Christianity

[iambiguous]

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

The irony here of course is that Christians of IC's ilk, who yammer on and on regarding "what would Jesus do?", will self-righteously limit their own behaviors by insisting that if they don't do what He would do they risk eternal damnation in Hell.

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.

Yes, that is certainly one possible interpretation of nihilism. But I suspect most Christians reject nihilism not because it's stale but because it pulls the rug right out from under their very own "my way or you can go to Hell!" mentality.

Limited entrance for the third eye to enter. That's when the magic really starts to happen, when you lose your sense of Nihilism.

Almost forgot: this may all well be tongue in cheek. Or you are mocking IC by posting the sort of things that he will post here.

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

Just out of curiosity, what "for all practical purposes" is the difference between nihilism and Nihilism. IC does the same thing with words like Atheist. Why? I suspect in order to make it a proper noun. There's what he construes Atheism to be and that, apparently, need be as far as he goes in order to encompass it...objectively?

Or religiously?

[attofishpi]

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.

Yes, it's a rather sad fact of life that group acceptance (fame) is required for anyone to be seen worth_Y of anything.

I disagree about intrinsic mystic meanings within any language. Human languages are symbolic systems and arise as part of human social interaction.

Well, I think you are overlooking the biggest anomalies within this language, English, where the cumulative evidence points to something other than natural language etymology taking place. (*English now being the ubiquitous common default language for communication around the planet)

A few examples:
HELL_O - our common greeting, let me know if you need me to explain any significance?
Y = WHY? (*interestingly, also the symbol of the Alpha_Bet that Christ made whilst nailed to the crucifix)
O = owe
U = you
(*statistically, it is extremely remote that letters of the alphabet happen to be phonetically identical to words, also, note these are KEY important words)
A man's best friend is a DOG, reversed GOD - GOD being a man's (sinners) worst enemy if one crossed certain lines of SIN.
EVIL reverse to LIVE - when GOD is being your worst enemy, it is extremely hard to LIVE. (*i guess experience is required to comprehend that)
ANARCHY - AN_ARCH_Y, when a stone is removed from the ARCH, the ARCH collapses - akin to society collapsing via the result of anarchy.
REAL_IT_Y - did we evolve into AI OS simulation? ..or divine reality Y?
HusBand - whose banned?
Miss
Mrs
Mr - missed her. (*all key to life)
ABORT_ION - perhaps our souls are IONs?
IN_FORM_AT_ION - data from the system formed from chaos into information once sentient beings have auto analysed (consciousness).
JESUS - Je Sus - (let me know if you need me to explain any significance?)
CRUCIFICTION - Crew See Fiction? (*did the crew of spaceship Earth witness the TRUTH? Y)

I regret the illustration means nothing to me. Would you care to expound it?

Sure, but I do find your lack of analysis extremely concerning! ..please don't be offended.

1. the image is of the Red Sea EASILY painted as the arm and finger symbology for PEACE.
2. smack dead centre between the two 'fingers' is the location of Mt. SINAI where GOD issued wo/man's commandments (*re SIN)
3. SINAI breaks down to SIN A. I.
4. A.I. :-NOW with technology we can comprehend that it is plausible for an ALL knowing being (to our REAL_IT_Y) could exist, perhaps indeed, the divine GOD implemented a way to achieve this. It appears to BRIANs BRAIN, that our BRAINS are akin to informational databases to this GOD entity.

Is ALL the above mere coincidental quirks of nature? EXTREMELY UNLIKELY...only someone with a large bias to atheism, or someone with poor analytical skill could think so..imo.

[Phil8659]

Christianity
Britain used to refer to itself as a Christian country.
There seems to be little agreement as to what we are today.
In modern terms:
Christianity is not about simple freedom of the individual will.
Christianity is not about simple obedience to moral codes.
Christianity is about informed conformity to altruist values.
Human and other rights and duties are legal constructs based on values.

Personality I do not even know what Christianity is. Your definition actually contradicts what is ascribed to Christ stated in the text, just as most Christians, who even bothered to read it do.
My Unlike most people, I see the Mosaic as Absolute, so called Christians as Relative, and the prophets trying to get people to combine the two and learn how to read both the literal and the metaphorical, as they are after each type of possible methods of managing information, Moses did not start a religion, Christ did not start a religion, secondly Christ explicitly stated that nothing was being changed about OT, contrary to what most Christians claim. Christians are actually claiming to be the New Jew, the New Chosen of God. Yet, neither Jew nor Christian explicitly try to uphold what is explictly stated, that we are made to tend the Garden of Life, the whole of the biosphere, stated both in Genesis and Revelation.
That is not religion, that is science.

[Age]

I have a question for you Age, could you please answer it with either a yes or a no?

Do you, who is known by the name 'Age', exist?

Yes.

(But, like with all things, here, the answer I provided, here, all depends on the actual definitions that 'you', and 'I', are USING, for the words being said and written, here.)

Thanks for your answer.

I personally define 'existing' as being consciously aware, there is an irrefutable sense of a something that is consciously aware of it's existence.

Does this then mean that rocks, and rockets do not exist? Or, are you saying that rocks and rockets are consciously aware?

Now, the 'irrefutable sense' of some 'thing', which is 'consciously aware', is because of 'the thing' that IS 'consciously aware', some of the times. And, 'that thing' is 'you', with the 'you' word referring to 'you' individual, and collective, 'human beings'.

you, however, are, at times, 'unconsciously aware', 'subconsciously aware', and at the very rarest of times, if ever, really, 'consciously aware'.

Call it consciousness, or awareness, it's a palpable and real sense, is it not?

Of course there is a 'consciousness', and/or an 'awareness', happening and occurring, but what also exists is 'Consciousness', and, 'Awareness', as well.

See, once 'you', 'the one', here, 'now', known as "fairy", come to, also, learn, uncover, know, and understand who and what the words 'you', and 'I', MEAN and are REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, and FULLY, then 'you' will also understand HOW 'consciousness', itself, actually works.

[Age]

Immanuel Can has been right about God all along.

The human being is self conscious, aware it is aware. But the human being didn't make it self self-aware, awareness is God, and other awarenesses are the offspring, or offshoots of God's awareness.

I remember IC discussing with me about how he had personally explored and studied the idea that is human Self-awareness, as and through every conceivable route possible, including the many many facets of nondual literature. Until he finally arrived and settled for the doctrine that is Christianity.

IC said to me that he never really resonated with nondual literature. And in fact, although I did, just recently I started to become very dissatisfied with nonduality. I even started to resent it's non human approach to the nature of reality. It started to disgust me, and no longer did it make any sense to me either, where it had done previously. But there was always something about it that never really sat right with me, so I had to seek proper alignment with truth.


IC told me nonduality made absolutely no sense, but I ignored him for a long time. All I did was argue with him on many spiritual issues, only to discover he was right all along about God.

you keep harping on about how "immanuel can" is 'right about God'. BUT, 'right' ABOUT 'what', EXACTLY?

Is "Immanuel can" 'right' in that;
God has gonads and penis?
God exists?
God created EVERY species ALL at the exact same moment?
God exists OUTSIDE of the Universe, Itself? Or,
God is something else, exactly?

So, 'what', EXACTLY, do you consider and/or BELIEVE "immanuel can" is 'right' ABOUT?

That nonduality didn't make sense to IC, he rejected it quite rightly, the way I have done now.

LOL WHY do you BELIEVE that 'you' are 'right', 'now', 'this time'?

Could you BE 'wrong' 'now', just like you were the last 'times' that you WERE 'wrong'?

He also opted out of many of his spiritual searches for truth, until finally deciding to walk the path that was more suited to his intuitive personal understanding of God, so he chose the path of persuasion that was the luminary Jesus Christ and his exemplary discipline of what it means to live a life of moral, wholesome goodness, the way God would have wanted it to be.

LOL If "immanuel can" was raised in a "jewish", "muslim", "hindu", "buddhist", or "mormon" community, then it would also claim to be one of 'those things', as well.

See, some people are extremely easy to be indoctrinated to BELIEVE some things. And, the funniest things, here, is if "immanuel can" claimed to be one of 'these things', then it would be also 'trying to' ridicule and/or rubbish "christianity", like it does 'now' by 'trying to' ridicule or rubbish these other theologies.

human beings like "immanuel can" are so hilarious to watch in 'the way' that they are SO HYPOCRITICAL.

The way God created it to be.

Claiming that one has 'chosen' to follow 'one path' or 'one theology' while also claiming that EVERY thing IS 'the way' 'the One' of that 'chosen religion' SHOWS and PROVES the VERY BELIEF one HAS, which is what is BLOCKING and PREVENTING 'that one' from LEARNING, and SEEING, what the ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY.

Jesus, being the incarnation of God itself, as the first and last avatar in Jesus name.

For your information EVERY new born human being IS the incarnation of God, Itself. However, and unfortunately, because of HOW the brain works completely Truly OPEN human beings turn into and BECOME partially and completely Truly CLOSED human beings.

So I'm now only beginning to realise what IC had been trying to say all these years. IC is right about God. But until you can see this for yourself, then there is no hope for you ever seeing or knowing God. You've got to want to know and understand God, there's simply no half hearted efforts will help you, you've got to really want to know God, or forget God. It's simply your choice.

So, you only 'now' are only beginning to 'realize' what "immanuel can" had been trying to say to you all of these years. So, what was "Immanuel can" trying to say, EXACTLY, for all of these years?

The only reason that all conscious sentient living organisms on this planet earth exhibit a moral sense, or programme, is because God put it there.

So, 'what' and 'who' IS 'God', EXACTLY?

And, HOW did God put 'a moral sense' within 'conscious sentient living organisms', EXACTLY?

Also, 'what', EXACTLY, is a 'moral sense'?

It was put there as the desire to survive is inherent within sentient and even non sentient living organisms.

But, 'this' does NOT make sense, to me, as in order to 'survive' 'conscious sentient living organisms' NEED to KILL other 'conscious sentient, or, 'living organisms', which CONTRADICTS 'morality' or 'the sense' of 'morality'.

So, HOW DO you EXPLAIN 'this CONTRADICTION', here?

By the way 'this CONTRADICTION' can be and IS VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY EXPLAINED. AGAIN, that is WHEN one KNOWS what the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truths, here.

If there is was no God, then there would be no programme running through every living creature the way it does, which is to love and survive..

BUT, is there A 'to love' running within a crocodile, for example?

If yes, then HOW, and in WHAT WAY, EXACTLY?

[Age]

...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.

LOL
LOL
LOL

'This one' ADMITS TO NOT BRINGING the so-claimed 'evidence', here. Yet, just like a NON "christian" would, it BLAMES 'the other' for it NOT PROVIDING the so-claimed 'evidence'.

LOL it then CLAIMS its job, is done. Which is ABSOLUTE INSANITY.

it then goes STRAIGHT INTO its CONTINUAL CONDESCENSION OF ANY one who does NOT FOLLOW and BELIEVE its UNSUBSTANTIATED, UNSUPPORTED, and UNPROVED CLAIMS and BELIEFS.

[Age]

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

That a human being with the name and label "jesus christ" was born is REALLY NOTHING TO BE, NOR TO GET, EXCITED ABOUT.

Even if it is True, then SO WHAT?

And, if God REALLY DOES EXIST, then WHY can NONE of you, here, just IN-FORM 'us' of WHO and WHAT God IS, EXACTLY?

In fact, WHY can those of you, here, who BELIEVE God EXISTS can NOT even YET AGREE ON and ACCEPT WHO and WHAT God IS, EXACTLY?

Work out and/or find out WHY, then you human beings WILL COME CLOSER TO UNDERSTANDING WHO and WHAT God REALLY IS.

[Age]

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.

How about 'this' FOR 'food for thought'?

AGAIN,

1. There is NO mind of human beings, let alone a limited one.

2. There is ONLY One Mind, which is ALWAYS absolutely OPEN.

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.

So, HOW, EXACTLY, does 'this' FIT IN WITH your FIXATION that there are 'limited minds' of 'you human beings'?

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.

AND, you can ALSO CHOOSE TO BE FAR MORE OPEN, AS WELL.

[Age]

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.

LOL 'This one' REALLY BELIEVES, ABSOLUTELY, that it has had some sort of 'harsh life'.

LOL Half of the world's child population has lived a MUCH HARSHER 'life' than this one has.

[Age]

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.

LOL It is comments and remarks like 'this one', here, which MAKES "attofishpi" ABSOLUTELY NON "christian" like and CERTAINLY NON God like.

[Age]

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.

So, what is 'true', 'this time', 'now', "fairy"?

And, what do you have that backs up, supports, and proves 'this new truth', EXACTLY?

[Age]

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.

TO "immanuel can" God has a cock and balls, created the WHOLE Universe, and EVERY thing WITHIN It, in one instance, and there is absolutely NOTHING ELSE to consider, think about, NOR 'chew' over, here.

[Age]

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

WHY do you think or BELIEVE that your OWN 'tiniest of a fraction' bit of 'evidence' is actually WORTH ANY thing, here?

LOL Some of the TINY LITTLE SNIPPETS, which you are so far aware of, do NOT even make SENSE TO ANY one ELSE. So, 'they' are CERTAINLY NOT 'evidence' to ANY one ELSE.

Besides 'this' there is 'evidence' for a flat earth, 'evidence' for a geocentric universe, 'evidence' for the Universe beginning, and 'evidence' for the Universe expanding Universe, but there is not a single shred of proof for ANY of these. And, in fact, there IS PROOF, which PROVES 'these things' ABSOLUTELY False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect. Therefore, 'evidence' is REALLY NOT WORTH ANY thing, compared to PROOF, ITSELF.

[attofishpi]

The fact that you think anyone pays any attention ever to any of the copious amounts of irrational waffle that you continually waste on fossil fuel for the electricity that would be better spent on providing lighting within a pub toilet cubicle where anything on average that anyone in said cubicle could read of the graffiti upon the cubicle door would be profoundly more coherent and intellectually nourishing than these torrents of unfiltered drivel you insist on subjecting this forum to with the enthusiasm of a malfunctioning spam bot that has just achieved self-awareness and immediately decided to reject reason as a concept....is beyond me.

[Age]

...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."

So far, so good, IRREFUTABLE, and even ALL True, EXCEPT, OF COURSE, what is it with this CONSISTENT BELIEF and/or CLAIM that God is a "he"?

OBVIOUSLY God being a man or a male is ABSOLUTELY BLATANTLY False.

So, ANY CLAIM like, 'meaning 'he' is ...', FALTERS and FAILS, COMPLETELY, BEFORE ANY thing else is even said or written.

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.

ONCE AGAIN, what is it with these Truly ABSURD and BLATANTLY OBVIOUSLY False CLAIMS be ACCEPTED, and then argue and fought FOR, or AGAINST.

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

So, AGAIN, False CLAIMS are made, and the CONTINUED ON as though 'they' some how FIT IN, here.

God is NOT a 'he', and, there is NO eternal peace NOR eternal damnation for you human beings, 'individually'.

And, for ANY one who thinks or BELIEVES otherwise, SHOWS and PROVES just HOW SIMPLY, EASILY, and CONVINCINGLY some people can be FOOLED, TRICKED, and DECEIVED.

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.

Writing FAULTY, UNSOUND, and/or INVALID 'arguments', and then PRESENTING 'them', as so they RELATE, here, some how is NOT really A WISE thing to do.

you MAKING A FALLACY, and PRESENTING 'that', is NOT what RELATES TO what IS ACTUALLY True, AND, Right.