Christianity

[iambiguous]

What Christianity actually is? How could that possibly be clearer?! Christianity is a religious denomination that provides mere mortals with an ontological, teleological, deontological Script...an actual Scripture containing moral Commandments. Moral Commandments that must be obeyed on this side of the grave if one wants to attain immortality and salvation of the other side of it.

As for why mere mortals should care, well, how could that in turn possibly be clearer? One should care because given all of the many, many conflicting moral narratives there are to choose from, wouldn't one chose the path that will lead them to immortality and salvation? And don't Christians make accepting Jesus Christ as one's personal savior the only path there is?

All of the didactic/pedantic back and forth historical and philosophical complexities exchanged here don't mean squat next to that.

JUDGMENT DAY

That, ultimately, is what Christianity has always been about. The fate of your soul for all the rest of eternity.

Thanks for that Iambiguous. But I do not think it is as clear as you wish it to be. Or, it results in wide ranges of choices and interpretations.

You could say that nothing could be less clear (than the narratives surrounding Christianity and its idealism).

Indeed. With immortality and salvation for all of eternity at stake, how hard could it have been for an omniscient God to provide mere mortals down here with a Scripture that even those who are not of, say, Northern European Aryan stock could grasp.

Why stuff like this...

https://www.ranker.com/list/bible-passa ... ivana-wynn

...instead?

wouldn't one chose the path that will lead them to immortality and salvation?

Just as so many elements in the Story can be taken allegorically -- and really there is no other option for most of us -- so too can the notions of immortality and salvation.

In other words what, for all practical purposes, on JUDGEMENT DAY, that means?


By the way...

What's your take on the day you die? And, if there is a God, the God, do you actually imagine Him taking the "wall of words" intellectual contraption sermons we get here from you...seriously?!

Oh, and those YouTube videos from IC...watched any of them yet?

[Harbal]

Oh, and those YouTube videos from IC...watched any of them yet?

I managed to watch three before my intelligence walked off in a huff, having had enough of being insulted.

[Gary Childress]

John 1:1-14. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of mankind. And the Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not grasp it....And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us; and we saw His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth."

Well, that didn't seem to change my view on things. Perhaps, a veiled (or overt) threat of eternal damnation, poison spiders crawling up my legs, or stretching me on a rack like the Church did during the Inquisition might help me see the light?

¯\_(*_*)_/¯

It's not a "threat," Gary, and not from me. It's just a direct quotation from the Word of God, word for word. And you did ask.

Whatever floats your boat, IC.

[Gary Childress]

Oh, and those YouTube videos from IC...watched any of them yet?

I managed to watch three before my intelligence walked off in a huff, having had enough of being insulted.

I don't know what's scarier, stupid humans or the people who've filled them with their stupidity. But I hear what you're saying, Harbal.

There's really nothing any of us can do about it other than try to deal with it. I suppose if some start clamoring for their money back from AJ, he'll send them to my doorstep to collect it. I hope they'll accept IOUs, at least until I can track down AJ for them.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, that didn't seem to change my view on things. Perhaps, a veiled (or overt) threat of eternal damnation, poison spiders crawling up my legs, or stretching me on a rack like the Church did during the Inquisition might help me see the light?

¯\_(*_*)_/¯

It's not a "threat," Gary, and not from me. It's just a direct quotation from the Word of God, word for word. And you did ask.

Whatever floats your boat, IC.

You can look it up yourself, Gary. Just Google the reference. But if you note, it's about salvation, not about condemnation. So maybe a more careful reading would solve the problem for you.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I'm pretty sure you're smart enough to know what an ad hominem fallacy is, and to be capable of avoiding one. But for some reason, you don't seem to want to.

Does it take smartness?

Of course I am, but my use of those 3 terms is not ad hominem. You need to insist that they are so you can avoid any sort of response.

The thing I'd like you to address is religious fanaticism. Does such a thing exist? If I use the term to describe a religious fanatic -- is it valid or invalid?

Same with obscurantism and zealousness.

I have determined that your views, really your fixity in them, reveals each of those 3 qualities or tendencies.

Now, if I were accused of these things I would certainly respond. I'd be able to respond. I have a response. For example some writing here now have that opinion about some of my beliefs or speculations. And I have no reason not to respond.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm pretty sure you're smart enough to know what an ad hominem fallacy is, and to be capable of avoiding one. But for some reason, you don't seem to want to.

Does it take smartness?

Enough to know what the fallacy is, anyway.

...my use of those 3 terms is not ad hominem.

Hmmm...that means you DON'T know what an ad hominem is...

It's not a function of "how you use the terms" you apply to a person. It's about applying any terms (positive or negative) to the messenger, instead of dealing with the message.

But don't take my word for it: check it out.

[promethean75]

"Whatever floats your boat, IC."

As an aside, let's say you worked for a cargo shipping company and this one time a major float manufacturer needed five hundred fully assembled floats shipped to x. well, the ships you had avaliable at the time weren't big enough to move five hundred at a time, but for an small additional cost u could commission a bigger ship from another company and move them.

when you're in the office discussing the matter with the float company representative and you say 'for this small additional charge i can arrange for the shipment to be made on a bigger ship', if he doesn't like the deal and starts rubbing his forehead thinking about it, would u be clever enough to seize the opportunity and say 'hey, whatever boats your float, right?' if so, how and why?

[Dontaskme]

But if you note, it's about salvation, not about condemnation.

The only true salvation for the human being is the wearing of a condom.

No Condom. No hope of salvation, only condemnation through lack of condom usage.

So maybe a more careful reading of this very alternative viewpoint would solve the problem for you.

But you only hear what you want to hear, so let the condem nation rise up and continue on and on and on condemning itself through lack of solving solutions that are abundantly available at all times for the very sensible sane intelligent people.

[Harbal]

But if you note, it's about salvation, not about condemnation.

The only true salvation for the human being is the wearing of a condom.

No Condom. No hope of salvation, only condemnation.

And condomnation.

so let the condem nation rise up

And once it has risen, let it then become the condom nation.

[Dontaskme]

But if you note, it's about salvation, not about condemnation.

The only true salvation for the human being is the wearing of a condom.

No Condom. No hope of salvation, only condemnation.

And condomnation.

so let the condem nation rise up

And once it has risen, let it then become the condom nation.

[Alexis Jacobi]

It's not a function of "how you use the terms" you apply to a person. It's about applying any terms (positive or negative) to the messenger, instead of dealing with the message.

I refer generally to fanaticism and fanatics, to zealots and to zealotry. Therefore, to a known and recognized phenomenon.

You represent a belief-system with ranges of assertions that cannot be verified. Yet you pretend that some proof exists that, if one were exposed to it, could convince.

Largely, you seem to operate within that fallacy.

The test here can be carried out with one, simple question. Can you answer it “yes” or “no”:

Did God create two persons and did God establish them in the Garden of Genesis lore?

Yes God did.

No God did not.

It is one or the other.

How you answer (in my view) will indicate how much you are situated in fanaticism and zealotry.

It is not a question that can be approached as you believe it can (an archeological dig, some “evidence” discovered and presented).

Because you are invested in religiously fanatic beliefs, you will (likely) insist that the Garden was real (and A & E too).

Or you will avoid any comment and keep on with your defensive tactic: so as not to actually and honestly reveal your real belief.

Getting more clear?

[Immanuel Can]

It's not a function of "how you use the terms" you apply to a person. It's about applying any terms (positive or negative) to the messenger, instead of dealing with the message.

I refer generally to fanaticism and fanatics, to zealots and to zealotry. Therefore, to a known and recognized phenomenon.

So...you are not talking about anybody at all...just making vague generalizations about a "phenomenon" you want to assure everybody applies, though there are no specific people you point to attached to the concept...

...but also in reference to me.

Yeah, not buying. And I suspect nobody else would, either.

[Alexis Jacobi]

It's not a function of "how you use the terms" you apply to a person. It's about applying any terms (positive or negative) to the messenger, instead of dealing with the message.

I refer generally to fanaticism and fanatics, to zealots and to zealotry. Therefore, to a known and recognized phenomenon.

So...you are not talking about anybody at all...just making vague generalizations about a "phenomenon" you want to assure everybody applies, though there are no specific people you point to attached to the concept...

...but also in reference to me.

Yeah, not buying. And I suspect nobody else would, either.

Those others, I think, would notice your avoidance tactics.

I regard you as a representative of a belief-system, and only in this sense do you (personally) interest me.

I am talking about systems of belief and then noticing their presence among us and their function.

You are the representative of fanatic beliefs and a connected zealousness.

It is really very simple.

You do all you can to avoid response. I fully understand why.

[Immanuel Can]

I refer generally to fanaticism and fanatics, to zealots and to zealotry. Therefore, to a known and recognized phenomenon.

So...you are not talking about anybody at all...just making vague generalizations about a "phenomenon" you want to assure everybody applies, though there are no specific people you point to attached to the concept...

...but also in reference to me.

Yeah, not buying. And I suspect nobody else would, either.

Those others, I think, would notice your avoidance tactics.

"Avoidance tactics"?

What you mean is, "...not letting me derail the real discussion by dragging it into ad homs instead of substance." Guilty, as charged.

It's a bit rich, you who don't want to discuss Catholicism's actual historical and theological departures from orthodoxy, and who flip to ad homs and distractions to get away from it, accusing me of "avoidance tactics."

Well, on we go.