For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
I don't see many people selling all their possessions and giving the money to the poor. So there can only be a small number of Christians in the world.That’s the important question: which person who claims to be a “Christian” actually obeys what he/she has been told?
Look closer.
Well, Jesus Christ promised that, didn't He? He said,So there can only be a small number of Christians in the world.
The Qur'an reminds us that there is a “recognised right, for the needy and deprived” over our wealth (70:24-5), so by giving for the sake of others, a Muslim is fulfilling a duty to those in need and preventing him or her from becoming proud of their own generosity.
Traditional Jews commonly practice ma'sar kesafim, tithing 10% of their income to support those in need. Special acts of tzedakah are performed on significant days: At weddings, Jewish brides and bridegrooms would traditionally give to charity to symbolise the sacred character of the marriage.
Who are you refering to as a "troll"?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 11:23 pmAll that happens is that you give the trolls exactly what they want.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 11:03 pm For example, I'd have fed you to the lions months back! I have zero restraint.
Seems a bad strategy.
That's another personal attack.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 8:15 pm Notes & Comments
A troll is anyone who can’t or won’t play the game that IC has been performing here for years.
In his faith-mind — a mental structure infused with faith-based determinations — a sane and a rational man, if he were really rational, if he only examined the “evidence” — would become a Christian. Thus it is not thinkable thought that anyone would oppose him. But that means God himself. IC tells God’s truth. It is not IC talking but God. The only argument with God is one of rebellion. But when rebellion ends there is surrender.
Every knee will bow.
The “structure of mind” that IC has integrated with his self is that of a specific fanaticism. In this case a modern Christian variant that has many unique features. (There is much to say here but one interesting feature is it’s (this Evangelical Protestantism’s) subservience to Hebrew authority and that of a dual dispensation.)
It is not possible to argue against the position IC has — because it is God’s.
When people become frustrated with IC’s rehearsals many times they lose their composure (to one degree or other). They label him and see the ideas he has assimilated as the choices of a stubbornly committed man completely outside of philosophical parameters. Perhaps they label him fanatic or zealot and these terms are for IC — and they can only be such — ad hominem attacks. Instead of debating the ideas you are focusing on the man who has imbibed them. Except the ideas are not ideas that can be approached or resolved philosophically.
This forum is filled with “trolls” therefore since almost no one agrees to play according to IC’s rules. And note: it is a game.
Any people who resort to ad hominems, instead of sticking to the subject in hand. Some may do that out of sheer ignorance of what a fallacy is, but many do it out of a desire to provoke or distract from the subject matter in hand. Responding to them is just "feeding a troll."Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 6:14 pmWho are you refering to as a "troll"?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 11:23 pmAll that happens is that you give the trolls exactly what they want.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 11:03 pm For example, I'd have fed you to the lions months back! I have zero restraint.
Seems a bad strategy.
Well, it wouldn't be showing off. It would be verifying that you are a Christian as you claim.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 8:39 pmSomething else Jesus said, in the same Sermon on the Mount: when you give to charity, don't show off what you do.
Consider in relation to the critique I engage with the essay The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements:
CG Jung’s social and psychological analysis is especially useful, indeed necessary, to examine both the fanatic individual and the appeal of fanaticism.The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements (1951), by Eric Hoffer, is a philosophical treatise that explores the question of why ordinary people join mass movements and become fanatical devotees of what they perceive as a holy cause. Hoffer argues that prospective fanatics—the soon-to-be true believers—experience personal frustration so intense that their strongest desire is to lose their individuality altogether by surrendering to something greater than themselves. Mass movements exploit this frustration by offering true believers an escape from personal responsibility. Furthermore, the precise nature of the mass movement—its doctrines, objectives, and programs—means little compared to its ability to attract and mold fanatics by offering them refuge from an unwanted self. The True Believer was a critical success upon publication and has remained a famous work on the nature and psychology of mass movements ever since. In 1983, President Ronald Reagan conferred on Hoffer the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Why are you concerned if IC follows or does not follow those teachings understood to be Christian?phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 8:46 pmWell, it wouldn't be showing off. It would be verifying that you are a Christian as you claim.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 8:39 pmSomething else Jesus said, in the same Sermon on the Mount: when you give to charity, don't show off what you do.
Otherwise, how do we know?
You know because of what so many Christians have done, but for which they asked nothing and about which they did not congratulate themselves.phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 8:46 pmWell, it wouldn't be showing off. It would be verifying that you are a Christian as you claim.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 8:39 pmSomething else Jesus said, in the same Sermon on the Mount: when you give to charity, don't show off what you do.
Otherwise, how do we know?