Christianity

[iambiguous]

Notes & Comments

A troll is anyone who can’t or won’t play the game that IC has been performing here for years.

In his faith-mind — a mental structure infused with faith-based determinations — a sane and a rational man, if he were really rational, if he only examined the “evidence” — would become a Christian. Thus it is not thinkable thought that anyone would oppose him. But that means God himself. IC tells God’s truth. It is not IC talking but God. The only argument with God is one of rebellion. But when rebellion ends there is surrender.

Every knee will bow.

The “structure of mind” that IC has integrated with his self is that of a specific fanaticism. In this case a modern Christian variant that has many unique features. (There is much to say here but one interesting feature is it’s (this Evangelical Protestantism’s) subservience to Hebrew authority and that of a dual dispensation.)

It is not possible to argue against the position IC has — because it is God’s.

When people become frustrated with IC’s rehearsals many times they lose their composure (to one degree or other). They label him and see the ideas he has assimilated as the choices of a stubbornly committed man completely outside of philosophical parameters. Perhaps they label him fanatic or zealot and these terms are for IC — and they can only be such — ad hominem attacks. Instead of debating the ideas you are focusing on the man who has imbibed them. Except the ideas are not ideas that can be approached or resolved philosophically.

This forum is filled with “trolls” therefore since almost no one agrees to play according to IC’s rules. And note: it is a game.

That's another personal attack.

Maybe.

But there are others here -- hint, hint -- who see AJ's assessment of IC as more or less applicable to himself as well: my way or the highway. He may not construe those who criticize him as trolls, but they are certainly fools.

On the other hand, unlike AJ, who, in my view, defines and then deduces his own One True Spiritual Path into existence, IC claims to have actual proof that his own rendition of the Christian God does in fact exist.

And how intriguing is that!!

In any event, again, given my own personal opinion, what neither of them seem willing to focus in on is that which is by far of most importance to religionists around the globe: connecting the dots existentially between morality on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation on the other side.

Even in a philosophy forum that has to be the ultimate aim: the fate of our very souls.

[iambiguous]

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!

There's no mystery to that. A child could do it, provided that child were to read what the Bible says about that. So no, you need not look to me for that, either. You could find out for yourself...

...a thing you never ever seem to do.

Again, I read the entire Bible back in the day when I was a "young man". And the New Testament twice. And certain verses many times.

But you are not even honest enough to admit to yourself that, when you say others can read the Bible themselves to make this vital distinction, it is only providing that in reading it, they concur entirely with how you yourself interpret it.

Including these...

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

...parts.

[henry quirk]

AJ: "I consider metaphysics real."

Yes, I know, and I agree with you.

"I view the containers of metaphysical intimation as being, well, containers. But they are not the important thing."

No, not in themselves, they're not. But, obviously, 'containers' or 'narratives' or 'stories' aren't created equal.

Let's, in context, take two: Christianity and Catholicism.

Christianity (and I mean here the raw, minimal thing, a rough clay jar [or even just cupped hands]) clearly offers no 'ornateness', no 'aesthetics'. The water inside is the treasure.

Catholicism, as container, is filigreed, fine, ornate, quite beautiful in its design. So much so a body can get lost in appreciatin' the container and never get to the water.

In the first: the container serves its purpose. It holds water and makes it readily available to whoever wants it [and in the case of cupped hands one becomes beholden to (no, not beholden to, 'involved with' is better] the water bearer.

In the second: the container has become a purpose unto itself. A person hesitates to break its seal. The water might never get got to.

You see what I'm gettin' to, yeah?

'Containers' or 'narratives' or 'stories' can cleanly convey or not. They can help or hinder.

[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!

I suspect that IC is keeping some respectful distance out of some degree of fidelity to the Protestant idea that God is a spiritual matter for the individual to come to terms with on his or her own. It cannot be "proven" to anyone by anyone else.

To be clear, I am agnostic as I have repeatedly stated. Do I "hope" there is a God? If God is here to help all of us and look out for all of us in what seems to be an incredibly uncertain and scary world/universe/cosmos (whatever), then, yes, I hope there is a God for all. If there is not a God, then I fear for all of us and the future of those who will hopefully follow us. However, maybe we need to be a little less certain that God will fix all our environmental and political problems and do a little more of that work ourselves. Perhaps the belief that all is well, because God is there to look out for us, breeds too much complacency.

Our world is in trouble as far as I've been made aware. International relations are extremely stressed. Violence is occurring in many parts of the world, whether it be tribal, political, economic or even wrought struggle to survive. Some of our countries have weapons of mass destruction aimed at each other. Coral reefs of the world are dying. Species are disappearing and so is arable land and potable water.

The world needs to cooperate and work toward mitigating those problems and worry a little less about accumulating personal wealth and power. Or, at the very least, if anyone is going to accumulate personal wealth and power, then they ought to be employing it in relatively benevolent ways toward solving those problems and keeping as much of humanity (as well as other species) as safe from terrible harm as possible.

However, if people are going to use their private wealth and power to establish private fiefdoms and/or believe they can build their own personal ark for themselves and those that "matter" to them, then that's not going to garner cooperation either. These problems possibly won't be "solved" if they end up being solved catastrophically.

Yes, when push comes to shove, I am an agnostic myself. After all, how would any mere mortal here on planet Earth ever pin down definitively in a universe this immensely vast and mysterious how and why existence itself was created?

Though, sure, there may be a God, the God but, if so...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...which one?

And it may well end up being "none of the above". And that's before we get to all of the possible Gods believed in by all the other possible intelligent life forms "out there".

That's why I tend to zoom in here on any alleged One True Path able to best demonstrate that it is in fact their own. If convinced, I'll take a leap back onto it. You know, with oblivion itself possibly right around the corner.

And, yes, I subscribe myself to "moderation, negotiation and compromise" in solving the world's problems. Only I am "here and now" still no less "fractured and fragmented" with respect to human morality in a No God world.

As for wealth and power, when has that ever not been the fundamental motor driving the world? Here, alas, few can possibly be as cynical as I am in regard to the "deep state": https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p ... s#p2187045

[phyllo]

Christianity (and I mean here the raw, minimal thing, a rough clay jar [or even just cupped hands]) clearly offers no 'ornateness', no 'aesthetics'. The water inside is the treasure.

"Christianity" means some Protestant sect.

As if they hold the authentic Christianity and then there is everyone else.

[iambiguous]

AJ: "I consider metaphysics real."

Yes, I know, and I agree with you.

"I view the containers of metaphysical intimation as being, well, containers. But they are not the important thing."

No, not in themselves, they're not. But, obviously, 'containers' or 'narratives' or 'stories' aren't created equal.

Let's, in context, take two: Christianity and Catholicism.

Christianity (and I mean here the raw, minimal thing, a rough clay jar [or even just cupped hands]) clearly offers no 'ornateness', no 'aesthetics'. The water inside is the treasure.

Catholicism, as container, is filigreed, fine, ornate, quite beautiful in its design. So much so a body can get lost in appreciatin' the container and never get to the water.

In the first: the container serves its purpose. It holds water and makes it readily available to whoever wants it [and in the case of cupped hands one becomes beholden to (no, not beholden to, 'involved with' is better] the water bearer.

In the second: the container has become a purpose unto itself. A person hesitates to break its seal. The water might never get got to.

You see what I'm gettin' to, yeah?

'Containers' or 'narratives' or 'stories' can cleanly convey or not. They can help or hinder.

Yo, henry!

IC's Christian God"

John 14:6 "Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'"

And then to paraphrase IC...

"Those not bright enough to detect the difference between Christianity and Deism don't deserve an answer."

Why are you the exception here as containers go? Why do you deserve an answer from him?

And how does that answer not include him urging you to watch those videos? Didn't he tell you how short they are?

[Alexis Jacobi]

One cares because children become adults. Confused children become confused adults. Overly confident children become overly confident adults.

And then the nonsense, the prejudice, the persecution goes on and on.

They think ... I can figure out everything from a few words in a book. Or ... I can't figure out anything.

That places all emphasis on adults. And there is so much confusion in the adult world for entire groups of reasons. So allow me to make a point here that fits in with my general discourse:

I am capable of clearly reasoning things through. I reason through the issues related to Christian belief not because I desire to undermine Christian belief, or Christian commitment to metaphysical principles that I have determined are vital and important, but because I want to create philosophically-structured arguments capable of influencing others ("all speech is sermonic" said Richard Weaver and it is true: all speech desires to influence).

The power to convince through, let's say, standard Christian apologetics, is in real trouble. I present as evidence Mr. Immanuel Can who winds up alienating and disgusting every person (with a couple of exceptions) who attempt to reason with him. Now, if this is so must a concerned and responsible person ask some questions about the result that he attains through his kerygma?

I submit the following: Immanuel Can is not involved in reasoning processes, and because he has real issues reasoning carefully and conscientiously, his *arguments* fail continually. He is therefore a failure as an apologist. And this in itself interests me and it concerns me.

If one is going to, say, restructure conservative principles in society I think that one must be able to present and explain them in rational-philosophical terms. The appeal to *faith* and to *believers* only works with the faithful and the believing. But I can assure you that in the Occident we are in a strange and dangerous place as it pertains to faith and belief. True, other peoples in the world can still be rounded up into faith communities (and in the global south Christianity spreads) but I am not concerned for the global south, I am concerned for the North and Northern Europe.

What I have observed and what I have involved myself in for about 10 solid years is an examination of those who see in our modern forms of Liberalism what they define as 'liberal rot'. And I observe that when people discover that rot both inside themselves and around them that they try to conceive of ways that a sturdier ground, interiorly and exteriorly, might be recovered. The "ground" to be recovered is metaphysical ground. That is, in structures of ideas that are conceived (or re-conceived) and implemented. These involve struggles and also power-struggles and thus hinge into political and social issues.

Children are not prepared nor are they capable of undertaking this work. The work outlined depends on the commitment of adults who succeed in recovering the ground I refer to.

[Alexis Jacobi]

But there are others here -- hint, hint -- who see AJ's assessment of IC as more or less applicable to himself as well: my way or the highway. He may not construe those who criticize him as trolls, but they are certainly fools.

You charge forward so forcibly with all your brash declarations that you inhibit yourself in reading well. Your obstinacy results in blocking your capacity to hear.

'Others here' will need to come forward, quoting some paragraph, and explain carefully why they believe that I have ever said something like *my way or the highway*. In fact that is your projection. That is what you have said in respect to what you *heard*.

However, you are right: a core aspect of my own *philosophy* (if you will) is that adults must prepare themselves: become prepared intellectually. Laziness, lack of care, bad primary education, the general influence surrounding them, TV and pop culture -- all these things work to create a *fool* which in my lexicon means a person without agency. A fool is a victim other other people's and other institution's power.

Now, I have a suggestion for you: take that paragraph and write out your commentary explaining if you think I am wrong to have that idea or if I am right. Don't read into what I have written, don't project, but clearly express your thoughts.

[iambiguous]

One cares because children become adults. Confused children become confused adults. Overly confident children become overly confident adults.

And then the nonsense, the prejudice, the persecution goes on and on.

They think ... I can figure out everything from a few words in a book. Or ... I can't figure out anything.

That places all emphasis on adults. And there is so much confusion in the adult world for entire groups of reasons. So allow me to make a point here that fits in with my general discourse:

I am capable of clearly reasoning things through. I reason through the issues related to Christian belief not because I desire to undermine Christian belief, or Christian commitment to metaphysical principles that I have determined are vital and important, but because I want to create philosophically-structured arguments capable of influencing others ("all speech is sermonic" said Richard Weaver and it is true: all speech desires to influence).

The power to convince through, let's say, standard Christian apologetics, is in real trouble. I present as evidence Mr. Immanuel Can who winds up alienating and disgusting every person (with a couple of exceptions) who attempt to reason with him. Now, if this is so must a concerned and responsible person ask some questions about the result that he attains through his kerygma?

I submit the following: Immanuel Can is not involved in reasoning processes, and because he has real issues reasoning carefully and conscientiously, his *arguments* fail continually. He is therefore a failure as an apologist. And this in itself interests me and it concerns me.

If one is going to, say, restructure conservative principles in society I think that one must be able to present and explain them in rational-philosophical terms. The appeal to *faith* and to *believers* only works with the faithful and the believing. But I can assure you that in the Occident we are in a strange and dangerous place as it pertains to faith and belief. True, other peoples in the world can still be rounded up into faith communities (and in the global south Christianity spreads) but I am not concerned for the global south, I am concerned for the North and Northern Europe.

What I have observed and what I have involved myself in for about 10 solid years is an examination of those who see in our modern forms of Liberalism what they define as 'liberal rot'. And I observe that when people discover that rot both inside themselves and around them that they try to conceive of ways that a sturdier ground, interiorly and exteriorly, might be recovered. The "ground" to be recovered is metaphysical ground. That is, in structures of ideas that are conceived (or re-conceived) and implemented. These involve struggles and also power-struggles and thus hinge into political and social issues.

Children are not prepared nor are they capable of undertaking this work. The work outlined depends on the commitment of adults who succeed in recovering the ground I refer to.

We'll need a context, of course. Lots of them even.

And then one by one given AJ's very own rational-philosophical dictums, let him connect the dots between the behaviors that he himself chooses on this side of the grave given that which he can then clearly demonstrate to be our fate on the other side of the grave.

Religion in a nutshell let's call it.

For now. At least until AJ can define and then deduce the most "rational-philosophical" nutshell of them all.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Let's, in context, take two: Christianity and Catholicism.

Christianity (and I mean here the raw, minimal thing, a rough clay jar [or even just cupped hands]) clearly offers no 'ornateness', no 'aesthetics'. The water inside is the treasure.

Catholicism, as container, is filigreed, fine, ornate, quite beautiful in its design. So much so a body can get lost in appreciatin' the container and never get to the water.

In the first: the container serves its purpose. It holds water and makes it readily available to whoever wants it [and in the case of cupped hands one becomes beholden to (no, not beholden to, 'involved with' is better] the water bearer.

In the second: the container has become a purpose unto itself. A person hesitates to break its seal. The water might never get got to.

You see what I'm gettin' to, yeah?

Yes, I do see what you are referring to and it is a good point.

So what I have noticed is that Protestant and Catholic theologians and apologists -- and here I refer to those of the higher orders -- have seemed to me to get to the core of what is important. My personal favorites, among the Protestants (Anglicans) are people like Richard Livingstone and WR Inge. And I could name others on the Catholic side.

At the higher levels, as I have witnessed it, mature people put aside the more *petty* differences and try to establish ground where they can work together.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I think you are hopeless Iambiguous! You can only ceaselessly repeat the same basic critical formula, like a very tiresome mantra, or is it caterwauling?. Go back to the paragraph I presented and really comment on it.

[iambiguous]

But there are others here -- hint, hint -- who see AJ's assessment of IC as more or less applicable to himself as well: my way or the highway. He may not construe those who criticize him as trolls, but they are certainly fools.

On the other hand, unlike AJ, who, in my view, defines and then deduces his own One True Spiritual Path into existence, IC claims to have actual proof that his own rendition of the Christian God does in fact exist.

And how intriguing is that!!

In any event, again, given my own personal opinion, what neither of them seem willing to focus in on is that which is by far of most importance to religionists around the globe: connecting the dots existentially between morality on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation on the other side.

Even in a philosophy forum that has to be the ultimate aim: the fate of our very souls.

You charge forward so forcibly with all your brash declarations that you inhibit yourself in reading well. Your obstinacy results in blocking your capacity to hear.

'Others here' will need to come forward, quoting some paragraph, and explain carefully why they believe that I have ever said something like *my way or the highway*. In fact that is your projection. That is what you have said in respect to what you *heard*.

Okay, as I once broached with henry, note important beliefs in your life such that you once believed it was "your way" but others convinced you it was "their way" instead. Most objectivists will resist this. Why? Because once they admit they were wrong about important beliefs in the past they are acknowledging that they may well be wrong about important things that they believe here and now.

However, you are right: a core aspect of my own *philosophy* (if you will) is that adults must prepare themselves: become prepared intellectually. Laziness, lack of care, bad primary education, the general influence surrounding them, TV and pop culture -- all these things work to create a *fool* which in my lexicon means a person without agency. A fool is a victim other other people's and other institution's power.

Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle.

Because all this is, in my view, is you iterating something analogous to IC embracing but his own rendition of the Christian God. Providing others "become prepared intellectually" by sharing your own didactic up in the spiritual clouds assumptions, they can avoid being "fools".

Now, I have a suggestion for you: take that paragraph and write out your commentary explaining if you think I am wrong to have that idea or if I am right. Don't read into what I have written, don't project, but clearly express your thoughts.

I have another suggestion: take all of your "rational-philosophical" "walls of words" dictums and note how from day to day they guide you in "connecting the dots existentially between morality on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation on the other side."

[iambiguous]

I think you are hopeless Iambiguous! You can only ceaselessly repeat the same basic critical formula, like a very tiresome mantra, or is it caterwauling?. Go back to the paragraph I presented and really comment on it.

Join you up in the intellectual/philosophical/spiritual clouds?

Yo, Harry Baird! You're Up!!

[henry quirk]

AJ: "So what I have noticed is that Protestant and Catholic theologians and apologists -- and here I refer to those of the higher orders -- have seemed to me to get to the core of what is important. My personal favorites, among the Protestants (Anglicans) are people like Richard Livingstone and WR Inge. And I could name others on the Catholic side."

If we could can we talk a bit about these core elements? That is: can we set aside the containers and talk about the water (and, mebbe, the water bearer)?

As I say: 'Christianity defines man, man's relationship to other men, and man's relationship to God. It asks, and answers: what is man? How should he live?'

This container supposedly holds the answers, the water. If you agree, then what, as you reckon it, are those answers?

What is man? How should he live? What is his relationship to other men? What is his relationship to God?

[Alexis Jacobi]

On the other hand, unlike AJ, who, in my view, defines and then deduces his own One True Spiritual Path into existence, IC claims to have actual proof that his own rendition of the Christian God does in fact exist.

Actually, if I say anything it is that in all religious traditions one discovers people who have staked their lives, and dedicated all their lives, to probing life's mysteries. The very early Vedics and the *Rishis* of the Indian subcontinent certainly did this. And they carried on in relation to their defined project with dedication and intensity similar to that of our own Greeks. But yet their focus was distinct.

"One true spiritual path into existence" did you simply pull that our of your back-end? Have I ever said anything like that?

IC claims to have actual proof that his own rendition of the Christian God does in fact exist

As one tightly wound up in a specific Christian belief he is not free to conceive in any other terms. He has, say, inherited the Hebrew cultural chauvinism that defines all paganism and pagans as *devilish*. These people must be whipped into shape and they must serve their masters.

And one pillar of that chauvinism is an absolute declaration that the God defined by Hebrews and Christians is thoroughly real. Indeed He is there, right now, listening to every word I write and (obviously) disapproving. Immanuel needs to jump in here and explain who and what God really is (and drop some scriptural quotes to back it up).

It is on one hand a closed, limited conception, but on another level -- the social level -- Judaism and Christianity are deeply involved in notions of social justice. That is not a concept that you will find in the Vedic religions of the East. In fact people are reduced to being cogs in a sort of cultural-spiritual machine.