Christianity

[attofishpi]

Also very true! Unfortunately there are still too many remnants acutely infected with the operational memes of ancient times still alive who can't tell the difference 2000 years later.

Well, it truly resonated with me and my experience of God. When IC pointed out it was Nietsche I was surprised.

It's extremely unlikely that it was IC who pointed it out who regards Nietzsche, quote, as a weasel of no merit or influence. It was AJ who quoted it to which I replied. If IC did some time prior, I'd like to know where it is.

Well, cbf ..IC did point it out as Nietzsche but defiled it, as to be expected.

[Dontaskme]

What's your understanding of that incident, DAM? Is it that Christ is saying, "All children are without sin"?

My understanding is zero.

Apparently.

So now I've been honest. How about you share your understanding of that incident, that is if you have one, let's wait.

If I do not hear one, then I will assume you too have zero undestanding of that incident.

I simply pointed out a contradiction between what Matthew wrote and what you wrote about the nature of an infants behavior.

I simply stated that a child is born with innate morals, which is compatible with the christ mentality.

Then you went off on a rant about children being imps as if that was supposed to contradict what I was saying about them being born with innate morals.

Jesus said, “unless you CHANGE and become like little children, you will NEVER enter the kingdom of heaven.”

It seems you do not understand what you are talking about does it, if you do, then explain...don't just say, oh look DAM apparently has zero understanding. Yes, I have zero understanding of what you are talking about IC, unless you care to explain, instead of just agreeing with me I have zero understanding of your contradictive reply.

You IC make ridiculous claims and then expect me to sort them out for you. How about you untangle your own confusion and talk the talk, instead of using your usual trickery tactics to avoid the issue at hand.

[Lacewing]

The organization and qualities of life do not indicate a particular conclusion by human terms.

That was not the case with Oriental (Vedic) philosophy, and certainly not in early Occidental philosphy.

An ordered Kosmos predicated Order on all levels, right down to the roots.

True, we now live in a fragmented, falling apart understanding of the world (no unified view as far as I can tell) but that was not always the case and may not remain the case.

Perhaps I need to clarify: I'm suggesting that the organization and qualities we perceive in life may not be accurately understood/modeled by human ideas/conclusions (just as an ant has no awareness of the moon or its effects). For example, organic life instinctively knows how to adjust to surrounding conditions and reproduce. This could be happening on an immense scale that has nothing to do with any distinctive 'being' (who speaks/thinks like a human) who is putting it into motion or having a 'plan'. Rather, nature continually creates itself anew and uses countless languages throughout all creatures like a vibrant display and symphony of expression.

When considering this kind of perspective, the notions that have come from many religions seem grossly contrived and inadequate.

[Alexis Jacobi]

But sure, from experience God has intervened in at least my destiny. (affected my decisions)

In my view and strictly in my view our experience — in this case of something spiritual, something that intervenes — is deeply personal and by nature subjective. In a sense non-communicable. The experiences you have described are of that order.

There is no corresponding intervention by god in the life of a nation. And thousands of people, hearing of your experiences, would either go mute (politely say nothing) or perhaps see you and your experiences as a sign of derangement.

If you desire to, if it is your chosen predilection, you can (you are entitled, it stands within your power) to insist that your experience of god is a universal paradigm and describes “how the world is”. Yet you won’t get anything close to universal agreement.

I am not aware of “god’s intervention in history” as a recognized, agreed on, describable event. I am aware of biblical stories however where such ‘events’ are recorded.

All religious and spiritually-oriented people describe the intervention of something given various names in their personal life. After prayer, *answer*. After meditation, *decision*. After confusion, *sign* (omen).

I would never deny those experiences (and can refer to my own) but they are unintelligible to (say) Big Mike, Harbal, Iambiguous and many others. And without doubt though the validity of personal experience would politely not be denied you will not be able to demonstrate or convince them of an historical intervention by god in national history.

Or can you cite an instance so all who read it can examine it?

CG Jung lived out a life of a sheer, total mystic, dreamed ‘big dreams’ with profound resonances, engaged with himself at a level and with intensity that few match. But if god is responsible for that god then operates though the inner planes and very very strangely.

Uncertain what else to say. What definitive statement would you like to make?

[Agent Smith]

I borrowed a Bible, for 10 long years it sat on me shelf, never read it! One day a person who I was chatting with asks "are you Christian?"

[Alexis Jacobi]

None of that nonsense was in any Gospel

Oh but it is. God speaking about Jesus to an assembled group. God stating preferences and ‘being pleased’.

Directing Mary and Joseph to Egypt.

Mary’s pregnancy is supreme intervention in the world. A determining act by god.

All the movements of Jesus were determining decisions by an intervening god. The tending of the temple cloth. The later exile.

You deny instances of divine intervention in the Bible, affirm it for yourself, and oddly wish to present it as part of as assertion about how life really is universally.

What keeps BigMike from similar experience and of agreement?

[Lacewing]

If you desire to, if it is your chosen predilection, you can (you are entitled, it stands within your power) to insist that your experience of god is a universal paradigm and describes “how the world is”. Yet you won’t get anything close to universal agreement.

Agreed! We all have our own experiences. We all witness different things. Our potential perspectives/views are vast!

It may be strange to hear someone else's particular trip, but it's even more strange to see/hear anyone insist that they know a god that applies to everyone else. In fact, it's really quite bizarre that people do that but, apparently, we're still in a stage of humankind's development where we somehow tolerate that sort of thing.

I think it's kind of insane... because the immensity of the Universe seems surely far greater and more diverse than any human individual's particular experience can encompass.

[Dontaskme]

Morality does not come from believing in mythology.

We agree on that. But Christianity isn't based on myths, but on a historical Person.

But you don't know that either, just as you inform Harbal he doesn't know Oslo or birthing pangs... when the evidence is perfectly clear. Obviously a man doesn't know the feeling of birthing pangs, just as a woman doesn't know the feeling of a male erection. But that doesn't imply there is nothing to know about these things. Birthing pangs are a realtime experience, they exist and can be witnessed. So can male erections, so can Oslo be witnessed and known to exist as a realtime experience, these experiences are not imagined, or deceptions, they are real within the believing brains capacity to experience and make sense of an otherwise unknowing environment it is attempting to adapt to.

But you don't know. You assume (probably rightly) that you've seen birthing pangs, but don't know what they feel like. You only imagine them. You haven't been to Oslo, so it might possibly be a deception...you don't know.

I do not think you understand that all branches of human knowledge are a myth. All human knowledge is part of a neverending story, the manifestation of a believing brain that is unique in the sense it can turn words into a literal reality existing as if it was real. In reality, existence simply has no story to tell, except in this apparent illusory conception, mentally contructed by a physical brain. Notice no other creature on earth apart from humans make up stories about God or Jesus. And yes, apparently, so it seems, assumingly myths are real to the human senses, no one is denying that they are not real. Just as waking from a nightly dream feels as though the dream actually happened, and that it was very real, which it is, as dreams definitely are a real feature of human life. But notice, nothing really ever happens in a dream, and it's the same for existence.

All characters including God and Jesus exist within the human story, believed by the human brain. But that's all they will ever be, just beliefs that have been conceptually crafted by words that are about as empty as the blank space on which they appear to manifest as a story read.

[Lacewing]

All characters including God and Jesus exist within the human story, believed by the human brain. But that's all they will ever be, just beliefs that have been conceptually crafted by words that are about as empty as the blank space on which they appear to manifest as a story read.

Amen, sister! Let's dance!

[Dontaskme]

All characters including God and Jesus exist within the human story, believed by the human brain. But that's all they will ever be, just beliefs that have been conceptually crafted by words that are about as empty as the blank space on which they appear to manifest as a story read.

Amen, sister! Let's dance!

[Harbal]

I'm not sure why it's hard for you to understand the difference between talking about Atheism and talking about Atheists. But one is an ideology, and the other is a type of person. People often do irrational things, things that don't square with what they profess they believe. So there's no reason why an Atheist can't do something good...he just won't have any reason, on Atheism alone, to think it IS "good." Atheism offers no moral content.

I fully agree that atheism offers no moral content, but that has no logical consequence regarding the moral sensibilities of the atheist. You say the atheist has no reason to behave morally, which seems tantamount to saying one needs to believe in God to be genuinely moral. This is where I disagree with you, and question your honesty in making that assertion. Humans have an innate capacity for morality, it doesn't just spontaneously manifest itself in us if and when we take up religion. Moral attitude can no doubt be influenced by religion, but no more so than by the cultural environment we belong to. The USA is said to be a very Christian country, much more so than I had realised, but moral behaviour there does not seem to be particularly high.

[Harbal]

they exist and can be witnessed. So can male erections,

Indeed they can. The internet can be both a blessing and a curse.

Btw, save the next dance for me.

[Dontaskme]

they exist and can be witnessed. So can male erections,

Indeed they can. The internet can be both a blessing and a curse.

Btw, save the next dance for me.

[attofishpi]

None of that nonsense was in any Gospel

Oh but it is. God speaking about Jesus to an assembled group. God stating preferences and ‘being pleased’.

Directing Mary and Joseph to Egypt.

Mary’s pregnancy is supreme intervention in the world. A determining act by god.

All the movements of Jesus were determining decisions by an intervening god. The tending of the temple cloth. The later exile.

You deny instances of divine intervention in the Bible, affirm it for yourself, and oddly wish to present it as part of as assertion about how life really is universally.

What keeps BigMike from similar experience and of agreement?

What is this? You skew the context and operate by the same methods of deviation as IC!!

None of what you stated was what I had issue with, via your statements re the Gospels (it was the other shit that you removed)

Forget about it (in a NY Jewish accent)

[Dontaskme]

I'm not sure why it's hard for you to understand the difference between talking about Atheism

Which is talking about the idea held by a person there can be a disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God.

and talking about Atheists.

Which is a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God.


Same difference IC same difference, lets not complicate this, eh.

But one is an ideology, and the other is a type of person.

Yes, a type of person that is inseparable from the ideology that person is holding on to, so lets not complicate this IC, eh.

People often do irrational things, things that don't square with what they profess they believe. So there's no reason why an Atheist can't do something good...he just won't have any reason, on Atheism alone, to think it IS "good." Atheism offers no moral content.

What?

A person who openly admits to itself that it has no known knowledge that there is a God... aka a creator of all that exists, even though existence is without doubt or error, self-evidently so, no proof required. But can openly and honestly admit, that it simply cannot know anything about the actual ''Creator'' of what is already self-evident with no further requirement for proof. You know, it's one thing to know existence is self-evident...but to know how it is, or why it is, or who or what is/was responsible for it, or even to know when did this creator become the creator. Well in all truth and honesty, those questions are simply unknowable. Do you not understand that IC? The idea of a creator of all that is, is an irrational idea, because it implies division. It is simply unknowable and eternal without begining nor end. Division implies a begining and a begining implies an end, but what is infinitely eternal has no division.



And what on earth do you possibly mean by saying someone who openly admits it cannot know it's creator not think a good deed is indeed a good deed just because they openly admit they cannot know their creator? Huh! how the heck does that work IC

How does not knowing their creator have anything at all to do with knowing they are doing a good deed, and yet not really thinking a good deed has indeed occcured because atheism informs them that they have no reason to think their good deed is good? I mean what the heck does that statement even mean?

Really, IC, what the heck are you going on about, I mean talk about turning things like lables into utter confusion. It seems your personal rational reasoning capabilities are not very coherent are they, that even a child could understand. Why don't you make some rational sense please, that would be nice.

How can a mechanical biological machine like organism known as the human body know it's creator?

machines cannot know their creator ..that would be like saying a car or a boat can know it's creator.

Does my brain know it's creator? No, it's simply a fictional story pretending to be a ghost in the machine.

The body is functioning quite smoothly without the inference of human thought, mental activity overlayed upon it.