Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

I'm feeling as if the PN forum is a fruit from which all the skeptical "juice" has long ago been drained.

I do not think that skeptical juice has been drained. I think that Immanuel as Evangelical Christian apologist, trying to convert people at a fundamental metaphysical level, is himself an over-extracted orange rind that should be composted.

You are never never, not ever, not in 10,000 years, going to succeed to get people to “see” the sense in ultimate Christian metaphysics by haranguing them with tortured views of “original mating pairs”, Noah’s Arks and frankly the entire range of Stories and symbolism that a Bible literalist is intensely invested in.

But frankly the most difficult part in all of this is in the difficulty in convincing people that there is, or that there really should be, an ultimate, absolutist metaphysics that could be presented (to philosophy-driven sorts) who do not accept that “metaphysics” is a genuine category.

Consider Martin who says that an entire mental construction became impossible to maintain when it became obvious that there was absolutely no evidence for “it” in Nature.

Try to get him (I mean such a one as him) to get back on board with a giant metaphysical project with all sorts of implications for human life, including vast, and ultimate, metaphysical battles between those Giant Forces fighting it out like King Kong and Godzilla — titanic consequential ideas.

[Atla]

Well why should we buy into a grand metaphysical picture when we see no evidence for it in nature?

[Immanuel Can]

Your response (to any of this) is not required, Immanuel.

So...you're talking to me, to tell me you don't need to talk to me...and that I don't need to answer?

Okay. Works for me.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Your response (to any of this) is not required, Immanuel.

So...you're talking to me, to tell me you don't need to talk to me...and that I don't need to answer?

Okay. Works for me.

Then we have perfect accord. You spoke of frustration, maybe moving on from PN? No, Immanuel, you will stay right here. You do not have permission to leave. But it is best if you just read. But be silent.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Well why should we buy into a grand metaphysical picture when we see no evidence for it in nature?

Have you even once indicated you are willing to pay something to receive knowledge?!? Who do you think you are?!?

[Atla]

Well why should we buy into a grand metaphysical picture when we see no evidence for it in nature?

Have you even once indicated you are willing to pay something to receive knowledge?!? Who do you think you are?!?

How do you know you haven't received fake knowledge, and paid with your sanity?

[Alexis Jacobi]

If we were to define who, I mean who really, is SANE on this forum, my name is surely at the tippy-top.

[Atla]

If we were to define who, I mean who really, is SANE on this forum, my name is surely at the tippy-top.

You don't even make the top 10.

[Alexis Jacobi]

And dammit, Atla, I have laid out breadcrumbs along the path of your eventual arrival at the Gingerbread House of real knowledge for months now.

Do some critical self-examination, brother!

[Atla]

And dammit, Atla, I have laid out breadcrumbs along the path of your eventual arrival at the Gingerbread House of real knowledge for months now.

Do some critical self-examination, brother!

It's rare to find someone who is so genuinely and wholly backwards. He fully believes that his half-random subjective spiritual experiences are confirmed by critical self-examination, rather than demolished by it.

[Immanuel Can]

Your response (to any of this) is not required, Immanuel.

So...you're talking to me, to tell me you don't need to talk to me...and that I don't need to answer?

Okay. Works for me.

Then we have perfect accord. You spoke of frustration, maybe moving on from PN? No, Immanuel, you will stay right here. You do not have permission to leave. But it is best if you just read. But be silent.

You're soooo silly. And so pompous.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I'm feeling as if the PN forum is a fruit from which all the skeptical "juice" has long ago been drained.

I do not think that skeptical juice has been drained. I think that Immanuel as Evangelical Christian apologist, trying to convert people at a fundamental metaphysical level, is himself an over-extracted orange rind that should be composted.

You are never never, not ever, not in 10,000 years, going to succeed to get people to “see” the sense in ultimate Christian metaphysics by haranguing them with tortured views of “original mating pairs”, Noah’s Arks and frankly the entire range of Stories and symbolism that a Bible literalist is intensely invested in.

But frankly the most difficult part in all of this is in the difficulty in convincing people that there is, or that there really should be, an ultimate, absolutist metaphysics that could be presented (to philosophy-driven sorts) who do not accept that “metaphysics” is a genuine category.

Consider Martin who says that an entire mental construction became impossible to maintain when it became obvious that there was absolutely no evidence for “it” in Nature.

Try to get him (I mean such a one as him) to get back on board with a giant metaphysical project with all sorts of implications for human life, including vast, and ultimate, metaphysical battles between those Giant Forces fighting it out like King Kong and Godzilla — titanic consequential ideas.

You've never seen Skeptikal Juice TM like mine Alexis. IC certainly hasn't. You can appreciate it, he can not, possibly.

American Primitive wooden literal fundamentalism wins hands down of course. The race to the bottom with fear and loathing cannot be lost. The mob rules, because political geniuses like Trump have to court them. Our next prime minister is his buddy Farage. Unless Sir Keir scourges the seas of boat people.

I'm your worst nightmare : ) I WANT to know that intentional transcendent Love is the ground of being more than anything else. I would bow the knee if They were. But They are not. For if They were it would be obvious. All would know. All would know that all will be well for all by the power of intentional transcendent Love. Intentional transcendent Love would be competent in the afterlife. Nothing that has ever felt suffering would not be lifted up.

That's sceptical juice squirted from one direction.

From 180 degrees here's the other. The God of Jesus, to whom I extend the greatest possible good will as a bloke, to the maximum possible historicity shorn of all unnatural claims, is not intentional transcendent Love. Intentional transcendent Love could not require a human sacrifice, suicide by cop. Intentional transcendent Love would not be misanthropic. Intentional transcendent Love would not distract us with meaningless sin and forgiveness. I have the highest possible regard for him as the greatest single human pivot toward social justice. Which was all but abandoned after Jerusalem fell. It didn't take anywhere else. Holding all things in common. There has been no social justice since that isn't the poor relation of civilization.

There is no epistemological warrant - evidence - for justified true belief, i.e. knowledge, of intentional transcendent Love as the ground of being. Let alone the sad, violent, arbitrary, inadequate creature of our barbarous, terrified imaginations in the Abrahamic religions. But that's not going to stop anybody believing. Is it Alexis? You are in the same gutter as IC, but at least you're looking at the stars.

[Alexis Jacobi]

This just in

I just asked The Magic 8-Ball if “transcendental love really exists”.

Answer: “Ask again later”.

Hmmmmmmmm…

So, I asked a bit later: “Does transcendental love really exist?”

Answer: “Without a doubt”.

You’ve got to pay attention to the Signs, Martin!

[Dubious]

What is transcendent intentional love or what is it supposed to be? Never heard of it! Never witnessed it. One thing's for sure: Jesus never had any, if it's assumed that he would be the vessel of such.

[Belinda]

I'm feeling as if the PN forum is a fruit from which all the skeptical "juice" has long ago been drained.

I do not think that skeptical juice has been drained. I think that Immanuel as Evangelical Christian apologist, trying to convert people at a fundamental metaphysical level, is himself an over-extracted orange rind that should be composted.

You are never never, not ever, not in 10,000 years, going to succeed to get people to “see” the sense in ultimate Christian metaphysics by haranguing them with tortured views of “original mating pairs”, Noah’s Arks and frankly the entire range of Stories and symbolism that a Bible literalist is intensely invested in.

But frankly the most difficult part in all of this is in the difficulty in convincing people that there is, or that there really should be, an ultimate, absolutist metaphysics that could be presented (to philosophy-driven sorts) who do not accept that “metaphysics” is a genuine category.

Consider Martin who says that an entire mental construction became impossible to maintain when it became obvious that there was absolutely no evidence for “it” in Nature.

Try to get him (I mean such a one as him) to get back on board with a giant metaphysical project with all sorts of implications for human life, including vast, and ultimate, metaphysical battles between those Giant Forces fighting it out like King Kong and Godzilla — titanic consequential ideas.

You've never seen Skeptikal Juice TM like mine Alexis. IC certainly hasn't. You can appreciate it, he can not, possibly.

American Primitive wooden literal fundamentalism wins hands down of course. The race to the bottom with fear and loathing cannot be lost. The mob rules, because political geniuses like Trump have to court them. Our next prime minister is his buddy Farage. Unless Sir Keir scourges the seas of boat people.

I'm your worst nightmare : ) I WANT to know that intentional transcendent Love is the ground of being more than anything else. I would bow the knee if They were. But They are not. For if They were it would be obvious. All would know. All would know that all will be well for all by the power of intentional transcendent Love. Intentional transcendent Love would be competent in the afterlife. Nothing that has ever felt suffering would not be lifted up.

That's sceptical juice squirted from one direction.

From 180 degrees here's the other. The God of Jesus, to whom I extend the greatest possible good will as a bloke, to the maximum possible historicity shorn of all unnatural claims, is not intentional transcendent Love. Intentional transcendent Love could not require a human sacrifice, suicide by cop. Intentional transcendent Love would not be misanthropic. Intentional transcendent Love would not distract us with meaningless sin and forgiveness. I have the highest possible regard for him as the greatest single human pivot toward social justice. Which was all but abandoned after Jerusalem fell. It didn't take anywhere else. Holding all things in common. There has been no social justice since that isn't the poor relation of civilization.

There is no epistemological warrant - evidence - for justified true belief, i.e. knowledge, of intentional transcendent Love as the ground of being. Let alone the sad, violent, arbitrary, inadequate creature of our barbarous, terrified imaginations in the Abrahamic religions. But that's not going to stop anybody believing. Is it Alexis? You are in the same gutter as IC, but at least you're looking at the stars.

Intentional transcendent love was embodied in Jesus Christ, Buddha, Socrates, and many comparatively or utterly obscure individuals. I wonder at you if you are unable to detect one or more of those individuals. Greyfriars Bobby?