Christianity

[henry quirk]

Here you go...

EDF243B5-5E9B-4757-A701-4F659ED35273.jpeg

...your very own emotional support animal.

Enjoy!

[Gary Childress]

Admittedly, even so, we have to avoid most foods produced by modern agriculture to get close to zero killing given its use of pesticides. That's difficult at this point without growing our own food.

Yes. Therein lies the problem. I'm not sure if it would be possible to feed almost 8 billion people on Earth without the methods currently used. Perhaps a few individuals could sustain themselves on a "no-kill" diet. But they would be the exception and would, indeed, have to work extraordinarily hard to sustain their lifestyle in a world where corpses are the easiest meal to attain.

As far as vultures and bacteria that feed on corpses, they count on other organisms to do the killing for them whether they be predators, other bacteria, or viruses. Otherwise, they'd starve. Plants may feed off the sun, but if there were no other living beings producing CO2 and other molecules, then many of them wouldn't live either.

In a sense most human beings aren't too much different than vultures, relying on someone else to kill the cows that supply the beef we buy on the market. I don't kill any cows, other people do it for me. Does that make me in any way more noble than those who killed the living beings I eat? Would I not starve without the other living beings doing their jobs of killing other living beings?

There would be no life without the sun and soil, and there would be VERY little life without killing those life forms that feed on the sun and soil.

I think the best we can accomplish is to kill things as much as possible in a way that reduces the suffering of the organisms we are killing. Cattle on small-time farms get a little more love, care, and attention from their shepherds than those on factory farms typically do.

So perhaps it is not the case that vegans are little more than serial killers compared to American Presidents but without someone or something killing something, vegans wouldn't be able to exist either. A "perfect" world where there is no death, would also be a sterile world.

[iambiguous]

The sixteenth video...

The Problem of Those Who Have Never Heard of Christ: https://youtu.be/HORwhXSgelQ?si=IOHuKsHTFm9JcsXW

At the end of the last video, this is noted:

"That there is a more serious objection to Christian particularism: 'the problem of those who have never heard of Christ. If Jesus is the only way to God, then what is the fate of those who never hear of Jesus?'"

Back again then to these guys...

"Imagine hypothetically three Christian missionaries set out to save the souls of three different native tribes..."

...noted above.

Thus...

"Early Christians proclaimed that Jesus was the only way to salvation, the only way to forgiveness, and eternal life, the only way to God."

Nowadays however others object and find this "deeply offensive".

"Why? Isn't it possible that Jesus is THE ONLY WAY?", asks the narrator.

But the objectors note that if Jesus is the only way, what of those who go from the cradle to the grave and never heard of Him? Or those who as children are indoctrinated to believe in an entirely different God?

"They don't have a chance to be saved...but they do. The Bible says that God wants all persons to be saved. Those who never heard of Christ will not be judged by what they DON'T know, they'll be judged on the basis of what they DO know."

And, in fact, there are two truths that everyone knows because the Christian God revealed them to everyone:

1] "He exists. And we all know this by observing the natural world around us".

In other words, the beastly, savage survival of the fittest slaughterhouse that nature itself is? Or the existence of these...

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

..."acts of God"?

Besides, many of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...agree that God does exist. But if it's morality, immortality and salvation you're after, it's not Christianity that will save your soul. It's their God. And, no doubt, they have similar arguments regarding those who have never heard of their God.

2] "And, second, there is a moral law. We all know this by experiencing our conscience within us. Everyone one of us has a moral sense of right and wrong."

Again, and again and again: Okay, but how is this not rooted existentially -- historically, culturally, personally -- in the individual lives that we live. Thus explaining all of these...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

...One True Paths to Enlightenment. And then for each religious denomination, their own spirituality, their own God, their own moral Commandments and Judgment Day.

No problem. "Somehow" the Christian God will "just know" who is to be saved and who is to be damned.

But what about those from the second tribe above? The Christian missionaries tried to convert them but failed. So, were their souls safe as long as their belief in a God/the God excluded contact with the Christians? But once Christ was revealed to them and they "freely" rejected Him, they are Hell bound? Even the babies and the infants and the children?

Do some folks just experience the "bad luck" of having been born at the wrong time and place before Christ Himself was even around?

Then [of course] back to the Bible:

"According to the Bible, the times and the places that people are born is not the result of an accident...rather GOD DECIDES where and when each person will live. So, it's possible that God has so ordered the world that anyone who would believe in Christ if he heard about Him is created at a time and place in history where he DOES hear about Him?"

Sure, if you can convince yourself that this actually makes sense given, say, the real world that we actually live in, fine, whatever works to sustain your spiritual comfort and consolation.

In other words, it's "possible" that the Christian God so ordered the world this way, but how on Earth is that the same as actually demonstrating that it is in fact true. Especially with all the others out there making the same claims for their God, Gods and/or religious paths?

The narrator then notes that, "our eternal destiny truly lies in our own hands. How about you?"

Yeah, how about you? In particular, those among us who, even though the Christian God gave them all they needed in order to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior, they chose another God or No God instead?

Instead [of course] back to the Christian Bible...

"God made every nation of men that they should inhabit the whole Earth and He marked out their APPOINTED TIMES IN HISTORY and the boundaries of their lands. God did this so that they would SEEK Him and perhaps REACH OUT for Him and FIND Him, though He is not far from any of us". Acts 17: 26-27

And that's proof enough, right?

[iambiguous]

The seventeenth [and final] video...

Is it possible to know God? https://youtu.be/qjbeqL_qBl8?si=fLzgAk4NwjsA41Gi

Again, back to the narrator merely asserting alleged "facts" about the Christian God. And facts they are, he explains, because it says so in the Christian Bible:

"Is it possible to know God? Well, who or what is God? The ultimate reality of Hinduism or Buddhism is infinite but not personal. And the Gods of the Greeks and Romans were personal but not infinite. But the Bible describes God as both infinite and personal."

Again, the irony here being that IC claims by watching all of these videos one can move beyond a leap of faith...a subjective existential leap rooted in dasein that comes from accepting that the Bible must be true because it is the word of the Christian God. And that this is confirmed in turn because it says so in the Christian Bible.

This is the last video. By now some might have accumulated enough evidence to convince them that the Christian God does in fact exist. They must be eager to share it with us.

Anyway, on and on and on the narrator goes claiming all of the extraordinary things that the Christian God must be because it says so in the Bible.

"He is an infinite, uncreated Mind with unlimited power."

On the other hand...

"...God is also personal. He has mind and emotions and will and moral agency. All of the qualities essential to personhood AND He has them to an infinite degree."

I challenge anyone here who has watched all of the videos to note, beyond what it says in the Bible, how the videos themselves convinced you that this is in particular is in fact the case..

Then four more flagrant assertions about "God and you".

"1] GOD LOVES YOU AND CREATED YOU TO KNOW HIM PERSONALLY."

Again, beyond a more or less blind leap of faith and because it says so in the Bible, how would you go about demonstrating this? To others. Or even to yourself.

But there's a problem...

"2] MAN IS SINFUL AND SEPARATED FROM GOD."

And this is beyond all doubt true, and easily grasped because, well, because the narrator immediately takes us straight back to the Bible...

"The Bible described our predicament like this...

'Ever since the world was created, people have seen the Earth and the sky. Through everything God has made, they can clearly see His invisible qualities, His eternal power and Divine nature so they have no excuse for not knowing God...'

Indeed, human communities down through the ages are confronted with the profound mysteries embedded in that ever-evolving relationship between human beings and all that is down here on Earth for them. Then that encompassed in turn in all that is "up there" or "out there" in the sky.

And, as a result of this, human communities down through the ages [and still today] have come to many, many different conclusions -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions -- regarding what it means to know God.

And, of course, regarding their capacity to demonstrate that their God is in fact the only God. And does in fact exist.

It's really only a question then of whether those who worship and adore a God other than the Christian God have or do not have their own collection of YouTube videos like this one.

Then this "general description spiritual contraption"...

"We've all done things we know are wrong. It's not just that we feel guilty...we ARE guilty. But since God is morally perfect sinful beings cannot draw near to Him..."

Again, who is deciding when something that is being done is being done right or wrong? Is this conclusion derived from the right God or the right religious path?

After all, many of the other denominations in the link above have similar Creation stories. Similar scriptures "proving" that only their own God is the real deal.

"Thus, God is faced with a dilemma. Because He is just the demands of His Justice must be satisfied. In our case that means death. But because He is love He has compassion on us. He wants each of us to be reconciled with Him."

Again, if you yourself are able to believe this is an example of how these YouTube videos prove that beyond the Bible and a leap of faith the Christian God does exist...?

3] "GOD'S SOLUTION IS JESUS CHRIST"

And then all the narrator does after noting this, is to take us through the New Testament itself. Jesus Christ: Birth. School. Work. Death. Just like all the rest of us. Only He is both God and the Son of God.

Then [from my frame of mind] your typical religious homily...

"What happened at the cross was the greatest transaction in human history. My sin was placed on Christ. He suffered the death penalty in my place. In return Christ' righteousness, His moral perfection was placed on us. Then when Jesus rose from the dead He broke the power of SIN DEATH HELL once and for all."

What can I say? Where is the substantive evidence that the events from the Crucifixion to the Resurrection and afterwards actually took place...beyond accounts in the New Testament.

Now it is our turn...

4] "WE MUST PERSONALLY RECEIVE CHRIST AS OUR SAVIOR AND LORD."

On the other hand, if you are from a community that never heard of Christianity, or if you were brainwashed as a child to worship an entirely different God, or, if, in all introspective honesty and sincerity, you chose to become a Buddhist...let's just hope that the Christian God accepts mitigating and extenuating factors as warranting from time to time a Get Out Of Hell Free card.

Finally, more homilies...

"It is possible to know God as a personal reality in your life. Why let anything stand in the way? Right now, He is ready and willing to give you the gift of forgiveness and new life in Jesus Christ. Are you willing to receive it? If so, pray with me now..

'God, please forgive me for all the things I've gone wrong. I turn away from my sin and I turn to You, my only hope. I invite you into my life as my Savior and my Lord. I am yours. Fill me with your spirit and empower me to live a new life in Jesus Christ. Amen.'"




Back to business...

It's time to come forward. One by one, I linked you to and then reacted to the 17 YouTube videos that Immanual Can claimed provided the evidence he needed to in fact know that the Christian God does in fact exist.

I missed it.

How about others though? What amounted to the most powerful evidence in the videos that convinced you the Christian God does exist? Or even convinced you to give the arguments a serious assessment.

[Gary Childress]

I've decided to "walk with Christ". Would someone volunteer to brutally crucify me? Any takers?????

[Harry Baird]

You've never been on a dairy farm in your whole life.

Most of us have never been in indigenous communities during the Stolen Generations, but we all know it was wrong to take their kids.

We don't have to witness suffering directly to empathise with its victims.

You are talking Vegan propoganda.

What I wrote was factual, but if you want to play the labelling game, then:

You are talking as an apologist for an exploitative industry.

Milk is the best superfood can you get

Milk is for babies - of another species.

providing 100% of all the nutrition a body needs.

That's false and an over-exaggeration, at least according to modern nutrition science.

Going back to this:

Domesticated animals make great shit.

What it's currently greatest at is polluting the planet.

It is the best and most natural form of fertiliser

Regardless of its qualities as a fertiliser:

When such an extraordinary amount of waste is applied to fields, it is generally on a scale and at a rate that far exceeds what the land is capable of absorbing. Not only is untreated waste and chemical residue applied directly to cropland, but the excess runs off and ends up in nearly all streams and rivers. The volume of waste has become so large that some areas where CAFOs [concentrated animal feeding operations --HB] are common have had land values skyrocket, in part due to the need for additional land to spread manure. The high content of nitrogen and other nutrients in manure runoff lead to dead zones in downstream waterways, where an overgrowth of algae consumes all the oxygen, which is of course needed to support other life. In 2015, the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, created by runoff from manure and other agricultural fertilizer in the Mississippi floodplain, was more than 5,000 square miles: this is the size of Connecticut and Rhode Island combined. Application of animal waste from CAFOs can also be a cause of environmental heavy metal contamination (stemming from metals used in feed), including copper, zinc and lead.

Untreated waste at CAFOs also pollutes the air with odors and creates health problems, markedly decreasing the quality of life of workers, people nearby and neighboring communities and property values. Two significant pollutants are potent greenhouse gases methane and nitrous oxide, along with ammonia, hydrogen sulfide and other noisome chemicals. CAFOs release large amounts of particulates; in especially dry regions where manure turns easily into dust, the particulate matter is rapidly dispersed. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that nearly three quarters of the country’s ammonia pollution comes from livestock facilities, and studies have found high levels of antibiotics and antibiotic-resistant genes in air samples downwind of feedlots.

That's from the FoodPrint article What Happens to Animal Waste? with footnotes elided.

[Harry Baird]

...your very own emotional support animal.

Concern for another's emotional well-being is a kindness you should extend to all beings.

[Harry Baird]

Admittedly, even so, we have to avoid most foods produced by modern agriculture to get close to zero killing given its use of pesticides. That's difficult at this point without growing our own food.

Yes. Therein lies the problem. I'm not sure if it would be possible to feed almost 8 billion people on Earth without the methods currently used.

I'm pretty confident that it would, although I don't have any particular expertise on this subject. Why the confidence then?

Firstly, because although the introduction of synthetic pesticides did increase crop yields, it only did so by (up to) 50% according to Britannica. This matters because plant agriculture is significantly more productive than animal agriculture, and it's pretty much a given that we'd easily make that 50% back by switching from animal to plant agriculture. On top of the inherently greater productive capacity of plant agriculture, there's the fact that, globally, we feed three times as much (human-edible) grain to animals as we gain from them in (human-edible) meat, so there are even more productivity gains to be made from the switch in that respect.

Even if, then, we take into consideration that prior to the introduction of synthetic pesticides, natural pesticides were being used, which presumably had their own productivity gain prior to the (up to) 50% gain from synthetics, it still seems very likely that the productivity gained by switching from animal to plant agriculture would fully make up (at least) the productivity loss from dropping pesticide use.

Secondly, because pesticide-free farms already exist, and there are scientists who are proving that they work and thinking about if not actively working on better methods. Note: I haven't read the articles at those links in full; I offer them simply as examples that (the need for) pesticide-free farming is being taken seriously, and worked on, by at least some scientists and farmers.

As far as vultures and bacteria that feed on corpses, they count on other organisms to do the killing for them whether they be predators, other bacteria, or viruses. Otherwise, they'd starve.

As I pointed out in my last reply, while this is often the case, it isn't universally the case: vultures and bacteria also consume the corpses of living beings who die of natural causes (e.g., old age) rather than being killed.

Plants may feed off the sun, but if there were no other living beings producing CO2 and other molecules, then many of them wouldn't live either.

True, but what's your point? (I'll assess that below).

There would be no life without the sun and soil, and there would be VERY little life without killing those life forms that feed on the sun and soil.

That's arguably not true, but even if it is: again, what's your point?

Here's my promised assessment:

Your point is to rehearse a process of rationalisation: without killing (you rationalise), there would be no life; thus, killing is inevitable, and it matters not whether I, Gary Childress, am complicit in it.

As an argument, it's fallacious, which is why I refer to it instead as a rationalisation: it is essentially the excuse you use to justify that which you otherwise recognise as unethical. Your conclusion, then, while comforting, does not follow:

I think the best we can accomplish is to kill things as much as possible in a way that reduces the suffering of the organisms we are killing.

No, we can do much better than that.

[Sculptor]

You've never been on a dairy farm in your whole life.

Most of us have never been in indigenous communities during the Stolen Generations, but we all know it was wrong to take their kids.

Are you saying Indigenous peoples are cows?

We don't have to witness suffering directly to empathise with its victims.

NO, SOMEONE has to witness suffering for it to be reportable.

You are talking Vegan propoganda.

What I wrote was factual, but if you want to play the labelling game, then:

You are talking as an apologist for an exploitative industry.

No Vegan has ever witnessed "suffering", or bothered to understand it.
They have witnesses DISNEY.

Milk is the best superfood can you get

Milk is for babies - of another species.

Nonetheless. It is the most super superfood we can possibly consume.

providing 100% of all the nutrition a body needs.

That's false and an over-exaggeration, at least according to modern nutrition science.

No it is not.
It contains all essentail nurients.

Going back to this:

Domesticated animals make great shit.

What it's currently greatest at is polluting the planet.

Still 100time better than the chemical industries that Vegans rely on, which pollute our air, water and soil.

It is the best and most natural form of fertiliser

Regardless of its qualities as a fertiliser:

When such an extraordinary amount of waste is applied to fields, it is generally on a scale and at a rate that far exceeds what the land is capable of absorbing. Not only is untreated waste and chemical residue applied directly to cropland, but the excess runs off and ends up in nearly all streams and rivers. The volume of waste has become so large that some areas where CAFOs [concentrated animal feeding operations --HB] are common have had land values skyrocket, in part due to the need for additional land to spread manure. The high content of nitrogen and other nutrients in manure runoff lead to dead zones in downstream waterways, where an overgrowth of algae consumes all the oxygen, which is of course needed to support other life. In 2015, the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, created by runoff from manure and other agricultural fertilizer in the Mississippi floodplain, was more than 5,000 square miles: this is the size of Connecticut and Rhode Island combined. Application of animal waste from CAFOs can also be a cause of environmental heavy metal contamination (stemming from metals used in feed), including copper, zinc and lead.

Untreated waste at CAFOs also pollutes the air with odors and creates health problems, markedly decreasing the quality of life of workers, people nearby and neighboring communities and property values. Two significant pollutants are potent greenhouse gases methane and nitrous oxide, along with ammonia, hydrogen sulfide and other noisome chemicals. CAFOs release large amounts of particulates; in especially dry regions where manure turns easily into dust, the particulate matter is rapidly dispersed. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that nearly three quarters of the country’s ammonia pollution comes from livestock facilities, and studies have found high levels of antibiotics and antibiotic-resistant genes in air samples downwind of feedlots.

That's from the FoodPrint article What Happens to Animal Waste? with footnotes elided.

Shit is still best.
If there is a problem, than it needs to be addressed.
I do not agree with the way many animals are kept.
If you have read the things I have written you will know that natural pasture raised animals are what I advocate for.
In such cases there is no issue with over-nutrition, or antibiotic resistence.
IN any case factory farmed animals are being used to subsidise the vegan industries; obsession with vegetable production. So look to your own .

[Dontaskme]

I've decided to "walk with Christ". Would someone volunteer to brutally crucify me? Any takers?????

In Matthew 10:28, He warned about the One who can destroy both body and soul in hell, highlighting the eternal nature of the punishment. In Mark 9:43, Jesus spoke of hell as a place "where the fire never goes out," implying unending torment.

Huh you have to be brutally killed just to be with the good one? ..fuck that!

Maybe they were referring to life itself, in that it is all just an eternal fire, where from fire we come, and live the fire on earth for awhile, and then to the fire we return. It does seem as though there is just no escape from the fire ever. And that's a hellish thought, and it's all we're going to experience forever. I don't know about you, but I've seen no sign of heaven anywhere, have you?

Our Lord often referred to “hell” (see Mt 5:29,30; 10:28; 23:15; Mk 9:45,47; Lk 12:5). He warned against “the hell of fire” (Mt 5:22; 18:9); against “the unquenchable fire” (Mk 9:43); against “the eternal fire” (Mt 18:8; 25:41). Our Lord also spoke of “the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth”



Who or whatever created this life, must be an absolute psychopathic sadomasochist.

[Gary Childress]

Admittedly, even so, we have to avoid most foods produced by modern agriculture to get close to zero killing given its use of pesticides. That's difficult at this point without growing our own food.

Yes. Therein lies the problem. I'm not sure if it would be possible to feed almost 8 billion people on Earth without the methods currently used.

I'm pretty confident that it would, although I don't have any particular expertise on this subject. Why the confidence then?

Firstly, because although the introduction of synthetic pesticides did increase crop yields, it only did so by (up to) 50% according to Britannica. This matters because plant agriculture is significantly more productive than animal agriculture, and it's pretty much a given that we'd easily make that 50% back by switching from animal to plant agriculture. On top of the inherently greater productive capacity of plant agriculture, there's the fact that, globally, we feed three times as much (human-edible) grain to animals as we gain from them in (human-edible) meat, so there are even more productivity gains to be made from the switch in that respect.

Even if, then, we take into consideration that prior to the introduction of synthetic pesticides, natural pesticides were being used, which presumably had their own productivity gain prior to the (up to) 50% gain from synthetics, it still seems very likely that the productivity gained by switching from animal to plant agriculture would fully make up (at least) the productivity loss from dropping pesticide use.

Secondly, because pesticide-free farms already exist, and there are scientists who are proving that they work and thinking about if not actively working on better methods. Note: I haven't read the articles at those links in full; I offer them simply as examples that (the need for) pesticide-free farming is being taken seriously, and worked on, by at least some scientists and farmers.

As far as vultures and bacteria that feed on corpses, they count on other organisms to do the killing for them whether they be predators, other bacteria, or viruses. Otherwise, they'd starve.

As I pointed out in my last reply, while this is often the case, it isn't universally the case: vultures and bacteria also consume the corpses of living beings who die of natural causes (e.g., old age) rather than being killed.

Plants may feed off the sun, but if there were no other living beings producing CO2 and other molecules, then many of them wouldn't live either.

True, but what's your point? (I'll assess that below).

There would be no life without the sun and soil, and there would be VERY little life without killing those life forms that feed on the sun and soil.

That's arguably not true, but even if it is: again, what's your point?

Here's my promised assessment:

Your point is to rehearse a process of rationalisation: without killing (you rationalise), there would be no life; thus, killing is inevitable, and it matters not whether I, Gary Childress, am complicit in it.

As an argument, it's fallacious, which is why I refer to it instead as a rationalisation: it is essentially the excuse you use to justify that which you otherwise recognise as unethical. Your conclusion, then, while comforting, does not follow:

I think the best we can accomplish is to kill things as much as possible in a way that reduces the suffering of the organisms we are killing.

No, we can do much better than that.

Go darken someone else's doorstep. Leave mine alone.

[henry quirk]

...your very own emotional support animal.

Concern for another's emotional well-being is a kindness you should extend to all beings.

I don't have concern for the emotional well-being of most real, legit people and you want me to care about bio-machinery too?

Earlier today I watched a clip of concerned Pensacola beach folk as they got a beached shark back into the water.

This particular bio-machine wouldn't think twice (cuz it doesn't think) about eatin' every one of them people. It would feel no remorse (cuz it can't be remorseful) as as it digested any of 'em. It would never question (becuz its incapable of self-examination) the morality of its act (becuz morality is not applicable to it).

It's a friggin' machine. It's, as I say, no different, in function, than a Rhoomba. It does what it does as a matter of programming.

[Lacewing]

It's a friggin' machine. It's, as I say, no different, in function, than a Rhoomba. It does what it does as a matter of programming.

Clearly humans have more programs than a shark, but would you agree that humans are greatly (if not completely) driven by programs as well?

[henry quirk]

would you agree that humans are greatly (if not completely) driven by programs as well?

No. We're not meat machines. We're free wills and we're morally responsible. We have an objective measure to judge right and wrong.

[Gary Childress]

would you agree that humans are greatly (if not completely) driven by programs as well?

No. We're not meat machines. We're free wills and we're morally responsible. We have an objective measure to judge right and wrong.

No life form is a "machine". "Machines" are made of inanimate matter that aren't sentient or conscious and generally serve the needs of living beings. Hence the reason for the existence of the study of philosophy of mind--trying determine (among many things) whether computers can be sentient or conscious. You're stuck in a category error with that kind of language.