Christianity

[Dubious]

What determines whether one holds to the former or to the latter view? There are, it seems to me, two unalike but parallel schools of thought, as one might call them: One of course is the science of today (where it seems Dubious is located), but the other is harder to locate but I think it is actually an evolution within religious thought itself. It is an awareness (we have not determined if it is an awareness of truth or a projection so let's put that aside for a moment) of the *commonality of all that lives*. That whatever is alive has arisen from a similar root. That all that lives arises out of the same *substance*. And even that Man's awareness -- his sentience -- is an amplified expression of a life-force that, by logical extension, does manifest and will always manifest in this unfathomable Universe.

Getting down to the nitty-gritty, consider the closest cohort humans have among all animals regarding behavior...the lowly rat, known to be - per book title, More Cunning Than Man.

Here are some of the obvious ways rats resemble humans...with apologies to any god we are presumably the image of:

...ferocity, omnivorousness, adaptability to all climes, migration from East to West in the life journey of their species, irresponsible fecundity in all seasons, with a seeming need to make genocidal war on their own kind. Utterly destructive, both species the quintessential beasts of prey, neither of much use to any other species, taking all other living things for their purposes.

It seems unquestionable to me that all living creatures feel misery when they find themselves in miserable conditions.

Absolutely! How could it be any different!

[Alexis Jacobi]

[quote="Alexis Jacobi" post_id=661586
Getting down to the nitty-gritty, consider the closest cohort humans have among all animals regarding behavior...the lowly rat, known to be - per book title, More Cunning Than Man.

Okay, okay, I’ll take this under consideration. I’m open-minded within reasonable parameters.

Side note: well, there’s also Ratso Rizzo, don’t know where he fits in. But there must be a connection.

[Dubious]

[quote="Alexis Jacobi" post_id=661586
Getting down to the nitty-gritty, consider the closest cohort humans have among all animals regarding behavior...the lowly rat, known to be - per book title, More Cunning Than Man.

Okay, okay, I’ll take this under consideration. I’m open-minded within reasonable parameters.

Side note: well, there’s also Ratso Rizzo, don’t know where he fits in. But there must be a connection.

Can't find any. One thing I'm fairly certain of; the two-legged kind will never try to amputate your arms and legs without your permission...or almost never.

[Age]

So, "henry quirk' are 'you' calling "your" 'self' a "lesbian" here?

Today: I'm a penguin.
and, no, Smeagol: you still can't have my toothpick

And here, ONCE AGAIN, we have ANOTHER PRIME example of ATTEMPTING TO DEFLECT AWAY from the VERY 'thing' I WAS POINTING OUT and SHOWING.

That is; 'this one' 'TRIES TO' make out that 'it' is some sort of a FEARLESS 'man' but then, UNKNOWINGLY, called and labeled 'itself' a 'woman'.

Oh, and by the way, NO one can have what 'you' call 'your toothpicks', as 'you' would WANT TO SHOOT 'them' DEAD if they did NOT GET 'your permission' FIRST. AND, that even includes children and even 'your' OWN family members.

[henry quirk]

...that even includes children and even 'your' OWN family members.

Nope...never said it.

And: today I'm an Oak.

[Age]

Yes, I felt miserable when God drove me to more than 1 day of reckoning. The most disgusting, frightful thing a sentient being can endure - and I am human.

I've had a lot more than two days of that - God's power and evil side is not nice.

The reckoning comes from the subject (me) pitting myself against the sins that I have heard of others. I have a family member who murdered someone over money. I once had a friend, a disgusting piece of shit that raped a little boy (I travelled half way around Scotland with that **_)

And WHY would God 'punish' 'you' for what two other human beings did?

Did 'you' CONDONE and AGREE WITH what 'they' did?

So ya, you go through having God switching synapses...testing your faith in yourself and what Christ taught (such is the Catholic life of me).

DAY OF RECKONING

Two days of reckoning
I have felt
was it God's consciousness
that then I was dealt?
Feeling the chaos
the synapses switching
the heat of the Sun
and I'm just a son
why upon me
why should I see
the sea of the ocean
is in complete retreat
all of my knowledge
force fed to my pledge
my toes curling
over my soles near edge
the furnace burning
upon each thought is fraught
with the insatiable knowing
from which I was taught
for what I did
I must pay
too late to pray
I am the universe's prey
each thought twisted
upon itself
and I feel my flesh
no longer my self
but what does it matter
that is all I am
is my soul an ION
am I the ram
the beast
now fleeced
what did I pose
to this
far too many
QUEST_IONs
a bliss amiss
don't eat from the tree
or suck it and see
you'll be the sap
fool into its trap
where is my Christ
He doesn't help mice
that look down and wander
attempt to look up
and wonder
Y?

[Age]

[quote="Alexis Jacobi" post_id=661586
Getting down to the nitty-gritty, consider the closest cohort humans have among all animals regarding behavior...the lowly rat, known to be - per book title, More Cunning Than Man.

Okay, okay, I’ll take this under consideration. I’m open-minded within reasonable parameters.

LOL Yet ANOTHER GREAT EXAMPLE here of BELIEF and CONFIRMATION BIAS AT WORK, and AT PLAY.

Side note: well, there’s also Ratso Rizzo, don’t know where he fits in. But there must be a connection.

[Age]

...that even includes children and even 'your' OWN family members.

Nope...never said it.

We WILL WAIT, and SEE.

And: today I'm an Oak.

ANOTHER ATTEMPT AT DEFLECTION.

But are 'you' ALSO GOING TO now CLAIM that 'you' NEVER SAID, what ESSENTIALLY MEANT, 'you' ARE A 'woman', ALSO?

[henry quirk]

are 'you' ALSO GOING TO now CLAIM that 'you' NEVER SAID, what ESSENTIALLY MEANT, 'you' ARE A 'woman', ALSO?

What I posted is just up-thread; what I meant is as plain as the Ring of Power on your finger, Smeagol.

We WILL WAIT, and SEE.

Ain't nuthin' to see: if there were you woulda cited it.

[Age]

are 'you' ALSO GOING TO now CLAIM that 'you' NEVER SAID, what ESSENTIALLY MEANT, 'you' ARE A 'woman', ALSO?

What I posted is just up-thread; what I meant is as plain as the Ring of Power on your finger, Smeagol.

YES, what 'you' posted is just up thread here; what you WROTE is as plain as the CLEARLY PRINTED WORDS that 'you' USED here "henry quirk". you wrote that 'you', "henry quirk", ARE a self-identified human lesbian.

Of which ONLY a human woman, or girl, COULD BE.

MEANING that 'you', "henry quirk", ARE identifying "your" OWN 'self' AS A WOMAN, or, maybe, A GIRL. Who, by the way, happens to like 'one thing' over 'another thing' MORE, but which is of NO REAL IMPORTANCE here.

We WILL WAIT, and SEE.

Ain't nuthin' to see: if there were you woulda cited it.

LOL

ONCE AGAIN, here we ANOTHER PRIME example of WHEN one BELIEVES some 'thing' is true, and HOW 'this' MAKES 'them' COMPLETELY and UTTERLY CLOSED OFF to what the ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY.

And TO PROVE just how CLOSED 'these people' could be, BACK THEN, in the days when this is being written, what 'this one' IS ASSUMING and/or BELIEVING I AM TALKING ABOUT and REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, here IS ABSOLUTELY False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect, AS WELL.

[Age]

are 'you' ALSO GOING TO now CLAIM that 'you' NEVER SAID, what ESSENTIALLY MEANT, 'you' ARE A 'woman', ALSO?

What I posted is just up-thread; what I meant is as plain as the Ring of Power on your finger, Smeagol.

We WILL WAIT, and SEE.

Ain't nuthin' to see: if there were you woulda cited it.

One could ALSO SAY and ARGUE that IF you want to CLAIM that you did NOT SAY and WRITE 'that', then you would HAVE ALREADY cited what you did ACTUALLY SAY and WRITE.

BUT BECAUSE you do NOT KNOW EXACTLY what you DID ACTUALLY SAY and WRITE you WILL NOT back up and support your OWN BELIEFS and CLAIMS here.

you WANT TO CLAIM that I AM WRONG here, BUT YET you will NOT PROVE 'it'. So, WHY is 'this' SO? BECAUSE 'you' can NOT or for some OTHER REASON "henry quirk"?

[henry quirk]

you WANT TO CLAIM that I AM WRONG here, BUT YET you will NOT PROVE 'it'. So, WHY is 'this' SO? BECAUSE 'you' can NOT or for some OTHER REASON "henry quirk"?

Innocent till proven guilty, Smeagol.

[promethean75]

Here's when me and Age first met on the forums.

https://youtu.be/e5dm3uMLZZM

[iambiguous]

Okay, IC, here is the eighth video:

The Moral Argument
https://youtu.be/OxiAikEk2vU

God and morality. This is always the bottom line for both me and for any number of Christians: is objective morality possible without God?

We both say no. No God and no omniscient, omnipotent point of view. Unless, of course, sans God, a philosopher or a scientist can convince me how, given a particular context, objective morality in a No God world is possible.

Christians, of course, merely assume that it it is the Christian God. In a leap of faith, say.

Or, perhaps, will this be the video that convinces me, along with IC, that the Christian God does in fact exist?

It starts out...

"Can you be good without God?"

Then a cartoon character rescues a cat from tree. He might have been an atheist. So, you can do good and not believe in Him?

But wait...

"The questions isn't can you be good without believing in God. The question is, can you be good without God? If there is no God, what basis remains for objective good or bad, right or wrong? If God does not extst, objective moral values do not exist, and here's why. Without some objective reference point, we have no way of saying that something is really up or down. God's nature provides an objective reference point for moral values."

No God, and all we have are the conflicting personal opinions of mere mortals.

Exactly! In fact that was precisely my point to those arguing with IC on another thread:

All I can do here is once again remind you that Immanual Cant really does have the Subjectivists and the Atheists by the balls. If, in fact, the Christian God does exist.

Like he said, note one issue that morally the Subjectivists and the Atheists can all agree on in regard to Good and Evil. You can't. Not without God. Instead, you get one or another hopelessly conflicted One True Path rendition from these...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies

...folks.

Also, with No Christian God around to catch and punish them, the sociopaths are able to justify any and all behaviors. No God and, philosophically or otherwise, all things really are permitted.

That's not just bullshit.

Here's the thing though. The thing I bring up to him. Where's the beef?

Where is the substantive and substantial evidence that the Christian God does exist?

On those YouTube videos? Well, I just posted my reaction to the 7th one here: viewtopic.php?t=33261&start=16710

Nothing even remotely substantive [let alone substantial] so far. On the other hand, there are still 10 more to go. So, for those like me and henry, our souls on the line, there is still hope.

As the narrator points out, subjective morality "applies only to the subject. It's not valid of binding for anyone else, So, in a world without God, there can be no evil and no good..."

Bingo! My point too. I merely suggest further that this subjective frame of mind is rooted existentially in dasein.

God, on the other hand, "has expressed His moral nature to us in commands. These provide the basis for our moral duties..."

Then all you have to do is to make absolutely sure that among all these paths...

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

...you choose the right one. Though I'm sure that by the time we have reached the 17th video, we will know for sure that it is the Christian God.

For example, the narrator points out, "God's essential attribute of love is expressed in the command to love your neighbor as yourself".

So, how's that going for you? Hopefully, not how it went for these folks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_Thy_Neighbor

On the other hand...

"This raises a problem...is something good because God wills it, or does God will something because it is good?"

Neither one.

Instead, "God wills somethings because He is Good."

Then the part where Christians square that with this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _eruptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ore_deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events

Anyway, if you don't believe that God Himself is Good, well, it says that he is in the Christian Bible. Just in case these videos don't convince you.

Then back to IC's point...

"Remember, for the atheist, humans are just accidents of nature, highly evolved animals. But animals have no moral obligations to one another."

To wit, the spider kills the fly, the cat kills the mouse, the lion kills the zebra.

Same for the animal species homo sapiens: "no action should be considered morally right or wrong."

To wit: "In the absensce of God, all things are permitted".

And how is that not true? Cite, as IC reminds us, just one example where the Subjectivists and the Atheists can provide us with the equivalent of a moral Commandment. Just one. In regard to abortion perhaps?

Then another leap of faith: that our physical senses and our moral senses are interchangeable. We see someone abusng a child or we don't. We know that abusing a child is right or wrong.

On the other hand...

"Each day, 25,000 people, including more than 10,000 children, die from hunger and related causes." UN

Cue God's mysterious ways.

And then around and around the narrator goes...

"If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. But objective moral values and duties do exist. Therefore, God exists."

And, of course, this video, as well, merely assumes that in "proving" the existence of God, that "proves" it is the Christian God.



Anything to add, IC?

[iambiguous]

Just for the record...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/th ... bfa6&ei=27