Philosophy Now Forum

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 5:31 pm Join you up in the intellectual/philosophical/spiritual clouds?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 5:31 pm AJ: "So what I have noticed is that Protestant and Catholic theologians and apologists -- and here I refer to those of the higher orders -- have seemed to me to get to the core of what is important. My personal favorites, among the Protestants (Anglicans) are people like Richard Livingstone and WR Inge. And I could name others on the Catholic side."

If we could can we talk a bit about these core elements? That is: can we set aside the containers and talk about the water (and, mebbe, the water bearer)?

As I say: 'Christianity defines man, man's relationship to other men, and man's relationship to God. It asks, and answers: what is man? How should he live?'

This container supposedly holds the answers, the water. If you agree, then what, as you reckon it, are those answers?

What is man? How should he live? What is his relationship to other men? What is his relationship to God?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 5:28 pm Because all this is, in my view, is you iterating something analogous to IC embracing but his own rendition of the Christian God. Providing others "become prepared intellectually" by sharing your own didactic up in the spiritual clouds assumptions, they can avoid being "fools".

I submit the following: Immanuel Can is not involved in reasoning processes, and because he has real issues reasoning carefully and conscientiously, his *arguments* fail continually. He is therefore a failure as an apologist. And this in itself interests me and it concerns me.

If one is going to, say, restructure conservative principles in society I think that one must be able to present and explain them in rational-philosophical terms. The appeal to *faith* and to *believers* only works with the faithful and the believing. But I can assure you that in the Occident we are in a strange and dangerous place as it pertains to faith and belief. True, other peoples in the world can still be rounded up into faith communities (and in the global south Christianity spreads) but I am not concerned for the global south, I am concerned for the North and Northern Europe.

What I have observed and what I have involved myself in for about 10 solid years is an examination of those who see in our modern forms of Liberalism what they define as 'liberal rot'. And I observe that when people discover that rot both inside themselves and around them that they try to conceive of ways that a sturdier ground, interiorly and exteriorly, might be recovered. The "ground" to be recovered is metaphysical ground. That is, in structures of ideas that are conceived (or re-conceived) and implemented. These involve struggles and also power-struggles and thus hinge into political and social issues.

Children are not prepared nor are they capable of undertaking this work. The work outlined depends on the commitment of adults who succeed in recovering the ground I refer to.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 5:36 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 5:31 pm Join you up in the intellectual/philosophical/spiritual clouds?

See, what you have done is similar to what our modern social justice warriors do: you have established a language-vilification and have established it as 'bad' a priori. It is all your invention though.

Why have you done this? It gives yo a position from which you can extremely harshly judge and condemn others who, I gather, you do not believe to be acting properly. Or acting as you do? So all you need to do is barf up the phrase: You are in the spiritual/philosophical clouds! and, at least in your own mind, you have settled the argument.

Actually, you have blocked any discussion from occurring.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 6:08 pm You are too weird for me, Iambiguous. It is impossible to dialogue with you.

Hell [if you'll pardon the pun], all I'm asking here is for a mind that at least challenges me.

And one that takes religion seriously.

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 6:46 pm

Hell [if you'll pardon the pun], all I'm asking here is for a mind that at least challenges me.

And one that takes religion seriously.

AJ probably takes religion too seriously.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 6:33 pm Again, the expression "like shooting fish in a barrel" comes to mind.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 7:47 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 6:33 pm Again, the expression "like shooting fish in a barrel" comes to mind.

Hell [if you'll pardon the pun], all I'm asking here is for a mind that at least challenges me.

And one that takes religion seriously. And nothing is more serious to most of the flocks out there than in how they are entirely fixated -- and rightly so -- on how they behave on this side of the grave. Why? Well, duh: because this by far is what counts in regard to saving their souls for all the rest of eternity on the other side of it.

This and, as those like IC insist, accepting Jesus Christ as your own personal savior.

Though surely not on how closely you sound to God like a "serious philosopher".

Go ahead, ask them.

And Him if you're in contact.

See, that is your problem. You see yourself as shooting fish in a barrel, not conversing seriously with people who think and understand differently. You start from that a priori, and you attain the result you seek every time and without fail. Everywhere on this forum.

It’s pretty neurotic.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 1:44 am Oh you’re wrong. But it can’t be helped old boy.

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 2:32 pm John 3:16 is part of the Catholic bible and lots of Catholics believe it. Therefore, they must be Christians.

What should a child think about this?

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

John 3:16 NIV

I agree that John 3:16 is found in the Bible, and Catholicism claims that the Bible is the Word of God. But then, they insist that the Bible is only the first stage of a "progressive" revelation, in which things can be added, modified and even countermanded by the authority of popes and councils. John 3:16, read literally, says that belief in Jesus Christ is all that is necessary for salvation. The Catholic hierarchy says that's not true: for salvation, one must also have membership in the institution, adherence to all its rituals, regular confessionals, penances, acts of piety like saying rosaries, and good works of various other kinds.

For Catholicism, faith in Christ alone will not save anyone. But the Bible says that that is ALL that saves. See, for example, Ephesians 2:8-9, or Titus 3:5. So one has to pick what one is going to believe: the Bible, or the popes and councils of Catholicism.