Philosophy Now Forum

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 12:56 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 10:46 pm

In the Gospel of John it is even more evident.

Where? I'd like to see your alleged evidence of that, because it's certainly nowhere obvious.

IC I want you to know that I will not proceed with posts of "proofs" and then "refutations".

Is that because the proof does not exist? Or are you expecting your interlocutors to accept your word on your sheer wonderfulness?

My point, which I do not want to get lost, is that syncretism, slight or significant, is unavoidable. And that it is not in se a bad thing. Though I do recognize that for you it very definitely is.

I don't agree, of course. Sycretism is an error to be avoided, not a thing to be cultivated. But I realize that the RC's have always viewed it otherwise.

...the substantial points I made in an earlier post were completely skipped over.

I saw nothing "substantial" that I skipped over, but if you'll point it out, I'll be happy to address it.

I marvel, though, that when I provided you with the specific dates of the Marian counsels, you didn't even flinch. Either you already knew that Marian theology is a recent invention, or you didn't, but didn't want to face it.

As you know I determined that you are a Evangelical Christian zealot (I mean this as an accurate and fair term without a negative connotation)...

Yes, yes...without negative connotation. I see.

Despite what you may surmise I have every intention of remaining polite. True, some of you intransigence in the psst became irritating, but the greater part of my pointed reaction was a sham.

The “proofs” for what I have recently stated very certainly exist. I’ve done enough research to know that what I presented is sound. True, I am exceedingly wonderful but I don’t expect anyone to accept anything because I assert it.

I am here to organize my own thoughts. I have a selfish modus operandi. I have said, and quite honestly, that I value your zealousness (as in Hebrew zealotry). Your conviction has that root. So why not take it as an affirmative compliment?

Syncretism poses a danger to fixed structures. I support for example tradicional Catholics (Rad Trads) in protecting their edifice. That was something that Rama Coomeraswamy emphasized in his book The Destruction of the Christian Tradition. Don’t mix’n’match. Honor the existing structure.

But my situation and position is what it is. I see what I see and therefore have to resort to my metaphysical survival strategy.

I saw nothing "substantial" that I skipped over, but if you'll point it out, I'll be happy to address it.

You saw nothing substantial. And therefore passed it over.

I marvel, though, that when I provided you with the specific dates of the Marian counsels, you didn't even flinch. Either you already knew that Marian theology is a recent invention, or you didn't, but didn't want to face it.

Those dates I was aware of. And I know, or believe I know, that Mary represents for man an aspect of God that is strongly absent in Judaism and naturally in Christianity. So the manifestation of it does not bother me. Catholics take Jesus saying to John: “here is your mother” in a far wider sense. But I personally understand that Mary and Jesus as psychic emblems may harken back to very ancient Egyptian stories (*pictures*) as Isis and Osiris. The “patterns” are established anciently. But the narratives reenact.

Again, it is not the Story but the meaning that is essential. If you recieve the Story but forego the meaning — you’ve missed the mark.

Yes, yes...without negative connotation. I see.

Let me ask you: do you see or do you not see why you will necessarily be perceived as a zealot?

And you certainly are an Evangelical Christian (Non-Denominational).

And I say it without ascribing negative value. Zealotry has a purpose. Or can be a valid modus.

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 8:27 pm ...

Please, Dubious, please! Can we not reason together?!?

iam,

Your wedge-drivin' didn't work. This (old, hackneyed) strategy (of yours) won't work either. But -- okay -- let's give it another go...

"national humanities center"

Never heard of it: not my go-to for diddly.

"I'm just "befuzzled" by how he actually connects the dots here between God and these things."

It's not complicated.

'As I've said across multiple threads (including this one, as I recall), man, any man, every man, any where or when, has an intuitive understanding that his life, liberty, and property are his and his alone. In a world overflowing with differing cultures and conflicts, differing environments and adaptive tricks for surviving them, this simple intuitive understanding stands coherently when all mores and laws rise and fall away. If this intuitive understanding were simply a kind of survival trait then one would expect, over the long haul, it would have been bred out of at least some populations. It never has been. Even in societies founded on deference to authority, men still take offense at being used as property. *The consistency of this intuitive understanding, even as attempts are made to squelch it, to mebbe breed it out of mankind, has a lot to do with my being a deist. I didn't, as one dumb sob, asserts over and over, 'take a leap of faith'. I deduced from available fact.'

*other evidences: the (becoming hard to ignore) fact that mind is not the product of brain, and the reality of libertarian free will

"all Deists should be more rather than less in sync about them?"

Nope.

"henry the Deist applies his God-given mind to "life, liberty, and property" in particular. And it doesn't matter whether the moral conflagration revolves around abortion or guns or human sexuality, only his own arrogant understanding of what those things are ever counts in any discussion with anyone."

No. I recognize, as you (admit it or not) do, what is apparent: every man, any man, any where or when, has a natural, inalienable, and -- yes -- God-given -- right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property.

How this touches on your hot button topics...

Abortion is killing a person. Most of the time it's also flat out murder. The chick you knocked up, 'Mary', had no claim on the person she knowingly, willingly, brought into the world. She had a responsibility to him. Instead, she murdered him for convenience sake. You aided and abetted her in an unjust killing. Oh, sure, you raised some token protest, 'John', but -- in the end -- you didn't defend your child.

Guns are property. If you do no wrong, then no one has a right to take your revolver. You're not obligated to own property, or to keep it. But, if you've deprived no soul of life, liberty, or property: your property is no body's else business. Their fear of what you may do with it obligates you to nuthin' and morally empowers them to the sum of zero. It's innocent till proven guilty, not guilty till proven innocent. And, the State, as it looks to leash you, has no claim your revolver, your freedom, or 'you'. Give yourself over to the State's agents as you choose. But remember, as you climb aboard the boxcar, you chose it.

Sexuality, in all its myriad forms ain't no body's business (so, keep it that way and no one will have cause to come down you for wearing a sports bra under your three-piece or tradin' in your junk for a gaping wound you call your vagina). Incidentally: was it the horror of lettin' your own kid get butchered in-womb that drove you to the transvestite fetish?

yes, I made it all about you...just as you like it

-----

I'm waitin' for your responses over in your dasein thread.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 2:21 am...

@AJ: Life, the world, everything is bigger than any and all of us put together. No mortal can tame it. We must all eventually face the inevitable. I'd like to think that how we face it depends upon how we've lived it and what we've done during that time.

The only thing I have "against" you is your seemingly ready and enthusiastic embrace of all that can be dark and sinister in a human. When I said you were looking for sheep to "follow" you, you instead exclaimed that you were looking for sheep to "devour". When I offered you very early on to make peace with me and retire into old age to watch over the young, you said "no", that it was "war" between you and me. I seem to recall there being other examples, but they don't come to mind immediately. I can only give you a warning that you may be headed into dangerous waters. There may be something more out there or within us than we realize. I do that because I cannot wish the visions I have had on anyone.

The last time I was hospitalized I had shown up at the hospital weeping because I felt more alone and unloved than I had ever felt in my life. All I have ever pursued in life was a love to call my own, a woman, a companion in life. As I sat on the end of the hospital bed with tears pouring down my face more fervently than a Florida rain storm, the psychiatrist in charge decided to send me to a psychiatric ward (I had gone to a medical hospital). That night as I waited to be transported to a psychiatric hospital that had a bed opening, I went through the most horrible visions. They were visions of demons who were people I had seen in the news and media. People were killing and destroying people in the street below the room I was in. I saw brave yet innocent young people smiling and playing waiting to fight a war that might just as easily spell their deaths. I heard strange "music" ( if I can even call it that) in the background, just barely perceptible. It had an almost alien, perhaps demonic quality to it. They put an IV in me. I tore it out of my arm and bled on the sheets (that happened for real, it was not part of the visions). It was not the only night of horrible visions I had had. There had been others. And there were horrible visions I saw when my father recently passed away.

Anyway, I have not been able to forgive God or whatever runs the world for that night or any of the horror that has taken place in my mind. I had started that night with the greatest emptiness and loneliness in my heart seeking love and comfort somehow, somewhere. By the end of that night things had changed to absolute terror and horror. How can a benevolent creator--anything let that happen to me? It was the equivalent of mind rape. Mind rape is how I would describe it. That happened in 2017, if I recall correctly.

I wonder why I of all people had to experience that. I had never had a girlfriend in my life. I wasn't wealthy. I had never held a position of any real power over others in my many jobs. I had walked away from many positions of employment in which I perceived I was not doing anything for the good of anyone except making money for myself and those I worked with or managed the business. I had made mistakes in life and caused harm without realizing it, but I didn't perceive that I have ever intentionally done anything of significant evil. Why me? Was it simply because at the time I was agnostic and had been an atheist in the past?

It also made me wonder if those who commit the worst evils in this world, sending young people to their deaths in war in order to kill young people from somewhere else on a battlefield will ever experience something as debilitating as that. What about those bringing fentanyl into the drug trade, causing untold death and suffering? Will they ever experience something like that? Or was God punishing me for no other reason than I didn't "worship" him? How can I worship something like that?

You can make of it what you will. But I had those visions. I remember that experience. I will never forget what mental illness has done to me. I will never forget the once innocent joy it robbed me of and the smile that has forever been torn from my lips when I was first diagnosed.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 2:11 am The “proofs” for what I have recently stated very certainly exist.

Excelllent...but, erm...it seems you've forgotten to provide them again...

I’ve done enough research to know that what I presented is sound.

And we're to believe that, because you said so, right?

So why not take it as an affirmative compliment?

You're so funny. I don't know whether to be offended that you think I'd fall for that, or offended on your behalf, that you'd do something so transparent.

I guess I should be offended either way, but I just think it's hilarious.

Syncretism poses a danger to fixed structures.

No, syncretism is a threat to sound doctrine. The RC's have abundantly shown that. They've had to reverse their own declarations numerous times, in fact, all covered under the "developing doctrine" category, I guess.

I saw nothing "substantial" that I skipped over, but if you'll point it out, I'll be happy to address it.

You saw nothing substantial. And therefore passed it over.

So there was nothing. You couldn't point to one thing. I'm not surprised.

I marvel, though, that when I provided you with the specific dates of the Marian counsels, you didn't even flinch. Either you already knew that Marian theology is a recent invention, or you didn't, but didn't want to face it.

Those dates I was aware of.

So you know, then, that Mariolatry is entirely an RC fiction, composed over millennia, at the cost of frequently adding things that are simply not found -- or even hinted at -- anywhere in Scripture.

I'm beginning to see why you hope I'll take everything you say on your mere say-so. You seem to be quite used to bowing to the ecclesiastical authorities, regardless of how absurd and fictive their declarations get.

Yes, yes...without negative connotation. I see.

Let me ask you: do you see or do you not see why you will necessarily be perceived as a zealot?

Oh, so funny...so transparent. What would you respond, if I asked you, likewise: do you or do you not see why you will necessarily be perceived as a nothing but a poser or preening egotist if you don't provide evidence of wild allegations you make?

But that's the form of your own question. And that you think that you can run something like that by people and they won't notice just means that you grossly underestimate their intelligence or your own cleverness...or both.

I'm soooo amused.

Here we go again!!!

ME:

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 12:23 am

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 10:30 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 10:02 pmSeriously though, and just out of curiosity, where do you come down on IC's rendition of Christianity? Do you believe that one must accept Jesus Christ as one's personal savior in order to save one's soul?

And what of his claim that one can go beyond a leap of faith to the Christian God and in fact know that He does exist. Everywhere.

Have you watched any of his legendary videos? The one on "meaning" for example? This one: https://youtu.be/NKGnXgH_CzE

The one where the Christian Lady herself admits that her own belief in Christianity doesn't prove that Christianity is true.

It should be pretty clear by now, and you'd have understood if you had read a bit better what I write, that I *take the Christian cure* at another level.

I have recently been writing about this and yet all of it goes over your head.

Again, the only level that is of interest to me here revolves around the reason that, in my view, God and religion exist in the first place...

And that's because we all die and we wonder what happens to us then. And if we are able to believe that, yes, there is 1] an after life, 2] immortality and 3] salvation, what's behind that? For most a God, the God, their God.

Then the part that revolves around connecting the dots existentially between 1] the behaviors we choose on this side of the grave, 2] one or another God with one or another rendition of Judgment Day, and 3] convincing ourselves that we are going up and not down.

Religion in a nutshell. But then all that [to me] insufferably ponderous and pedantic "philosophical" stuff you love to pursue with those like Harry and IC. Up in the "spiritual clouds" in other words.

That didactic, scholastic, it's so deep that "for all practical purposes" it's meaningless academic or historical stuff/fluff that you have to convince yourself is over my head in order to convince yourself in turn that it's vital to discern even though to the overwhelming preponderous of the faithful it has virtually nothing to do at all with their own religious beliefs. Not even to those of the Northern European white stock.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 10:30 pmYou can only be what you are, or perform as I put it if you can carry out the act genuinely.

Hmm, whatever that means?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 10:30 pmLet me put it this way: If I were to come into contact with someone I really felt was living though their Christian understanding, and fully genuinely, I would likely find a way to put myself in their service.

And that would result in their own soul being saved...how?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 10:30 pmAs I have said a dozen times I do not have a clear enough definition of what this *salvation* is.

Of course! The definition of it!!

Start here: https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is ... s-wiz-serp

Then get back to us.

Then straight back up into those truly beloved conceptual clouds...

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 10:30 pmNot that I do not grasp the concept (or the picture). But it used to mean to be saved from The World. The World was the Devil's domain. And to be saved from that was to have purchased a ticket out of this realm to the realm of Heaven. And one took the train of Death to get there. Adios Mundo!

I do not *believe (much) in* the typical Evangelical declaration that exclaims *I've been SAVED!*

Again, what matters to me here is not what you or I or IC or others believe about these things but the extent to which, in coming down out of the philosophical/spiritual clouds, we can actually demonstrate that what we do believe about God is in fact true.

Truer than say what these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...believe.

Then whatever "for all practical purposes" this...

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 10:30 pmFor this reason I am far more classically Catholic, though not a Catholic, insofar as I believe that one's faith should blend with understanding and take form through activity. So in my conception one can *lose one's saved status* -- which idea is inadmissible for Evangelicals.

...might possibly mean.

And then to deepen the mystery further...

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 10:30 pmMy relationship to all this stuff is obviously somewhat bizarre. But there is so much of tremendous value within this nexus and I do see it as being (often) on a higher level than other traditions. It is ours though. And through it we have come to be. We have to honor it (is the ethical injunction) and not toss it out.

Uh, if you say so?




By the way, and also just out of curiosity, this new character Wizard22...is he Satyr? I've only read a few of his posts, and I'm terrible at figuring these things out, but that did pop into my head. Or, is he possibly a character that you invented yourself here. Like the characters -- Lyssa etc. -- that Satyr invented over at KT.

Unless of course you are Satyr too. I wouldn't put you past him.

HIM:

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 1:05 am Well, Iambiguous, you know where you stand and you've made it clear enough.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 11:15 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 2:56 am Have you considered that it is 'this way' of LOOKING AT, THINKING ABOUT, and SEEING 'things', which could be contributing to your OWN depression here?

My depression has nothing to do with "black or white thinking".

I KNOW.

And, what I was NOT ASKING ANY 'thing' ABOUT 'that' EITHER.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 11:15 pm My depression has to do with coming to the realization that there is little if anything that I can contribute to life on Earth and it's only a matter of what I can take from it.

Life, AND earth, have done and will do JUST FINE without you contributing ANY 'thing'.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 11:15 pm I have come to the conclusion that getting out of this world is what I must achieve.

When you say, 'must achieve', do you mean like you have NO CHOICE?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 11:15 pm And that goal conflicts with every desire and instinct I possess.

¯\_(*_*)_/¯

Having 'a goal', which CONFLICTS with absolutely EVERY desire and instinct you possess, seems VERY SELF-CONTRADICTORY, to me.

WHY do you have A 'goal', which CONTRADICTS with what you WANT and DESIRE?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 12:23 am

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 10:30 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 10:02 pmSeriously though, and just out of curiosity, where do you come down on IC's rendition of Christianity? Do you believe that one must accept Jesus Christ as one's personal savior in order to save one's soul?

And what of his claim that one can go beyond a leap of faith to the Christian God and in fact know that He does exist. Everywhere.

Have you watched any of his legendary videos? The one on "meaning" for example? This one: https://youtu.be/NKGnXgH_CzE

The one where the Christian Lady herself admits that her own belief in Christianity doesn't prove that Christianity is true.

It should be pretty clear by now, and you'd have understood if you had read a bit better what I write, that I *take the Christian cure* at another level.

I have recently been writing about this and yet all of it goes over your head.

Again, the only level that is of interest to me here revolves around the reason that, in my view, God and religion exist in the first place...

And that's because we all die and we wonder what happens to us then.

NOT ALL of 'us' wonder here as some of 'us' ALREADY KNOW, EXACTLY, WHAT HAPPENS.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 12:23 am And if we are able to believe that, yes, there is 1] an after life, 2] immortality and 3] salvation, what's behind that? For most a God, the God, their God.

Then the part that revolves around connecting the dots existentially between 1] the behaviors we choose on this side of the grave, 2] one or another God with one or another rendition of Judgment Day, and 3] convincing ourselves that we are going up and not down.

Religion in a nutshell. But then all that [to me] insufferably ponderous and pedantic "philosophical" stuff you love to pursue with those like Harry and IC. Up in the "spiritual clouds" in other words.

The ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE ANSWERS to ALL QUESTIONS here are ACTUALLY VERY EASY and VERY SIMPLE to UNDERSTAND, and KNOW. One just NEEDS to be PREPARED to CHANGE, FROM their current VIEWS and BELIEFS.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 12:23 am That didactic, scholastic, it's so deep that "for all practical purposes" it's meaningless academic or historical stuff/fluff that you have to convince yourself is over my head in order to convince yourself in turn that it's vital to discern even though to the overwhelming preponderous of the faithful it has virtually nothing to do at all with their own religious beliefs. Not even to those of the Northern European white stock.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 10:30 pmYou can only be what you are, or perform as I put it if you can carry out the act genuinely.

Hmm, whatever that means?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 10:30 pmLet me put it this way: If I were to come into contact with someone I really felt was living though their Christian understanding, and fully genuinely, I would likely find a way to put myself in their service.

And that would result in their own soul being saved...how?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 10:30 pmAs I have said a dozen times I do not have a clear enough definition of what this *salvation* is.

Of course! The definition of it!!

Start here: https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is ... s-wiz-serp

Then get back to us.

Taking the first non sponsored definition, then what are you MISSING here?

That definition FITS IN, PERFECTLY, with the way I VIEW and SEE 'things' here.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 12:23 am Then straight back up into those truly beloved conceptual clouds...

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 10:30 pmNot that I do not grasp the concept (or the picture). But it used to mean to be saved from The World. The World was the Devil's domain. And to be saved from that was to have purchased a ticket out of this realm to the realm of Heaven. And one took the train of Death to get there. Adios Mundo!

This here appears to be, at first glance anyway, a Truly VERY TWISTED and DISTORTED view of 'things'.

But then so was MOST of what these human beings 'viewed' and 'saw', back then.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 12:23 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 12:23 am I do not *believe (much) in* the typical Evangelical declaration that exclaims *I've been SAVED!*

Again, what matters to me here is not what you or I or IC or others believe about these things but the extent to which, in coming down out of the philosophical/spiritual clouds, we can actually demonstrate that what we do believe about God is in fact true.

I FOUND that FINDING OUT what IS ACTUALLY True, Right, AND Correct FIRST, BEFORE even BEGINNING TO START ASSUMING or BELIEVING ANY 'thing' FAR MORE SIMPLER, EASIER, AND an ACCURATE WAY of LOOKING AT and SEEING 'things'.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 12:23 am Truer than say what these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...believe.

Then whatever "for all practical purposes" this...

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 10:30 pmFor this reason I am far more classically Catholic, though not a Catholic, insofar as I believe that one's faith should blend with understanding and take form through activity. So in my conception one can *lose one's saved status* -- which idea is inadmissible for Evangelicals.

...might possibly mean.

And then to deepen the mystery further...

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 10:30 pmMy relationship to all this stuff is obviously somewhat bizarre. But there is so much of tremendous value within this nexus and I do see it as being (often) on a higher level than other traditions. It is ours though. And through it we have come to be. We have to honor it (is the ethical injunction) and not toss it out.

Uh, if you say so?

"alexis jacobi" is, OBVIOUSLY, just ANOTHER human being who BELIEVES that 'its' CHOSEN religion and VIEWS are MORE SUPERIOR than "others" are.

"alexis jacobi" is just SHOWING and PROVING how, the majority of adult human beings back in the days when this was being written, REALLY thought and BELIEVED.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 12:23 am By the way, and also just out of curiosity, this new character Wizard22...is he Satyr? I've only read a few of his posts, and I'm terrible at figuring these things out, but that did pop into my head. Or, is he possibly a character that you invented yourself here. Like the characters -- Lyssa etc. -- that Satyr invented over at KT.

Unless of course you are Satyr too. I wouldn't put you past him.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 12:56 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 10:46 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 9:58 pm St Paul, who very significantly defined Christianity, syncretized into it Neo-Platonist concepts.

That's incorrect, actually. Christianity is not Platonic. It has no such thing as, for instance, a realm of ideal forms, and it's not gnostic about physical reality in the ways Platonism is. In fact, you can find direct repudiations of gnostic beliefs in places like Colossians, where the explicity vocabulary they used is repudiated.

In the Gospel of John it is even more evident.

Where? I'd like to see your alleged evidence of that, because it's certainly nowhere obvious.

IC I want you to know that I will not proceed with posts of "proofs" and then "refutations".

WHY?

Is it BECAUSE you can NOT provide EITHER?

Or is this some OTHER reason?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 12:56 am It would not matter to you if evidence could be brought forward that the Fourth Gospel and the ideas and conceptions of St Paul were significantly influenced by Greek thought (and thus neo-Platonism) since your ideas are fixed where they are.

you here are NOT 'trying to' suggest that your views/ideas are NOT fixed?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 12:56 am You would find a way to refute any insinuation.

What can be CLEARLY SEEN here is that these people, back then, REALLY did NOT YET KNOW what 'proof' ACTUALLY IS, nor MEANS.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 12:56 am I read CH Dodd's Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel and also his work The Johannine Epistles where he lays out that the author of John had a mind significantly infused with Hermetic ideas. It is entirely normal. One begins from the point where one begins.

What we SEE here is just ANOTHER one who will quote "SOMEONE ELSE" when their OWN views/ideas align with that "OTHER", and then 'TRY TO' to CLAIM that that "OTHER" has some sort of AUTHORITY OVER what is ACTUALLY Right or True, in Life.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 12:56 am I did not say that *Christianity is Platonic* but I definitely say that the Platonic lens, or the philosophical and idea-content in Platonism was infused into Christianity. And it started quite early.

I know, from long experience (!) that it is impossible to argue against your fixed ideas. So let's leave it there.

Are you even YET AWARE that it is IMPOSSIBLE to argue against your OWN fixed ideas AS WELL?

Or, LOL, are you under some sort of ILLUSION that your OWN 'fixed ideas' are somehow and/or somewhat OPEN?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 12:56 am My point, which I do not want to get lost, is that syncretism, slight or significant, is unavoidable. And that it is not in se a bad thing. Though I do recognize that for you it very definitely is.

Sorry, it was my error to make it seem like I was interested in debate.

And I notice, again, that the substantial points I made in an earlier post were completely skipped over.

As you know I determined that you are a Evangelical Christian zealot (I mean this as an accurate and fair term without a negative connotation), that you have specific ideas that cannot be deviated from, and I see no advantage in rehearsing all that again!

I will continue talking *around* all of that to elucidate my own strategies in regard to hard orthodoxies.

Do you have ANY specific ideas that can NOT be deviated FROM "alexis jacobi"?

Or, are you OPEN?

Oh, and by the way, your REFUSAL to ANSWER this QUESTION, OPENLY and Honestly, WILL PROVE just how CLOSED you REALLY ARE.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 1:30 am

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 12:56 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 10:46 pm Where? I'd like to see your alleged evidence of that, because it's certainly nowhere obvious.

IC I want you to know that I will not proceed with posts of "proofs" and then "refutations".

Is that because the proof does not exist? Or are you expecting your interlocutors to accept your word on your sheer wonderfulness?

One could ASK you the EXACT SAME TWO QUESTIONS "immanuel can".

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 1:30 am

My point, which I do not want to get lost, is that syncretism, slight or significant, is unavoidable. And that it is not in se a bad thing. Though I do recognize that for you it very definitely is.

I don't agree, of course. Sycretism is an error to be avoided, not a thing to be cultivated. But I realize that the RC's have always viewed it otherwise.

...the substantial points I made in an earlier post were completely skipped over.

I saw nothing "substantial" that I skipped over, but if you'll point it out, I'll be happy to address it.

I marvel, though, that when I provided you with the specific dates of the Marian counsels, you didn't even flinch. Either you already knew that Marian theology is a recent invention, or you didn't, but didn't want to face it.

It is VERY FUNNY and HUMOROUS to WATCH and OBSERVE two so-called "christians" ARGUING and FIGHTING OVER, REALLY, NOTHING AT ALL. So, one could imagine just how QUICK these people, BACK THEN, would end up physically fighting, and even KILLING "each other", over 'things' that were, apparently, somewhat important.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 1:30 am

As you know I determined that you are a Evangelical Christian zealot (I mean this as an accurate and fair term without a negative connotation)...

Yes, yes...without negative connotation. I see.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 2:11 am Despite what you may surmise I have every intention of remaining polite.

CONDESCENDING, but polite. LOL

It is just a coincidence that the two posters here who CONDESCEND the most may well the two biggest so-called "christian" BELIEVERS?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 2:11 am True, some of you intransigence in the psst became irritating, but the greater part of my pointed reaction was a sham.

The “proofs” for what I have recently stated very certainly exist.

So, WHY do you NOT just PRESENT 'the proofs'. THEN absolutely NO one could REFUTE NOR REFUSE 'them', OBVIOUSLY.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 2:11 am I’ve done enough research to know that what I presented is sound.

But what is 'sound' may NOT be necessarily 'valid'.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 2:11 am True, I am exceedingly wonderful but I don’t expect anyone to accept anything because I assert it.

Are you MORE wonderful than "immanuel can" IS?

If yes, then you do IMAGINE "immanuel can" would agree with you?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 2:11 am I am here to organize my own thoughts. I have a selfish modus operandi. I have said, and quite honestly, that I value your zealousness (as in Hebrew zealotry). Your conviction has that root. So why not take it as an affirmative compliment?

Syncretism poses a danger to fixed structures. I support for example tradicional Catholics (Rad Trads) in protecting their edifice. That was something that Rama Coomeraswamy emphasized in his book The Destruction of the Christian Tradition. Don’t mix’n’match. Honor the existing structure.

Wanting to protect False, Wrong, or Incorrect BELIEFS, like you want to here, is a Truly ABSURD and STUPID 'thing' to want. But you would NOT be ABLE TO SEE 'this' YET, and this is because of what you currently BELIEVE is true.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 2:11 am But my situation and position is what it is.

And which you will NOT deviate FROM, correct?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 2:11 am I see what I see and therefore have to resort to my metaphysical survival strategy.

LOL Talk about ABSURDITY in the EXTREME.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 2:11 am

I saw nothing "substantial" that I skipped over, but if you'll point it out, I'll be happy to address it.

You saw nothing substantial. And therefore passed it over.

So what? WHY do you NOT just PRESENT what 'it' is that you are COMPLAINING OVER here?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 2:11 am

I marvel, though, that when I provided you with the specific dates of the Marian counsels, you didn't even flinch. Either you already knew that Marian theology is a recent invention, or you didn't, but didn't want to face it.

Those dates I was aware of. And I know, or believe I know, that Mary represents for man an aspect of God that is strongly absent in Judaism and naturally in Christianity. So the manifestation of it does not bother me. Catholics take Jesus saying to John: “here is your mother” in a far wider sense. But I personally understand that Mary and Jesus as psychic emblems may harken back to very ancient Egyptian stories (*pictures*) as Isis and Osiris. The “patterns” are established anciently. But the narratives reenact.

Again, it is not the Story but the meaning that is essential. If you recieve the Story but forego the meaning — you’ve missed the mark.

And what the two of you ARE DOING here is 'missing the mark', AND, literally, 'missing the mark' about what 'missing the mark' ACTUALLY MEANS and refers TO, EXACTLY.

But do NOT feel alone here as EVERY other adult human being, in the days when this is being written, is ALSO, literally, 'MISSING THE MARK'.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 2:11 am

Yes, yes...without negative connotation. I see.

Let me ask you: do you see or do you not see why you will necessarily be perceived as a zealot?

And you certainly are an Evangelical Christian (Non-Denominational).

And I say it without ascribing negative value. Zealotry has a purpose. Or can be a valid modus.

WHY are so-called "christians" SO QUICK to JUDGE "others", especially when what is TAUGHT ABOUT JUDGING "others", especially in "christianity", is, SURELY, ALREADY WELL KNOWN?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 2:30 am iam,

Your wedge-drivin' didn't work. This (old, hackneyed) strategy (of yours) won't work either. But -- okay -- let's give it another go...

"national humanities center"

Never heard of it: not my go-to for diddly.

"I'm just "befuzzled" by how he actually connects the dots here between God and these things."

It's not complicated.

'As I've said across multiple threads (including this one, as I recall), man, any man, every man, any where or when, has an intuitive understanding that his life, liberty, and property are his and his alone.

This is OBVIOUSLY NOT absolutely Correct AT ALL. But which you will continue to REFUSE to LOOK AT, DISCUSS, and ACKNOWLEDGE.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 2:30 am In a world overflowing with differing cultures and conflicts, differing environments and adaptive tricks for surviving them, this simple intuitive understanding stands coherently when all mores and laws rise and fall away.

LOL
LOL
LOL

you are MORE DELUDED than first REALIZED "henry quirk".

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 2:30 am If this intuitive understanding were simply a kind of survival trait then one would expect, over the long haul, it would have been bred out of at least some populations. It never has been. Even in societies founded on deference to authority, men still take offense at being used as property. *The consistency of this intuitive understanding,

LOL
LOL
LOL

Just because you, INDIVIDUALLY, BELIEVE and call 'this' 'intuitive understanding' does NOT necessarily mean it is so.

So, how about you provide ACTUAL PROOF of this CLAIM of yours here.

I have ALREADY SHOWN HOW and WHY your CLAIM is Wrong AND Incorrect, BUT you REFUSE to DISCUSS.

WHY is this so?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 2:30 am even as attempts are made to squelch it, to mebbe breed it out of mankind, has a lot to do with my being a deist. I didn't, as one dumb sob, asserts over and over, 'take a leap of faith'. I deduced from available fact.'

LOL
LOL
LOL

you are just ANOTHER who BELIEVES some 'thing' that could NOT even be REMOTELY POSSIBLY True. But YET here we are you BELIEVING BOTH the logically AND the physically IMPOSSIBLE.

But this IS the power of BELIEF, itself.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 2:30 am *other evidences: the (becoming hard to ignore) fact that mind is not the product of brain, and the reality of libertarian free will

"all Deists should be more rather than less in sync about them?"

Nope.

"henry the Deist applies his God-given mind to "life, liberty, and property" in particular. And it doesn't matter whether the moral conflagration revolves around abortion or guns or human sexuality, only his own arrogant understanding of what those things are ever counts in any discussion with anyone."

No. I recognize, as you (admit it or not) do, what is apparent: every man, any man, any where or when, has a natural, inalienable, and -- yes -- God-given -- right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property.

'you' are SO BLIND here "henry quirk" that what you SAY and CLAIM here is HILARIOUS to WATCH and OBSERVE.

But PLEASE CONTINUE, 'you' ARE PROVING MY CLAIMS IRREFUTABLY True.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 2:30 am How this touches on your hot button topics...

Abortion is killing a person. Most of the time it's also flat out murder. The chick you knocked up, 'Mary', had no claim on the person she knowingly, willingly, brought into the world. She had a responsibility to him. Instead, she murdered him for convenience sake. You aided and abetted her in an unjust killing. Oh, sure, you raised some token protest, 'John', but -- in the end -- you didn't defend your child.

This here was TYPICAL of the adult human being, when this was being written. That is; what I think or BELIEVE is true I WILL CLAIM is true, and ANY one who thinks or BELIEVES otherwise is the one who IS wrong AND incorrect.

The STUPIDITY and ABSURDITY of this speaks for itself. YET absolutely EVERY adult, back then, thought and misbehaved this way.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 2:30 am Guns are property. If you do no wrong, then no one has a right to take your revolver.

According to your "logic" here, the Fact that you DO DO Wrong MEANS that 'we' DO have a right to take THAT revolver AWAY FROM you, correct?

Or, is 'it' DIFFERENT WHEN 'it' INVOLVES 'you', "henry quirk"?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 2:30 am You're not obligated to own property, or to keep it. But, if you've deprived no soul of life, liberty, or property: your property is no body's else business.

AGAIN, you are just providing MORE REASONS WHY 'we' NEED to TAKE AWAY 'that', which you LAUGHABLY CLAIM 'is yours'.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 2:30 am Their fear of what you may do with it obligates you to nuthin' and morally empowers them to the sum of zero. It's innocent till proven guilty, not guilty till proven innocent.

But you have ALREADY PROVEN to be GUILTY. So, 'we' can NOT do what 'we' WANT WITH 'you', right? Well ACCORDING to your "logic" this IS right.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 2:30 am And, the State, as it looks to leash you, has no claim your revolver, your freedom, or 'you'.

Here your DELUSION SHINES BRIGHT, ONCE AGAIN.

you have ALREADY BEEN 'leashed', you just do NOT YET RECOGNIZE this Fact. Or, more correctly, you RECOGNIZE this Fact but just REFUSE to AGREE WITH 'It' and ACCEPT 'It'

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 2:30 am Give yourself over to the State's agents as you choose. But remember, as you climb aboard the boxcar, you chose it.

Sexuality, in all its myriad forms ain't no body's business (so, keep it that way and no one will have cause to come down you for wearing a sports bra under your three-piece or tradin' in your junk for a gaping wound you call your vagina).

So, me, and/or "others" can have sex with 'that one' who is married to you or with that one you call 'your child' or maybe if with your FORCED 'pet animals' and it is NONE Of your business, correct?

Or, if it IS, then WHY do you SAY and CLAIM Truly ABSURD and STUPID 'things' like you JUST DID here above?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 2:30 am Incidentally: was it the horror of lettin' your own kid get butchered in-womb that drove you to the transvestite fetish?

LOL WHY do SO MANY people who live in a PARTICULAR, and VERY PECULIAR, country and culture, HATE the killing a human body in a womb but would VERY WILLINGLY KILL a pregnant mother, and thus the human body within the womb, for just 'touching' 'their stuff' like a 'toothpick', for example?

The CONTRADICTION and HYPOCRISY here is just SO BLATANTLY OBVIOUS, YET those people can NOT SEE 'it'.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 2:30 am yes, I made it all about you...just as you like it

-----

I'm waitin' for your responses over in your dasein thread.

We are ALSO WAITING for 'your' responses "henry quirk". But 'you', people, back then, did have a VERY STRONG TENDENCY to RUN and HIDE.

But this was just the COMMON practice of the WEAK and INFIRM, as 'you' ARE "henry quirk". As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True by your Truly ABSURD and ILLOGICAL writings and BELIEFS above here, in this forum.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 10:25 pm I'm sorry...we're misspeaking to each other, perhaps. What I'm saying is that Christianity was not invented by Constantine, nor did Constantine take over Christianity in 312. Rather, he invented his own new thing -- an illegitimate hybridization of his own creation, which became known eventually as " Roman Catholicism, " part pseudo-Christian, but definitely Roman.
That is not Christianity, despite Constantine having stolen the word. It's Roman Catholicism.

I'm not in complete disagreement. I don't think there are many who believe Constantine created Christianity. The disparity between Constantine and what followed with all its Edicts and Councils is not the same as its pre-Constantinian edition. Having said that - and I know you won't agree - Constantine really didn't "invent" anything. Christianity reinvented itself once it became the official state religion having to reorganize itself amid all the frictions which followed whose official version was yet to be expounded by its Christian leaders. State religions, regardless of what its inner core teaches or once has taught, become the true ruling entities in any decision-making process. With all its additional layers, Roman Catholicism recalibrates as the secularization of Christianity.

Also, it was Paul himself who started the process of "Romanizing" Christianity by allowing for the inclusion of everyone in the empire. Without that long initial process and the attempted reconciliation of differences of which Paul, as denoted in his Letters, was very aware, the possibility of creating an ecumenical, organized church 300 years later with an ever-increasing power to rule, would not have been possible.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 10:25 pmWhat we can also safely say is that anytime religion and politics get together, it's a bad time for everybody else. Christianity is not a political project: and anybody who tries to use it for that purpose, from Constantine down to the present, is doing something Jesus Christ would never approve, nor would anybody who sincerely follows Him.

There is no disagreement here. I said plenty of times that Jesus - whether one believes Him to be god or not - would never have approved by what followed nor is it likely He would have condoned what Paul himself tried to accomplish.

It seems ironic that the New Testament order as now defined in the bible and so firmly believed in was itself part of the "Romanization" process.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 3:05 am

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 2:21 am...

@AJ: Life, the world, everything is bigger than any and all of us put together. No mortal can tame it. We must all eventually face the inevitable. I'd like to think that how we face it depends upon how we've lived it and what we've done during that time.

WHY would you think this?

AND, in what 'way' do you think one faces the so-called 'inevitable' when they have lived life in a particular way and what they have done during that time? Also, what are the different ways or doings?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 3:05 am
The only thing I have "against" you is your seemingly ready and enthusiastic embrace of all that can be dark and sinister in a human. When I said you were looking for sheep to "follow" you, you instead exclaimed that you were looking for sheep to "devour". When I offered you very early on to make peace with me and retire into old age to watch over the young, you said "no", that it was "war" between you and me.

But this is just the effect and a throw-back of FOLLOWING "christianity".

Just LOOK AT ALL the wars in the last century or so, from when this is being written. So-called "christian" countries/cultures just LOVE to SHOW their POWER OVER "others" and their BELIEF that 'they' ARE SUPERIOR and do have 'the right' to MURDER and KILL "others", even if they are completely and utterly Truly completely INNOCENT CHILDREN.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 3:05 am
I seem to recall there being other examples, but they don't come to mind immediately. I can only give you a warning that you may be headed into dangerous waters. There may be something more out there or within us than we realize.

What do you mean here by 'may be'?

There is OBVIOUSLY STILL a LOT MORE for 'you', human beings, in the days when this is being written, for 'you' TO LEARN and REALIZE.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 3:05 am
I do that because I cannot wish the visions I have had on anyone.

The last time I was hospitalized I had shown up at the hospital weeping because I felt more alone and unloved than I had ever felt in my life.

Now IMAGINE those who HAD/HAVE absolutely NO one who loves them, and HOW 'they' FEEL.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 3:05 am
All I have ever pursued in life was a love to call my own, a woman, a companion in life.

Here we have ANOTHER PRIME example of WHY these people, back then, NEVER came to FINDING the ACTUAL Truth of 'things'. The MORE or LONGER they TOOK to just SPEAK and TELL the ACTUAL Truth of 'things' was the VERY REASON WHY 'they' TOOK SO LONG to FINDING and SEEING the ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.

I suggest you speak THE Truth, THE WHOLE Truth, and ONLY THE Truth from now on "gary childress".

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 3:05 am
As I sat on the end of the hospital bed with tears pouring down my face more fervently than a Florida rain storm,

NEVER let the Truth get in the way of a 'good story' hey "gary childress"?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 3:05 am the psychiatrist in charge decided to send me to a psychiatric ward (I had gone to a medical hospital). That night as I waited to be transported to a psychiatric hospital that had a bed opening, I went through the most horrible visions. They were visions of demons who were people

LOL WHO else do you EXPECT are or even could be 'demons'?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 3:05 am I had seen in the news and media. People were killing and destroying people in the street below the room I was in. I saw brave yet innocent young people smiling and playing waiting to fight a war that might just as easily spell their deaths. I heard strange "music" ( if I can even call it that) in the background, just barely perceptible. It had an almost alien, perhaps demonic quality to it. They put an IV in me. I tore it out of my arm and bled on the sheets (that happened for real, it was not part of the visions). It was not the only night of horrible visions I had had.

One just has to watch television or the internet to SEE MUCH WORSE.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 3:05 am There had been others. And there were horrible visions I saw when my father recently passed away.

Anyway, I have not been able to forgive God

So you do now KNOW or BELIEVE that God does ACTUALLY EXIST, right?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 3:05 am or whatever runs the world

When you say, 'the world', what do you ACTUALLY MEAN and REFER TO, EXACTLY?

Also, WHY do you BELIEVE some 'thing' 'runs' 'the world'?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 3:05 am for that night or any of the horror that has taken place in my mind.

1. There is NO 'thing' that has 'its mind'.

2. There is ONLY One Mind.

Also, why do you feel that you are NOT able to forgive ANY 'thing' for what was OBVIOUSLY just SOME vision.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 3:05 am I had started that night with the greatest emptiness and loneliness in my heart seeking love and comfort somehow, somewhere.

Do you think, feel, or believe that there is NOT one, WITHIN, who CAN give love and/or comfort?

Also, what has LED you to SEEK love and comfort anyway?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 3:05 am By the end of that night things had changed to absolute terror and horror.

To me, sounds like you were just ACTUALLY watching the news/media IN REAL.

There was NOTHING MORE horrific than what "others" HAVE TO ACTUALLY ENDURE IN REAL.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 3:05 am How can a benevolent creator--anything let that happen to me?

LOL Talk ABOUT a PRIME example of just how Truly SELFISH and SELF-CENTERED the adult human being HAD BECOME, that is; back in those days when this was being written.

"If A Creator EXISTS, then how could 'It' let ANY 'thing' that I do NOT want HAPPEN TO me?" These people REALLY WERE so INFATUATED WITH "them" INDIVIDUAL 'selves'.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 3:05 am
It was the equivalent of mind rape. Mind rape is how I would describe it. That happened in 2017, if I recall correctly.

Oh 'you' 'poor thing' "gary childress", 'you' had an UNWANTED 'dream', or nightmare.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 3:05 am I wonder why I of all people had to experience that.

SO, 'you' could eventually come to a philosophy forum and TELL "others" how UNFAIR you feel you were treated and complain about how you feel you SHOULD HAVE BEEN treated MUCH MORE FAIRLY.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 3:05 am I had never had a girlfriend in my life.

WHO REALLY CARES?

And, IF you REALLY WANTED a girlfriend you could get one by the time it took you to finish reading this post of mine. But, OBVIOUSLY, you do NOT REALLY WANT one, or your CHOICE is just TOO LIMITED.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 3:05 am I wasn't wealthy. I had never held a position of any real power over others in my many jobs. I had walked away from many positions of employment in which I perceived I was not doing anything for the good of anyone except making money for myself and those I worked with or managed the business. I had made mistakes in life and caused harm without realizing it, but I didn't perceive that I have ever intentionally done anything of significant evil. Why me? Was it simply because at the time I was agnostic and had been an atheist in the past?

WHY do you KEEP INFORMING us here, in a philosophy forum, and 'HARD DONE BY' you feel?

Also, 'WHY ME?' could NOT come across as MORE OF 'a victim' even if you wanted to.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 3:05 am It also made me wonder if those who commit the worst evils in this world, sending young people to their deaths in war in order to kill young people from somewhere else on a battlefield will ever experience something as debilitating as that.

Well that IS 'you', "gary childress", AND people LIKE 'you'. It is people like 'you' who vote in people, in countries like the laughably called "united states of america", which ORDERS the WARS, which CAUSE the KILLING of the MOST children, who ARE the Truly INNOCENT of 'the world'.

Anyway that is NOT the 'evil' AND 'sinning' that ANY one should REALLY be WORRYING ABOUT.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 3:05 am What about those bringing fentanyl into the drug trade, causing untold death and suffering? Will they ever experience something like that? Or was God punishing me for no other reason than I didn't "worship" him? How can I worship something like that?

I will suggest you LOOK AT what 'you have done', or what 'you are NOT doing', instead of continually 'trying to' BLAME God for just WANTING to 'punish you' for NO real reason.

But PLEASE CONTINUE TO FEEL FREE to DO, or NOT DO, whatever 'it' IS that you WANT.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 3:05 am You can make of it what you will. But I had those visions. I remember that experience. I will never forget what mental illness has done to me.

What has 'mental illness' DONE TO 'you'?

And, who and/or what ARE 'you', in relation to or compared to 'mental illness', itself?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 3:05 am I will never forget the once innocent joy it robbed me of and the smile that has forever been torn from my lips when I was first diagnosed.

I will suggest that EVERY adult human being will NEVER forget the once INNOCENT JOY EVERY one HAD, sometime in childhood, AND WISHED they STILL HAD 'that joy'.