Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

But it is typical of permissive religiosity. In their parlance, anybody who doesn't agree with them is not sufficiently "broad" in their thinking, or not as "open" as they should be, or more "narrow" than is justified, or not "inclusive" enough, and so on. It's a petty shaming tactic. What it really signals, though, is a refusal to know anything, to acknowledge certainties, to accept any evidence as counting, or to believe that anybody could have more or better information than they already do: in other words, it signals a refusal to learn, grow or change. In the place of the latter, a blank "tolerance" gets substituted, and the permissive religionist feels virtuous for his/her lack of understanding.

The undergirding gist here is, once again, specifically apologetic. The statement made is: The Hebrew-Christian conception of what God is, what God asks for, how God manifests in human life and consciousness, is the only valid conception.

"Undergirding gist"? Was I not plain-spoken enough for you? Or is it only that you can only discover the obvious?

The right conception of God is the one that He manifests of Himself. There is, obviously, no other conception of God possible that is anything but a delusion. God is who God is. He is not whatever somebody wishes to make of Him. If He were, He'd be no God at all. You, the human being, would be the determiner of the nature of His existence.

That's obviously silly. Even a rock or a tree is what it is, not what I imagine it to be. It has its own nature, one that is up to me to discover; and if I don't, then the fault is entirely mine. And if my conception falls short, then it's my conception that is at fault. How much more true is that of a God than of a rock or a tree?

Common sense makes it plain: however many ideas float around out there, there can be only one true conception of God.

[seeds]

The way I figure it …

Since all those non-Christian heathens are condemned to hell because they have not received the word of God, then as a Christian, isn’t it your duty to offer the word of God to them, so that through free will, their inner beings that crave redemption will have the God-given choice to be free in this life, and the next? Why yes, it is, it is your Christian duty to be such an agent of God. S.D.G.

What’s wrong with that?

When push comes to shove, most Christians - (excluding IC) - will admit that any person who never actually heard the "word of God" (i.e., the Christian "gospel")...

(such as, for example, the members of some isolated island or jungle tribe of humans, or an infant who dies shortly after being born, etc.)

...will not be condemned to hell by God, for that would seem utterly unfair of God to do so.

And setting aside the obvious point/fact that it would be infinitely evil and unfair of God to mercilessly torture a defenseless soul in some hellish dimension of reality for ETERNITY,...

...the other obvious point is that the less you hear or know about Christianity (the best being absolutely "nothing") then the better off your chances will be of avoiding a grim judgment.

So, the incredible irony is that if Christians would simply shut up and stop spreading the "word of God," then, by reason of the "fairness factor" that most Christians agree that God should abide by and uphold, EVERYONE will be "saved" from the fires of hell.
_______

[iambiguous]

Excusing God
Raymond Tallis highlights the problem of evil.

I am reminded of an analogous problem that has arisen with the increasing power of humanity as a result of technological advance. The philosopher Thomas Metzinger fears that we may be able to create conscious computers.

Now, from my frame of mind, that sort of AI would surely shake things up. Why? Because it's one thing to communicate with an AI entity that basically consists of programming and inputs from other mere mortals, and another thing altogether if that entity really acquires some measure of autonomy. Assuming of course that we ourselves are not just nature's own...automatons?

As readers of this column may recall, I believe this is a fantasy (see ‘The Fantasy of Conscious Machines’, Issue 152) But the improbability of conscious machines is, for Metzinger, beside the point. In ‘Artificial Suffering: An Argument for a Global Moratorium on Synthetic Phenomenology’ (Journal of AI Consciousness, 2021), he argues that, so long as it is even remotely possible that artificial consciousness might emerge, there should be a ban in the medium-term on all research that directly aims at or knowingly risks this outcome.

One word: capitalism.

If there are big bucks to be made here then, sooner or later, those interested in accumulating big bucks [and they are everywhere] will soon find a way to rationalize, well, practically anything, right? For some, think boiler rooms all the way down.

Unless, perhaps, all of this does unfold given the only possible reality. Then they're off the hook too?

Central to his argument is the strong possibility that conscious machines might be obliged by humans to experience states they find unbearable. The moratorium may not need to be permanent; but, Metzinger argues, it should not be lifted until it has been tied “to an ever more fine-grained, rational, evidence-based, and hopefully ethically convincing set of constraints.”

Compare this frame of mind to my own considerably more fractured and fragmented mentality.

Given a No God universe/multiverse. But this seems "here and now" to be the equivalent of the animal rights folks insisting that no harm should be done to animals. Now, what, that commitment is extended so that no harm shall be done to artificial human beings?

On the other hand, if anyone here comes across a source that explores this more in depth, please link it to us.

[Belinda]

Excusing God
Raymond Tallis highlights the problem of evil.

I am reminded of an analogous problem that has arisen with the increasing power of humanity as a result of technological advance. The philosopher Thomas Metzinger fears that we may be able to create conscious computers.

Now, from my frame of mind, that sort of AI would surely shake things up. Why? Because it's one thing to communicate with an AI entity that basically consists of programming and inputs from other mere mortals, and another thing altogether if that entity really acquires some measure of autonomy. Assuming of course that we ourselves are not just nature's own...automatons?

As readers of this column may recall, I believe this is a fantasy (see ‘The Fantasy of Conscious Machines’, Issue 152) But the improbability of conscious machines is, for Metzinger, beside the point. In ‘Artificial Suffering: An Argument for a Global Moratorium on Synthetic Phenomenology’ (Journal of AI Consciousness, 2021), he argues that, so long as it is even remotely possible that artificial consciousness might emerge, there should be a ban in the medium-term on all research that directly aims at or knowingly risks this outcome.

One word: capitalism.

If there are big bucks to be made here then, sooner or later, those interested in accumulating big bucks [and they are everywhere] will soon find a way to rationalize, well, practically anything, right? For some, think boiler rooms all the way down.

Unless, perhaps, all of this does unfold given the only possible reality. Then they're off the hook too?

Central to his argument is the strong possibility that conscious machines might be obliged by humans to experience states they find unbearable. The moratorium may not need to be permanent; but, Metzinger argues, it should not be lifted until it has been tied “to an ever more fine-grained, rational, evidence-based, and hopefully ethically convincing set of constraints.”

Compare this frame of mind to my own considerably more fractured and fragmented mentality.

Given a No God universe/multiverse. But this seems "here and now" to be the equivalent of the animal rights folks insisting that no harm should be done to animals. Now, what, that commitment is extended so that no harm shall be done to artificial human beings?

On the other hand, if anyone here comes across a source that explores this more in depth, please link it to us.

Ask a reputable machine such as ChatGPT if and how AI may be governed to promote moral ethics. It will tell you the balance of informed opinion; there needs to be democratic control especially as Silcone Valley is commercial through and through.

The problem of democratic control and nationalisation of AI is that it would be impossible to police all the nation states according to the same voluntary consensus

[Belinda]

The way I figure it …

Since all those non-Christian heathens are condemned to hell because they have not received the word of God, then as a Christian, isn’t it your duty to offer the word of God to them, so that through free will, their inner beings that crave redemption will have the God-given choice to be free in this life, and the next? Why yes, it is, it is your Christian duty to be such an agent of God. S.D.G.

What’s wrong with that?

When push comes to shove, most Christians - (excluding IC) - will admit that any person who never actually heard the "word of God" (i.e., the Christian "gospel")...

(such as, for example, the members of some isolated island or jungle tribe of humans, or an infant who dies shortly after being born, etc.)

...will not be condemned to hell by God, for that would seem utterly unfair of God to do so.

And setting aside the obvious point/fact that it would be infinitely evil and unfair of God to mercilessly torture a defenseless soul in some hellish dimension of reality for ETERNITY,...

...the other obvious point is that the less you hear or know about Christianity (the best being absolutely "nothing") then the better off your chances will be of avoiding a grim judgment.

So, the incredible irony is that if Christians would simply shut up and stop spreading the "word of God," then, by reason of the "fairness factor" that most Christians agree that God should abide by and uphold, EVERYONE will be "saved" from the fires of hell.
_______

Yes, but you explain people who love. People who are governed not by love but by fear have distorted the message of love . Some Christians and other religionists and seculars such as Trump, Putin, Hitler, Netanyahu, and assorted terrorists are governed by fear.

[Belinda]

But it is typical of permissive religiosity. In their parlance, anybody who doesn't agree with them is not sufficiently "broad" in their thinking, or not as "open" as they should be, or more "narrow" than is justified, or not "inclusive" enough, and so on. It's a petty shaming tactic. What it really signals, though, is a refusal to know anything, to acknowledge certainties, to accept any evidence as counting, or to believe that anybody could have more or better information than they already do: in other words, it signals a refusal to learn, grow or change. In the place of the latter, a blank "tolerance" gets substituted, and the permissive religionist feels virtuous for his/her lack of understanding.

The undergirding gist here is, once again, specifically apologetic. The statement made is: The Hebrew-Christian conception of what God is, what God asks for, how God manifests in human life and consciousness, is the only valid conception.

"Undergirding gist"? Was I not plain-spoken enough for you? Or is it only that you can only discover the obvious?

The right conception of God is the one that He manifests of Himself. There is, obviously, no other conception of God possible that is anything but a delusion. God is who God is. He is not whatever somebody wishes to make of Him. If He were, He'd be no God at all. You, the human being, would be the determiner of the nature of His existence.

That's obviously silly. Even a rock or a tree is what it is, not what I imagine it to be. It has its own nature, one that is up to me to discover; and if I don't, then the fault is entirely mine. And if my conception falls short, then it's my conception that is at fault. How much more true is that of a God than of a rock or a tree?

Common sense makes it plain: however many ideas float around out there, there can be only one true conception of God.

But nobody can comprehend God until He reveals himself one way or another. E.g. a holy book, a holy prophet, an avatar, a man-god Son, a personal psychedelic revelation. Each method of revelation is bound to some culture of belief, including yours, Immanuel.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

The undergirding gist here is, once again, specifically apologetic. The statement made is: The Hebrew-Christian conception of what God is, what God asks for, how God manifests in human life and consciousness, is the only valid conception.

"Undergirding gist"? Was I not plain-spoken enough for you? Or is it only that you can only discover the obvious?

The right conception of God is the one that He manifests of Himself. There is, obviously, no other conception of God possible that is anything but a delusion. God is who God is. He is not whatever somebody wishes to make of Him. If He were, He'd be no God at all. You, the human being, would be the determiner of the nature of His existence.

That's obviously silly. Even a rock or a tree is what it is, not what I imagine it to be. It has its own nature, one that is up to me to discover; and if I don't, then the fault is entirely mine. And if my conception falls short, then it's my conception that is at fault. How much more true is that of a God than of a rock or a tree?

Common sense makes it plain: however many ideas float around out there, there can be only one true conception of God.

But nobody can comprehend God until He reveals himself one way or another. E.g. a holy book, a holy prophet, an avatar, a man-god Son, a personal psychedelic revelation. Each method of revelation is bound to some culture of belief, including yours, Immanuel.

None of which is any God revealing Xemselves.

[Immanuel Can]

The undergirding gist here is, once again, specifically apologetic. The statement made is: The Hebrew-Christian conception of what God is, what God asks for, how God manifests in human life and consciousness, is the only valid conception.

"Undergirding gist"? Was I not plain-spoken enough for you? Or is it only that you can only discover the obvious?

The right conception of God is the one that He manifests of Himself. There is, obviously, no other conception of God possible that is anything but a delusion. God is who God is. He is not whatever somebody wishes to make of Him. If He were, He'd be no God at all. You, the human being, would be the determiner of the nature of His existence.

That's obviously silly. Even a rock or a tree is what it is, not what I imagine it to be. It has its own nature, one that is up to me to discover; and if I don't, then the fault is entirely mine. And if my conception falls short, then it's my conception that is at fault. How much more true is that of a God than of a rock or a tree?

Common sense makes it plain: however many ideas float around out there, there can be only one true conception of God.

But nobody can comprehend God until He reveals himself one way or another. E.g. a holy book, a holy prophet, an avatar, a man-god Son, a personal psychedelic revelation. Each method of revelation is bound to some culture of belief, including yours, Immanuel.

"Culture of belief"? That's a weird coinage, B.

If God reveals Himself, then what He reveals has nothing to do with "culture." Culture is a human thing. Truth is a divine one. Truth doesn't care about your culture, and it doesn't change with your culture. Neither does God. His nature does not change if your belief changes. He is who He is. There is no more to add than that.

[Gary Childress]

"Undergirding gist"? Was I not plain-spoken enough for you? Or is it only that you can only discover the obvious?

The right conception of God is the one that He manifests of Himself. There is, obviously, no other conception of God possible that is anything but a delusion. God is who God is. He is not whatever somebody wishes to make of Him. If He were, He'd be no God at all. You, the human being, would be the determiner of the nature of His existence.

That's obviously silly. Even a rock or a tree is what it is, not what I imagine it to be. It has its own nature, one that is up to me to discover; and if I don't, then the fault is entirely mine. And if my conception falls short, then it's my conception that is at fault. How much more true is that of a God than of a rock or a tree?

Common sense makes it plain: however many ideas float around out there, there can be only one true conception of God.

But nobody can comprehend God until He reveals himself one way or another. E.g. a holy book, a holy prophet, an avatar, a man-god Son, a personal psychedelic revelation. Each method of revelation is bound to some culture of belief, including yours, Immanuel.

"Culture of belief"? That's a weird coinage, B.

If God reveals Himself, then what He reveals has nothing to do with "culture." Culture is a human thing. Truth is a divine one. Truth doesn't care about your culture, and it doesn't change with your culture. Neither does God. His nature does not change if your belief changes. He is who He is. There is no more to add than that.

I think the point she may be making is that every culture interprets God differently, including some believing in pantheism and some in atheism. Who's to say that Christians have it all correct and no one else does? And which sect of Christianity has it most correct?

[Immanuel Can]

But nobody can comprehend God until He reveals himself one way or another. E.g. a holy book, a holy prophet, an avatar, a man-god Son, a personal psychedelic revelation. Each method of revelation is bound to some culture of belief, including yours, Immanuel.

"Culture of belief"? That's a weird coinage, B.

If God reveals Himself, then what He reveals has nothing to do with "culture." Culture is a human thing. Truth is a divine one. Truth doesn't care about your culture, and it doesn't change with your culture. Neither does God. His nature does not change if your belief changes. He is who He is. There is no more to add than that.

I think the point she may be making is that every culture interprets God differently, including some believing in pantheism and some in atheism. Who's to say that Christians have it all correct and no one else does? And which sect of Christianity has it most correct?

God says. Whatever He says is right. I may be wrong, you may be wrong, but God is never wrong. He is who He is, regardless of local tastes.

There is only ever one truth about that, Gary...and every religious person, and every secular person, at least all those who are behaving rationally, knows it, too.

[Gary Childress]

"Culture of belief"? That's a weird coinage, B.

If God reveals Himself, then what He reveals has nothing to do with "culture." Culture is a human thing. Truth is a divine one. Truth doesn't care about your culture, and it doesn't change with your culture. Neither does God. His nature does not change if your belief changes. He is who He is. There is no more to add than that.

I think the point she may be making is that every culture interprets God differently, including some believing in pantheism and some in atheism. Who's to say that Christians have it all correct and no one else does? And which sect of Christianity has it most correct?

God says. Whatever He says is right. I may be wrong, you may be wrong, but God is never wrong. He is who He is, regardless of local tastes.

There is only ever one truth about that, Gary...and every religious person, and every secular person, at least all those who are behaving rationally, knows it, too.

And are there grounds for your speculation? What makes you think that any of us knows squat about God?

[promethean75]

Would it be cool if i put my hand on your shoulder and said "go with god, my son" or would that be kinda gay?

[Gary Childress]

Would it be cool if i put my hand on your shoulder and said "go with god, my son" or would that be kinda gay?

I don't know. You could try it, and we'll both find out.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I think the point she may be making is that every culture interprets God differently, including some believing in pantheism and some in atheism. Who's to say that Christians have it all correct and no one else does? And which sect of Christianity has it most correct?

God says. Whatever He says is right. I may be wrong, you may be wrong, but God is never wrong. He is who He is, regardless of local tastes.

There is only ever one truth about that, Gary...and every religious person, and every secular person, at least all those who are behaving rationally, knows it, too.

And are there grounds for your speculation? What makes you think that any of us knows squat about God?

I know that God is not the ground of being.

[MikeNovack]

God says. Whatever He says is right. I may be wrong, you may be wrong, but God is never wrong. He is who He is, regardless of local tastes.

There is only ever one truth about that, Gary...and every religious person, and every secular person, at least all those who are behaving rationally, knows it, too.

God says. Whatever He says is right. I may be wrong, you may be wrong, but God is never wrong. He is who He is, regardless of local tastes.
restated as six statements
God says. Whatever He says is right. I may be wrong. You may be wrong. God is never wrong. He is who He is, regardless of local tastes.
reordered according to rules of logic
I may be wrong, God says. Whatever He says is right. You may be wrong. God is never wrong. He is who He is, regardless of local tastes.
highlighting the first
I may be wrong, God says. Whatever He says is right. You may be wrong. God is never wrong. He is who He is, regardless of local tastes.

Do you accept that the first statement is TRUE? (it was your statement, and the rest of us accept it as true of ourselves)
If so, on what basis are you asking us to accept the next five as true?