Christianity

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I think it fair to say that over a few pages now we have have gone some distance from the banks of the Ilissus …

Please people, please!

Oooh, I dunno. Thought my question was quite open ended?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Define your objective, Martin. What are you trying to achieve? Here.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Define your objective, Martin. What are you trying to achieve? Discursion.

[Dubious]

Can anyone name anything that was ever achieved on a philosophy forum, being nothing more than idea debate forums where, if not constrained in some manner, anything goes.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I'm sorely tempted to un-Foe IC so that he can respond to the intelligence that God is not love.

You could just go on to William Lane Craig's 'Reasonable faith' website. There you will find the source of Mr Can's woeful arguments. Chief among them is divine command theory, according to which, whatever God commands is moral.

Not only is god NOT love; he has long résumé equal to that of Vlad the Impaler, Genghis Khan, Hitler and Stalin.

Well, as the late Christopher Hitchins pointed out, at least those nutters would let you die. God however, will torture forever anyone who is unconvinced by crappy evidence.

The bible is, in fact, one of the most immoral books ever written.

What every book, story, hero, chapter, verse, and sentence in The Bible?

Dan Barker makes a good case in 'God The most unpleasant character in all fiction.' Divine command theory does not just excuse genocide, war, slavery, murder and race, it declares them 'good' because God commands them.

Meant to say, thanks Will.

As for WLC,

In 2009, New Atheist Christopher Hitchens had an interview before his debate with Craig in that same year. During that interview, Hitchens said: "I can tell you that my brothers and sisters and co-thinkers in the unbelieving community take [Craig] very seriously. He's thought of as a very tough guy. Very rigorous, very scholarly, very formidable. [...] I say that without reserve. I don't say it because I'm here. Normally, I don't get people saying: 'Good luck tonight' and 'don't let us down', you know. But with him, I do."

In 2011, with respect and compliment to his debating skills, New Atheist Sam Harris once described Craig as "the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists".

wiki

Then don't debate.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

William Wordsworth’s brother John died at sea and William expressed the following:

Why have we sympathies that make the best of us so afraid of inflicting pain and sorrow, which yet we see dealt about so lavishly by the supreme governor? …Would it not be blasphemy to say that, upon the supposition of the thinking principle being destroyed by death, however inferior we may be to the great Cause and Ruler of things, we have more of love in our nature than He has? The thought is monstrous; and yet how to get rid of it, except on the supposition of another and a better world, I do not see.

I can't thank you enough for this Alexis. That Wordsworth pre-empted me by 220 years. Who did before I wonder?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Can anyone name anything that was ever achieved on a philosophy forum, being nothing more than idea debate forums where, if not constrained in some manner, anything goes.

Yes! Alexis Jacobi.

I have achieved. I am ACHIEVEMENT.

[Dubious]

Can anyone name anything that was ever achieved on a philosophy forum, being nothing more than idea debate forums where, if not constrained in some manner, anything goes.

Yes! Alexis Jacobi.

I have achieved. I am ACHIEVEMENT.

Indeed! I forgot to mention there are always exceptions!

[Dubious]

William Wordsworth’s brother John died at sea and William expressed the following:

Why have we sympathies that make the best of us so afraid of inflicting pain and sorrow, which yet we see dealt about so lavishly by the supreme governor? …Would it not be blasphemy to say that, upon the supposition of the thinking principle being destroyed by death, however inferior we may be to the great Cause and Ruler of things, we have more of love in our nature than He has? The thought is monstrous; and yet how to get rid of it, except on the supposition of another and a better world, I do not see.

These thoughts so common now were as common then except that most were kept secret.

[Eodnhoj7]

This said by a man who believes he is ongoingly assaulted by aliens.

You are using logic in the service of unexaminable beliefs. You are not just using logic by any means. It's all rhetoric. And you feel it. You use logic in a way reminiscent of infinitesimal calculus. Everything becomes indistinguishable before it disappears, black is white, if you look at it closely enough.

I never said assaulted. And examination is a projection of beliefs of how reality occurs...that is what a test is, the projection of belief in accords to how reality is interpreted for the time.

I used logic according to a system of logic and then am accused of being illogical?

....You are better than that statement...try again.

So they ask nicely?

Because you don't start with logic. Nobody does.

Here for example, "The Symbolism of Language Grounds Meaning in Spatial Curvature".

And you are not the arbiter of better. Except as a subjective beholder of course.

You are confusing assertions with logic, an assertion is the manifestation of distinctions...the foundations of logic and the framework by which logic occurs is purely distinction observance.

[Eodnhoj7]

If the metaphysics of reality is grounded in sacrifice, negation in other terms, by which a synthesis is achieved then it is most likely the case that Christianity is very close to the truth:

1. Jesus is the synthesis of God and man.

2. The sacrificial nature of reality corroborates with a self-sacrificial moral code.

3. Jesus was sinless and yet bore the sin of man...sin being the judgements and distinctions by which reality is warped where some aspect of reality is idolized by the act of judging. The sinlessness of God bearing all sin is a perfect synthesis.

4. The death of God shows God is not subject to pure power, for if God was subject to pure power then there would be a God beyond God. By God abandoning God God is no longer subject to God.

a) If
a.1) reality
a.1.i) metaphysics
a.2) sacrifice (2)
a.2.i) negation
b) synthesis (1)
c) Christianity (1-4)
d) truth

The logic? As opposed to the axioms.

The negation of negation is a positive. (Intuitive logic/multiplication of negatives in math).

Negation is a continual process within reality as evidenced by time and change. A metaphysics of change requires negation, change is time.

Christianity observes this nature of negation metaphysics.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

If the metaphysics of reality is grounded in sacrifice, negation in other terms, by which a synthesis is achieved then it is most likely the case that Christianity is very close to the truth:

1. Jesus is the synthesis of God and man.

2. The sacrificial nature of reality corroborates with a self-sacrificial moral code.

3. Jesus was sinless and yet bore the sin of man...sin being the judgements and distinctions by which reality is warped where some aspect of reality is idolized by the act of judging. The sinlessness of God bearing all sin is a perfect synthesis.

4. The death of God shows God is not subject to pure power, for if God was subject to pure power then there would be a God beyond God. By God abandoning God God is no longer subject to God.

a) If
a.1) reality
a.1.i) metaphysics
a.2) sacrifice (2)
a.2.i) negation
b) synthesis (1)
c) Christianity (1-4)
d) truth

The logic? As opposed to the axioms.

The negation of negation is a positive. (Intuitive logic/multiplication of negatives in math).

Negation is a continual process within reality as evidenced by time and change. A metaphysics of change requires negation, change is time.

Christianity observes this nature of negation metaphysics.

What doesn't?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I never said assaulted. And examination is a projection of beliefs of how reality occurs...that is what a test is, the projection of belief in accords to how reality is interpreted for the time.

I used logic according to a system of logic and then am accused of being illogical?

....You are better than that statement...try again.

So they ask nicely?

Because you don't start with logic. Nobody does.

Here for example, "The Symbolism of Language Grounds Meaning in Spatial Curvature".

And you are not the arbiter of better. Except as a subjective beholder of course.

You are confusing assertions with logic, an assertion is the manifestation of distinctions...the foundations of logic and the framework by which logic occurs is purely distinction observance.

You confuse confusion with confusion.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

William Wordsworth’s brother John died at sea and William expressed the following:

Why have we sympathies that make the best of us so afraid of inflicting pain and sorrow, which yet we see dealt about so lavishly by the supreme governor? …Would it not be blasphemy to say that, upon the supposition of the thinking principle being destroyed by death, however inferior we may be to the great Cause and Ruler of things, we have more of love in our nature than He has? The thought is monstrous; and yet how to get rid of it, except on the supposition of another and a better world, I do not see.

These thoughts so common now were as common then except that most were kept secret.

You must be right, you are right I'm sure, I am an utter mediocrity. The principle of that, of uniformitarianism, must have applied for thousands of years. And yet... even Wordsworth did not go as far as I.

The monstrous truth that human love is superior to God's is not dialectically matched by the supposition of another and better world.

There is no warrant for that supposition. Apart from the Anselm's 1000 year fallacy.

And nobody that I can see, not Dostoevsky, not Gerard Manley Hopkins, not Simone Weil, in my superficiality, and certainly no new atheist, none at all since Nietzsche, has refuted the Church's claim that God is love. That that absurd claim is denied by reality. By suffering. Even if we only look at the nice bits of the Bible.

I suggest, in all absurd humility, that I am the first to do so in human history.

You read it here first.

[Belinda]

William Wordsworth’s brother John died at sea and William expressed the following:

These thoughts so common now were as common then except that most were kept secret.

You must be right, you are right I'm sure, I am an utter mediocrity. The principle of that, of uniformitarianism, must have applied for thousands of years. And yet... even Wordsworth did not go as far as I.

The monstrous truth that human love is superior to God's is not dialectically matched by the supposition of another and better world.

There is no warrant for that supposition. Apart from the Anselm's 1000 year fallacy.

And nobody that I can see, not Dostoevsky, not Gerard Manley Hopkins, not Simone Weil, in my superficiality, and certainly no new atheist, none at all since Nietzsche, has refuted the Church's claim that God is love. That that absurd claim is denied by reality. By suffering. Even if we only look at the nice bits of the Bible.

I suggest, in all absurd humility, that I am the first to do so in human history.

You read it here first.

But Martin,
God is not human love. 'God is love' means 'God is existence not nothingness'..
I am pantheist so I don't insert any intentions into Nature, whereas theists differ from pantheists by their inserting intention into Nature. I wrote "inserting" partly because the metaphor explains the masculinity of God.