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

[Immanuel Can]

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 rant. You go ad hom. You wander off topic. You ignore the essential questions, even when explicitly put to you. Strike theatrical postures of moral outrage. You self-congratulate, fulminate, expatiate, preen and prance. But you don't respond relevantly.

So what part of that puffery and peacockery should I bother to address "fulsomely"?

Answer: none of it. It's best ignored.

[Gary Childress]

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.

Hi, Lace. I came across this allegory Googling for a Hindu allegory I once heard Joseph Campbel relate to Bill Moyers on PBS.

https://library.timelesstruths.org/text ... he_Valley/

The allegory is 4 paragraphs and the last one says this:

Now, one day a good shepherd did come to their town and exhorted them to flee to the mountain, as their city was soon to undergo a severe earthquake and fire; and all of their good works would never be able to save them. “For,” said he, “it is not by works of righteousness that we shall be saved, but by believing in the mercy of the Son of God. For this is the work of God, that ye believe on the Son of God.” Then did some of their company flee to the mountain, and when they came to daylight point, they were almost overwhelmed to find that not only had their works been left behind, but that they had many blemishes which had to be cleansed away in Mercy’s laver, before they were fit company for the faithful ones.

The phrase, "before they were fit company for the faithful ones." particularly resonates with me. It's an interesting allegory to think about. I don't know if it's one that the author of the website wrote and is sharing or if it comes from some other source.

But I wonder, must the rest of us become Christians in order to be "fit company" for faithful Christians, or must we become Christians to please God? I would think the latter would be the case if Jesus truly is the 'only true' path to God.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

And will those of us who stayed in the valley truly be destroyed by an "earthquake"? I suppose if that is what God wants, then that is what will happen to me if it happens to me.

[Harbal]

Strike theatrical postures

[Alexis Jacobi]

You rant. You go ad hom. You wander off topic. You ignore the essential questions, even when explicitly put to you. Strike theatrical postures of moral outrage. You self-congratulate, fulminate, expatiate, preen and prance. But you don't respond relevantly.

So what part of that puffery and peacockery should I bother to address "fulsomely"?

Answer: none of it. It's best ignored.

And yet much of what I say makes good sense to those others who read here.

See, even this response of yours is devious and corrupt. You embody the poisonousness I’ve referred to.

“I am certain I am right. And because I am right, and yet am opposed, there is the proof I am right.”

[Alexis Jacobi]

You go ad hom.

It became impossible to conceal my sheer contempt for — is it you personally? To a degree, yes. I’ve asked myself this question.

But largely, more largely than merely for personal reasons, I genuinely detest — what is it exactly?! I’ll have to do better in defining it. Please be patient!

Nevertheless, you insipid moron, know that I would throw you to the lions — for sure!

[Immanuel Can]

You rant. You go ad hom. You wander off topic. You ignore the essential questions, even when explicitly put to you. Strike theatrical postures of moral outrage. You self-congratulate, fulminate, expatiate, preen and prance. But you don't respond relevantly.

So what part of that puffery and peacockery should I bother to address "fulsomely"?

Answer: none of it. It's best ignored.

And yet much of what I say makes good sense to those others who read here.

And delusional...I forgot that one.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Now them’s fightin’ words

[Gary Childress]

@IC and AJ.

Gentlemen. There are ways to solve this. Some of them involve permanent solutions and some of them involve temporary ones. Which would you like before I pace you off for your duel?

[Immanuel Can]

@IC and AJ.

Gentlemen. There are ways to solve this. Some of them involve permanent solutions and some of them involve temporary ones. Which would you like before I pace you off for your duel?

Is there a "duel"? I wasn't feeling it.

I certainly don't mistake AJ for Caligula or Nero, despite his desire to invoke that. I merely pointed out that his theatrics are...pure theatrics. And it's too bad: he's not a stupid person, but for some reason I can't imagine, he seems to have tragically mistaken rhetorical gestures and insults for conversation. I was merely pointing that out, in the vain hope he might realize that it's futile, and that we might get past all the grandstanding, posturing and preening.

Perhaps that hope is dusty: but I think one owes the man a chance.

[Gary Childress]

@IC and AJ.

Gentlemen. There are ways to solve this. Some of them involve permanent solutions and some of them involve temporary ones. Which would you like before I pace you off for your duel?

Is there a "duel"? I wasn't feeling it.

I certainly don't mistake AJ for Caligula or Nero, despite his desire to invoke that. I merely pointed out that his theatrics are...pure theatrics. And it's too bad: he's not a stupid person, but for some reason I can't imagine, he seems to have tragically mistaken rhetorical gestures and insults for conversation. I was merely pointing that out, in the vain hope he might realize that it's futile, and that we might get past all the grandstanding, posturing and preening.

Perhaps that hope is dusty: but I think one owes the man a chance.

OK. I'll put away the pistols and leave you gentlemen to work things out. My bad. Sorry for the interruption.

[Lacewing]

The phrase, "before they were fit company for the faithful ones." particularly resonates with me.

I wonder, must the rest of us become Christians in order to be "fit company" for faithful Christians, or must we become Christians to please God? I would think the latter would be the case if Jesus truly is the 'only true' path to God.

My impression is that the purpose of this kind of Christian view is to convince themselves of an imperative significance between their supposed righteousness in contrast to a supposed 'unclean' nature of the 'unfaithful'.

Jesus would surely not agree!

"Jesus’ condemnation of self-righteousness was especially harsh in His treatment of the Jewish leadership of the time. Six times in Matthew 23, Jesus condemns the scribes and Pharisees for rigidly adhering to their legalistic traditions in order to make themselves look better to others."

https://www.gotquestions.org/self-righteousness.html

I think religious views of God are a great distortion aimed at simplistic control. That's not to say there isn't good that comes from them, because good can come from all kinds of distortions, simply because the people themselves are good. But the ideology twists and reduces concepts into meaningless intoxications.

All of the controlling and judgmental and divisive ideas are MANKIND'S. I prefer trusting what makes sense: Any force behind the creation of all will not be so petty as to make classes and divisions within that creation. Nor would any force of such capability play games in making promises and threats to its creations... or playing 'hide and seek' and 'find me'. These are the small-minded imaginings and controlling tactics of humans! And many choose to become thoroughly intoxicated with that. Lots of drunken human beings... drunk on one thing or another.

I think that the glory of all that is divine is fully and naturally accessible instantly and equally for all. It is the 'spirit' that moves within us... animates us... manifests through us... as it does through all things. It makes sense to me that rather than 'seeking/finding a path' (which suggests we're apart from it, and we might be tempted to worship the path), we can instead attune to seeing clearly right where we are and continually noticing more and more of what we are ALREADY a divine part of.

There's not so much to do, rather just recognize. This view of natural innate essence invalidates and deflates the bloated egos and controlling stories of religion... which is why they threaten us with Hell. They cannot acknowledge the divine nature of all because that would dismantle much of the platform they stand upon, and then they wouldn't feel good, or right, or chosen, or superior, or whatever else it does for them.

Divine energetic light shines brightly throughout all. That's how VAST it is. It is not limited to small human organizations!!!

[Immanuel Can]

The phrase, "before they were fit company for the faithful ones." particularly resonates with me.

I wonder, must the rest of us become Christians in order to be "fit company" for faithful Christians, or must we become Christians to please God? I would think the latter would be the case if Jesus truly is the 'only true' path to God.

My impression is that the purpose of this kind of Christian view is to convince themselves of an imperative significance between their supposed righteousness in contrast to a supposed 'unclean' nature of the 'unfaithful'.

Lace's argument: "I don't know anything about real Christian theology, so I made something up. And now I tell you they believe what I made up. Damn them for believing it!"

("Oh, and I don't believe in objective morality, so all I really mean is that, though they are not objectively bad, I don't like them for believing the thing I said they believe, but which they don't believe.")



Classic.

[Gary Childress]

The phrase, "before they were fit company for the faithful ones." particularly resonates with me.

I wonder, must the rest of us become Christians in order to be "fit company" for faithful Christians, or must we become Christians to please God? I would think the latter would be the case if Jesus truly is the 'only true' path to God.

My impression is that the purpose of this kind of Christian view is to convince themselves of an imperative significance between their supposed righteousness in contrast to a supposed 'unclean' nature of the 'unfaithful'.

Lace's argument: "I don't know anything about real Christian theology, so I made something up. And now I tell you they believe what I made up. Damn them for believing it!"

("Oh, and I don't believe in objective morality, so all I really mean is that, though they are not objectively bad, I don't like them for believing the thing I said they believe, but which they don't believe.")



Classic.

Yeah, Lace! Who do you think you are? A friggen socialist who believes in mass murder like all the rest?

[Immanuel Can]

My impression is that the purpose of this kind of Christian view is to convince themselves of an imperative significance between their supposed righteousness in contrast to a supposed 'unclean' nature of the 'unfaithful'.

Lace's argument: "I don't know anything about real Christian theology, so I made something up. And now I tell you they believe what I made up. Damn them for believing it!"

("Oh, and I don't believe in objective morality, so all I really mean is that, though they are not objectively bad, I don't like them for believing the thing I said they believe, but which they don't believe.")



Classic.

Yeah, Lace! Who do you think you are? A friggen socialist who believes in mass murder like all the rest?

Good question. 100% of the Socialist states have murdered people, so yeah, that's a worry.

Thanks, Gary. Good addition.

[Gary Childress]

Lace's argument: "I don't know anything about real Christian theology, so I made something up. And now I tell you they believe what I made up. Damn them for believing it!"

("Oh, and I don't believe in objective morality, so all I really mean is that, though they are not objectively bad, I don't like them for believing the thing I said they believe, but which they don't believe.")



Classic.

Yeah, Lace! Who do you think you are? A friggen socialist who believes in mass murder like all the rest?

Good question. 100% of the Socialist states have murdered people, so yeah, that's a worry.

Thanks, Gary. Good addition.

Yeah, take that Lace!! Unlike non-socialist states, EVERY socialist state has murdered people!