Christianity

[Belinda]

...why do you almost never bring that evidence up?

Because you're capable of evaluating it...or maybe you're not. Either way, my job is done. I'm not going to prechew your food for you.

Immanuel, you Eschew the food for thought which Iambiguous has presented.

[attofishpi]

...why do you almost never bring that evidence up?

Because you're capable of evaluating it...or maybe you're not. Either way, my job is done. I'm not going to prechew your food for you.

Immanuel, you Eschew the food for thought which Iambiguous has presented.

Food for thought?

iambiguous is having one of those existential dilemmas in his old age. I wonder how long he has been battling this one?

If he, or NE1 had an intelligent functioning brain, they could work out from the IN_FORM_AT_ION contained within our REAL_IT_Y - that not only does GOD exist, but that the life of Christ as per the NT is the most rational example of this existence. Ergo, the EVIDENCE surrounds sus. JE_SUS

[Belinda]

Because you're capable of evaluating it...or maybe you're not. Either way, my job is done. I'm not going to prechew your food for you.

Immanuel, you Eschew the food for thought which Iambiguous has presented.

Food for thought?

iambiguous is having one of those existential dilemmas in his old age. I wonder how long he has been battling this one?

If he, or NE1 had an intelligent functioning brain, they could work out from the IN_FORM_AT_ION contained within our REAL_IT_Y - that not only does GOD exist, but that the life of Christ as per the NT is the most rational example of this existence. Ergo, the EVIDENCE surrounds sus. JE_SUS

If you never experience an existential dilemma you
never fully live.

I think, Atto, you may be claiming what philosophers call mystical experience. Mystical experience is famously difficult to rebut and I don't think anyone has ever done it.
Unlike certain mystics such as my favorite Teresa of Avila you are not so good expressing yourself in language. As a former teacher I recommend you keep your language simple and clear .

[Fairy]

The limited mind of human being can feel like it's limited, only when it allows limitation to dominate it's thought.

Food for thought opens up the limited channel to wider horizons.

Fixation with Limitation can lead to Nihilistic stale beliefs about it's all nothing anyway, so might as well dwell on the nothing only, without realising, there's simply more to nothingness, and limitation than meets the physical eye. Limited entrance for the third eye to enter. That's when the magic really starts to happen, when you lose your sense of Nihilism.

I was very Nihilistic for a long time, until I chose to not be Nihilistic.

[attofishpi]

Immanuel, you Eschew the food for thought which Iambiguous has presented.

Food for thought?

iambiguous is having one of those existential dilemmas in his old age. I wonder how long he has been battling this one?

If he, or NE1 had an intelligent functioning brain, they could work out from the IN_FORM_AT_ION contained within our REAL_IT_Y - that not only does GOD exist, but that the life of Christ as per the NT is the most rational example of this existence. Ergo, the EVIDENCE surrounds sus. JE_SUS

If you never experience an existential dilemma you
never fully live.

..an unexamined life and all that. Oh, the dilemma of it all that I have had to reflect upon..while being tested by the entity GOD.

[attofishpi]

I was very Nihilistic for a long time, until I chose to not be Nihilistic.

..didn't notice

*keep it up, you were starting to get boring like all the other miserable atheists on the forum.

[Fairy]

I was very Nihilistic for a long time, until I chose to not be Nihilistic.

..didn't notice

*keep it up, you were starting to get boring like all the other miserable atheists on the forum.

Yes I agree, it was very boring indeed. It was like listening to a puppet claiming to be pulling it's own stings, when that would have been impossible.

It's funny how the tables can so easily flip flop from one side to the other, never really knowing which side is true, and which side is false. Until you do realise.

[Immanuel Can]

The theory of existence I prefer...

Preference is uninteresting to reality. Reality always insists on being whatever it is, not what we want it to be.

...is not the theory that mind/soul and body are separate entities.

Well, there's a case to be made for them being interrelated, but no case for them being the same as body. You've seen dead people: they have the material body...but something's missing...and whatever it is, it certainly isn't material.

The moral code as propounded by Jesus does not depend upon any particular ontological stance, but fits every ontological stance.

That's only true for people who behave in irrational ways.

Every "ontological stance" implies certain things about morality. Nietzsche saw so very clearly that Atheism, for example, implies the death of all morality (which he called being "beyond good and evil," and even named one of his books according to it. I've read it.) That's not to say that an Atheist cannot choose -- arbitrarily -- to behave nicely; it does mean that if he decides not to behave nicely, there's not one thing in Atheism, or any implication it has, that implies he cannot be as wicked as he decides to be.

So no, the "moral code" you attribute to Jesus (though he really didn't propound any particular 'code' of moral rules at all, but rather a total way of life), does not "fit every ontological stance." It not only doesn't fit Atheists, but not Hindus, or Islamists, or pagans...or practically anybody else, actually.

Oh Ye of little faith! He is Light of the World!

Indeed He is. But men can close their eyes.

Concerning reality, nobody can know the whole reality,

Ah, the necessity of faith...just as He said.

[Immanuel Can]

...why do you almost never bring that evidence up?

Because you're capable of evaluating it...or maybe you're not. Either way, my job is done. I'm not going to prechew your food for you.

Immanuel, you Eschew the food for thought which Iambiguous has presented.

Ah, yes...so I do. But he presents no "food" for thought. There's little enough to "chew" on in his offerings.

[attofishpi]

Immanuel, you Eschew the food for thought which Iambiguous has presented.

Food for thought?

iambiguous is having one of those existential dilemmas in his old age. I wonder how long he has been battling this one?

If he, or NE1 had an intelligent functioning brain, they could work out from the IN_FORM_AT_ION contained within our REAL_IT_Y - that not only does GOD exist, but that the life of Christ as per the NT is the most rational example of this existence. Ergo, the EVIDENCE surrounds sus. JE_SUS

If you never experience an existential dilemma you
never fully live.

I think, Atto, you may be claiming what philosophers call mystical experience. Mystical experience is famously difficult to rebut and I don't think anyone has ever done it.
Unlike certain mystics such as my favorite Teresa of Avila you are not so good expressing yourself in language. As a former teacher I recommend you keep your language simple and clear .

HELL_owe. Owe, wot a teacher.

Apparently if I express myself in a way that appeals to U, then I would be expressing MY_SELF? Oh, the irony...yes, I'd soon switch 'teachers'.

You are clearly missing the point I am attempting to get across RE the EVIDENCE surrounds us. My point being and has been all along on this forum, that the English LAN_GAUGE has embedded LOGIC, that is EVIDENCE of GOD system. The IN_FORM_AT_ION surrounds us.

If that confuses you, it's likely (at the minimum) that you are pre-compoooter error.

Let me run this by you and see if you understand the point I am making (*re evidence)
What do you take from this image? https://www.androcies.com/Images/Art/Mount%20Sinai.jpg

[Belinda]

Food for thought?

iambiguous is having one of those existential dilemmas in his old age. I wonder how long he has been battling this one?

If he, or NE1 had an intelligent functioning brain, they could work out from the IN_FORM_AT_ION contained within our REAL_IT_Y - that not only does GOD exist, but that the life of Christ as per the NT is the most rational example of this existence. Ergo, the EVIDENCE surrounds sus. JE_SUS

If you never experience an existential dilemma you
never fully live.

..an unexamined life and all that. Oh, the dilemma of it all that I have had to reflect upon..while being tested by the entity GOD.

Christian doctrine especially Trinitarianism does join up the dots. There are certain axiomatic metaphysics but ,given those, the doctrine makes sense.

[Belinda]

Food for thought?

iambiguous is having one of those existential dilemmas in his old age. I wonder how long he has been battling this one?

If he, or NE1 had an intelligent functioning brain, they could work out from the IN_FORM_AT_ION contained within our REAL_IT_Y - that not only does GOD exist, but that the life of Christ as per the NT is the most rational example of this existence. Ergo, the EVIDENCE surrounds sus. JE_SUS

If you never experience an existential dilemma you
never fully live.

I think, Atto, you may be claiming what philosophers call mystical experience. Mystical experience is famously difficult to rebut and I don't think anyone has ever done it.
Unlike certain mystics such as my favorite Teresa of Avila you are not so good expressing yourself in language. As a former teacher I recommend you keep your language simple and clear .

HELL_owe. Owe, wot a teacher.

Apparently if I express myself in a way that appeals to U, then I would be expressing MY_SELF? Oh, the irony...yes, I'd soon switch 'teachers'.

You are clearly missing the point I am attempting to get across RE the EVIDENCE surrounds us. My point being and has been all along on this forum, that the English LAN_GAUGE has embedded LOGIC, that is EVIDENCE of GOD system. The IN_FORM_AT_ION surrounds us.

If that confuses you, it's likely (at the minimum) that you are pre-compoooter error.

Let me run this by you and see if you understand the point I am making (*re evidence)
What do you take from this image? https://www.androcies.com/Images/Art/Mount%20Sinai.jpg

True, your peculiar use of English is a means of self expression. However it's usually the more famous writers who can get away with idiosyncrasies.

I disagree about intrinsic mystic meanings within any language. Human languages are symbolic systems and arise as part of human social interaction.
I regret the illustration means nothing to me. Would you care to expound it?

[iambiguous]

...why do you almost never bring that evidence up?

Because you're capable of evaluating it...or maybe you're not. Either way, my job is done. I'm not going to prechew your food for you.

Besides, I suppose, given a God said to be omniscient, there's nothing he doesn't already know about this very exchange. After all, what on Earth does it mean to be all-knowing if it doesn't include, well, knowing all there is to know about anything we will ever think, feel, intuit, say and do.

Let's run it by AI:

"In the Bible, 'omniscience' refers to the attribute of God being all-knowing, meaning he has complete knowledge of everything, including the past, present, and future, and this is consistently portrayed throughout scripture, particularly in passages like Psalm 139 which describes God's intimate knowledge of every detail of a person's life, even their thoughts before they speak them."

Then this part:

"In common English parlance, the doctrine of predestination often has particular reference to the doctrines of Calvinism. The version of predestination espoused by John Calvin, after whom Calvinism is named, is sometimes referred to as "double predestination" because in it God predestines some people for salvation (i.e. unconditional election) and some for condemnation (i.e. Reprobation) which results by allowing the individual's own sins to condemn them. Calvin himself defines predestination as "the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. Not all are created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestined to life or to death." wiki

Clearly not a True Christian then?

Here's Craig's take on it: https://youtu.be/7USxGUOefrg?si=-cCAdvbO_MTNx7_i

"Some people have adopted a viewpoint called theological fatalism. which says that if God foreknows what you're going to do. then you are fated to do it, and therefore everything happens necessarily. This, however, I think, commits an elementary logical fallacy. It reasons as follows: necessarily, if God foreknows that I will do X, then I will do X. Premise 2: God foreknows that I will do X. 3: therefore, necessarily, I will do X. So that's how the argument for fatalism goes. That commits a fallacy in modal logic. It does not follow from those two premises that you will necessarily do X. A;; that follows from the two premises is that you will do X, but not that you will necessarily do it. You could refrain, and if you were to refrain God's foreknowledge would have been different. So, by acting one way or the other, I have the ability to act in such a way that God's foreknowledge would have been different than it is in fact. And that's sufficient for freedom; there's nothing about God's merely knowing about something in advance that takes away my freedom to do otherwise."

So, after viewing it, please note how this is applicable to the behaviors that you yourself choose/"choose" in posting here.

Click, of course.

[Immanuel Can]

Click, of course.

You forgot "dasein." You may as well say all your ridiculous things at once.

[iambiguous]

Click, of course.

You forgot "dasein." You may as well say all your ridiculous things at once.

So, anyone else care to take a crack at it:

"Some people have adopted a viewpoint called theological fatalism. which says that if God foreknows what you're going to do. then you are fated to do it, and therefore everything happens necessarily. This, however, I think, commits an elementary logical fallacy. It reasons as follows: necessarily, if God foreknows that I will do X, then I will do X. Premise 2: God foreknows that I will do X. 3: therefore, necessarily, I will do X. So that's how the argument for fatalism goes. That commits a fallacy in modal logic. It does not follow from those two premises that you will necessarily do X. All that follows from the two premises is that you will do X, but not that you will necessarily do it. You could refrain, and if you were to refrain God's foreknowledge would have been different. So, by acting one way or the other, I have the ability to act in such a way that God's foreknowledge would have been different than it is in fact. And that's sufficient for freedom; there's nothing about God's merely knowing about something in advance that takes away my freedom to do otherwise."

Click, of course.