Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

General Announcement

Just now putting the final 10-dollar-word flourishes on the 26th Chapter of The Course.

It involves how to contact and appreciate the *psychoid* beings who, it seems, reside on an adjacent plane to our own.

At moments frolicking, buoyant and irreverent, and then in an instant turning soul-dissolving and objectively terrifying, still you won’t want to miss it!

The first 5 who sign up will receive a Sonoran Desert toad (sent FedEx) with which, if the instructions in the pamphlet are followed, you can invent your own fantastic religion!

Don’t hesitate! What’s holding you back?!?

[iambiguous]

General Announcement

Just now putting the final 10-dollar-word flourishes on the 26th Chapter of The Course.

It involves how to contact and appreciate the *psychoid* beings who, it seems, reside on an adjacent plane to our own.

At moments frolicking, buoyant and irreverent, and then in an instant turning soul-dissolving and objectively terrifying, still you won’t want to miss it!

The first 5 who sign up will receive a Sonoran Desert toad (sent FedEx) with which, if the instructions in the pamphlet are followed, you can invent your own fantastic religion!

Don’t hesitate! What’s holding you back?!?

Or, sure, stick with these guys: https://www.scientology.org/?source=gaw ... UwQAvD_BwE

[Age]

you WANT TO CLAIM that I AM WRONG here, BUT YET you will NOT PROVE 'it'. So, WHY is 'this' SO? BECAUSE 'you' can NOT or for some OTHER REASON "henry quirk"?

Innocent till proven guilty, Smeagol.

That IS Right, I AM NOT Wrong, and/or 'innocent', here UNTIL PROVED 'guilty'.

[Age]

Here's when me and Age first met on the forums.

https://youtu.be/e5dm3uMLZZM

And 'you' STILL are INCAPABLE of just ANSWERING the VERY SIMPLE and OPEN STRAIGHTFORWARD CLARIFYING QUESTIONS that I pose and ASK 'you' "promethean75" as can be CLEARLY SEEN FROM you NOT BEING ABLE TO RESPOND TO this post of mine, bolded here:

And the reason why the dead lee force law is so good is that prosecutors can't play the 'if necessary' card in the statute; use of dead lee force if necessary, etc.

They can't be like well the burglar didn't have a weapon and didn't assault the resident yada yada.

Nah man... we don't split hairs here.

And this is WHY in the so-called "united states of america" 'school yards' are called 'shooting galleries' while in OTHER countries 'they' ARE NOT.

A muhfucka comes in the house for whatever reason the fool gets blasted.

That is GREAT that 'this' is YOUR view. 'This' SHOWS and PROVES just how AFRAID and SCARED SOME people REALLY ARE, in SOME countries. The ABSOLUTE FEAR that 'these people' MUST BE living IN could NOT be MORE of A DETERRENT to "others" to NEVER cause and create a country NOR society like 'the one' that 'you people' ARE living IN.

I'm not tryna make coffee and interview him to determine the proper course of action such that both parties benefit as much as possible from the outcome. He could be naked, in a wheel chair and getting a cheese burger from the frig and imma still smoke em.

Okay. If that is how you have been BROUGHT UP to SEE and DO 'things', then so be it. you are JUST RECONFIRMING what MOST people on earth, especially in OTHER countries FROM 'that one' have ALREADY FIGURED OUT and KNOW.

The resident has the absolute right to use dead lee force if only becuz trying purposely not to kill and only wound is a risk that the resident is not obligated to take.

BECAUSE 'your' life is WAY MORE FAR IMPORTANT than absolutely ANY one "ESLE'S", right?

Here we have, ANOTHER, PRIME example of just how ABSOLUTE SELFISH and GREEDY adult human beings HAD BECOME, in the days when this was being written.

Intruder could still be armed even if i shoot em in the leg etc.

And we could NOT have 'that' could we, "promethean75", especially when 'you' COULD just SHOOT that HUMAN BEING completely DEAD, right?

ALSO, let us NOT FORGET that 'you' had NOT even JUST BOTHERED to ASK 'them' A SIMPLE CLARIFYING QUESTION, FIRST. 'you' just WANTED 'them' DEAD, from the OUTSET, right?

After all who would want to get IN THE WAY and STOP the THRILL one GETS WHILE SHOOTING DEAD, HUMAN BEINGS?

And you HAVE NOT responded BECAUSE if you DID, then you would HAVE TO CONTRADICT and/or REFUTE your OWN previous CLAIMS and ASSERTIONS. But you OBVIOUSLY are way to AFRAID and SCARED to do such a 'thing'. This is BECAUSE that tiny little 'ego' within that body will NOT ALLOW such a 'thing' to be SEEN, NOR TO COME-TO-LIGHT.

Although my OWN WORDS above here have ALREADY SHOWN WHERE YOUR WORDS ARE ACTUALLY False, Wrong, and Incorrect. Thus, 'I' have ALREADY PROVED 'you' Wrong, of which there IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that 'you' could now do ABOUT 'this' now, except OF COURSE just KEEP 'TRYING TO' humiliate or belittle 'me', like in your last link here, but which would NEVER EVER WORK, ANYWAY. As even your last link here IS ACTUALLY backing up and supporting MY CLAIMS EVEN FURTHER. That is; IF 'you' were here CLAIMING that 'I' AM 'the child' in that link. Which I Truly HOPE 'you' were, because if you were NOT, then 'you' could NOT be MORE Wrong, ONCE AGAIN, 'promethean75'.

[attofishpi]

A muhfucka comes in the house for whatever reason the fool gets blasted.

Ridiculous.

I drove to a friends place to pick him up for a camping trip from a new place he was renting at. I had only been there once before, late at night, this way day time. I went up to what I thought was his door, it was wide open. I knocked on the door many times and called out his name.

Nobody answered, so I thought he must be out the back so I gradually walled along the hallway. This was a nice neighbourhood and the houses were Oz colonial style, big wide hallway, stone structure, wooden floorboards. I continued to call his name. Eventually this really old woman came around the corner and started going off at me. "How dare you walk into my house." I continued to apologise stating I thought it was my friends house as I walked back down the hallway. She didn't stop complaining, never accepted any apology. I even got back to the garden gate and she was still prattling on at to which point I turned around and said, "Shut up you stupid old bat, maybe keep your door closed in future."

Well, the amount of grief my girlfriend gave me you may as well have shot me. My mates place was next door.

Makes yanks feel real tough to blow away people for simple mistakes hey?

[promethean75]

What we have here are circumstances which make the two examples incommensurate, mate.

If you'd have not been as vocal as u were when u entered, I'd have no mercy for u even if it was your mistake. But u did the right thing by accident; it wuzzint that u weren't sure u were in the right house and were yelling out loud to avoid surprising anyone with your presence and risk getting blasted. Rather u thought dude really was in the house. U did the right thing by accident mate.

Likewise, in your example I'd not condone grandma for shooting u if she did becuz u made every effort to announce your presence and only an idiot would believe a burglar would be yelling out someone's name upon breaking and entering.

So not in all cases do i condone blasting a fool... but at the same time, one who is not sure of the house they've entered and makes no effort to announce their presence is blastable by all means. U just don't do that. And u can't expect a resident to take any more time or make any more effort than absolutely necessary to neutralize the threat they feel in such circumstances, in any way they can. There's just too much risk mate. A guy creeping quietly through the living room in the middle of the night could be the son of sam for all i know. If i shout out 'hey!', he could duck behind the curio cabinet and pull a weapon and then the house becomes a john wick set as a shoot out ensues.

[attofishpi]

What we have here are circumstances which make the two examples incommensurate, mate.

If you'd have not been as vocal as u were when u entered, I'd have no mercy for u even if it was your mistake. But u did the right thing by accident; it wuzzint that u weren't sure u were in the right house and were yelling out loud to avoid surprising anyone with your presence and risk getting blasted. Rather u thought dude really was in the house. U did the right thing by accident mate.

Likewise, in your example I'd not condone grandma for shooting u if she did becuz u made every effort to announce your presence and only an idiot would believe a burglar would be yelling out someone's name upon breaking and entering.

So not in all cases do i condone blasting a fool... but at the same time, one who is not sure of the house they've entered and makes no effort to announce their presence is blastable by all means. U just don't do that. And u can't expect a resident to take any more time or make any more effort than absolutely necessary to neutralize the threat they feel in such circumstances, in any way they can. There's just too much risk mate. A guy creeping quietly through the living room in the middle of the night could be the son of sam for all i know. If i shout out 'hey!', he could duck behind the curio cabinet and pull a weapon and then the house becomes a john wick set as a shoot out ensues.

..but you would have blown my mate Adam away?

One of my best mates in the early 90s caught a taxi home one late night and was extremely drunk. He opened the front door of his house, went into the bedroom and slumped onto the bed. A girl screamed and managed to turn a lamp on, my mate jumped off the bed and looked around at his bedroom that had been girlyfied.
Then he came to his senses, he had moved to a different house some weeks prior, and she had clearly not changed the locks!

[henry quirk]

General Announcement

Just now putting the final 10-dollar-word flourishes on the 26th Chapter of The Course.

It involves how to contact and appreciate the *psychoid* beings who, it seems, reside on an adjacent plane to our own.

At moments frolicking, buoyant and irreverent, and then in an instant turning soul-dissolving and objectively terrifying, still you won’t want to miss it!

The first 5 who sign up will receive a Sonoran Desert toad (sent FedEx) with which, if the instructions in the pamphlet are followed, you can invent your own fantastic religion!

Don’t hesitate! What’s holding you back?!?

B7488122-F6F1-4754-9DE9-5E44054B060E.jpeg

[Age]

What we have here are circumstances which make the two examples incommensurate, mate.

If you'd have not been as vocal as u were when u entered, I'd have no mercy for u even if it was your mistake. But u did the right thing by accident; it wuzzint that u weren't sure u were in the right house and were yelling out loud to avoid surprising anyone with your presence and risk getting blasted. Rather u thought dude really was in the house. U did the right thing by accident mate.

Likewise, in your example I'd not condone grandma for shooting u if she did becuz u made every effort to announce your presence and only an idiot would believe a burglar would be yelling out someone's name upon breaking and entering.

So not in all cases do i condone blasting a fool... but at the same time, one who is not sure of the house they've entered and makes no effort to announce their presence is blastable by all means. U just don't do that. And u can't expect a resident to take any more time or make any more effort than absolutely necessary to neutralize the threat they feel in such circumstances, in any way they can. There's just too much risk mate. A guy creeping quietly through the living room in the middle of the night could be the son of sam for all i know. If i shout out 'hey!', he could duck behind the curio cabinet and pull a weapon and then the house becomes a john wick set as a shoot out ensues.

LOL

At one moment you CLAIM that you WOULD BLAST absolutely ANY one who came in the house for absolutely ANY reason, and the FOOL would get what they GOT.

BUT, as soon as someone POINTS OUT and ILLUSTRATES the absolute ABSURDITY and STUPIDITY of such a CLAIM you RETRACT your original CLAIM, which I HIGHLY CONGRATULATE 'you' on doing here "promethean75".

[iambiguous]

Okay, IC, here is the ninth video:

The Ontological Argument
https://youtu.be/xBmAKCvWl74

Again, as with the cosmological argument above, that is basically all it is...an argument.

A world of words in which the words are used to define other words in order to deduce something said to be true because the definitions themselves are said to be true by those other words.

In no way shape or form are those words actually connected to a God, the God. Let alone the Christian God.

Here's how the narrator encompasses it:

"In the year 1078 a monk named Anselm of Canterbury astonished the world by arguing that if it is even possible that God exists then it follows logically that God does exist. Anselm's argument came to be called the ontological argument..."

my emphasis

Okay, connect these words to demonstrable evidence that the Christian God does exist.

It divided philosophers we are told.

For example, Arthur Schopenhauer called it a "charming joke". But other philosophers "think that it's sound".

Sound?

"God can be defined as a maximally great being. If something were greater than God, then that being would be God. And in order to be maximally great, a maximally great being would have to be all-powerful, all-knowing, and morally perfect in every possible world."

Okay, let's take our world.

The all-knowing Christian God is fully aware of this...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _eruptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ore_deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events

...and, being omnipotent, He has the power to put it all to an end.

But He doesn't. Yet He is still said to be "morally perfect in every possible world".

Then the narrator brings logic into it...

"A married bachelor does not exist in any possible world because the idea of a married bachelor is logically incoherent."

Spot the discrepancy here?

This: a bachelor is defined as an unmarred man because out in the world that we actually live in there are in fact men who are married and men who are not, Bachelor is just a word in the English language invented to describe a man who is not married.

But if someone defines God as a "morally perfect being in every possible world" who or what exactly is being described here? Nothing other than a God that is being defined [and argued] into existence instead.

Next up: the atheists.

"Thus, the atheist has to maintain not simply that God does not exist, but that it is impossible for God to exist."

Sure, there may well be atheists who insist that it is not possible for God to exist. On the other hand, going back to all that they themselves do not grasp about the existence of existence itself, how exactly would they go about demonstrating this?

Me, I do believe that a God, the God is one possible explanation for the existence of existence itself. I'm also willing to concede that it is the Christian God. And once, in a "leap of faith", I believed it. But Immanuel Cant notes that after watching all 17 of these videos, I will have all the evidence I need to move beyond a mere leap of faith. Or, in the end, a wager.

But, in the interim, ontological arguments are not deemed to be evidence by me.

Then [in my view] this preposterous analogy...

"The notion of the all-powerful, all-knowing, morally perfect being that exists in every possible world seems to be a perfectly coherent idea/."

But let's "parody" this argument, he says, and make it applicable to anything:

"Why not say it's logically possible that a maximally great pizza exists, therefore a maximally great pizza does exist? However, the idea of a maximally great pizza is not like the idea of a maximally great being."

No shit?

To the best of my knowledge, a pizza does not provide one with the basis for objective morality. Nor does it provide one with immortality and salvation.

Instead, everyone has their own idea of what makes a pizza great. Different ingredients, more or less crust, Dominoes or Pizza Huts.

Whereas with God, even if one does believe that He does exist...which one? What makes the Christian God the greatest of them all?

The narrator even agrees that because, beyond an idea, a pizza is something that you eat, it cannot be construed as existing in every possible world. Okay, how is it any different then to argue that this ontologically defined and deduced God is the Christian God? The pizza at least is there. The Christian God is derived only from an argument. Some flesh and blood human beings worship and adore Him while other flesh and blood human beings worship and adore other Gods.



Anything to add, IC?

[promethean75]

Indeed. The religious feeling in IC that originates in what he first understands as the metaphysical proofs for god, only becomes christian supplementally after picking Christianity becuz it suits him.

U got indian philosophers as smart as him that argue really different details but have the same religious feeling and base their reasoning on the same foundational metaphysics. They all borrow from plato, aristotle, aquinas, anslem and descartes. the eschatological differences between religions and the unique storylines they have express nothing at all about 'god'... only the particular cultural history of that people and the reification and/or fetishization of the metaphysical ideas into a story that involves that people intimately... makes them the center and purpose of the plotline. Not only does a god logically exist, but this god also has something very much to do with us. Like that's why a bazillion galaxies were created so there could be the erf. That's the first clue I think.

[attofishpi]

Indeed. The religious feeling in IC that originates in what he first understands as the metaphysical proofs for god, only becomes christian supplementally after picking Christianity becuz it suits him.

U got indian philosophers as smart as him that argue really different details but have the same religious feeling and base their reasoning on the same foundational metaphysics. They all borrow from plato, aristotle, aquinas, anslem and descartes. the eschatological differences between religions and the unique storylines they have express nothing at all about 'god'... only the particular cultural history of that people and the reification and/or fetishization of the metaphysical ideas into a story that involves that people intimately... makes them the center and purpose of the plotline. Not only does a god logically exist, but this god also has something very much to do with us. Like that's why a bazillion galaxies were created so there could be the erf. That's the first clue I think.

When I was recently in India, in a fishing\holiday village called Golpapur I went to a very small Hindu Temple. It had the main 'shrine' behind a locked steel gate. Eventually after walking around for a little bit and poking some money into a little donation slot. This equivalent dude of a priest appeared.
So me being inquisitive, and realising this guy spoke enough English to get some dialogue happening..I tell him I am Christian.
Straight away he became dismissive and started telling me Shiva, Vishnu this and that are the real deal for want of remembering his words that basically meant the same thing..so realising myself that I was going to be cut off from some esoteric knowledge this guy might have, I straight away said yes, I believe in your religion as well (which I do - just that it's another interpretation of God or as they would call it Brahma - I don't find any of it as clean cut AND logical as consideration of Christ)...well, he then told me that Christ was another one of the deities bla bla - and generally opened up a bit. Can't say I learnt anything from him, but I got some chalk on my forehead - i think that was a Shiva thing (might have been Vishnu) who the duck cares!

I think my point is Christianity and being the basis of Western religion is FAR more reasonable logically than other interpretations of God (which I have no doubt - people in those cultures also experience this entity - and manifested it to within their cultures.) That is to say, that Christ gets to the ROOT of the concept of God.

[Dubious]

That is to say, that Christ gets to the ROOT of the concept of God.

The Jews have always been highly intellectual and influential in their god conceptions. Gentiles never had a chance except to submit!

[attofishpi]

That is to say, that Christ gets to the ROOT of the concept of God.

The Jews have always been highly intellectual and influential in their god conceptions. Gentiles never had a chance except to submit!

Sure, just a shame that those that remained Jew, (still Je_wish there was a Messiah, oh he's coming surely! - maybe next year, etc, etc..) didn't Ys up.

[Immanuel Can]

The religious feeling in IC that originates in what he first understands as the metaphysical proofs for god, only becomes christian supplementally after picking Christianity becuz it suits him.

It actually happened quite differently from that. The people who convinced me to take God seriously were really the great Atheist writers. Their take on reality and the nature of evil was so empty, so implausible and so unconvincing that they made me go and look for much better answers than they apparently could offer.

It didn't "suit me" at all. It was actually rather uncomfortable, at first. And not a little humbling. One starts to realize, very early on, that one's sense of god-like ownership of oneself and god-like possession of one's own fate is a load of rubbish. You are not the master of your fate and the captain of your own soul; you're a struggling, failing, limited, and eventually dying creature, in a world that is going profoundly wrong in some ways. That's not a happy realization...at least, not right away...though you certainly eventually realize how freeing and empowring it is to give up one's own delusions of demi-godhood and look to God for better answers.

I wasn't convinced by academic proofs, in the end: I was convinced by the person of Jesus Christ. And at the start, I knew almost nothing about any arguments or formal demonstrations. What I knew was only that Jesus Christ was much wiser and better than the philosophers.

It was all about following first, and learning later. That's the thing about God; you can't ask him to dance to your tune. You have to figure out how to become atuned to Him, on the terms He offers and in the way that He has chosen to honour.

He is, after all, God.