Christianity

[Gary Childress]

There's no speculation. Truth is truth. Truth always wins...over perspective, over culture, over prejudice, over wishes, over preferences...at the end of the day, truth is always the only thing that is left standing.


We don't. Not unless God reveals Himself, as He is pleased to do. Without that, none of us would have a clue.

Then how do you know that God even says anything that we humans could comprehend? "Truth is truth" doesn't cut it.

So...your supposition would have to be that what we call "God" was unable to do a simple thing that we human beings do quite regularly -- that is, to speak intelligibly? Because if you don't assume that, then there's clearly no problem at all.

Well, God doesn't seem to have the ability or else will to prevent or stop evil from occurring in his/her/its own creation. So why should we expect God to speak in ways that we can comprehend? Are you right up there with God? God bothered to say something to you that s/he/it didn't say to everyone else? And you perfectly understood what God said? (If there is a God.)

If there's a God, then it seems just as likely to me that God lets everything run on its own in this universe and doesn't intervene in everyday affairs or pick favorites. Besides, is God so insecure that God gets upset when we don't worship him? The Bible is a joke. At least to many contemporary ears. Back in the day the Abrahamic religions were a novelty and revolutionary, these days they sound hopelessly dated and Romanized (Rome being a totalitarian empire at the time). Do you really think the Romans would NOT oversee the assembly of the Bible to make God sound like a demanding emperor? How much of the Bible sorted through by the imperial clergy do you estimate is the truth about the creator of all that is?

[MikeNovack]

Well, the remaining five...they are somewhat rewritten by yourself, I note. I'm not sure I want to defend your wording. I wonder why you didn't confine yourself to quoting accurately. But I'll put it my own way, and still answer the question.

God is always right. Human beings are often wrong. God is never wrong, and is never anything but what He is.

Now, what is your question about that?

I am perfectly willing have YOU do the "rewording" or even better, replace each statement with a symbol.

You are making four statements here:
God is always right. Human beings are often wrong. God is never wrong, and is never anything but what He is. <NOTE 1>
You ask us to accept those as true based on WHAT? Remember, you have also stated I may be wrong,

Part of your problem understanding rational secularists is that you are mistaking what they claim. They tend to be using one of the axioms of logic
open a bracket:
Assume ANY statement S as true
From S and the axioms and anything else already proved proved reach a theorem T
then close the bracket] writing
S => T (the axiom is that THIS is a true statement

They do NOT have to justify "S" when stating S => T as true They are also NOT stating that T is true. They accept that all their knowledge is of this form, if/then

They interpret what YOU are saying as: (and accept it as a true statement)
If IC's Christian beliefs are true then God is always right. Human beings are often wrong. God is never wrong, and is never anything but what He is. You are making four statements and asserting them to be true. They are asking HOW did you get there? (or more accurately, don't you SEE how you got there; don't you recognize your "if")[/quote]

[seeds]

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.

No, no, better to roundly avoid that one.

Now I think it would be cool from say a few feet back.

“Go with God and sign up for the fucking 32-Week Email Course!” would be best of route.

The tribal elders had a pow-wow and decided that it is time to bring out the “wampum stick” again...

viewtopic.php?p=719368#p719368

Man, I sure do miss the old days when we were allowed to post images.

By the way, the fact that your Email Course has ballooned from a 10-week program to a 32-week program in less than a year, tells me that a year ago, The Course contained next to nothing, and you were just ripping us off back then.

How do you answer these charges, Lord (Hyperborean Apollo / Littlefinger) Baelish?...

...https://youtu.be/wNQGsIAMe3c
_______

[Immanuel Can]

Then how do you know that God even says anything that we humans could comprehend? "Truth is truth" doesn't cut it.

So...your supposition would have to be that what we call "God" was unable to do a simple thing that we human beings do quite regularly -- that is, to speak intelligibly? Because if you don't assume that, then there's clearly no problem at all.

Well, God doesn't seem to have the ability or else will to prevent or stop evil from occurring in his/her/its own creation.

That's an assumption, but a wrong one. If God exists, he surely has the power to do so. That would be inherent in the definition of "God."

So, either He doesn't exist, or He has overriding reasons for NOT preventing evil from occurring. And a little thought would show us that it's very plausible that we should expect God to have good reasons not to do so.

But to explain that, I'd have to ask you to consider some questions carefully and thoughtfully. If you wish me to, I will. If you do not, I will forbear.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, the remaining five...they are somewhat rewritten by yourself, I note. I'm not sure I want to defend your wording. I wonder why you didn't confine yourself to quoting accurately. But I'll put it my own way, and still answer the question.

God is always right. Human beings are often wrong. God is never wrong, and is never anything but what He is.

Now, what is your question about that?

I am perfectly willing have YOU do the "rewording" or even better, replace each statement with a symbol.

That's unnecessary. I reworded correctly above. Now, what's your question about what I actually said?

[Gary Childress]

But to explain that, I'd have to ask you to consider some questions carefully and thoughtfully. If you wish me to, I will. If you do not, I will forbear.

No thanks, I'd rather be thoughtful and reasonable regarding religious matters.

[Immanuel Can]

But to explain that, I'd have to ask you to consider some questions carefully and thoughtfully. If you wish me to, I will. If you do not, I will forbear.

No thanks, I'd rather be thoughtful and reasonable regarding religious matters.

Well, for a thoughtful guy, you're reluctant to do any thinking, I have to say.

But I accept your choice. Just know that there ARE answers...you just didn't want to consider them.

[Alexis Jacobi]

By the way, the fact that your Email Course has ballooned from a 10-week program to a 32-week program in less than a year, tells me that a year ago, The Course contained next to nothing, and you were just ripping us off back then.

Thanks for your inquiry.

The Course, originally, contained far less than something. It ‘contained’ absolutely nothing. It was a didactic black hole.

Now, how can you charge $3,999.00 when the buyer got less-than-nothing? Well, I fixed that by “giving the people what they wanted” — and raised the price of admission by $1,000.00

That’s the “win-win” business mentality in operation.

All Blessings to you!

Your ever well-wisher,

Alexis Jacobi, Mahatma

[Alexis Jacobi]

If there's a God, then it seems just as likely to me that God lets everything run on its own in this universe and doesn't intervene in everyday affairs or pick favorites.

This is interesting.

You would likely not know, nor be concerned, or interested, but in the Vaishnava philosophy/religion (it is strongly both) they say that our world is, and we are located in, a peculiar manifestation of “God’s exterior energy’. Implying, obviously, that there is an “interior energy”.

Our world is heavenly and hellish all together. It is understood to be an intermediate world but everyone who is here is extremely lucky, and if they had ‘vidya’ (knowledge) they would realize that life — being alive, having awareness, having decisiveness — is a great blessing . . .

. . . considering the alternatives. I.e. a ‘world’ far more brutal, fatal, less beautiful, more of a trap.

In the ‘exterior energy’ and manifestation, and when ignorance is strong, man makes never-ending mistakes. He tries to guide himself but what dominates him are his desires, his wants, his passions.

The ‘philosophy’ is based on ‘the law of karma’. Every choice, every action — in a world of cause and effect — entails a karmic cost. And everywhere there are ‘traps set’ which embroil people in karmic chains. The object, then, is to avoid karmic traps.

The philosophy states that, certainly, there is both a God (supreme being, Brahman) but ‘it’ is beyond direct knowing. Yet similarly to the irritating worm Immanuel, who says “God is revealed” in the intuitions of the prophets, in Vedic philosophy the same thing is stated: there are saints and seers (obviously I happen to be a very elevated, very patient one)(and no, I’d not have let you perform horrible acts upon your house pets!) who “see” and “intuit” the Knowledge about right living.

The essence of it is, naturally, in self-knowledge. And it is always stated, in all religious philosophies, that God is encountered on an inner level.

The Worm Immanuel fucks with you! And you are trapped because your only point of reference is a limited, binary Christianity.

It’s horrifying I know, but there are elements of truth in Immanuel’s apologetics. They have to be carefully winnowed out.

Whatever “God” is remains mysterious in the events of the day to day. And for those (like you I think, certainly Atla) who have “closed minds” any attempt to get you to consider another possibility causes you to keep the door tightly closed.

Conceptually then, there is no path to receiving that ‘glimmer’ by which Intelligence could make itself known and felt.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

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?

Because rape and murder, including infanticide are righteous when God says it is. Simples. Oooh, and, er, if you need a whack religion (and they're all whack) to give you 'morality', you lack empathy and compassion. All natural, not whack, morality starts there. Where evolution put it.

[promethean75]

"If there's a God, then it seems just as likely to me that God lets everything run on its own in this universe and doesn't intervene in everyday affairs or pick favorites."

Deism doesn't fly. Because god designed the material and the rules (laws of physics, chemistry, etc) by which this material behaves, his intervention is present at all times. Or put another way, god can not be an inactive agent in nature.

One reason why this erroneous idea exists is because of the illusory experience of freewill; it seems like we are free and compelled by nothing but ourselves... therefore, it is possible that a god created a universe and then walked away from it. My freewill is proof!

Religious thinking is, by and large, the activity of stacking erroneous ideas and fighting to avoid the logical problems and contradictions that result in doing so.

[Belinda]

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?

Because rape and murder, including infanticide are righteous when God says it is. Simples. Oooh, and, er, if you need a whack religion (and they're all whack) to give you 'morality', you lack empathy and compassion. All natural, not whack, morality starts there. Where evolution put it.

Immanuel Can and I ,each of us ,is biased and slightly stupified by our separate world views.

Immanuel's world view is that God is a real transcendent being, so IC cannot truly understand what is to view God as a concept and therefore wholly immanent.

My world view is ,since childhood ,strongly deterministic and so I cannot truly understand the word ' contingent'.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Religious thinking is, by and large, the activity of stacking erroneous ideas and fighting to avoid the logical problems and contradictions that result in doing so.

When that man who has gained true clarity about the real nature of things speaks, his assertions must clarify everything about man himself, this life, and all else. And the statement made will be free of erroneous ideas, logically coherent and without even a single contradiction.

Where is this man to be found?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

"If there's a God, then it seems just as likely to me that God lets everything run on its own in this universe and doesn't intervene in everyday affairs or pick favorites."

Deism doesn't fly. Because god designed the material and the rules (laws of physics, chemistry, etc) by which this material behaves, his intervention is present at all times. Or put another way, god can not be an inactive agent in nature.

One reason why this erroneous idea exists is because of the illusory experience of freewill; it seems like we are free and compelled by nothing but ourselves... therefore, it is possible that a god created a universe and then walked away from it. My freewill is proof!

Religious thinking is, by and large, the activity of stacking erroneous ideas and fighting to avoid the logical problems and contradictions that result in doing so.

If God were the ground of being, He would have no option as to the material and rules that He instantiates. There would be no design just as there isn't.

Freewill, whatever that is (God wouldn't have it for a start), could demonstrate deism how?

[MikeNovack]

(Rome being a totalitarian empire at the time). Do you really think the Romans would NOT oversee the assembly of the Bible to make God sound like a demanding emperor? How much of the Bible sorted through by the imperial clergy do you estimate is the truth about the creator of all that is?

Actually, Rome didn't do that (not during the first coupe hundred years of Christianity). Rome was trying to economically exploit its empire. Pretty much always at war somewhere, but with economic wars, can expect both sides to be rational, weighing costs. They tried at all costs to avoid religious wars since for religion, nobody counts the cost. Laws were strict protecting "religious freedom" which is what got the early Christians "persecuted". << not for BEING Christians but doing things like "witnessing" in the middle of some other religion's ceremony -- Roman authorities dealt with that VERY harshly as they did not want the offended sect taking to the streets to get revenge on Christians >>

This was a period where there was much competition for what would become "the religion" of Rome.

The big change came with Constatine (early 300's CE). Nicea, defining the official line of Christianity was during his rule.