is the Christian concept of the One from a philosophical point of view true?

[Immanuel Can]

The “Jealous God” is an example of a priest-class employing a manipulative psycho-religious tool to keep people in-line.

So you say. But we have no reason at all to think you're right, and good reasons to think you're not. For one thing, it's a pretty poor tool for the purpose you claim it's supposed to serve.

I'm being facetious, of course. But obviously, there's no benefit to a false "god-concept." And the "annihilation” of one such is no loss. Whatever the truth about God is, that's the only thing worth knowing. The rest is rubbish and distractions.

Here, you justify your core absolutist mind-set.

Well, if what I'm saying is right, then it's a darn good thing I'm "absolute" about it. The alternative is unfortunate for everybody. Nobody's well-served by believing delusions. But your own absolutism reappears here: you're every bit as "absolute" in the claim that I'm wrong. So what makes your kind of "absolutism" good, and mine "wrong"?

[Immanuel Can]

Did God tell any of the authors of the Bible that Jerusalem is "the only place that is holy"?

If you actually had read it, you'd know.

[Gary Childress]

Did God tell any of the authors of the Bible that Jerusalem is "the only place that is holy"?

If you actually had read it, you'd know.

I take that as a "no". Not going to waste my time.

[Immanuel Can]

Did God tell any of the authors of the Bible that Jerusalem is "the only place that is holy"?

If you actually had read it, you'd know.

I take that as a "no". Not going to waste my time.

If informing yourself, getting the facts, is "wasting your time," then I guess you won't do it. But that's your call, not anybody else's fault.

[Gary Childress]

The “Jealous God” is an example of a priest-class employing a manipulative psycho-religious tool to keep people in-line.

So you say. But we have no reason at all to think you're right, and good reasons to think you're not. For one thing, it's a pretty poor tool for the purpose you claim it's supposed to serve.

I'm being facetious, of course. But obviously, there's no benefit to a false "god-concept." And the "annihilation” of one such is no loss. Whatever the truth about God is, that's the only thing worth knowing. The rest is rubbish and distractions.

Here, you justify your core absolutist mind-set.

Well, if what I'm saying is right, then it's a darn good thing I'm "absolute" about it. The alternative is unfortunate for everybody. Nobody's well-served by believing delusions. But your own absolutism reappears here: you're every bit as "absolute" in the claim that I'm wrong. So what makes your kind of "absolutism" good, and mine "wrong"?

What do you want from us, Immanuel? Do you want us to submit to your book, your account of reality? Is it OK if we perceive reality based on our own experiences? Is it OK if we decide to seek God in some other way than read the writings of HUMAN BEINGS from 2000 years ago who wrote what they thought God said to THEM? How do you know that the New Testament is the last word on matters today any more than the Old Testament was after the New Testament was added?

Some of us don't want your version of "absolute truth". Learn to deal with it and learn to coexist with people who have different beliefs than you do based on different life experiences and desires, without condemning them to "eternal hell". Why is that so difficult for you to do?

[Gary Childress]

If you actually had read it, you'd know.

I take that as a "no". Not going to waste my time.

If informing yourself, getting the facts, is "wasting your time," then I guess you won't do it. But that's your call, not anybody else's fault.

Thank you. Buzz off.

[Immanuel Can]

What do you want from us, Immanuel? Do you want us to submit to your book, your account of reality?

I want you to know the truth. Nothing's more important for you than that.

What is it that you are so determined to keep thinking in place of truth? And how do you think that will shield you from reality?

In the end, lies always lose, and so do the people who love them. It takes a long time, sometimes; but it always happens that way. Better get on the side of reality, no?

[Gary Childress]

What do you want from us, Immanuel? Do you want us to submit to your book, your account of reality?

I want you to know the truth. Nothing's more important for you than that.

What is it that you are so determined to keep thinking in place of truth? And how do you think that will shield you from reality?

In the end, lies always lose, and so do the people who love them. It takes a long time, sometimes; but it always happens that way. Better get on the side of reality, no?

I am not "lying". I am not reading "lies". I read things that make sense to me. I say what I mean and mean what I say. If you want to say that my life is some kind of "lie" then speak for yourself. Better yet go to your grave satisfied that every other human on this Earth who didn't accept your beliefs is going to go to hell and leave me alone. Just get lost. Go find someone who wants to read the Bible. Maybe I'll get around to reading the Bible. It's somewhere in my waiting list AFTER Tolstoy's War and Peace and I'm not particularly interested in reading War and Peace.

Seriously, your pestering is the biggest turn-off to Christianity that I can think of. If "heaven" is full of pests who won't mind their own business and instead spend their days trying to plant the seed of guilt in ordinary people who haven't done anything that they should need "forgiveness" over, then fuck it. I'll go to hell just to avoid the greater torment. Or maybe this is hell. Hell is living on Earth with Christians who think they are better than everyone else on the planet for no other reason than they dunked their heads in some water and said, "I've accepted Jesus Christ".

I haven't killed anyone. I haven't done illegal drugs. I haven't hooked anyone else on illegal drugs. I've quit good-paying jobs because I found out they were screwing other people over for profit. If you want to 'save' someone from evil, then go find someone who is immersed in evil. It's not me. Hang out at the rehab clinics. They need you more than I do.

[Lacewing]

What do you want from us, Immanuel?

I want you to know the truth.

In the end, lies always lose, and so do the people who love them.

I am not "lying". I am not reading "lies". I read things that make sense to me. I say what I mean and mean what I say. If you want to say that my life is some kind of "lie" then speak for yourself. Better yet go to your grave satisfied that every other human on this Earth who didn't accept your beliefs is going to go to hell and leave me alone. Just get lost. Go find someone who wants to read the Bible. Maybe I'll get around to reading the Bible. It's somewhere in my waiting list AFTER Tolstoy's War and Peace and I'm not particularly interested in reading War and Peace.

Seriously, your pestering is the biggest turn-off to Christianity that I can think of. If "heaven" is full of pests who won't mind their own business and instead spend their days trying to plant the seed of guilt in ordinary people who haven't done anything that they should need "forgiveness" over, then fuck it. I'll go to hell just to avoid the greater torment. Or maybe this is hell. Hell is living on Earth with Christians who think they are better than everyone else on the planet for no other reason than they dunked their heads in some water and said, "I've accepted Jesus Christ".

I haven't killed anyone. I haven't done illegal drugs. I haven't hooked anyone else on illegal drugs. I've quit good-paying jobs because I found out they were screwing other people over for profit. If you want to 'save' someone from evil, then go find someone who is immersed in evil. It's not me. Hang out at the rehab clinics. They need you more than I do.

Excellent response, Gary!

[Alexis Jacobi]

What do you want from us, Immanuel? Do you want us to submit to your book, your account of reality?

I want you to know the truth. Nothing's more important for you than that.

What is it that you are so determined to keep thinking in place of truth? And how do you think that will shield you from reality?

In the end, lies always lose, and so do the people who love them. It takes a long time, sometimes; but it always happens that way. Better get on the side of reality, no?

Gary wrote: Some of us don't want your version of "absolute truth". Learn to deal with it and learn to coexist with people who have different beliefs than you do based on different life experiences and desires, without condemning them to "eternal hell". Why is that so difficult for you to do?

I suggest seeing “Immanuel” from a distance, and not taking his preaching admonitions personally. He has taken the Christian belief-system as an absolute literalism. There is no flexibility allowed. And that is why I keep focusing on the pre-Christian Jewish aspect of the belief-system. This Immanuel emulates with all his soul. To be a Jew who recognizes Jesus as Messiah.

To ask him to modify his system is absurd: he cannot do it.

The question, then, is really what alternative you or anyone can demonstrate as an alternative to his rigidity and (necessary) inflexibility.

Absolute systems have advantages. They are like containers in which all energies are self-focussed. Opposition is taken as a challenge! “I am absolutely sure I am right” therefore “I am absolutely sure that you are wrong” — this is the core formula he works with.

[Gary Childress]

What do you want from us, Immanuel? Do you want us to submit to your book, your account of reality?

I want you to know the truth. Nothing's more important for you than that.

What is it that you are so determined to keep thinking in place of truth? And how do you think that will shield you from reality?

In the end, lies always lose, and so do the people who love them. It takes a long time, sometimes; but it always happens that way. Better get on the side of reality, no?

Gary wrote: Some of us don't want your version of "absolute truth". Learn to deal with it and learn to coexist with people who have different beliefs than you do based on different life experiences and desires, without condemning them to "eternal hell". Why is that so difficult for you to do?

I suggest seeing “Immanuel” from a distance, and not taking his preaching admonitions personally. He has taken the Christian belief-system as an absolute literalism. There is no flexibility allowed. And that is why I keep focusing on the pre-Christian Jewish aspect of the belief-system. This Immanuel emulates with all his soul. To be a Jew who recognizes Jesus as Messiah.

To ask him to modify his system is absurd: he cannot do it.

The question, then, is really what alternative you or anyone can demonstrate as an alternative to his rigidity and (necessary) inflexibility.

Absolute systems have advantages. They are like containers in which all energies are self-focussed. Opposition is taken as a challenge! “I am absolutely sure I am right” therefore “I am absolutely sure that you are wrong” — this is the core formula he works with.

I'll have to do that then. If I go to hell, then so be it. If I have another life, I'll be sure to set up a business that milks other people in exchange for counterfeit money, instead of quitting jobs that exploit people. Maybe that will get me into heaven "next time".

Anyway, I acknowledge your point.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:6)

What about the Buddha?

Do you see any 'exception clause' in that? If there is any God, there is but one. And if there is any way of salvation, it is only the way that God has made.

Quoted from an LA Times article:

The Jesus Seminar, a six-year project based in Sonoma to assess the historical authenticity of sayings attributed to Jesus, concluded that about half were words put into his mouth by Gospel authors and early believers in reflection of their own hopes and fears. Among the sayings rejected were the following:

John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.”

John 14:6: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

Mark 13:25, 30: (A series of apocalyptic sayings) “Then they will see ‘the Son of Man coming in the clouds’ with great power and glory. . . . Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.”

Matthew 5:11: “Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.”

Mark 10:32-34: “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death; then they will hand him over to the Gentiles; they will mock him, and spit upon him, and flog him, and kill him; and after three days he will rise again.”

This is an example of how a “priest class” sets the ideological parameters.

If you *believe in* the Story, you invest it with veracity in a self-cycling system.

The problem? “The Story” has been punctured and, for us, cannot be mended back together.

It doesn’t at all change the immense value of Christian (and Jewish) doctrines. The horror of IC is that he evokes sheer contempt for the whole package!

He has not converted one solitary person but has likely driven dozens to atheism!

[Gary Childress]

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:6)

What about the Buddha?

Do you see any 'exception clause' in that? If there is any God, there is but one. And if there is any way of salvation, it is only the way that God has made.

Quoted from an LA Times article:

The Jesus Seminar, a six-year project based in Sonoma to assess the historical authenticity of sayings attributed to Jesus, concluded that about half were words put into his mouth by Gospel authors and early believers in reflection of their own hopes and fears. Among the sayings rejected were the following:

John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.”

John 14:6: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

Mark 13:25, 30: (A series of apocalyptic sayings) “Then they will see ‘the Son of Man coming in the clouds’ with great power and glory. . . . Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.”

Matthew 5:11: “Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.”

Mark 10:32-34: “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death; then they will hand him over to the Gentiles; they will mock him, and spit upon him, and flog him, and kill him; and after three days he will rise again.”

This is an example of how a “priest class” sets the ideological parameters.

If you *believe in* the Story, you invest it with veracity in a self-cycling system.

The problem? “The Story” has been punctured and, for us, cannot be mended back together.

It doesn’t at all change the immense value of Christian (and Jewish) doctrines. The horror of IC is that he evokes sheer contempt for the whole package!

He has not converted one solitary person but has likely driven dozens to atheism!

I don't have contempt for the "whole package" because of IC. I have contempt for parts of the package. It's not a "package" thing. One perspective is not the perspective of all. I acknowledge that which I perceive to be fact. IC doesn't. Christ said some things that are unarguably true. Does that mean he is the same as "creator of the universe"? I just don't visualize Christ the carpenter building planets and suns and galaxies and nebulae. Call me crazy, call me a heretic. I don't believe the world was created in 7 days or whatever the original writers of the Bible apparently believed (which has since been shoehorned as best as possible into contemporary science by saying that 7 "days" actually means "7 epochs" or whatever.

Christ had a lot of good in him. Socrates had a lot of good in him. The Buddha had a lot of good in him. Only one of those three apparently had the audacity to take credit for all of creation. Either that or the Roman priests decided to put those words in his mouth to serve what they felt needed to believed by citizens in the Roman empire.

[Immanuel Can]

I am not "lying".

I didn't imply you were. I was just pointing out that anything one says that is not true of God is, in fact, a falsehood. And falsehoods serve nobody's real interests.

[Gary Childress]

I am not "lying".

I didn't imply you were. I was just pointing out that anything one says that is not true of God is, in fact, a falsehood. And falsehoods serve nobody's real interests.

Yes. I agree.