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

[Immanuel Can]

OK. Why did they have those "prejudices"?

Ask them.

Do you not know the answer?

How would I know why they choose to have those prejudices? Ask them.

[Immanuel Can]

No matter what scientific theory, the main thing is scientific, scientific approach, those religious Christians are not hindered by a scientific view of the Bible from considering it holy.

They can "consider" it anything they want to, of course; people are entitled to their beliefs...even the unwarranted ones. They'll just be without any basis for "considering" it that, and nobody will be inclined to agree with them. For nothing "scientific" renders Israel or Jerusalem "holy." "Holy" means "set apart to God."

So is Israel actually a "holy" place and peoples, as Torah and HaShem say, or is it not?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I'd also like to take this opportunity to bring attention to the plight of non-theists who continue to endure the harsh conditions of theism that over-reaches into every facet of society, including politics, education, and modern culture.

My comment here is that not all “theists” carry on as IC does. I’ve read a great deal of material by dedicated Christians (mostly of the Oxford Movement which I doubt anyone here has read) who combine their Christian faith with a soundly reasoned humanistic social philosophy.

Their writings and ideas and their defense of values is unparalleled. They actually deal in ideas. Unfortunately IC does not — and cannot — deal in ideas. IC mystifies me. In some areas he reasons well. But in others he — literally — cannot reason. And yet demands to be seen as a uptight, reasoning man committed to truth. He’s accomplished enough in the academic world to put up a convincing front.

Everyone will make their own choices naturally, but my position has not changed from months back.

[Alexis Jacobi]

So is Israel actually a "holy" place and peoples, as Torah and HaShem say, or is it not?

Here it is again: that absolutely temping question! It’s like IC transforms himself into the great tempter. All in service to his fanatic ideal.

Janoah does not seem inclined to answer the question in yea/nay terms. He does not seem to operate from religious premises.

In the most ultimate sense, the belief in the holiness of Jews and of physical Israel must be understood by people of modernity as a false-idea. So the answer is no.

Right here we get to the core. If you reject that view, everything unravels. So the view must be bolstered by any means possible, even though it involves a profound lie.

They’ll blow up the world if it serves their fantastic falsities!

Or, you could just side-step any answer and resolve not to think it though.

[Immanuel Can]

Janoah does not seem inclined to answer the question in yea/nay terms.

On any terms.

But it's a true dichotomy: either something is "holy" or it is not. And "holy" means what Torah says "holy" means.

...the belief in the holiness of Jews and of physical Israel must be understood by people of modernity as a false-idea...

Why? What makes that conclusion a "must"?

[Gary Childress]

So is Israel actually a "holy" place and peoples, as Torah and HaShem say, or is it not?

Here it is again: that absolutely temping question! It’s like IC transforms himself into the great tempter. All in service to his fanatic ideal.

Janoah does not seem inclined to answer the question in yea/nay terms. He does not seem to operate from religious premises.

In the most ultimate sense, the belief in the holiness of Jews and of physical Israel must be understood by people of modernity as a false-idea. So the answer is no.

Right here we get to the core. If you reject that view, everything unravels. So the view must be bolstered by any means possible, even though it involves a profound lie.

They’ll blow up the world if it serves their fantastic falsities!

Or, you could just side-step any answer and resolve not to think it though.

I would suggest that Janoah perhaps does not make a big issue out of recruiting people to accept what he himself accepts in "FAITH". That is admirable to me. Perhaps Janoah is on target in his beliefs. I don't know for certain. I PERSONALLY believe that maybe he doesn't know for certain. I believe NONE OF US knows for certain. The only way for any of us to find out is to wait until the end comes.

And when the end comes then the open question will either be answered by our own eyewitness experience or it won't. After the end arrives for each of us, will some of us be in "heaven" after death or "hell" OR will some or all of us be in "oblivion", completely out of the whole charade (in which case, none of us will find out because we aren't able to find out when we ourselves aren't)?

It's the unknown and I see no way of knowing it ahead of time. But yes. Various forms of goodwill are necessary in order to make this world conducive to life. Some life forms have to deal with what is handed to them, some have a little more ability to alter nature than others. BUT no life form has the absolute ability to guarantee its safety, not even us.


Although these guys might be a bit closer than us to indestructible.

[Gary Childress]

And then there's life here on the ground and what sort of society and rules we should apply in order to facilitate a good society that doesn't turn into a bunch of cutthroat pirate gangs or something. Either way, God or no God, there are reasons to have a clean conscience and not screw over your neighbor to the point that trust is forever broken between you. No one benefits under that state of affairs except the one with the most body mass, the biggest bombs, or the biggest storehouse of knowledge and cunning.

[Alexis Jacobi]

But it's a true dichotomy: either something is "holy" or it is not. And "holy" means what Torah says "holy" means.

See how the absolutist mind works! Amazing!

First, “holy” and “sacred” and related terms are concepts and ideas (or feelings or beliefs) that all of humankind shares. Be they Sioux Indians or the Shinto religion of Japan.

Second, you illustrate (again) the main point I have been making recently when you intone “ And "holy" means what Torah says "holy" means”. Judaism says that only what it regards as holy is holy. It condemns and invalidates everything all others see as holy, sacred and worthy of veneration. It then infuses poisonousness into other people’s sense of sacredness and holiness.

Christianity inherited this supremely arrogant tendency to condemn and to poison and, naturally, you demonstrate how it still functions.

A priest-class certainly did and does manage the idea of ‘a people apart’, but when examined it is a poisonous idea that must be transcended.

The question the is: How? What can replace the absolutist mindset? What is lost and what is gained.

Thank you, you insufferable lunatic, for providing me the opportunity to express my ideas.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Why? What makes that conclusion a "must"?

Obstinacy makes a man deaf, for all that he has ears.

[Lacewing]

I'd also like to take this opportunity to bring attention to the plight of non-theists who continue to endure the harsh conditions of theism that over-reaches into every facet of society, including politics, education, and modern culture.

My comment here is that not all “theists” carry on as IC does.

Understood.

I just think that theism in any of its many varying forms should not be imposed on others. Rather, keep it to yourselves and within your like-minded groups. Don't tread on others.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I just think that theism in any of its many varying forms should not be imposed on others. Rather, keep it to yourselves and within your like-minded groups. Don't tread on others.

The real problem — I admit to being Nietzschean in this sense — is that all of the old “pictures” that each religion describes, with all their laden symbol-concepts have, for certain people, become unbelievable.

Literally, the “horizon” (a world within intelligible parameters) was erased. And without a believable guiding metaphysics and intelligible narrative, average man is cut loose from consensually defined moorings. Our civilization was constructed through such moorings. And without them strange things happen.

IC threatens “hell” and quotes Scripture — but like water on a duck’s back it just drips off. His admonitions have no purchase.

A Kafka story could be written about a gloomy ghost-ship that travels mysteriously under invisible wind projecting pictures of The Olden Metaphysic that manages to capture some people. Like in Latin America where the Pentecostal movement is powerful indeed. Simple people (and some complex people) need those parameters. They seek them. And they serve a purpose.

Our problem is distinct though. We are post-Christian. We have our own sets of problems snd our various ways of cobbling together solutions.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Robert Funk of the Jesus Seminar, seemed to have been a man opposed to the Orthodox construct. And he addressed the problem that all of us face (who have concern for the issue of religion and specifically Christianity): that it must be revisited with new, or different, eyes.

Here is a brief talk. Skip to about 1:06

[Immanuel Can]

First, “holy” and “sacred” and related terms are concepts and ideas (or feelings or beliefs) that all of humankind shares. Be they Sioux Indians or the Shinto religion of Japan.

You seem very impressed by a bunch of wrong answers to things.

Second, you illustrate (again) the main point I have been making recently when you intone “ And "holy" means what Torah says "holy" means”. Judaism says that only what it regards as holy is holy. It condemns and invalidates everything all others see as holy, sacred and worthy of veneration. It then infuses poisonousness into other people’s sense of sacredness and holiness.

It's much simpler than that. Torah is right.

[Immanuel Can]

Why? What makes that conclusion a "must"?

Obstinacy makes a man deaf, for all that he has ears.

That's actually not an answer. It's an evasion. What you do know is that that conclusion isn't a "must" at all, so you can't substantiate your claim that it is.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Why? What makes that conclusion a "must"?

Obstinacy makes a man deaf, for all that he has ears.

That's actually not an answer. It's an evasion. What you do know is that that conclusion isn't a "must" at all, so you can't substantiate your claim that it is.

You never deal fulsomely with the entirety of the ideas I present in posts. You cannot hear, or listen, for all that you have ears.

I have presented my views for months. Had you bothered to read and assimilate you’d not have to ask the dumb-ass question!

You do not care to listen. You cannot listen. Because of thorough religious fundamentalism.

I venture to speculate that all recognize this trait in you.

You do you however. I ask for nothing.