Christianity

[seeds]

I would recommend cultivating empathy toward your kin and reducing empathy for those not in your immediate circle.

The comment I made was contextual. Islam must be disempowered in Europe, and in England, and millions of immigrants are best encouraged to return to their homelands. That is an ideal I hold,...

How many times do I need to point out to you (before it finally sinks in) that many of those whom you are calling "immigrants" are, in truth, "refugees" who are simply trying to escape the chaos and destruction to their homelands caused by western greed and war-mongering imperialism?

Stop ignoring the root cause of the problem.

Have you been following what the “righteous ilk” did in Sweden? The imposed multiculturalism has become a disaster. I’ve not been to see but this is what I am told.

These are situations that require “manly resolve” not ridiculous misplaced idealism.

What in the heck do you mean by "manly resolve"?

Furthermore, what's ridiculous about wanting to replace the mythological nonsense implicit in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam,...

(whose irreconcilable differences represent the primary reason for why the world is on the brink of destruction)

...with something that makes more sense?

Your AI is simply wrong. Catholic social doctrine has determined it is morally and ethically proper for people to resist mass incursion by foreign populations.

First of all, it's not "my" AI, it's Microsoft's AI.

And secondly, was it not a "mass incursion by foreign populations" when America and its allies invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and bombed the crap out of them, killing hundreds of thousands of their civilians and destroying their societal stability, hence, instigating the refugee problem?

Or how about the western-backed mass incursion of European Jews into Palestine and the stealing of the lands and homes of Palestinian Arabs?

The point is that if anyone has the moral and ethical right to "resist mass incursions by foreign populations" who are hell bent on (let's not feign ignorance) stealing their land and resources,...

...then it's the Iraqis, Afghans, and Gazans.

Empathy or sympathy is demonstrated by caring for those closest. Then care and sympathy can be shown to those others when they return to their regions and (re-)build their lives in accord with their values.

Would it be okay with you if the refugees hang out with us resource-grabbing imperialists long enough for Trump to build some luxury hotels, casinos, and golf courses along the Mediterranean coastline so that the returnees might have some possible means of earning a living?

Oh wait, on second thought, Trump would prefer his employees to be whites only (mostly blond bimbos who, according to Trump [the MAGA Messiah] won't mind him grabbing their genitals).

You are like a "Sith Lord," Alexis, powerful, yes, but simply unable to recognize and accept the fact that you are on the wrong side of the battle for what is good and righteous…

Cada uno tiene derecho a su opinion, mi pana.

That's so true, Darth Jacobi,...so very true.

And speaking of "opinions," your subsequent quoting and endorsement of Andrew Torba, the CEO of GAB, which, according to Wiki, is a social networking hub for racists, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, white nationalists, and supporters of Donald Trump,...

...has not only succeeded in confirming the correctness of what I was getting at in my playful opinion of you resembling a "Sith Lord," but it also seems to highlight how foolish you are in thinking that quoting and endorsing Andrew Torba would somehow make me (and Catholic social doctrine) see your separationist philosophy in a better light.

But I still love ya, ol' buddy, and that's because I realize that you (like many others) aren't quite awake enough to comprehend where this old "dippy-hippy" is coming from.

Maybe if and when you somehow manage to make it to 8th, or perhaps 9th Degree Taoist Master, something will click.
_______

[Alexis Jacobi]

::: sigh :::

How many times do I need to point out to you (before it finally sinks in) that many of those whom you are calling "immigrants" are, in truth, "refugees"

.

I got it on the first go-round.

It changes nothing, at least in terms of the need for the English to reclaim their lands and cities.

And speaking of "opinions," your subsequent quoting and endorsement of Andrew Torba, the CEO of GAB, which, according to Wiki, is a social networking hub for racists, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, white nationalists, and supporters of Donald Trump...

I posted a video just above of a researcher who investigated Wiki’s processes and bias. I recommend watching it. It reveals a great deal about what “we” are thinking and our analysis of ranges of lies, distortions and calumny.

Everyone who does not toe the Party Line is racist, neo-Nazi, supremacist, white nationalist, etc.

But if you want to understand where the people described in those highly prejudiced terms are coming from, seek them out yourself. Don’t rely on intermediaries.

[Immanuel Can]

Indeed it shows Enlightenment thinking by presenting as such a rationally-conceived hierarchy).

Um...pretty obvious, actually, since I was talking about the "Enlightenment" suppositions.

I cannot see a way, unless one forces the issue, for a given religion to be presented, or seen, in any way similar to physics, mathematics and chemistry truths.

I do believe my argument was that very thing: that science is an inadequate episteme for knowing a great many important things, including mathematics, logic, ethics, etc.

Were you paying attention?

Indeed the more that one relies of physics, mathematics and chemistry -- the more that one's understanding of things flows out of that order, the less likely it is to *believe in* the Stories presented by religious tales.

That's obviously a fallacy, given the above. If theology (or ethics, or mathematics, or logic) is not a mere matter amenable to scientific method, then neither can it possibly be disproved by that same method. That much is obvious.

I get that you're not paying attention to what I say, but how do you miss your own point so often?

[Alexis Jacobi]

If theology […] is not a mere matter amenable to scientific method, then neither can it possibly be disproved by that same method. That much is obvious.

I am not sure if you grasped the implication of the statement I proposed. First, it is clear to me that theological principles have no relationship to mathematical, chemical and physics truths — demonstrable, measurable, evident.

Theology then is an epistemē of another order. That is your assertion. I agree. One has to invest in a totally different and radically distinct method of knowing.

Which cannot ever be verified.

However, and perhaps therefore, the tenets of religiously-defined notions and principles, and the content of mystical and religious vision and revelation, is of a similar stuff as that of those outrageous and ultra-soft assertions, beliefs and suppositions of the ultra-soft pseudo sciences.

I get that you're not paying attention to what I say, but how do you miss your own point so often?

No, you present to me a bizarre puzzle wrapped up in a man. How you bridge incommensurate epistemēs with no cognitive dissonance is a feat that does a number on my mind.

[Immanuel Can]

If theology […] is not a mere matter amenable to scientific method, then neither can it possibly be disproved by that same method. That much is obvious.

I am not sure if you grasped the implication of the statement I proposed. First, it is clear to me that theological principles have no relationship to mathematical, chemical and physics truths — demonstrable, measurable, evident.

Physical and chemical are scientific. But the rest are things that science may rely on, but which science neither proves nor disproves. It lacks the methodology to do so. They are, in that sense "pre-scientific" in that science depends on them, but they don't depend on science.

Theology then is an epistemē of another order.

It depends on what department of theology you mean. Apologetics and Natural Theology rely on scientific data. But other theological postulates rely on revelation. Neither defies science.

I get that you're not paying attention to what I say, but how do you miss your own point so often?

No, you present to me a bizarre puzzle wrapped up in a man.

Ah, straight to the ad hominem again. It betrays a weakness of argument. See if you can deal with what I say, not what you wish to imagine about my person. That way, you'll actually be more like a philosopher, and less like a fallacy-lover.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Ah, straight to the ad hominem again. It betrays a weakness of argument.

No, a statement of fact, a confession really. The ideas you entertain, the way you have got your explanations worked out, how you bridge rational, grounded and common-sense views to views and beliefs that are completely irrational and non-believable, is a source of wonder to me (and clearly to others). To express this is not to put forth an ‘argument’ but more a simple expression something like awe …

See if you can deal with what I say, not what you wish to imagine about my person.

Everyone wonders and imagines about the structure of your belief. How you manage it. What you can’t consider about it. What you cannot face. This is a fact IC. Men are connected to the ideas they hold and they are intertwined with their ideas that the imagine to be true.

Criticism of ‘the man’ in this sense is a delicate, demanding art. I happen to be exceptionally skilled in this area. Years and years of plodding practice, I guess.

[Belinda]

Indeed it shows Enlightenment thinking by presenting as such a rationally-conceived hierarchy).

Um...pretty obvious, actually, since I was talking about the "Enlightenment" suppositions.

I cannot see a way, unless one forces the issue, for a given religion to be presented, or seen, in any way similar to physics, mathematics and chemistry truths.

I do believe my argument was that very thing: that science is an inadequate episteme for knowing a great many important things, including mathematics, logic, ethics, etc.

Were you paying attention?

Indeed the more that one relies of physics, mathematics and chemistry -- the more that one's understanding of things flows out of that order, the less likely it is to *believe in* the Stories presented by religious tales.

That's obviously a fallacy, given the above. If theology (or ethics, or mathematics, or logic) is not a mere matter amenable to scientific method, then neither can it possibly be disproved by that same method. That much is obvious.

I get that you're not paying attention to what I say, but how do you miss your own point so often?

"Religious tales" include affect.The harder the science the less the affect.

Social sciences include human feelings indirectly, while modern biologists have no use for feelings at all. Physicists include subjectivity of the human observer more and more compared with Newtonian physicists.

I hold that everyone including scientists needs to hear and tell "religious tales"---in the widest sense ----- . But not by reason of traditional authority but because the commodifying of life leads to war and poverty.

[Alexis Jacobi]

[fallacy Alteration of Middle English fallace, from Old French, from Latin fallācia, deceit, from fallāx, fallāc-, deceitful, from fallere, to deceive.]

The notion of fallacy involves deception at least technically. Self-deception of course. But also the deception of others. The comments about the soft-sciences and the ultra-soft pseudo-disciplines inspired you to present your statement about hierarchies of knowledge. The notion of what is true (and false) fascinates me. The present conflicts and struggles going on in our present fascinate me.

[Belinda]

Ah, straight to the ad hominem again. It betrays a weakness of argument.

No, a statement of fact, a confession really. The ideas you entertain, the way you have got your explanations worked out, how you bridge rational, grounded and common-sense views to views and beliefs that are completely irrational and non-believable, is a source of wonder to me (and clearly to others). To express this is not to put forth an ‘argument’ but more a simple expression something like awe …

See if you can deal with what I say, not what you wish to imagine about my person.

Everyone wonders and imagines about the structure of your belief. How you manage it. What you can’t consider about it. What you cannot face. This is a fact IC. Men are connected to the ideas they hold and they are intertwined with their ideas that the imagine to be true.

Criticism of ‘the man’ in this sense is a delicate, demanding art. I happen to be exceptionally skilled in this area. Years and years of plodding practice, I guess.

It's simple. Immmanuel confuses history and fiction. Confusing the Jesus of history with the Christ of faith is common to all modern Christian sects, some more so than others. There is a spectrum of sects applicable to each or all religions on which history conflates with faith at one pole and history is separate from faith at t-other.

[Alexis Jacobi]

while modern biologists have no use for feelings at all.

On IC’s hierarchy biology shows as susceptible to contamination, to degrees. That is likely why race studies is a verboten topic, especially if one notices or places emphasis on ‘facts’ that produce discomfiting feelings.

Or again the known, the obvious differences between men and women. Physical certainly, but with ramifications in other areas.

[Alexis Jacobi]

It's simple. Immmanuel confuses history and fiction. Confusing the Jesus of history with the Christ of faith is common to all modern Christian sects, some more so than others. There is a spectrum of religious sects on which history conflates with faith at one pole and history is separate from faith at t-other.

Anything but simple. And of tremendous consequence. Especially in our contemporary situation.

I bring cooling clarity especially in this region.

[Belinda]

while modern biologists have no use for feelings at all.

On IC’s hierarchy biology shows as susceptible to contamination, to degrees. That is likely why race studies is a verboten topic, especially if one notices or places emphasis on ‘facts’ that produce discomfiting feelings.

Or again the known, the obvious differences between men and women. Physical certainty, but with ramifications in other areas.

Well, yes, but I am not sure that you are a very good biologist.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Interesting opinion piece by David Brooks in today’s NYTs. Here’s a part:

There’s been a lot of mingling of Christianity and politics since Charlie Kirk was murdered. Tucker Carlson opened one of his shows with a straight-up sermon: “This is a religion committed to love above all and to living in peace and harmony, truly. It’s a universalist religion that believes that every person has a shot at heaven. It’s not exclusionary at all.”

Erika Kirk used her time at her husband’s memorial service to forgive his murderer, which is one of the more radical things Christians are commanded to do. At the same service, JD Vance told the crowd that he has traditionally been uncomfortable talking about his faith in public but that “I have talked more about Jesus Christ in the past two weeks than I have my entire time in public life.”

Some people are made nervous by this mingling of God talk with politics. They legitimately fear that religion is such a divisive and explosive force or that it’s being imposed on them, that it should be kept from the public square and practiced in the privacy of church and home. Keep God and politics separate.

I wonder how much such people know about American history. The founders believed that democracy could survive only if citizens could restrain their passions, be obedient to a shared moral order and point their lives toward virtue. They relied on religious institutions to do that moral formation. As John Adams put it, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Alexis de Tocqueville observed, “For the Americans, the idea of Christianity and liberty are so completely mingled that it is almost impossible to get them to conceive of one without the other.”

[Alexis Jacobi]

Well, yes, but I am not sure that you are a very good biologist.

I refer to biologists and evolutionary biologists who have made discomfiting discoveries and gotten in trouble for revealing their controversial findings. (In race an gender studies).

[Belinda]

Interesting opinion piece by David Brooks in today’s NYTs. Here’s a part:

There’s been a lot of mingling of Christianity and politics since Charlie Kirk was murdered. Tucker Carlson opened one of his shows with a straight-up sermon: “This is a religion committed to love above all and to living in peace and harmony, truly. It’s a universalist religion that believes that every person has a shot at heaven. It’s not exclusionary at all.”

Erika Kirk used her time at her husband’s memorial service to forgive his murderer, which is one of the more radical things Christians are commanded to do. At the same service, JD Vance told the crowd that he has traditionally been uncomfortable talking about his faith in public but that “I have talked more about Jesus Christ in the past two weeks than I have my entire time in public life.”

Some people are made nervous by this mingling of God talk with politics. They legitimately fear that religion is such a divisive and explosive force or that it’s being imposed on them, that it should be kept from the public square and practiced in the privacy of church and home. Keep God and politics separate.

I wonder how much such people know about American history. The founders believed that democracy could survive only if citizens could restrain their passions, be obedient to a shared moral order and point their lives toward virtue. They relied on religious institutions to do that moral formation. As John Adams put it, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Alexis de Tocqueville observed, “For the Americans, the idea of Christianity and liberty are so completely mingled that it is almost impossible to get them to conceive of one without the other.”

Insofar as religions contain codes of ethics , religion and politics to a large extent map on to each other.
The 'Christianity' of the US extreme right is not the same Christianity of the US faithful who follow a different interpretation of Christian sources.

I put 'Christianity' of the US extreme right in startle marks because Trimp and Co are populists.

( UK Conservatives are more leftish even than US Democrats)