Philosophy Now Forum

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 1:22 pm The Bible isn't even veridical with regard to the implementation of its humanitarianism. They flaunted their sin as Sodom, Ezekiel 16:49-50
New International Version 49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. The prophets all condemn social injustice. Christendom reinforces it.

Yes, but The Bible is the history of God. God has a history. He was legalistic at one stage and progressed to the OT prophets who were more aware of God's mercy than previously when keeping up appearances and obeying laws was the good life. Jesus followed on from the OT prophets.

Christendom was a political regime that no longer exists. Political regimes by their natures can't be true imitators of Jesus. Even the mass of Christian religionists doesn't follow Jesus very well. The best of them pray "I would believe , forgive thou mine unbelief", while the worst of them pray " I well know who You are, let those who believe differently be punished".

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:43 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 9:55 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 7:19 pm For that matter, while there is some warrant for an exalted status for the poor in Christianity, (as there, we are at least enjoined to show charity and mercy to the poor, and promised God’s pleasure and reward for so doing) what’s the basis for exalting the poor from a a purely secular, unreligious perspective?

The basis for exalting the poor from a purely secular, unreligious perspective is the instinct for fairness.

When your preschooler declares, “That’s not fair!” after her brother receives an imperceptibly larger piece of cake, she’s not just being selfish. Kids have a keen sense of fairness, a characteristic that research increasingly shows is an innate part of human morality. Indeed, the latest study, published in Psychological Science, finds that even babies are disturbed by displays of injustice — and even when it doesn’t apply to them.

Time magazine
one of many scientific observations of babies and toddlers.

What you’ll find of course, as anybody who’s seen a “terrible two-year-old” will tell you, is that children are much quicker to claim “unfairness” when it applies to them than when it applies to others.

Imagine being so 'little' and/or insecure that you could resort to calling a human being who has only been living for two years, 'terrible'.

Calling 'a person', of only two years, a 'terrible person', which is a term usually reserved for those who have done so-called 'unspeakable crimes', in Life.

But, 'each to their own', as it is said.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:43 pm But let us not question your claim, and see what it gives us.

If all children had the same sense of justice, would that obligate human beings to adopt the same standard?

Of course.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:43 pm It’s impossible to argue that it would.

It is actually impossible to validly and soundly argue against it.

'This one' will 'try' just about any thing to 'try to' 'justify' its 'judgments', ridicule, and name-calling of 'others'.

There is only one sense of 'justice', which, obviously, all would be better off following and abiding by. Any 'other sense' of 'justice' is just an individuals attempt at 'trying to' defend one's own unjustifiable position.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:43 pm For one thing, children are unsophisticated and instinctively self-centred, as any developmental psychologist can tell you.

Coming from one of the most greedy, selfish, and self-centered persons, here.

And, if children are 'instinctively' 'self-centered', then this is for a very good purpose. Which, if you ever find out why, as well, makes perfect sense.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:43 pm An adult standard would tend to be more refined.

And what are you basing 'this claim' on, exactly?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:43 pm But more importantly, the mere FACT that children have some common delusion would not imply that it was a justified delusion. “Children have an instinct” is a mere fact. “The instinct is correct and obligatory” is a value-judgment. Once again, the defense you offer falls afoul of Hume’s observation of the disconnect between fact claims and value conclusions.

Talk about another prime example of introducing 'red herrings' and obfuscation, by 'this one'.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:43 pm So we have no reason to believe that the presence of any instinct in children — even if it were perfect and universal — would warrant the claim that therefore their sense of fairness is apt, obligatory and objectively compulsory for us.

What?

'This one' is 'now' 'trying to' claim that even if, and when, God creates species with instincts, which are, naturally, and which would naturally be for 'that species best interests', and which would serve 'that species purposes' perfectly, then 'this' would not warrant 'the claim' that those instinctual senses, which were 'put there' by even God, Itself, by obligatory and objectively compulsory, for 'that species'.

Why is coming far, far clearer in 'this forum' is that those who believe (in) God, and who obviously can not back up and support 'their belief' with absolutely any thing at all end up being 'the ones' who contradict "themselves" the most often and most frequently, here.

'These posters', here, just end up contradicting "themselves" when they incessantly 'try to' back up and support their 'currently' held beliefs.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:43 pm

The God you worship did not directly and miraculously invent equality of opportunity but He (and Moses)did codify it. Jesus later on endorsed equality of opportunity.

I’m very familiar with Scripture,

Being 'familiar' with written words never ever necessarily means that you have absolutely any idea nor clue as to what the actual True, Right, Accurate, and Correct intention and meaning of 'those words' are.

And, one day you might comprehend and understand 'this Fact', fully.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:43 pm but unfamiliar with the passages you imply must exist. Where does Moses codify “equality of opportunity,” and where does Jesus Christ “endorse” it?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:47 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:37 pm Immanuel Can , you should fight your corner, not by trying to prove that The Bible is historically or scientifically veridical, but by showing how The Bible contains apologetics for the civilising influence of the Judeo-Christian God.

Thank you for your advice. If truth were merely about showing some utility to modern, secular civilization, it might work…at least from a strategic perspective. But truth is not like that. Truth is just true, regardless of utility concerns. We either believe it,

If you 'believe' 'truth', or 'have to believe' 'truth', then you have, certainly, 'lost your way'.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:47 pm or wreck ourselves on the iron hide of reality. Truth always wins.

And, you believe that the truth is, 'God is male gendered'.

Now, show and prove to 'us' that 'that truth, so-calls, wins'.

Now, you will not do this, because you can not do this.

And, the very reason you can not do this, is because 'truths' like 'that one' could never so-call 'win'.

Which brings 'us' to another point, here, you believe, absolutely that being, here, is about 'winning' or 'losing', which is another pure sign of just how 'lost' 'you are', in 'your ways'.

Also, claiming, 'Truth always wins', never ever means that 'your truth' is even remotely close to 'the Truth'.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:47 pm One doesn’t have to figure out ways to make it appealing to people who are utilitarian in orientation. They, like everybody else, will discover that truth does not beg favours of the skeptics.

'This' is all just more obfuscation. Which is just 'another sign' of 'the devil', and 'its ways'.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 1:38 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:47 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:37 pm Immanuel Can , you should fight your corner, not by trying to prove that The Bible is historically or scientifically veridical, but by showing how The Bible contains apologetics for the civilising influence of the Judeo-Christian God.

Thank you for your advice. If truth were merely about showing some utility to modern, secular civilization, it might work…at least from a strategic perspective. But truth is not like that. Truth is just true, regardless of utility concerns. We either believe it, or wreck ourselves on the iron hide of reality. Truth always wins. One doesn’t have to figure out ways to make it appealing to people who are utilitarian in orientation. They, like everybody else, will discover that truth does not beg favours of the skeptics.

But modern secular civilisation is what we have. We no longer have unquestioning faith .

Are you, really, 'trying to' speak for every human being, here, in what you would call 'the current world'?

If yes, then you will fail, tremendously.

But, if no, then why did you say and claim, 'We no longer have unquestioning faith'? 'Who' is the 'we' word, here, referring to, exactly?

Or, are you just presuming because you stopped have 'unquestioning faith', then all have also?

What is 'it', exactly, you are wanting to claim in that last sentence, here?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:47 pm To rail against modernity wastes your talent for Scripture.

LOL Do you, really, believe that "immanuel can" has some sort of 'talent' in regards to words written in the bible?

LOL "Immanuel can" believes, absolutely, that the Thing that created the whole Universe, at and in one single moment, but which includes all of 'the things' that came 'after' or 'later' had a penis and gonads.

Now, what kind of 'talent' would one have to 'have' to be so disillusioned and delusional as 'this'?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:47 pm Literal interpretation of The Bible no longer is a way to truth.

When was a 'literal interpretation of the bible ever 'a way' to Truth?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:47 pm The whole truth includes the modern worldview. i respect your faithfulness to Truth

Talking about 'this one' being fooled and conned, by one of the best fools and con persons, here.

"immanuel can" is not, yet, faithful to the actual Truth, Itself. "Immanuel can" is only faithful to its own individual and personal 'truth' of things, here.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:47 pm however your literal interpretation of The Bible is not Truth, but superstition.

So, why, exactly, do you respect "Immanuel can's" faithfulness to Falsehoods, and Wrongs?

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 1:52 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 1:22 pm The Bible isn't even veridical with regard to the implementation of its humanitarianism. They flaunted their sin as Sodom, Ezekiel 16:49-50
New International Version 49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. The prophets all condemn social injustice. Christendom reinforces it.

Yes, but The Bible is the history of God.

What a Truly absurd thing to say and claim.

The bible is not the history of God at all.

The bible is a piece of written work, written by human beings.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 1:52 pm God has a history.

How could a Thing, which is eternal and exists always in the HERE, and, NOW, have a so-called 'history'?

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 1:52 pm He was legalistic at one stage and progressed to the OT prophets who were more aware of God's mercy than previously when keeping up appearances and obeying laws was the good life. Jesus followed on from the OT prophets.

Christendom was a political regime that no longer exists. Political regimes by their natures can't be true imitators of Jesus. Even the mass of Christian religionists doesn't follow Jesus very well. The best of them pray "I would believe , forgive thou mine unbelief", while the worst of them pray " I well know who You are, let those who believe differently be punished".

If you people, really, do want to find/uncover the actual Truth, then you have to start off with, and from, Truths, only.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 1:38 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:47 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:37 pm Immanuel Can , you should fight your corner, not by trying to prove that The Bible is historically or scientifically veridical, but by showing how The Bible contains apologetics for the civilising influence of the Judeo-Christian God.

Thank you for your advice. If truth were merely about showing some utility to modern, secular civilization, it might work…at least from a strategic perspective. But truth is not like that. Truth is just true, regardless of utility concerns. We either believe it, or wreck ourselves on the iron hide of reality. Truth always wins. One doesn’t have to figure out ways to make it appealing to people who are utilitarian in orientation. They, like everybody else, will discover that truth does not beg favours of the skeptics.

But modern secular civilisation is what we have.

It’s what you think you have. It’s not all we have, not all we ever had, and not all we will have.

We no longer have unquestioning faith .

Who is this marvellous “we” that once had faith that was without questioning? “We” were certainly not alive in Job’s day…and that is the oldest book in the Bible, we think.

To rail against modernity wastes your talent for Scripture.

I neither rail nor am against modernity (or postmodernity, for that matter). I am for truth, and against any conception of the present world that regards itself as ultimate. It’s all too easy for “modern” people to forget that they have been surpassed already, and that the present “postmodern” world will likewise eventually prove its lack of ultimacy.

Literal interpretation of The Bible no longer is a way to truth.

It depends on what one means by “literal interpretation.” If one means “being a philistine, and failing to recognize poetry, metaphor, parable and so on, then I hesitate to point out to you that hardly anybody has ever been a “literalist” of that kind. But if you mean “believing what God affirms,” then I must plead guilty as charged.

The whole truth includes the modern worldview.

The postmodernists of today will be devastated by your dismissal of them. They are convinced the so-called “modern” perspective was desperately flawed. And I think they had many good reasons to suppose so. Perhaps a little reading of their critiques would be salutary.

i respect your faithfulness to Truth however your literal interpretation of The Bible is not Truth, but superstition.

You “respect” what you simultaneously assert is my misguided “faithfulness” to a perspective you believe to be errant? It’s hard to say why you’d do that, if that’s what you’re doing.

We shall see, then, if the “faithfulness” of my “literal interpretation,” as you style it, or your dismissal of the affirmations of God, if such is your intention, will stand. Time will reveal it. We need not trouble ourselves on that score. God always wins. Always.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 1:22 pm The Bible isn't even veridical with regard to the implementation of its humanitarianism.

Who suggested to you that “humanitarianism” as you conceive it was the “implementation” goal of the Bible? You’ll look in vain for evidence of that.

The prophets all condemn social injustice. Christendom reinforces it.

On this, I actually must agree with you. The prophets have a strong conception of justice, though it was devoid of the “social” prefix you assign to it. They just believed in actual justice, not the human engineering of society to manipulate human beings that is implied by that word. It’s clear that human beings will never, by manipulating society, make themselves good or just. They’ve never succeeded in such a project even once; and every such attempt has resulted in piles of corpses.

However, likewise, “Christendom” is a word not found in Scripture at all, being a hybrid bastardization of “kingdom” and “Christianity,” meaning the idea that Christians should rule society. The Bible teaches no such thing, and certainly not by further human engineering. And historically, every attempt at engineering a “Christendom” has been abortive or fatally flawed….not genuinely “Christian” at all.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 3:06 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 1:22 pm The Bible isn't even veridical with regard to the implementation of its humanitarianism.

Who suggested to you that “humanitarianism” as you conceive it was the “implementation” goal of the Bible? You’ll look in vain for evidence of that.

Who suggested to you that 'God', as you conceive It as male gendered, is a "he"? you will look in vain for evidence for that.

And, of course you will not answer my question posed to you for clarification, because you know you have absolutely nothing at all, for back up and support.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 3:06 pm

The prophets all condemn social injustice. Christendom reinforces it.

On this, I actually must agree with you. The prophets have a strong conception of justice, though it was devoid of the “social” prefix you assign to it. They just believed in actual justice, not the human engineering of society to manipulate human beings that is implied by that word. It’s clear that human beings will never, by manipulating society, make themselves good or just.

Yet here you are 'trying' your very hardest to 'justify' your 'current society' of inequality and injustices as being the better, right, good, or best society.

Could you become more contradictory, here, "immanuel can"?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 3:06 pm They’ve never succeeded in such a project even once; and every such attempt has resulted in piles of corpses.

Yet you keep 'trying to' fight for 'the society' in which you were raised and are living in.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 3:06 pm However, likewise, “Christendom” is a word not found in Scripture at all, being a hybrid bastardization of “kingdom” and “Christianity,” meaning the idea that Christians should rule society. The Bible teaches no such thing, and certainly not by further human engineering. And historically, every attempt at engineering a “Christendom” has been abortive or fatally flawed….not genuinely “Christian” at all.

Talk about 'trying to' deflect away from what so-called "christianity", and the actual bastardization of societies because of "christianity", has done.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 2:32 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:43 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 9:55 pm
The basis for exalting the poor from a purely secular, unreligious perspective is the instinct for fairness.
Time magazine
one of many scientific observations of babies and toddlers.

What you’ll find of course, as anybody who’s seen a “terrible two-year-old” will tell you, is that children are much quicker to claim “unfairness” when it applies to them than when it applies to others.

Imagine being so 'little' and/or insecure that you could resort to calling a human being who has only been living for two years, 'terrible'.

Calling 'a person', of only two years, a 'terrible person', which is a term usually reserved for those who have done so-called 'unspeakable crimes', in Life.

But, 'each to their own', as it is said.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:43 pm But let us not question your claim, and see what it gives us.

If all children had the same sense of justice, would that obligate human beings to adopt the same standard?

Of course.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:43 pm It’s impossible to argue that it would.

It is actually impossible to validly and soundly argue against it.

'This one' will 'try' just about any thing to 'try to' 'justify' its 'judgments', ridicule, and name-calling of 'others'.

There is only one sense of 'justice', which, obviously, all would be better off following and abiding by. Any 'other sense' of 'justice' is just an individuals attempt at 'trying to' defend one's own unjustifiable position.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:43 pm For one thing, children are unsophisticated and instinctively self-centred, as any developmental psychologist can tell you.

Coming from one of the most greedy, selfish, and self-centered persons, here.

And, if children are 'instinctively' 'self-centered', then this is for a very good purpose. Which, if you ever find out why, as well, makes perfect sense.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:43 pm An adult standard would tend to be more refined.

And what are you basing 'this claim' on, exactly?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:43 pm But more importantly, the mere FACT that children have some common delusion would not imply that it was a justified delusion. “Children have an instinct” is a mere fact. “The instinct is correct and obligatory” is a value-judgment. Once again, the defense you offer falls afoul of Hume’s observation of the disconnect between fact claims and value conclusions.

Talk about another prime example of introducing 'red herrings' and obfuscation, by 'this one'.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:43 pm So we have no reason to believe that the presence of any instinct in children — even if it were perfect and universal — would warrant the claim that therefore their sense of fairness is apt, obligatory and objectively compulsory for us.

What?

'This one' is 'now' 'trying to' claim that even if, and when, God creates species with instincts, which are, naturally, and which would naturally be for 'that species best interests', and which would serve 'that species purposes' perfectly, then 'this' would not warrant 'the claim' that those instinctual senses, which were 'put there' by even God, Itself, by obligatory and objectively compulsory, for 'that species'.

Why is coming far, far clearer in 'this forum' is that those who believe (in) God, and who obviously can not back up and support 'their belief' with absolutely any thing at all end up being 'the ones' who contradict "themselves" the most often and most frequently, here.

'These posters', here, just end up contradicting "themselves" when they incessantly 'try to' back up and support their 'currently' held beliefs.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:43 pm

The God you worship did not directly and miraculously invent equality of opportunity but He (and Moses)did codify it. Jesus later on endorsed equality of opportunity.

I’m very familiar with Scripture,

Being 'familiar' with written words never ever necessarily means that you have absolutely any idea nor clue as to what the actual True, Right, Accurate, and Correct intention and meaning of 'those words' are.

And, one day you might comprehend and understand 'this Fact', fully.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:43 pm but unfamiliar with the passages you imply must exist. Where does Moses codify “equality of opportunity,” and where does Jesus Christ “endorse” it?

You don't have to pick faults every time you post.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 4:54 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 2:32 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:43 pm
What you’ll find of course, as anybody who’s seen a “terrible two-year-old” will tell you, is that children are much quicker to claim “unfairness” when it applies to them than when it applies to others.

Imagine being so 'little' and/or insecure that you could resort to calling a human being who has only been living for two years, 'terrible'.

Calling 'a person', of only two years, a 'terrible person', which is a term usually reserved for those who have done so-called 'unspeakable crimes', in Life.

But, 'each to their own', as it is said.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:43 pm But let us not question your claim, and see what it gives us.

If all children had the same sense of justice, would that obligate human beings to adopt the same standard?

Of course.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:43 pm It’s impossible to argue that it would.

It is actually impossible to validly and soundly argue against it.

'This one' will 'try' just about any thing to 'try to' 'justify' its 'judgments', ridicule, and name-calling of 'others'.

There is only one sense of 'justice', which, obviously, all would be better off following and abiding by. Any 'other sense' of 'justice' is just an individuals attempt at 'trying to' defend one's own unjustifiable position.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:43 pm For one thing, children are unsophisticated and instinctively self-centred, as any developmental psychologist can tell you.

Coming from one of the most greedy, selfish, and self-centered persons, here.

And, if children are 'instinctively' 'self-centered', then this is for a very good purpose. Which, if you ever find out why, as well, makes perfect sense.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:43 pm An adult standard would tend to be more refined.

And what are you basing 'this claim' on, exactly?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:43 pm But more importantly, the mere FACT that children have some common delusion would not imply that it was a justified delusion. “Children have an instinct” is a mere fact. “The instinct is correct and obligatory” is a value-judgment. Once again, the defense you offer falls afoul of Hume’s observation of the disconnect between fact claims and value conclusions.

Talk about another prime example of introducing 'red herrings' and obfuscation, by 'this one'.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:43 pm So we have no reason to believe that the presence of any instinct in children — even if it were perfect and universal — would warrant the claim that therefore their sense of fairness is apt, obligatory and objectively compulsory for us.

What?

'This one' is 'now' 'trying to' claim that even if, and when, God creates species with instincts, which are, naturally, and which would naturally be for 'that species best interests', and which would serve 'that species purposes' perfectly, then 'this' would not warrant 'the claim' that those instinctual senses, which were 'put there' by even God, Itself, by obligatory and objectively compulsory, for 'that species'.

Why is coming far, far clearer in 'this forum' is that those who believe (in) God, and who obviously can not back up and support 'their belief' with absolutely any thing at all end up being 'the ones' who contradict "themselves" the most often and most frequently, here.

'These posters', here, just end up contradicting "themselves" when they incessantly 'try to' back up and support their 'currently' held beliefs.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:43 pm
I’m very familiar with Scripture,

Being 'familiar' with written words never ever necessarily means that you have absolutely any idea nor clue as to what the actual True, Right, Accurate, and Correct intention and meaning of 'those words' are.

And, one day you might comprehend and understand 'this Fact', fully.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:43 pm but unfamiliar with the passages you imply must exist. Where does Moses codify “equality of opportunity,” and where does Jesus Christ “endorse” it?

You don't have to pick faults every time you post.

I just do what I want others to do to me.

That is; if one spots some thing that is False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect, or that one thinks or believes is, in absolutely any thing that I say and write, here, then I would love to have 'them' pointed out, shown, and highlighted, to me, so that I can then keep learning how to communicate and be heard and understood better.

Also, are you sure that in 'every' post of mine I so-call 'pick faults'?

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 2:49 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 1:38 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:47 pm
Thank you for your advice. If truth were merely about showing some utility to modern, secular civilization, it might work…at least from a strategic perspective. But truth is not like that. Truth is just true, regardless of utility concerns. We either believe it, or wreck ourselves on the iron hide of reality. Truth always wins. One doesn’t have to figure out ways to make it appealing to people who are utilitarian in orientation. They, like everybody else, will discover that truth does not beg favours of the skeptics.

But modern secular civilisation is what we have. We no longer have unquestioning faith .

Are you, really, 'trying to' speak for every human being, here, in what you would call 'the current world'?

If yes, then you will fail, tremendously.

But, if no, then why did you say and claim, 'We no longer have unquestioning faith'? 'Who' is the 'we' word, here, referring to, exactly?

Or, are you just presuming because you stopped have 'unquestioning faith', then all have also?

What is 'it', exactly, you are wanting to claim in that last sentence, here?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:47 pm To rail against modernity wastes your talent for Scripture.

LOL Do you, really, believe that "immanuel can" has some sort of 'talent' in regards to words written in the bible?

LOL "Immanuel can" believes, absolutely, that the Thing that created the whole Universe, at and in one single moment, but which includes all of 'the things' that came 'after' or 'later' had a penis and gonads.

Now, what kind of 'talent' would one have to 'have' to be so disillusioned and delusional as 'this'?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:47 pm Literal interpretation of The Bible no longer is a way to truth.

When was a 'literal interpretation of the bible ever 'a way' to Truth?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:47 pm The whole truth includes the modern worldview. i respect your faithfulness to Truth

Talking about 'this one' being fooled and conned, by one of the best fools and con persons, here.

"immanuel can" is not, yet, faithful to the actual Truth, Itself. "Immanuel can" is only faithful to its own individual and personal 'truth' of things, here.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:47 pm however your literal interpretation of The Bible is not Truth, but superstition.

So, why, exactly, do you respect "Immanuel can's" faithfulness to Falsehoods, and Wrongs?

When I said "we" I meant educated people after the Age of Enlightenment 17th to 18th centuries.
Picking fights seems like your main motivation in coming here;it's normal in discussions to agree with others from time to time. I for one prefer to agree .

The medieval popular view of The Bible was that it was literally the words of God.

I respect any learning, and Immanuel Can knows a lot of Scripture. Knowledge of Scripture is a learned skill.I believe he knows it too and does not have to ask Google or Chat. 'Scripture' was one of my subjects for my final school exam, and IC can parrot more than I can.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 5:10 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 2:49 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 1:38 pm But modern secular civilisation is what we have. We no longer have unquestioning faith .

Are you, really, 'trying to' speak for every human being, here, in what you would call 'the current world'?

If yes, then you will fail, tremendously.

But, if no, then why did you say and claim, 'We no longer have unquestioning faith'? 'Who' is the 'we' word, here, referring to, exactly?

Or, are you just presuming because you stopped have 'unquestioning faith', then all have also?

What is 'it', exactly, you are wanting to claim in that last sentence, here?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:47 pm To rail against modernity wastes your talent for Scripture.

LOL Do you, really, believe that "immanuel can" has some sort of 'talent' in regards to words written in the bible?

LOL "Immanuel can" believes, absolutely, that the Thing that created the whole Universe, at and in one single moment, but which includes all of 'the things' that came 'after' or 'later' had a penis and gonads.

Now, what kind of 'talent' would one have to 'have' to be so disillusioned and delusional as 'this'?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:47 pm Literal interpretation of The Bible no longer is a way to truth.

When was a 'literal interpretation of the bible ever 'a way' to Truth?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:47 pm The whole truth includes the modern worldview. i respect your faithfulness to Truth

Talking about 'this one' being fooled and conned, by one of the best fools and con persons, here.

"immanuel can" is not, yet, faithful to the actual Truth, Itself. "Immanuel can" is only faithful to its own individual and personal 'truth' of things, here.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:47 pm however your literal interpretation of The Bible is not Truth, but superstition.

So, why, exactly, do you respect "Immanuel can's" faithfulness to Falsehoods, and Wrongs?

When I said "we" I meant educated people after the Age of Enlightenment 17th to 18th centuries.

As always, thank you for clarifying.

That appears to be a very, very specific and select group of people, which 'we' obviously would not be able to correctly identify. Which also by the way would exclude the one known as "Immanuel can", here, completely.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 5:10 pm
Picking fights seems like your main motivation in coming here;

Just so you are absolutely clear, that is the very last thing that 'I' am doing, here.

As can be clearly seen and proved absolutely True by 'my writings', here.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 5:10 pm it's normal in discussions to agree with others from time to time. I for one prefer to agree .

So, why do you so often disagree.

Also, would not one, really, only 'prefer to agree', when they do, actually, agree?

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 5:10 pm The medieval popular view of The Bible was that it was literally the words of God.

Well the actual Truth is, 'the words' in the bible were/are based upon the, literal, 'words of God'.

But, just like just about 'all words' within 'this forum' can be very easily misinterpreted, so to can, are, and were, 'the words of God' getting misinterpreted.

All of 'this' will become more clearer as 'we' move along and progress, here.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 5:10 pm I respect any learning, and Immanuel Can knows a lot of Scripture.

Once again, just memorizing and knowing a lot of 'the words' in any book never means that 'that one' knows the True intentions nor meanings of 'those words', nor does it mean that 'that one' is even remotely close to have the True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct interpretation.

So, although one can 'know' a lot of so-called 'scriptures' that one can still hold very False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect interpretation, as "immanuel can" has shown and proved over and over and over again, here.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 5:10 pm Knowledge of Scripture is a learned skill.

When you say and write, 'Knowledge of scripture is a learned skill', are you intending and meaning that 'having knowledge of scripture' means that 'that one' just 'knows 'the words' in the scripture', or 'knows 'the words' in the scripture AS WELL AS 'knows the absolute Correct intended meanings of 'those words' in that scripture'?

Because obviously 'the two' are very, very, very different things.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 5:10 pm I believe he knows it too and does not have to ask Google or Chat.

Are you even aware that while 'you' are believing some thing is true that you are then not open to being able to see and comprehend what the actual and irrefutable Truth is, exactly?

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 5:10 pm 'Scripture' was one of my subjects for my final school exam, and IC can parrot more than I can.

LOL So, if 'one' can 'parrot' more than you can, then it must then therefore follow and mean that 'that one' must 'knows more' than you do, right?

'These people', here, really did have some of the very shallowest, narrowest, closed, and strangest views of things, in Life.

Just for information, 'just being able to 'parrot' some words', never ever means that 'that one' has absolutely any idea or clue as to what the actual intended meaning of 'those words' was, when they were originally said or written. Will you please inform me whether you do, or do not, comprehend and understand this irrefutable Fact?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 2:58 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 1:38 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 12:47 pm
Thank you for your advice. If truth were merely about showing some utility to modern, secular civilization, it might work…at least from a strategic perspective. But truth is not like that. Truth is just true, regardless of utility concerns. We either believe it, or wreck ourselves on the iron hide of reality. Truth always wins. One doesn’t have to figure out ways to make it appealing to people who are utilitarian in orientation. They, like everybody else, will discover that truth does not beg favours of the skeptics.

But modern secular civilisation is what we have.

It’s what you think you have. It’s not all we have, not all we ever had, and not all we will have.

We no longer have unquestioning faith .

Who is this marvellous “we” that once had faith that was without questioning? “We” were certainly not alive in Job’s day…and that is the oldest book in the Bible, we think.

To rail against modernity wastes your talent for Scripture.

I neither rail nor am against modernity (or postmodernity, for that matter). I am for truth, and against any conception of the present world that regards itself as ultimate. It’s all too easy for “modern” people to forget that they have been surpassed already, and that the present “postmodern” world will likewise eventually prove its lack of ultimacy.

Literal interpretation of The Bible no longer is a way to truth.

It depends on what one means by “literal interpretation.” If one means “being a philistine, and failing to recognize poetry, metaphor, parable and so on, then I hesitate to point out to you that hardly anybody has ever been a “literalist” of that kind. But if you mean “believing what God affirms,” then I must plead guilty as charged.

The whole truth includes the modern worldview.

The postmodernists of today will be devastated by your dismissal of them. They are convinced the so-called “modern” perspective was desperately flawed. And I think they had many good reasons to suppose so. Perhaps a little reading of their critiques would be salutary.

i respect your faithfulness to Truth however your literal interpretation of The Bible is not Truth, but superstition.

You “respect” what you simultaneously assert is my misguided “faithfulness” to a perspective you believe to be errant? It’s hard to say why you’d do that, if that’s what you’re doing.

We shall see, then, if the “faithfulness” of my “literal interpretation,” as you style it, or your dismissal of the affirmations of God, if such is your intention, will stand. Time will reveal it. We need not trouble ourselves on that score. God always wins. Always.

I do agree that world views are ephemeral. Can you not see that your own version of truth is historical? Truth, Beauty, and Good don't necessarily win over evil.
It's useless to look to any supernatural spirit to protect us from Trump, Putin, Hitler, Stalin, Netanyahu, and others who follow the dictum might is right.

Love of truth is a way of living, not love of an actual being. Jesus said he was the way, the truth, and the life : a synthesis , not pure Truth.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 2:56 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 1:52 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 1:22 pm The Bible isn't even veridical with regard to the implementation of its humanitarianism. They flaunted their sin as Sodom, Ezekiel 16:49-50
New International Version 49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. The prophets all condemn social injustice. Christendom reinforces it.

Yes, but The Bible is the history of God.

What a Truly absurd thing to say and claim.

The bible is not the history of God at all.

The bible is a piece of written work, written by human beings.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 1:52 pm God has a history.

How could a Thing, which is eternal and exists always in the HERE, and, NOW, have a so-called 'history'?

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 1:52 pm He was legalistic at one stage and progressed to the OT prophets who were more aware of God's mercy than previously when keeping up appearances and obeying laws was the good life. Jesus followed on from the OT prophets.

Christendom was a political regime that no longer exists. Political regimes by their natures can't be true imitators of Jesus. Even the mass of Christian religionists doesn't follow Jesus very well. The best of them pray "I would believe , forgive thou mine unbelief", while the worst of them pray " I well know who You are, let those who believe differently be punished".

If you people, really, do want to find/uncover the actual Truth, then you have to start off with, and from, Truths, only.

That's so, Age.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Jul 11, 2025 9:31 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 2:58 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 1:38 pm But modern secular civilisation is what we have.

It’s what you think you have. It’s not all we have, not all we ever had, and not all we will have.

We no longer have unquestioning faith .

Who is this marvellous “we” that once had faith that was without questioning? “We” were certainly not alive in Job’s day…and that is the oldest book in the Bible, we think.

To rail against modernity wastes your talent for Scripture.

I neither rail nor am against modernity (or postmodernity, for that matter). I am for truth, and against any conception of the present world that regards itself as ultimate. It’s all too easy for “modern” people to forget that they have been surpassed already, and that the present “postmodern” world will likewise eventually prove its lack of ultimacy.

Literal interpretation of The Bible no longer is a way to truth.

It depends on what one means by “literal interpretation.” If one means “being a philistine, and failing to recognize poetry, metaphor, parable and so on, then I hesitate to point out to you that hardly anybody has ever been a “literalist” of that kind. But if you mean “believing what God affirms,” then I must plead guilty as charged.

The whole truth includes the modern worldview.

The postmodernists of today will be devastated by your dismissal of them. They are convinced the so-called “modern” perspective was desperately flawed. And I think they had many good reasons to suppose so. Perhaps a little reading of their critiques would be salutary.

i respect your faithfulness to Truth however your literal interpretation of The Bible is not Truth, but superstition.

You “respect” what you simultaneously assert is my misguided “faithfulness” to a perspective you believe to be errant? It’s hard to say why you’d do that, if that’s what you’re doing.

We shall see, then, if the “faithfulness” of my “literal interpretation,” as you style it, or your dismissal of the affirmations of God, if such is your intention, will stand. Time will reveal it. We need not trouble ourselves on that score. God always wins. Always.

I do agree that world views are ephemeral.

Wow.

No wonder the people, here, are lost and confused.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Jul 11, 2025 9:31 am Can you not see that your own version of truth is historical? Truth, Beauty, and Good don't necessarily win over evil.
It's useless to look to any supernatural spirit to protect us from Trump, Putin, Hitler, Stalin, Netanyahu, and others who follow the dictum might is right.

Love of truth is a way of living, not love of an actual being. Jesus said he was the way, the truth, and the life : a synthesis , not pure Truth.

And, with, 'the second coming of christ', which is just 'the revelation of what the word, 'christ', has always been in relation to, exactly, then the saying, 'I am 'the way', the Truth', and 'the life' will make absolute perfect and full sense, to you people, as well.