And I quote Scripture. And I do these things, not because I expect that you believe them, but because If I'm going to speak as a Christian, I owe you the proof that that is the voice with which I'm speaking...and I owe you the means to check me on that, by examining for yourself to see if the Word that governs Christian life actually supports the claim I'm making, or I'm just making it up.

Now, what would you prefer? That I speak as a Christian and provide the evidence, or that I speak from myself, acting as a kind of faux-secularist, pretending to be a Christian, toss some opinions off the cuff, and not even bother to back up what I say with the Word of God or give you the means to check me?

Cuz it can only be one way.

[Immanuel Can]

Right. If someone is happily agnostic, atheistic, or Buddhist you'd never try to undermine their sense of peace of mind with all your nonsense about going to hell.

Well, think of it this way; if my house was on fire, would you tell me? Would you risk ruining my happiness? Would you be afraid I might not like you if you told me? Would you fear to make me sad? Would you stay silent?

Or would you be a much worse person if you did not?

But the topic here is Christianity. Look above.

So all I'm telling you is what Christianity says. You may like it or not, and stay with the topic or pick a new one. But I'm certain you don't want me to start telling you polite lies instead of telling you the truth about what Christianity is, right?

[Immanuel Can]

No no, you obviously have never been a Humanist, or else you would know that many Humanists are interested in the history of Humanism.

I know all about "Humanism." Which of the Humanist manifestos are you referring to, though? There are at least three I know of. I should check, though: by now, there might be fourth or fifth.

Humanism is a gratuitious optimism about human identity that is not just historically absurd but also lacks any philosophical foundations. It's a dogma with no warranting ontology. It's simply not serious business, which is why it's not even a significant position in philosophy these days. And it's really Postmodernism that's done more to kill it in the secular world than anything else.

As for moral universalism, Matthew (7:12): “In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you. . . .” covers it.

Nietzsche, Rand, tribalists, Islamists, Hindus, Evolutionists, and a whole bunch of other "-ists" simply do not believe this. Even Humanism denies this, and says the opposite: it says, “Do not do to others what you would not like for yourself.” In other words, it says, "Just leave people alone, but you have no duty to help them, especially if doing so costs you too much." And any Atheists, if they believe it, have no warrant for believing it in their own ontology. An indifferent universe cares nothing for "others."

So no, that's a moral principle in Judeo-Christianity, sure; but it's not one universally embraced. It should be, yeah; but it isn't.

[Immanuel Can]

If we're only speaking about how language works, then yes.

Good. You got it. I knew you could.

Make your mind up;

I'm quite resolved.

[Harbal]

So you think I'm too dogmatic, do you?

No. Not dogmatic. But it's all too easy to imagine that other people are sort of "you, in other clothes."

That is, that they are basically acting in ways that you would act, were you them. We all tend to see ourselves as "normal," "rational" and "realistic." And thus we can assume that others could not possibly ACTUALLY believe very differently from whatever they do, and that their knowledge and experiences must be pretty much harmonious with our own...not too radically different, anyway.

That's not dogmatic. It's just a kind of well-intended and natural projection of the self onto others. It's still often misleading.

The thing I seem most often to be criticised for here is my lack of belief in anything, and my failure to arrive at a firm opinion about anything. This is probably the first time I've been accused of forcing my non-beliefs on to others.

Look at the topic at the top of the page. If I'm a Christian, and the topic is Christianity, with what sort of voice would you expect me to speak? Would it be that of a somewhat cynical secularist who is not really a Christian? Or would you expect me to speak as an actual Christian, and tell you the truth about what I actually think?

That you may know which it is, I always provide references. And I quote Scripture. And I do these things, not because I expect that you believe them, but because If I'm going to speak as a Christian, I owe you the proof that that is the voice with which I'm speaking...and I owe you the means to check me on that, by examining for yourself to see if the Word that governs Christian life actually supports the claim I'm making, or I'm just making it up.

Now, what would you prefer? That I speak as a Christian and provide the evidence, or that I speak from myself, acting as a kind of faux-secularist, pretending to be a Christian, toss some opinions off the cuff, and not even bother to back up what I say with the Word of God or give you the means to check me?

You have either missed my point, or are pretending to have missed it.

[tillingborn]

He clearly believes that humanity is fallen.
Given his incontinent projection, it seems reasonable to infer that the reason is the urges he has to suppress.

IC made it very clear to me about a year ago, that if it wasn't for the thought that there was another entity (God) watching his actions, he would take FULL advantage of others.

Yes, I saw that. For those that missed it, here's a sample:

But if I knew I was wrong, and thus, if I were an Atheist, I would know that no moral constraints remain upon we at all, and would very likely take full advantage of that fact, I think. Like Nietzsche, I suppose I would despise those who held back, and continued to believe in morality. I might regard it as a badge of courage, and certainly as opportunistically necessary, to get myself ahead at all costs.

Really?

I think we're all like that, Atto...at our best, even. And Biblically, that is confirmed: " If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us." (John 1:8)

So again Immanuel Can is projecting, but it's all good, because the bible says he is right.
As someone who cannot take the bible literally, the mystery is why anyone does. David Hume was quite funny on this question, claiming that Christianity is based on at least one miracle - that anyone believes it. The obvious answers are narcissism - the belief that only a supreme being could make something as fabulous as ourselves, and fear of eternal oblivion. Immanuel Can displays both and in his case it's hard to see beyond the horrible character to the human responsible for it, but occasionally we get a glimpse of the goods behind the shopfront. Here for example:

As a young man, I pretty much dropped any pretense at all of behaving "Christianly." If you could have even seen me then, you'd have known at a glance that was true, for sure.

While that's not exactly an admission to being a dangerous lunatic, it does suggest that without a strict code of conduct, he would surrender to desires he now finds objectionable. To my mind that raises the possibility that there is something a bit more noble, or maybe misguided, driving his obsession than just vanity and fear. Perhaps Immanuel Can needs this cover to protect himself and others from his own urges.

[tillingborn]

I think it's interesting that the darkest entities/energies are born of religion.

It is. It's as if some religious people, and no doubt some atheists, can only think in black and white. Either something is Godly and therefore true, good and wonderful, or it is ungodly and therefore false, bad and terrible. It's the same with Immanuel Can's politics: anything that involves two or more people agreeing to do something together for their common good will quickly result in the slaughter of millions of innocents.

[tillingborn]

1. If it is only your fear of God that prevents you from doing terrible things, you confess to being a dangerous lunatic that needs to be controlled.

It's a valid point but also a simplification. It's that fear of god used as justification to commit crimes, as we would now acknowledge it, compared to past times when such travesties were routinely committed without being considered in any way criminal.

In fairness to Immanuel Can, he has made it clear that anyone who behaves in such a way is not a Christian in his book.

The IC type would regard it his duty in the saving of souls to authorize torture sessions and auto-da-fé's against unbelievers or any heresy which counters the fixed edicts and beliefs of the church.

In effect, 'fear of god' would not prevent one from doing terrible things but actually justify it.

Well again, Immanuel Can has been clear that while he might see it as his duty to try and save souls, it is not his place to use force.

If IC lived 500 hundred years ago, he'd be the last person you'd want to meet.

That may still be true.

[tillingborn]

I'm quite resolved.

At last some honesty!

[Belinda]

No no, you obviously have never been a Humanist, or else you would know that many Humanists are interested in the history of Humanism.

I know all about "Humanism." Which of the Humanist manifestos are you referring to, though? There are at least three I know of. I should check, though: by now, there might be fourth or fifth.

Humanism is a gratuitious optimism about human identity that is not just historically absurd but also lacks any philosophical foundations. It's a dogma with no warranting ontology. It's simply not serious business, which is why it's not even a significant position in philosophy these days. And it's really Postmodernism that's done more to kill it in the secular world than anything else.

As for moral universalism, Matthew (7:12): “In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you. . . .” covers it.

Nietzsche, Rand, tribalists, Islamists, Hindus, Evolutionists, and a whole bunch of other "-ists" simply do not believe this. Even Humanism denies this, and says the opposite: it says, “Do not do to others what you would not like for yourself.” In other words, it says, "Just leave people alone, but you have no duty to help them, especially if doing so costs you too much." And any Atheists, if they believe it, have no warrant for believing it in their own ontology. An indifferent universe cares nothing for "others."

So no, that's a moral principle in Judeo-Christianity, sure; but it's not one universally embraced. It should be, yeah; but it isn't.

Do not do to others what you would not like for yourself
is a corollary of the Golden Rule.

While some Humanists describe themselves as "atheists" others don't.

Not everybody is obsessive about stereotyped rules and regulations.

[Alexis Jacobi]

- Pate -

Pate turned out lovely Alexis. Hi had 3 times the amount of liver than in the recipe so multiplied by appx 3 - and slighly less butter as per your recommendation.

There is a great cookbook on the wider topic: Pâté, Confit, Rillette

[phyllo]

So all I'm telling you is what Christianity says.

What you think Christianity says.

And maybe what your Christian sect thinks, although we have no other members who confirm it.