Christianity

[Martin Peter Clarke]

My closest, intimate friends are believers. 2/3 of my kids are believers. I count Jungians and contrarian libertarians as believers.

How may I ask did your kids come to be ‘believers’? And what sort?

My primary concern, as it were, is simply (though it is not a simple issue) what happens culture-wide to a people when metaphysical ground is lost. It does not look very pretty.

Connected to that concern are contemporary issues involving how people confront that crisis, among sets of crises, in efforts to reground.

My impression is that it is in the ‘climb back up the hill’ (the reconstruction) where the ‘desperation’ becomes visible.

Now, as this is going on, simultaneously the world is in a bizarre 4th and 5th generation war.

And then Sydney Sweeney is dangling her breasts hither & yon …

What’s going on people, I mean really?!

That's why I'm an atheist republican monarchist who works for the church.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Speaking of 4th & 5th generation warfare, I found this very interesting.

Candace: recent Catholic convert big on “Christ is King”

Tucker: supposed Evangelical Christian (who claims to have been attacked by demons)

Fuentes: more or less (?) trad Catholic with an America First platform

[Martin Peter Clarke]

You've lost me mate.

I don't want to create existential vacuums in people, which is why I don't assault their beliefs. In the face to face world. Particularly as I only have to tolerate one loved ones overt contrarian beliefs. And another's (Jungian) to a far lesser extent. I value the relationships above all. Here, there is no risk to relationship, except by prevention, forestalling. This is one of the circles of hell. There can be no loss of relationship. Does IC want to be loved despite being utterly unlovable? No, he'd rather be wrong than happy. He'd rather believe than be rational, like WLC & Dembski. He's impenetrably misanthropic. One cannot empathise with that. Well one can actually. Imagine, act being like that. But it's useless to do so. It's like dealing with a psychopath. They learn to mimic compassion to predate. I know even they actually can feel remorse. But can never express it of themselves. If IC wants to be loved by liberal scum, all he has to do is say. Like Mad King Ludwig of Bavaria.

I will even defend, and I have, believers against unsympathetic non-believers. Sympathy is wasted on IC, but I would defend him from such. He is entitled to our sympathy for his horrible plight. Consider Phlebas. For he is become our enemy. Saruman in the camp of the Orcs.

You seem like a casualty of war to me mate. But at least you're not bitter.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Isn't Meyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer the honest YECist? Apart from being a helplessly pathological liar. Didn't he somewhere say, to the effect, that evolution is the only rational explanation for life, implicitly including mind, but that his belief in YEC, because Jesus, comes first?

Dunno about that, but I do know that William Lane Craig says: "I would still have my belief, because my belief in God is not based on these arguments. These arguments are confirmatory of my belief in God, but my belief in God is not based on the arguments. I think that my faith in God is based on the inner witness of God's spirit to my own heart." In other words, all the arguments he makes wearing his 'reasonable faith' hat, are compelling to him because they confirm a feeling he has in his heart. To someone who does not share that feeling, yours truly for example, the arguments are less compelling.

I actually admire WLC and Dembski for their honesty. As I do all honest believers. Those who say 'Hallelujah anyway!'. I had dinner with a devout missionary doctor once. My jaw dropped at her account of her work in Chad. She just looked at me, smiled, and said, 'Hopeless isn't it?'. She went back. I can only pity the innocently derangedly dishonest, those who have to pervert reality with the lens of faith, which is no faith. Those who see beyond reality are noble. 'Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for?' Robert Browning.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You seem like a casualty of war to me mate. But at least you're not bitter.

Can you explain more clearly what you mean to say? Much of what you write I do not understand.

[Dubious]

If IC wants to be loved by liberal scum, all he has to do is say. Like Mad King Ludwig of Bavaria.

...and pray, what did Mad King Ludwig say to the liberal scum by whom he wanted to be loved?

It's true! Your writing is often as opaque as some of the worst London fogs.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

If IC wants to be loved by liberal scum, all he has to do is say. Like Mad King Ludwig of Bavaria.

...and pray, what did Mad King Ludwig say to the liberal scum by whom he wanted to be loved?

It's true! Your writing is often as opaque as some of the worst London fogs.

"Love me, you scum!".

So it is. Whenever feels appropriate. It's orthogonal to others' postings.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

You seem like a casualty of war to me mate. But at least you're not bitter.

Can you explain more clearly what you mean to say? Much of what you write I do not understand.

As I said, you lost me, with your non sequitur post, with its opaque first clause,

Speaking of 4th & 5th generation warfare, I found this very interesting.

Candace: recent Catholic convert big on “Christ is King”

Tucker: supposed Evangelical Christian (who claims to have been attacked by demons)

Fuentes: more or less (?) trad Catholic with an America First platform

My 'assault' on, 'murder' of, Christianity is a simple critique of its natural, human failings. Its inadequacy. That all emerged over the centuries of its formation. To such an extent that it had to be edited to keep up with the development of humanism for up to five hundred years[. They had to insert the Pericope Adulterae, the highly emotionally intelligent story of the woman caught in adultery, after centuries of oral rumours]. That process continues with translations (like Eugene Peterson's The Message) and expositions to this day. To try and make it work. Emergent Christianity has to go beyond its limitations, its ambiguities, to make it universal, to deny its homophobia, actually exegetically correctly. Idealistic good will has to interpolate in to the white space between and beyond the words. Due to the conservative constraints of pre-wired morality, the vast majority of believers settle for far, far less. They settle for the violence. Unquestioningly. They cannot possibly be re-educated. Have their beliefs deconstructed and reconstructed.

So, here, where the violence is proclaimed as righteous, that has to be exposed. Confronted. It's morally wrong. A useless compulsion on my part as no one can actually engage with that here in this particular circle of Hell, and I am incapable of addressing this audience. Which cannot actually be addressed. Apart from by ChatGPT as Rogerian psychologist.

[Dubious]

If IC wants to be loved by liberal scum, all he has to do is say. Like Mad King Ludwig of Bavaria.

...and pray, what did Mad King Ludwig say to the liberal scum by whom he wanted to be loved?

It's true! Your writing is often as opaque as some of the worst London fogs.

"Love me, you scum!".

So it is. Whenever feels appropriate. It's orthogonal to others' postings.

Not at all. King Ludwig was an elitist not generally interested in the life of his citizens.

I noticed that you often specialize in the orthogonal, which is fine. After all, it would be a failure in direction if anyone were to be direct in any of their philosophical musings.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

...and pray, what did Mad King Ludwig say to the liberal scum by whom he wanted to be loved?

It's true! Your writing is often as opaque as some of the worst London fogs.

"Love me, you scum!".

So it is. Whenever feels appropriate. It's orthogonal to others' postings.

Not at all. King Ludwig was an elitist not generally interested in the life of his citizens.

I noticed that you often specialize in the orthogonal, which is fine. After all, it would be a failure in direction if anyone were to be direct in any of their philosophical musings.

Happy to engage with you on any terms you require.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

The modern view, the true nihilism, is in its way the descensus ad inferos, insofar as it is a descent into utterly meaningless material processes with absolutely no rhyme or reason. It is not obligatory but is, isn’t it? often chosen.

Isn’t that peculiar? To be stripped of any faculty of imagination and to be shipwrecked in Eternal Meaninglessness?

Nihilism is an early adolescent experience which a minority of us have to go through. Fewer get stuck in it. More get overlappingly trapped by global warming hysteria.

[Will Bouwman]

I actually admire WLC and Dembski for their honesty. As I do all honest believers. Those who say 'Hallelujah anyway!'. I had dinner with a devout missionary doctor once. My jaw dropped at her account of her work in Chad. She just looked at me, smiled, and said, 'Hopeless isn't it?'. She went back. I can only pity the innocently derangedly dishonest, those who have to pervert reality with the lens of faith, which is no faith. Those who see beyond reality are noble. 'Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for?' Robert Browning.

I have cited Xenophanes before:

But mortals suppose gods are born,
Wear their own clothes and have a voice and body.
The Ethiopians say that their gods are flat-nosed and black,
While Thracians say that theirs have blue eyes and red hair.
Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw,
And could sculpt like men, then the horses would draw their gods
Like horses, and cattle like cattle; and each would shape
Bodies of gods in the likeness, each of their own kind.

It is not impossible that of all the who knows how many gods that people have believed in, one of them really is god. As Xenophanes points out though, gods tend to be created in the image of the believer. For example, omniscient gods tend to be believed in by people who think they know everything, which is just rancid narcissism. I imagine that your devout missionary doctor believed in a compassionate god, which is more to be admired. I don't know what motivates the likes of Craig and Demski, but honesty isn't high on my list; more likely they are frauds or desperate, no honest person could be so incontinent with scientific facts.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I actually admire WLC and Dembski for their honesty. As I do all honest believers. Those who say 'Hallelujah anyway!'. I had dinner with a devout missionary doctor once. My jaw dropped at her account of her work in Chad. She just looked at me, smiled, and said, 'Hopeless isn't it?'. She went back. I can only pity the innocently derangedly dishonest, those who have to pervert reality with the lens of faith, which is no faith. Those who see beyond reality are noble. 'Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for?' Robert Browning.

I have cited Xenophanes before:

But mortals suppose gods are born,
Wear their own clothes and have a voice and body.
The Ethiopians say that their gods are flat-nosed and black,
While Thracians say that theirs have blue eyes and red hair.
Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw,
And could sculpt like men, then the horses would draw their gods
Like horses, and cattle like cattle; and each would shape
Bodies of gods in the likeness, each of their own kind.

It is not impossible that of all the who knows how many gods that people have believed in, one of them really is god. As Xenophanes points out though, gods tend to be created in the image of the believer. For example, omniscient gods tend to be believed in by people who think they know everything, which is just rancid narcissism. I imagine that your devout missionary doctor believed in a compassionate god, which is more to be admired. I don't know what motivates the likes of Craig and Demski, but honesty isn't high on my list; more likely they are frauds or desperate, no honest person could be so incontinent with scientific facts.

For me it's demonstrably impossible. Impossible is the default. The most extraordinary of claims require 6+ sigmata extraordinary evidence. The simple genius of the latter ancient Greeks cannot be overstated, although I suspect India and China, for two, had made such observations earlier. [I suspect ancient Egyptian and Sumerian clear and free thinking geniuses did too, and therefore all the way back 50,000 years to the evolution of full speech capacity]. Nice point about narcissism, and your kindness to the good doctor. C & D doubtless stray from the honesty of saying that their faith trumps rationality to distorting reality, as Meyer and Ham do. For them all science has to go through, has to serve, their fear driven, clinical, wooden literalism. C & D go further than theistic evolutionists, who still see intentionality where it doesn't exist. It's all a totally natural spectrum, of which we are 3rd sigma outliers. IC may well have no interest in Answers in Genesis or WLC's not even specious apologetics, his God is darkly, misanthropically revealed in the NT.

[Belinda]

I.e. very human. Not divine. Mere love isn't good enough. But it's all we have.

Then you hold a narrow definition of love. Love is not "mere". Love is not desire. Love is not affection, Love is not duty. Love is not courage. Love is not wisdom. Love is not rewarding but is long-suffering. Love is not faith. Love is compounded of all of those and more that I have not thought of.

No I don't. Human love is the best there is. That there ever will be. It can't be bettered in eternal infinity. I hold the broadest possible definition, including eusociality, love for all humanity. Jesus was on the way to that, the early Christians more so; they were non-coercive communists. Givers. Their gospel was social. That didn't last long. Didn't travel far. And Jesus was clearly misanthropic. Damnationist. He far from represented transcendent Love, which is disproved, irrelevant, negated in its utter absence.

Jesus Christ represents transcendent love for most Christians ,Muslims also hold Jesus of Nazareth to be a major prophet. Unitarians view Jesus of Nazareth as a very good man well who is well fit to exemplify love. Many self proclaimed atheists admire and revere Jesus for his humanistic values although not for the supernatural divinity that accrues to Jesus Christ.

Like Immanuel Can, you don't separate the Jesus of history from the Jesus Christ of Christian faith. You confuse religious doctrines with the Jesus of history.

I hope that you can see aspects of transcendent love among ordinary obscure men and women; if you do so you don't make it clear why you believe Jesus, of all people, to be "misanthropic" and "damnationist".

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Then you hold a narrow definition of love. Love is not "mere". Love is not desire. Love is not affection, Love is not duty. Love is not courage. Love is not wisdom. Love is not rewarding but is long-suffering. Love is not faith. Love is compounded of all of those and more that I have not thought of.

No I don't. Human love is the best there is. That there ever will be. It can't be bettered in eternal infinity. I hold the broadest possible definition, including eusociality, love for all humanity. Jesus was on the way to that, the early Christians more so; they were non-coercive communists. Givers. Their gospel was social. That didn't last long. Didn't travel far. And Jesus was clearly misanthropic. Damnationist. He far from represented transcendent Love, which is disproved, irrelevant, negated in its utter absence.

Jesus Christ represents transcendent love for most Christians ,Muslims also hold Jesus of Nazareth to be a major prophet. Unitarians view Jesus of Nazareth as a very good man well who is well fit to exemplify love. Many self proclaimed atheists admire and revere Jesus for his humanistic values although not for the supernatural divinity that accrues to Jesus Christ.

Like Immanuel Can, you don't separate the Jesus of history from the Jesus Christ of Christian faith. You confuse religious doctrines with the Jesus of history.

I hope that you can see aspects of transcendent love among ordinary obscure men and women; if you do so you don't make it clear why you believe Jesus, of all people, to be "misanthropic" and "damnationist".

I confuse nothing at all. The confusion is entirely yours. I fully differentiate the spectrum of Jesus as myth, of history and of story and of faith. I choose to deal with the Jesus of my good will toward him, and his mother and extended family and culture, as realistically, psychologically, morally accurately portrayed shorn of all false supernatural claims.

[Rats. Lost this: unless you accept him as your personal saviour, [by suicide by cop,] from, for your sins, you are damned. It doesn't get more incompetent, carnal, enculturated, obsolete, misanthropic than that. Sinner! [He meant well.]]