Philosophy Now Forum

Why cannot you pick and choose to make your own version of Christianity?

Oh, I guess you can. Lots of folks pick and choose, mix and match.

Often, though, all that pickin' and choosin' and mixin' and matchin' leads to incoherent messes or to nuthin at all (fluff, no substance).

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 2:15 pm Is it proper for a free man to believe an institutional doctrine?

Generally: what's proper for a free man is what he chooses for himself (within the *context of his bein' a free man, of course).




*It's not proper, for example, for a free man to turn to slavin' as occupation, and it's not proper (or even possible, I think), for a free man to crave enslavement.

I added an edit to my last reply to you.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 2:19 pm Why cannot you pick and choose to make your own version of Christianity?

Oh, I guess you can. Lots of folks pick and choose, mix and match.

Often, though, all that pickin' and choosin' and mixin' and matchin' leads to incoherent messes or to nuthin at all (fluff, no substance).

You should have more self confidence. You write well and get a clear grasp of ideas.

henry quirk:

I'm sorry, I know I'm just an ig'nant deist, but, it seems to me, this...

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

...ain't got diddly to do with consciousness.

How you arrived at such a conclusion, well, I'd really like to hear how you got there.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

By owl of Minerva:

Okay. It is possible to have existence without self-consciousness. Two examples are nature and AI. Intelligence is ascribed to AI but not to nature, at least not by materialists. Self consciousness, rightly so, is not ascribed to either.

So your deity exists but he is not conscious, is that what you are saying? Or it is possible to believe without being conscious. To have consciousness while not being one with Consciousness is consciousness as a derivative. To be one with Consciousness Itself (different from having consciousness from something as a derivative) is to say: “I and My Father are One.”

Everything is derived from something. A materialist would say from matter. A non-materialist would say that is nonsense. The idea that the weak force is responsible for all the other forces, even electromagnetism is a bottom up rather than a top down view. if ‘I Am’ is first, that requires consciousness, otherwise the notion of ‘I Am’ would not make sense. That perspective I presume is what you, as a Deist, subscribes to. Correct me if I am wrong.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 2:21 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 2:19 pm Why cannot you pick and choose to make your own version of Christianity?

Oh, I guess you can. Lots of folks pick and choose, mix and match.

Often, though, all that pickin' and choosin' and mixin' and matchin' leads to incoherent messes or to nuthin at all (fluff, no substance).

You should have more self confidence. You write well and get a clear grasp of ideas.

So your deity exists but he is not conscious, is that what you are saying?

Not at all: my God is a person. But what does that have to do with the biblical passage? we're talkin' about what it means, yeah?

Again: you say this...

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

...has sumthin' to do with consciousness while I say it's simply a declaration of God's love.

I haven't claimed to believe the passage is true, or that it figures into my own deism.

Immanuel Can:

...consciousness remains the great unknown for all the disciplines.

That is true, so far as Materialist disciplines go, for sure. It's much more debatable in other disciplines. A lot of them...such as, say, psychology, sociology, theology, philosophy, the arts, politics, even some aspects of medicine...believe that consciousness is the fundamental entity they're working with.

Until there is light shed on it from whatever source, I would expect it will be physics,

I expect that will be the last discipline to discover anything at all about consciousness. Its dedication to Materialism is more enthusiastic than in some other areas.

...it is useless to engage in discussions about it,

Only for Materialists. But then, they've assumptively refused to consider consciousness as a real part of the universe; so that's to be expected. One can't seem much of anything one has simply unilaterally refused to see.

……………………………………………………………..

By owl of Minerva:

IC we finally reach a point where we can agree on something: consciousness. We are on the same page with that.

I would disagree on physics, they are not all materialists, in fact because of what they are finding out a few are having second thoughts. One, the founder of the worldwide web, has reluctantly raised the possibility that consciousness may be the origin and prime mover and that all that exists could be perceived as the equivalent of a great thought.

Materialists do consider consciousness, being conscious of their own existence they cannot very well ignore it. They see it as somehow derived from matter, from physical evolution, an end product of that process.

But you do not live under a regime that insists you believe one interpretation and one only. You are actually free to think for yourself. Me , telling an American his Constitutional rights!

There's some confusion here for you and owl.

I'm a deist, not a Christian: I'm not self-defendin'; I'm just defendin'.

As for constitutional rights: my rights come from natural law, not words on paper. The constitution is a codification (and not even a very good one). Abolish it and my rights remain.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 1:53 pm God loves us so much He died to redeem us.

That makes no sense.

Immanuel Can:

...consciousness remains the great unknown for all the disciplines.

That is true, so far as Materialist disciplines go, for sure. It's much more debatable in other disciplines. A lot of them...such as, say, psychology, sociology, theology, philosophy, the arts, politics, even some aspects of medicine...believe that consciousness is the fundamental entity they're working with.

Until there is light shed on it from whatever source, I would expect it will be physics,

I expect that will be the last discipline to discover anything at all about consciousness. Its dedication to Materialism is more enthusiastic than in some other areas.

...it is useless to engage in discussions about it,

Only for Materialists. But then, they've assumptively refused to consider consciousness as a real part of the universe; so that's to be expected. One can't seem much of anything one has simply unilaterally refused to see.

……………………………………………………………..

By owl of Minerva:

IC we finally reach a point where we can agree on something: consciousness. We are on the same page with that.

I would disagree on physics, they are not all materialists, in fact because of what they are finding out a few are having second thoughts. One, the founder of the worldwide web, has reluctantly raised the possibility that consciousness may be the origin and prime mover and that all that exists could be perceived as the equivalent of a great thought.

Materialists do consider consciousness, being conscious of their own existence they cannot very well ignore it. They see it as somehow derived from matter, from physical evolution, an end product of that process.

Immanuel Can to DAM wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:43 pm Drop the drama. it's sooooooo boring.

The Bible is full of drama, which you offer your interpretations of in a dramatic way. So, perhaps it's more accurate to say that any other drama is boring to you, as you are steeped in it, yourself.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:06 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 1:53 pm God loves us so much He died to redeem us.

That makes no sense.

Well, let's look at it thru a human example. I'd die to save my kid. Is that nonsensical?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:24 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:06 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 1:53 pm God loves us so much He died to redeem us.

That makes no sense.

Well, let's look at it thru a human example. I'd die to save my kid. Is that nonsensical?

But we're not talking about a human. We're talking about a supposed god. The problem is that people reduce this concept of a god down to the human level. It looks like a human, it talks like a human, it thinks like a human, and it does nonsense things like a human. Why would a god need to die to REDEEM that which that god supposedly created? It's nonsense! Rather, it's the small thinking of human beings trying to draw inspiration from and explain how a supposed 'holy man' in history was put on a cross, as often happened at that time to MANY people who caused trouble for those in power.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 1:57 pm As I reckon it: God doesn't require man's belief.

It may be, however, man requires God's.

'Man requires God's'? What do you mean?

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 2:15 pm Why cannot you pick and choose to make your own version of Christianity?

There aren't enough superstitions in the world? You have to make up your own?

Ah, blessed syncretism.