Christianity

[phyllo]

You know because of what so many Christians have done, but for which they asked nothing and about which they did not congratulate themselves.

How does that demonstrate that you are a Christian?

Those other people are not making the claim on this forum. Those other people are not labeling others (Catholics, for example) as non-Christian.

But you're doing it here. You have presented yourself as a real Christian.

[Alexis Jacobi]

IC wrote: Any people who resort to ad hominems, instead of sticking to the subject in hand. Some may do that out of sheer ignorance of what a fallacy is, but many do it out of a desire to provoke or distract from the subject matter in hand. Responding to them is just "feeding a troll."

I am directing this to Phyllo, more or less.

There is one extremely relevant aspect of Evangelical (and also Catholic) doctrine which deals directly on man's psychology and his existential platform. So, common today is the psychological analysis that *man is sick* and man needs [thus and such].

So, modern forms of Christianity deal directly in "hominem" considerations: the sickness of man which only Jesus Christ can cure. Usually to surrender to God and undergo a renovation process.

In this sense it does not, or not immediately, deal in philosophical ideas that are laid out on the table for discussion, but rather in a specific (and also a depth) analysis of man and his ailment.

So my contention is that what we are really talking about here, and what Christianity attempts to talk about, and what many people who are considering hard return to conservatively-based ideas which also includes religious practice, extends far beyond, let's say, the pretense of this particular forum (sole focus on debating philosophical ideas and arguments).

Therefore when I focus on 'man' and 'the man', and when I try to couch it in realistic terms, I am engaging in a fuller and more comprehensive way with what the issue really is.

And that, for me, is the subject matter in hand.

Naturally, IC resists this focus because the analysis that many people bring to his attention simply gets too close to home. So he puts up a dramatic display about 'ad hominem fallacy' and such.

[Gary Childress]

All that happens is that you give the trolls exactly what they want.

Seems a bad strategy.

Who are you refering to as a "troll"?

Any people who resort to ad hominems, instead of sticking to the subject in hand. Some may do that out of sheer ignorance of what a fallacy is, but many do it out of a desire to provoke or distract from the subject matter in hand. Responding to them is just "feeding a troll."

Ok, however, can you tell me who you were referring to when you used the word "troll", to describe them? I saw where you were advising AJ about not giving trolls what "they" want, so I assume you weren't refering to AJ. Who in this discussion has been using ad hominems to whom you are therefore refering?

[Immanuel Can]

Who are you refering to as a "troll"?

Any people who resort to ad hominems, instead of sticking to the subject in hand. Some may do that out of sheer ignorance of what a fallacy is, but many do it out of a desire to provoke or distract from the subject matter in hand. Responding to them is just "feeding a troll."

Ok, however, can you tell me who you were referring to when you used the word "troll", to describe them?

I just did.

[Gary Childress]

Any people who resort to ad hominems, instead of sticking to the subject in hand. Some may do that out of sheer ignorance of what a fallacy is, but many do it out of a desire to provoke or distract from the subject matter in hand. Responding to them is just "feeding a troll."

Ok, however, can you tell me who you were referring to when you used the word "troll", to describe them?

I just did.

So, since you've been accusing AJ of using Ad hominems. Does that make him a "troll". And more to my concern, who are the "trolls" that you feel AJ is/was "feeding". Who else has been using ad hominems. I haven't noticed any others and I certainly haven't been using ad hominems against AJ that I recall. Though, he has at times enthusiastically referred to himself as a "mosquito" or a wolf seeking to "devour" sheep, to which I have responded accordingly. However, I don't know if that would count as me "trolling" him as much as it might count as him "trolling" himself.

In any case, is "troll" an ad hominem? And if so, might you be committing an ad hominem in using the term yourself?

[Immanuel Can]

Ok, however, can you tell me who you were referring to when you used the word "troll", to describe them?

I just did.

So, since you've been accusing AJ of using Ad hominems. Does that make him a "troll".

No. I think he has other reasons for lapsing into ad homs. I think there are subjects he is very earnest to distract from, and ad homs serve his turn as deflectors. You can note that whenever we get too close to the disassociating with "Catholicism" from "the European West" or "Christianity," he goes ad hominem immediately. He's defending a sacred cow of his, which is his theory of European culture, from that which would expose it as a mistake.

[Immanuel Can]

You have presented yourself as a real Christian.

I've presented myself as what I am, a Christian. But I have not boasted of myself or my achievements. I have not said, "Look at me, because I'm more real than others". Nor will I. It's not right to do so.

[Alexis Jacobi]

No. I think he has other reasons for lapsing into ad homs. I think there are subjects he is very earnest to distract from, and ad homs serve his turn as deflectors. You can note that whenever we get too close to the disassociating with "Catholicism" from "the European West" or "Christianity," he goes ad hominem immediately. He's defending a sacred cow of his, which is his theory of European culture, from that which would expose it as a mistake.

Christianity, from top to bottom, is based in ad hominem. “Ye vipers! Ye hypocrites!” An open attack on men in power, and importantly men who, influenced by demonic power, inhibit God from being able to manifest in the world.

One part of what I do — in relation to Christian assumption and presumption — is to turn the condemnatory focus back the other way. I do so in expository, philosophical terms: terms that can be discussed.

Oh I am a mosquito and I am a wolf but dammit man I am also scathingly wonderful! If you assholes understood this you’d do us all a favor.

[Gary Childress]

No. I think he has other reasons for lapsing into ad homs. I think there are subjects he is very earnest to distract from, and ad homs serve his turn as deflectors. You can note that whenever we get too close to the disassociating with "Catholicism" from "the European West" or "Christianity," he goes ad hominem immediately. He's defending a sacred cow of his, which is his theory of European culture, from that which would expose it as a mistake.

Christianity, from top to bottom, is based in ad hominem. “Ye vipers! Ye hypocrites!” An open attack on men in power, and importantly men who, influenced by demonic power, inhibit God from being able to manifest in the world.

One part of what I do — in relation to Christian assumption and presumption — is to turn the condemnatory focus back the other way. I do so in expository, philosophical terms: terms that can be discussed.

Oh I am a mosquito and I am a wolf but dammit man I am also scathingly wonderful! If you assholes understood this you’d do us all a favor.

Well, let me know when you want to stop playing games and decide to be a human being, person, "Dasien" (or whatever you want to call all of us, including yourself). Then maybe we can talk more appropriately.

BTW, moles, birds, and worms are all creatures that may have varying degrees of mental sophistication, none of which we fully understand yet, but they are not human beings. Cephalopods and pigs I've heard appear to have sophisticated cognition, but as of yet there is some room for doubt as to them having "philosophers" among them.

I can't figure out how to post images yet, but say you are able to see hynagogic hallucinations, such as colorful static in your eyes when closed or sometimes open. About 40% of the population can. That's 60% who can't. That static is a precursor for imagination. The human mind can manipulate it into shapes and things. It turns into the sleeping dream state.

At the most basic this static has a 0-1 duality. It can be 0-0, 0-1, or 1-1, for any two points side by side.... just like the static on a old analog TV set. Any two points side by side two any two points can likewise have this byte rule at times.

If you are a primitive organism, say a early worm in the Cambrian Era, a distant ancestor of ours, or a frog, that's essentially how you see. A frog will pick up a trajectory of something moving across the static doing a systematic flipping of the binary code, and snap its tongue out to grab it.

How self aware is a frog? How many species rear their young, and of the ones who sorta do, how many aren't prone to cannibalizing their young? Not many. Most are abandoned. They have a sense of observation and of pain and fear, for they leap the fuck away when I approach them.... but I doubt they have a deep sense of self. I have my doubts many are philosophers. A mole.... perhaps. A bird perhaps. A worm.... fuck no.

[Gary Childress]

No. I think he has other reasons for lapsing into ad homs. I think there are subjects he is very earnest to distract from, and ad homs serve his turn as deflectors. You can note that whenever we get too close to the disassociating with "Catholicism" from "the European West" or "Christianity," he goes ad hominem immediately. He's defending a sacred cow of his, which is his theory of European culture, from that which would expose it as a mistake.

Christianity, from top to bottom, is based in ad hominem. “Ye vipers! Ye hypocrites!” An open attack on men in power, and importantly men who, influenced by demonic power, inhibit God from being able to manifest in the world.

One part of what I do — in relation to Christian assumption and presumption — is to turn the condemnatory focus back the other way. I do so in expository, philosophical terms: terms that can be discussed.

Oh I am a mosquito and I am a wolf but dammit man I am also scathingly wonderful! If you assholes understood this you’d do us all a favor.

Well, let me know when you want to stop playing games and decide to be a human being, person, "Dasien" (or whatever you want to call all of us, including yourself). Then maybe we can talk more appropriately.

BTW, moles, birds, and worms are all creatures that may have varying degrees of mental sophistication, none of which we fully understand yet, but they are not human beings. Cephalopods and pigs I've heard appear to have sophisticated cognition, but as of yet there is some room for doubt as to them having "philosophers" among them.

I can't figure out how to post images yet, but say you are able to see hynagogic hallucinations, such as colorful static in your eyes when closed or sometimes open. About 40% of the population can. That's 60% who can't. That static is a precursor for imagination. The human mind can manipulate it into shapes and things. It turns into the sleeping dream state.

At the most basic this static has a 0-1 duality. It can be 0-0, 0-1, or 1-1, for any two points side by side.... just like the static on a old analog TV set. Any two points side by side two any two points can likewise have this byte rule at times.

If you are a primitive organism, say a early worm in the Cambrian Era, a distant ancestor of ours, or a frog, that's essentially how you see. A frog will pick up a trajectory of something moving across the static doing a systematic flipping of the binary code, and snap its tongue out to grab it.

How self aware is a frog? How many species rear their young, and of the ones who sorta do, how many aren't prone to cannibalizing their young? Not many. Most are abandoned. They have a sense of observation and of pain and fear, for they leap the fuck away when I approach them.... but I doubt they have a deep sense of self. I have my doubts many are philosophers. A mole.... perhaps. A bird perhaps. A worm.... fuck no.

Not sure if something like this is the root of your apparent affinity with other creatures besides human beings...

https://www.chinahighlights.com/travelg ... his%20year.

[Immanuel Can]

No. I think he has other reasons for lapsing into ad homs. I think there are subjects he is very earnest to distract from, and ad homs serve his turn as deflectors. You can note that whenever we get too close to the disassociating with "Catholicism" from "the European West" or "Christianity," he goes ad hominem immediately. He's defending a sacred cow of his, which is his theory of European culture, from that which would expose it as a mistake.

Christianity, from top to bottom, is based in ad hominem.

Not true, but still a fine exhibition of the "Et Tu Quoque" fallacy.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You would need to take the whole statement into consideration. You won’t but I write on a forum where many read.

Christianity, from top to bottom, is based in ad hominem. “Ye vipers! Ye hypocrites!” An open attack on men in power, and importantly men who, influenced by demonic power, inhibit God from being able to manifest in the world.

One part of what I do — in relation to Christian assumption and presumption — is to turn the condemnatory focus back the other way. I do so in expository, philosophical terms: terms that can be discussed.

[Gary Childress]

You would need to take the whole statement into consideration. You won’t but I write on a forum where many read.

Christianity, from top to bottom, is based in ad hominem. “Ye vipers! Ye hypocrites!” An open attack on men in power, and importantly men who, influenced by demonic power, inhibit God from being able to manifest in the world.

One part of what I do — in relation to Christian assumption and presumption — is to turn the condemnatory focus back the other way. I do so in expository, philosophical terms: terms that can be discussed.

Well, is "Christianity" "based" on ad hominem or is it people who profess to be "Christians" who use ad hominem? I think that may be a tough nut to crack.

Personally, I suspect Jesus was a very kind person. I don't believe he was the creator of the universe any more than any other great figure is. Great people can sometimes create revolutionary advances in morality (as well as technology), however, to worship them as idols or god-heads, in my reckoning, is going overboard. Jesus is said to have uttered at his end that God had forsaken him too. He is also reputed to have said that he is the "way" to the "father". Did he, in fact, say that he was "God", that his name was "Yahweh"?

I think Jesus is an enormously great human being to respect. Should we "follow" him? I don't know. The Roman conquerors did an absolutely horrible atrocity on him, allegedly because the local leaders around him asked them to punish him for exposing their hypocrisy or motives. That's a pretty bad way to go.

Socrates is more my hero, though I don't think he was God or "divine" or whatever. But he did what he did. It seems that he upheld an honorable life of wonder, free inquiry, and duty. He paid for it. Hopefully, no one will pay the same price for philosophical inquiry that Socrates did any more than anyone will again have to pay the price that Jesus did for bringing hope and life to the most despairing among people.

Of course, there have been many martyrs since Christ and Socrates. However, my hope is that we've come a little further to a good society for all. But hey, sometimes we have to work at it to make the world a better place. We have to get off our butts, get out of our "dogmatic slumbers", roll up our sleeves, and think and exchange ideas to prove to one another that we're all human beings, people, "Dasein", "mankind" or whatever anyone wants to refer to all of us. I wish I knew if and what the Chinese word for "human" is. I know they seem very fascinated with animals but it seems to me that it draws some confusion from some of us who are outsiders. I mean, I don't know if the Chinese Zodiac is any more "scientific" than that of Western "astrologists".

EDIT: But maybe it works to whatever extent that it does.

¯\_(*_*)_/¯

[Gary Childress]

Maybe this is the word in Chinese I'm looking for?

http://www.chinese-word.com/data/0071-13.html

[iambiguous]

I've presented myself as what I am, a Christian. But I have not boasted of myself or my achievements. I have not said, "Look at me, because I'm more real than others". Nor will I. It's not right to do so.

On the contrary, he portrays himself here as the Christian. As someone "somehow" able to make that crucial distinction between those who are true Christians and those who are not.

And what he has boasted of [to me] is that he has proof that the Christian God does in fact exist. Yet he does nothing but refuse to examine that proof with me video by video.

How does he justify this even to himself given that surely the most important task of those who claim to be true Christians is to save the souls of those who are not.

And what is truly baffling [to me] is that he won't even attempt this regarding those he calls his friends!