Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

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

See, what you have done is similar to what our modern social justice warriors do: you have established a language-vilification and have established it as 'bad' a priori. It is all your invention though.

Why have you done this? It gives yo a position from which you can extremely harshly judge and condemn others who, I gather, you do not believe to be acting properly. Or acting as you do? So all you need to do is barf up the phrase: You are in the spiritual/philosophical clouds! and, at least in your own mind, you have settled the argument.

Actually, you have blocked any discussion from occurring.

[iambiguous]

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?

In regard to, say, abortion, the buying and selling of weapons of mass destruction, and transgender politics, let them differentiate between the container and the water...insofar as they connect the dots between the behaviors they choose on this side of the grave and what they anticipate the fate of their soul to be [for all of eternity] on the other side of it.

Now, with IC, that's rather definitive and blunt. With henry, however, it's entirely more ambiguous. And I really don't have a clue as to how AJ connects these crucial dots.

[Alexis Jacobi]

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".

You are free to see it like that, or describe it like that, and in some sense it is true: because every culture that constructs itself, and something, does so through selections of ideas and perceptions that are deemed important.

Because I am committed to European categories, I have had to go back through those categories and decide, consciously, why I valued them. I have done enough of that work to be able to say *I value this*.

So what have you gained by insisting on the analogy?

[phyllo]

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.

He does reason, but when there is a conflict with the articles of his faith, then reason is dropped or modified.

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.

I think that you expect too much from presenting and explaining "in rational-philosophical terms".

Maybe it works in some small academic setting but I don't think it works in general and it certainly doesn't work here.

You need to tailor your message to the audience.

[iambiguous]

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

See, what you have done is similar to what our modern social justice warriors do: you have established a language-vilification and have established it as 'bad' a priori. It is all your invention though.

Why have you done this? It gives yo a position from which you can extremely harshly judge and condemn others who, I gather, you do not believe to be acting properly. Or acting as you do? So all you need to do is barf up the phrase: You are in the spiritual/philosophical clouds! and, at least in your own mind, you have settled the argument.

Actually, you have blocked any discussion from occurring.

Again, what on Earth does any of this have to do with the profoundly existential nature of religion -- saving souls -- down the ages historically and across the globe culturally in connecting the dots between "here and now" and "there and then"?

If there is a God, there either is or is not a Judgment Day. And if there is a Judgment Day, does anyone here actually believe that the "rational-philosophical" analyses that he dumps on us here up in the ponderous, intellectual clouds day after day is going to be taken seriously in determining if he goes up or down?

[Alexis Jacobi]

You are too weird for me, Iambiguous. It is impossible to dialogue with you.

[iambiguous]

You are too weird for me, Iambiguous. It is impossible to dialogue with you.

Again, the expression "like shooting fish in a barrel" comes to mind.

Hell [if you'll pardon the pun], all I'm asking here is for a mind that at least challenges me.

And one that takes religion seriously. And nothing is more serious to most of the flocks out there than in how they are entirely fixated -- and rightly so -- on how they behave on this side of the grave. Why? Well, duh: because this by far is what counts in regard to saving their souls for all the rest of eternity on the other side of it.

This and, as those like IC insist, accepting Jesus Christ as your own personal savior.

Though surely not on how closely you sound to God like a "serious philosopher".

Go ahead, ask them.

And Him if you're in contact.

[phyllo]

Hell [if you'll pardon the pun], all I'm asking here is for a mind that at least challenges me.

And one that takes religion seriously.

AJ probably takes religion too seriously.

[iambiguous]

Hell [if you'll pardon the pun], all I'm asking here is for a mind that at least challenges me.

And one that takes religion seriously.

AJ probably takes religion too seriously.

Yes, and if a God, the God actually does judge us mere mortals by how closely we sound like a "serious philosopher", I'm fucked and he's not.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Again, the expression "like shooting fish in a barrel" comes to mind.

See, that is your problem. You see yourself as shooting fish in a barrel, not conversing seriously with people who think and understand differently. You start from that a priori, and you attain the result you seek every time and without fail. Everywhere on this forum.

It’s pretty neurotic.

[iambiguous]

Again, the expression "like shooting fish in a barrel" comes to mind.

Hell [if you'll pardon the pun], all I'm asking here is for a mind that at least challenges me.

And one that takes religion seriously. And nothing is more serious to most of the flocks out there than in how they are entirely fixated -- and rightly so -- on how they behave on this side of the grave. Why? Well, duh: because this by far is what counts in regard to saving their souls for all the rest of eternity on the other side of it.

This and, as those like IC insist, accepting Jesus Christ as your own personal savior.

Though surely not on how closely you sound to God like a "serious philosopher".

Go ahead, ask them.

And Him if you're in contact.

See, that is your problem. You see yourself as shooting fish in a barrel, not conversing seriously with people who think and understand differently. You start from that a priori, and you attain the result you seek every time and without fail. Everywhere on this forum.

It’s pretty neurotic.

In all honesty, with you it's more like shooting a guppy in a glass of water. And a posteriori at that. Though, admittedly, I can only demonstrate this a priori.

You have no idea how preposterous you come off when you really get going "up there" in the intellectual contraption clouds.

You remind me somewhat of the "autodidact" Ralph Dumain. He used to post at the Cafe Philo DC. One of the old Yahoo philosophy groups.

Ever and always [in my view] his main aim seemed more to sound just as he imagined a "serious philosopher" would sound...should sound. Others were meant to be impressed by his...intellect.

You and your ilk are, in my opinion, everything that makes philosophy increasingly more irrelevant in regard to the lives that we actually live. Especially with respect to religion. Your scholarly pursuits here are particularly preposterous.

Well, unless, of course, I'm wrong.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Oh you’re wrong. But it can’t be helped old boy.

[iambiguous]

Oh you’re wrong. But it can’t be helped old boy.

As with vegetariantaxidermy, you must spend hours thinking this stuff up.

[Immanuel Can]

John 3:16 is part of the Catholic bible and lots of Catholics believe it. Therefore, they must be Christians.

I agree that John 3:16 is found in the Bible, and Catholicism claims that the Bible is the Word of God. But then, they insist that the Bible is only the first stage of a "progressive" revelation, in which things can be added, modified and even countermanded by the authority of popes and councils. John 3:16, read literally, says that belief in Jesus Christ is all that is necessary for salvation. The Catholic hierarchy says that's not true: for salvation, one must also have membership in the institution, adherence to all its rituals, regular confessionals, penances, acts of piety like saying rosaries, and good works of various other kinds.

For Catholicism, faith in Christ alone will not save anyone. But the Bible says that that is ALL that saves. See, for example, Ephesians 2:8-9, or Titus 3:5. So one has to pick what one is going to believe: the Bible, or the popes and councils of Catholicism.

What should a child think about this?

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

John 3:16 NIV

Well, how does it read to you? If you picked it up, and were just looking at it, what would you say it means? Does it mean what it seems to mean, or what the Catholic clergy insists you must interpret it to mean? And which understanding fits with the rest of the teachings of both Christ and his apostles on the subject?

[phyllo]

I agree that John 3:16 is found in the Bible, and Catholicism claims that the Bible is the Word of God. But then, they insist that the Bible is only the first stage of a "progressive" revelation, in which things can be added, modified and even countermanded by the authority of popes and councils. John 3:16, read literally, says that belief in Jesus Christ is all that is necessary for salvation. The Catholic hierarchy says that's not true: for salvation, one must also have membership in the institution, adherence to all its rituals, regular confessionals, penances, acts of piety like saying rosaries, and good works of various other kinds.

For Catholicism, faith in Christ alone will not save anyone. But the Bible says that that is ALL that saves. See, for example, Ephesians 2:8-9, or Titus 3:5. So one has to pick what one is going to believe: the Bible, or the popes and councils of Catholicism.

A child would say that Catholics are Christians who are doing things which are unnecessary for salvation.

He/she might also say that belief without action is empty.

Can one honestly claim to be a Christian without good works?