Christianity

[Harbal]

A Humanist with a capital letter is a member of an organised group like Protestant or Jew. However I note you typed humanist, which is a different sort of category not an organised group.

I would also urge IC to take note of that principle concering Evolutionists and evolutionists, and I must admit that I wouldn't have much time for an organised group of Evolutionists, either.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Of course: wiggle, wiggle, wiggle.

I’ve begun to grasp your method and your lexicon! If one choses not to be led by you to a foregone conclusion managed by you — that is wiggling. You set a trap — then demand that your victim walk into it. What a hunter you are! The Elmer Fudd of PN!

Any answer that is not for you accepting entrapment is riding skyhooks into concept-contraptions far far above ‘reality’ which, as it happens, you also manage. I gather that is what this mysterious dasein must be.

You cannot proceed calmly and methodically in conversation even if one desires to cooperate with you (say speaking about my thoughts on Judaism, Jewishness, the so-called JQ, or about Israel and Zionism) and get resolutely flustered when foundations are established.

Finally, mercilessly! you pepper your prey with links to truly exacerbating diatribes on your personal arcana which one reads wishing one had long ago died ….

If I’ve missed anything let me know …

[Alexis Jacobi]

Watch it yourself and get back to us.

Holy Mother of God — is there more than one of you?!?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Sorry, no...not close.

Ok. But here’s your perfect chance: rewrite my paragraph and show me the correct formula.

"The correct formula" for what? For what you mean when you write "Christian" or "moral"?

I can't tell you what you think those things mean...and the statements about each are yours, not mine.

I can tell, you though, that you can "act" on all kinds of things you "believe," and that's not sufficient to make them "moral." Anybody can see that.

It's surprising that you didn't.

You are (as they say) “talking out your ass”. My definition was fine and it stands.

Thou knowest not apparently.

[Alexis Jacobi]

A Humanist with a capital letter is a member of an organised group like Protestant or Jew. However I note you typed humanist, which is a different sort of category not an organised group.

So the bastard didn’t tip at all. How proverbially cheap!

These are signs, Belinda, very clear signs!

[Alexis Jacobi]

… and I must admit that I wouldn't have much time for an organised group of Evolutionists, either.

Nor Enemists I gather.

[iambiguous]

Does God Exist?
William Lane Craig says there are good reasons for thinking that He does.

(VI) God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

Here, while I don't believe in God myself, I do believe this: that not only is God the best explanation of objective moral values, He is the only explanation.

Why? Because for most, God is said to be both omniscient and omnipotent. And how can an objective morality be predicated on anything less than that? If God knows everything, how can He not know which behaviors are moral and which are immoral? And if, in turn, He is omnipotent there is no question of being judged. Of being righteously rewarded or punished.

End of story for me. Unless, of course, I come upon an argument able to convince me that in a No God world mere mortals [very much lacking in omniscience and omnipotence] are able to establish definitive proof of which behaviors are necessarily good and necessarily evil.

In our experience we apprehend moral values and duties which impose themselves as objectively binding and true. For example, we recognize that it’s wrong to walk into an elementary school with an automatic weapon and shoot little boys and girls and their teachers. On a naturalistic view, however, there is nothing really wrong with this: moral values are just the subjective by-products of biological evolution and social conditioning, and have no objective validity.

Yeah, I agree with this too. In a No God world, there is nothing inherently or necessarily immoral about walking into an elementary school with an automatic weapon and shooting children and their teachers. Dozens and dozens of them. There's just no getting around this for the moral nihilists or the sociopaths. That I would never do something like this myself is basically construed by me to be a manifestation of dasein. There was always the possibility that had my life been different, I might have done something like that myself.

On the other hand, the gap between what I think I know here in regard to the interaction between genes and memes and "I" and all that there is to know about it is such that I would never go beyond acknowledging just how problematic human behavior is going to be from individual to individual to individual. And even that presumes human autonomy.

Thus...

Alex Rosenberg is brutally honest about the implications of his atheism here too. He declares, “there is no such thing as… morally right or wrong.” (The Atheist’s Guide to Reality); “Individual human life is meaningless… and without ultimate moral value.”; “We need to face the fact that nihilism is true.”. By contrast, the theist grounds objective moral values in God, and our moral duties in His commands. The theist thus has the explanatory resources to ground objective moral values and duties which the atheist lacks.

Sure, in believing this myself there is a part of me that finds it troubling. Disturbing. Scary even.

Still, while the theist does have God as his or her "explanatory" font, he or she then attaches that to Judgment Day. And many then go beyond grounding their own behaviors in one or another particular religious denomination, but also insist that others must subscribe to the same Scripture. Or else. So, it's the Christian or the Jewish or the Muslim or the Hindu or the Buddhist or the Shinto kami Commandments. Not to mention all of many, many other faiths.

Hence we may argue:

1. Objective moral values and duties exist.
2. But if God did not exist, objective moral values and duties would not exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Sure, you may argue that. Only arguing it and demonstrating it still remains the sticking point for those like me. And arguing that a God, the God exists is not even close to establishing that it is your God.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=186929

[Harbal]

Nor Enemists I gather.

I can't be bothered to pretend I know what you mean.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Nor Enemists I gather.

I can't be bothered to pretend I know what you mean.

I imagined myself on a roll. Best let it drop.

[Immanuel Can]

...there are a significant number of people who regard themselves as Christians, but do not see evolution theory as a challenge to their beliefs.

But, of course, that doesn't tell us anything. As you have said, most people live with unexamined worldviews; that being so, that they don't notice how Evolutionism, particularly in anthropogeny, would undermine their beliefs doesn't tell us it doesn't. It just tells us that they don't happen to notice how it does.

I see it more as their bowing to the inevitable.

Well, if it's "inevitable" that people believe lies, I guess it could be. Otherwise, no.

Evidence for evolution is only going to get stronger

That hasn't happened so far. I'm thinking it's going to start soon, either.

You should maybe read about the Piltdown Man fraud, just to know how far this thing can go.

I can only tell you why I would have objected to my children being taught Creationism. It's because I know that truth matters.

And how do you know Evolutionism is "truth"?

[Immanuel Can]

Ok. But here’s your perfect chance: rewrite my paragraph and show me the correct formula.

"The correct formula" for what? For what you mean when you write "Christian" or "moral"?

I can't tell you what you think those things mean...and the statements about each are yours, not mine.

I can tell, you though, that you can "act" on all kinds of things you "believe," and that's not sufficient to make them "moral." Anybody can see that.

It's surprising that you didn't.

My definition was fine and it stands.

No, it was lame. There isn't anybody with half a wit who would buy the idea that just because somebody believes some foolish or wicked thing, and then acts on it, he's behaving "morally."

That dog just won't hunt.

[Harbal]

Well, if it's "inevitable" that people believe lies, I guess it could be. Otherwise, no.

So evolution isn't a mistaken conclusion of research, it is a lie by scientists. And their years of university education and the effort they put into it were just for the purpose of being competent at lying to the public.

Evidence for evolution is only going to get stronger

That hasn't happened so far. I'm thinking it's going to start soon, either.

You should maybe read about the Piltdown Man fraud, just to know how far this thing can go.

How does one fraud, or even a hundred frauds, suggest that it is all a fraud?

And how do you know Evolutionism is "truth"?

I don't know at all that it's a truth, and very much suspect it of being an untruth invented by you.

[attofishpi]

True, the Orthodox Jewish notion of Moshiach is radically different from anything Christian so Jesus cannot be seen as that figure.

I am still genuinely interested in this, why would an Orthodox Jew not consider that Jesus was Moshiach?

Numerous reasons. One, they do not conceive it possible that god could would or does incarnate into a human person. This idea is inherently Greek and pagan. To the orthodox but really to even marginal Jews the man Jesus was deluded about himself.

1.
Judaism does consider the coming of the Messiah as a person, an 'annointed one', consideration of this entity as God incarnated in person form is irrelevant. (Jesus is not entirely considered God incarnate by many Christians, and I don't think he ever stated he was in the Gospels...not beyond probably saying something like the Father is in me, cas in certainly is in all of us GOD).

Two, Jesus opposed the entire construct that Judaism had become. He became an enemy of the state religion. He seemed to propose that ‘being a Jew’ in the established sense (i.e. seeing oneself as distinct and separate and exclusive) was counter to the will of god. Christian universalism was anathema to all that made a Jew a Jew.

2.
Perhaps Jesus opposed elements of what Judaism had become, I doubt he opposed ALL of its 'construct'. That Orthodox Jews believe that Judaism 'construct' at the time was PERFECT, and would not be criticised in any way by their Messiah is rather short sighted.

So Orthodox Jews believe any Messiah from God (who created ALL men) would be exclusive to them. (short sighted of them)

Jesus was opposed to the Jewish leaders who perceived him as a threat to their own power and authority, and rejected him in order to maintain their own position. (well, no wonder they convinced their flock to reject the Messiah, and here we are today, with the most daft of the Jews, the orthodox ones)

"Christian universalism" being an "anathema to what makes a Jew a Jew", by that you mean contrary to the tenets of Judaism?
Why? Does Judaism reject that the 'annointed one', the Messiah would not be a saviour in ANY way? (I say any because Christian Universalism is a recent Christian theology, so clearly not necessarily correct pertaining to Christ and his teachings.)

Moshioch is not god incarnated into man but an exclusive savior of the (true) Jewish people with a specific historical mission: to reestablish in a final sense the original mission of the Jews as defined by the Prophets. This involves the reconstruction of the temple in Jerusalem and renewal of Judaic sacrificial rites. Planning for this is on-going now.

3.
So let me get this right. Jesus, considered Christ and forming predominantly Christian nations, one of which assisted the Jews by assuring them a place to live, establishing Israel...and now these Jews ARE able to reconstruct the temple are still not satisfied that Jesus was the Messiah! Perhaps they were impatient and thought the Messiah was going to start laying stones and mortar (again, rather short sighted of them).

Jews who fall away from Orthodoxy in the strictest sense of Jewish mission, that is of gods mission for Jews (these are the same), thereby assimilate. Assimilation is death to that Jewish mission. So there is only one way to be a ‘real Jew’ and that is to re-assimilate with the belief and practice of genuine Jews (under god’s aegis).

4.
Pathetic arn't they, no wonder their Messiah was dissapointed (perhaps this explains why God hasn't had a chat with any of them for over 2000 years!)

Hang on! What's the "Jewish mission"?

[Belinda]

A Humanist with a capital letter is a member of an organised group like Protestant or Jew. However I note you typed humanist, which is a different sort of category not an organised group.

I would also urge IC to take note of that principle concering Evolutionists and evolutionists, and I must admit that I wouldn't have much time for an organised group of Evolutionists, either.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, if it's "inevitable" that people believe lies, I guess it could be. Otherwise, no.

So evolution isn't a mistaken conclusion of research, it is a lie by scientists.

Some of them, obviously. And the others...well, the propaganda just denies they exist. Rather like the holes in Evolutionism I've pointed out already, actually.

Science, like all fields, is susceptible to politicization, pecuniary concerns, public relations issues, and the prejudices of the people who hand out the label "scientific." And these inauthentic influences have to be called out and resisted, if real science is to go forward.

You could read Thomas Kuhn on this subject, actually. But there are plenty of examples. In fact, when Galileo had his famous little incident, his chief opponents were not "the Church" as the legend goes, but rather the Aristotelian "scientific" establishment (which the Catholics also supported, at the time). Galileo was really no heretic against God, as nothing he said actually contradicted the Bible; but he was a heretic against the Aristotelian and Ptolemaic traditions, and it was for that he was harassed. That's an illustration, though, of how hide-bound the tradition we call "science" can be, if it is allowed to become that.

All the more important, then, that we allow free rational criticism of any scientific theory.

Evidence for evolution is only going to get stronger

That hasn't happened so far. I'm thinking it's going to start soon, either.

You should maybe read about the Piltdown Man fraud, just to know how far this thing can go.

How does one fraud, or even a hundred frauds, suggest that it is all a fraud?

It doesn't. But one fraud, especially one like the PM fraud, clearly shows that what is declared "science," (or its synonym, "Fauci") is not necessarily actual science, or the truth. It may or may not be. But ideology is clearly very powerful in determining what the public is instructed to accept as "science."