Philosophy Now Forum

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=508545 time=1619188579 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=508541 time=1619187810 user_id=15238]
[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=508534 time=1619185015 user_id=9431]
Contradicting Jesus Christ now, are we? :D
[/quote]

I contradict all the imaginary people except the ones who agree with me.
[/quote]
So you don't agree with the vast quantity of historical evidence, including the many skeptical documents, that all still insist that Jesus Christ actually existed?
http://coldcasechristianity.com/writing ... the-bible/

So now, I guess, historians are also "imaginary people." :wink:
[/quote]

Even if a historical Jesus is granted, nothing that is contained in the bible follows.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 2:10 pm

tillingborn wrote: ↑Sat Apr 17, 2021 6:27 pm...the majority of human souls end up discarded. Is that not true?

Well, I can help you out with that. Jesus said,

“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is narrow and the way is constricted that leads to life, and there are few who find it." (Matthew 7:13-14)

The question is, on which side of that line are you wanting to be?

See? You answered the question, but didn't answer it -- I'm sure -- the way you were supposed to, so someone will proclaim you're bein' deceptive or cowardly.

What it comes down to is: Mannie won't cooperate and help me dismantle Christianity so he's bad.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 4:00 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 2:10 pm

tillingborn wrote: ↑Sat Apr 17, 2021 6:27 pm...the majority of human souls end up discarded. Is that not true?

Well, I can help you out with that. Jesus said,

“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is narrow and the way is constricted that leads to life, and there are few who find it." (Matthew 7:13-14)

The question is, on which side of that line are you wanting to be?

See? You answered the question, but didn't answer it -- I'm sure -- the way you were supposed to, so someone will proclaim you're bein' deceptive or cowardly.

What it comes down to is: Mannie won't cooperate and help me dismantle Christianity so he's bad.

Isn't that funny? I not only answered the question, but answered it with specific reference to the Founder of the entire belief system...and that's somehow not going to be a "good" answer? How does one "deceive" by quoting the precise words of the Founder? How is one "cowardly" by being completely direct? Would an answer I made up out of my own head be somehow more "authentic"? It's hard to see how, assuming I am capable of any less accurate representing at all.

But you may be right. Maybe it's not about getting the truth, but rather about getting what one wishes to get.

I wonder how I was "supposed to" answer the question...I must be guilty of failing to read somebody else's mind, I guess.

Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 3:52 pm Even if a historical Jesus is granted, nothing that is contained in the bible follows.

But you don't grant Him.

If you do, then something is certainly true about Him.

So do you have reason, contrary to all the historical records both favourable and opposed, to doubt every account? I'm guessing not. I'm guessing you actually have no idea what you're talking about at all. I can tell by the fact that you weren't even aware these other sources even existed...so there's no way you know what any of them say.

(a) God who allows this happen

the fate to which He condemns the vast majority of human beings

Seems to me: God (Mannie's or mine) has given us, as individuals, the greatest gift imaginable: free will.

God doesn't condemn or determine, He permits.

He (Mannie's God) sez clearly Man, the choice is yours.

The typical nay-sayer response is Yeah, but He set up the rules of the game! If I really get to choose then I should be able to choose sumthin' other than Him and not be punished for it! And understandable response based on a misunderstanding of God.

God wanted a certain kind of world, with a certain kind of man. Free will seems like it was high on His list of priorities. There bein' a free or voluntary union between man and God also seems to be high on His list of priorities. Creatin' that kind of world, with that kind of man, meant some number of men will always choose to do otherwise. The consequence is akin to choosin' to walk into a burnin' buildin' (burnin' cuz you doused it in gasoline and struck the match). The fireman pretty much lays it out: if you go in there you're gonna burn up and die...why not stay out here, with me...we can talk about why you torched your place.

Sure, the fireman (God) can stop you from walkin' into the inferno. He coulda stopped you from settin' the fire in the first place. But doin' either reduces you from a free will into a pet.

He doesn't want pets...you shouldn't want to be a pet.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 4:40 pm (a) God who allows this happen

the fate to which He condemns the vast majority of human beings

Seems to me: God (Mannie's or mine) has given us, as individuals, the greatest gift imaginable: free will.

God doesn't condemn or determine, He permits.

He (Mannie's God) sez clearly Man, the choice is yours.

The typical nay-sayer response is Yeah, but He set up the rules of the game! If I really get to choose then I should be able to choose sumthin' other than Him and not be punished for it! And understandable response based on a misunderstanding of God.

God wanted a certain kind of world, with a certain kind of man. Free will seems like it was high on His list of priorities. There bein' a free or voluntary union between man and God also seems to be high on His list of priorities. Creatin' that kind of world, with that kind of man, meant some number of men will always choose to do otherwise. The consequence is akin to choosin' to walk into a burnin' buildin' (burnin' cuz you doused it in gasoline and struck the match). The fireman pretty much lays it out: if you go in there you're gonna burn up and die...why not stay out here, with me...we can talk about why you torched your place.

Sure, the fireman (God) can stop you from walkin' into the inferno. He coulda stopped you from settin' the fire in the first place. But doin' either reduces you from a free will into a pet.

He doesn't want pets...you shouldn't want to be a pet.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 4:12 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 4:00 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 2:10 pm
Well, I can help you out with that. Jesus said,

“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is narrow and the way is constricted that leads to life, and there are few who find it." (Matthew 7:13-14)

The question is, on which side of that line are you wanting to be?

See? You answered the question, but didn't answer it -- I'm sure -- the way you were supposed to, so someone will proclaim you're bein' deceptive or cowardly.

What it comes down to is: Mannie won't cooperate and help me dismantle Christianity so he's bad.

Isn't that funny? I not only answered the question, but answered it with specific reference to the Founder of the entire belief system...and that's somehow not going to be a "good" answer? How does one "deceive" by quoting the precise words of the Founder? How is one "cowardly" by being completely direct? Would an answer I made up out of my own head be somehow more "authentic"? It's hard to see how, assuming I am capable of any less accurate representing at all.

But you may be right. *Maybe it's not about getting the truth, but rather about getting what one wishes to get.

**I wonder how I was "supposed to" answer the question...I must be guilty of failing to read somebody else's mind, I guess.

*What it's about is grindin' away at Christianity, one of the few ways of thinkin' extant that insists Man is sumthin' more than a smart monkey, that insists he has relationship with his Maker, that insists he is free in ways no other being is and bound by certain obligations -- to himself and to his Maker -- becuz he is free.

Some folks, bein' indoctrinated right out of the proper definition of freedom and right into license is freedom balk at obligations.

**you're supposed to crumble, declare God a myth, and stop bein' judgmental.

They want you to torch your house and then join them inside.

It's interesting to me that "Advocate" started this thread with the claim that a Socialist dictator could be "righteous," even if a "tyrant," presumably because he's such good person, so guaranteed to be free from evil, and only ever to do the right things, that he deserves to be given that kind of power. He can, says Advocate "establish his legitimacy," and then "use whatever force is necessary to establish [his] objectives."

And the point of debate has become, essentially, "Can God establish His legitimacy," and "Does even God have that kind of right?"

If God doesn't, then what makes Advocate, or any other Socialist, imagine that a human being is going to have that kind of "righteousness"? What insanity it would be to bow down to some Socialist "tyrant" just because he assures us he's "legitimate" and "righteous."

Like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Maduro...

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 4:53 pm **you're supposed to crumble, declare God a myth, and stop bein' judgmental.

They want you to torch your house and then join them inside.

Ooh. Nicely put!

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=508568 time=1619193477 user_id=9431]
It's interesting to me that "Advocate" started this thread with the claim that a Socialist dictator could be "righteous," even if a "tyrant," presumably because he's such good person, so guaranteed to be free from evil, and only ever to do the right things, that he deserves to be given that kind of power. He can, says Advocate "establish his legitimacy," and then "use whatever force is necessary to establish [his] objectives." :shock:

And the point of debate has become, essentially, "Can [b]God[/b] establish His legitimacy," and "Does even [b]God[/b] have that kind of right?"

If God doesn't, then what makes Advocate, or any other Socialist, imagine that a human being is going to have that kind of "righteousness"? :shock: What insanity it would be to bow down to some Socialist "tyrant" just because he assures us he's "legitimate" and "righteous."

Like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Maduro...
[/quote]

Imaginary creatures don't have moral legitimacy, even if the government says so. Any existing creature would be a more legitimate leader than any non-existing creature.

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=508555 time=1619190956 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=508549 time=1619189554 user_id=15238]
Even if a historical Jesus is granted, nothing that is contained in the bible follows.
[/quote]
But you don't grant Him.

If you do, then[i] something [/i]is certainly true about Him.

So do you have reason, contrary to all the historical records both favourable and opposed, to doubt every account? I'm guessing not. I'm guessing you actually have no idea what you're talking about at all. I can tell by the fact that you weren't even aware these other sources even [i]existed[/i]...so there's no way you know what any of them say.
[/quote]

The fact that he wasn't important in the more evidenced historical records means that at best he was no big deal.

Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 5:19 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 4:57 pm It's interesting to me that "Advocate" started this thread with the claim that a Socialist dictator could be "righteous," even if a "tyrant," presumably because he's such good person, so guaranteed to be free from evil, and only ever to do the right things, that he deserves to be given that kind of power. He can, says Advocate "establish his legitimacy," and then "use whatever force is necessary to establish [his] objectives."

And the point of debate has become, essentially, "Can God establish His legitimacy," and "Does even God have that kind of right?"

If God doesn't, then what makes Advocate, or any other Socialist, imagine that a human being is going to have that kind of "righteousness"? What insanity it would be to bow down to some Socialist "tyrant" just because he assures us he's "legitimate" and "righteous."

Like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Maduro...

Imaginary creatures don't have moral legitimacy,

No, they don't. But Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro and Maduro were, or are, all real people, who did exactly what real people do with Socialism.

And you maintain that they have more legitimacy than God Himself?

Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 5:21 pm ...the more evidenced historical records...

Actually, the best evidence, as all significant historians freely acknowledge, is that Jesus Christ DID exist. So if you actually knew what "the more evidenced historical records" meant, you'd agree with them.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:22 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 1:01 pmIf you do NOT, then what you CLAIM here could just be a COMPLETE and UTTER LIE.

You, Age, have not provided evidence nor proof of ONE TRUTH.

Is that ONE TRUTH?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:22 pm Nor have you provided evidence or proof that you can see and understand a whole and true picture of all-there-is. Such an awareness is not demonstrated in your convoluted, projection-laden communication and claims. You're just making claims (like many people who want to claim to "know"), yet supporting them with nothing except more claims.

If you were MORE SPECIFIC about 'what', EXACTLY, you WANT and NEED 'evidence' and 'proof' for, then MAYBE you will get 'it'.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:22 pm If you provided a good argument for your claims, and could demonstrate what you think you know or see, and explain WHY it matters or makes any difference at all, THEN it might be more compelling to discuss.

Again, if you were a BIT MORE SPECIFIC, then we could discuss MORE.

AND, the DIFFERENCE what I say and claim WILL MAKE is UNIFYING EVERY one together, in order, to make the "world" a MUCH BETTER PLACE for Everyone.

Name one claim that I have not provided a good argument for.

Name one thing that I say I KNOW or SEE, which you think or believe I have not demonstrated.

And, I have ALREADY EXPLAINED WHY 'it' matters AND makes any difference at all. That is; when 'you', adult human beings, stop abusing children, then the DIFFERENCE this WILL MAKE is UNIFYING EVERY one together, as One, which in turn, and in order, make the "world" a MUCH BETTER PLACE for Everyone.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:22 pm But your projections onto people repel them, and you provide nothing compelling to talk about.

You continually ACCUSE me of 'projecting' BUT 'you', "lacewing", are 'projecting' when 'you' do this.

Also, the ease that posters here, in this forum, are 'repelled' SHOWS and REVEALS "others" just how SIMPLE 'you', adult human beings, can be MANIPULATED in the days when this was written.

IF, what I have ACTUALLY SAID, was EVER questioned for CLARITY, then what was ASSUMED I said will be SEEN NOT TO BE.

The EASE of MANIPULATING 'you', posters, here, in this forum, to get what I WANT and DESIRE is just SO SIMPLE.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:22 pm You continually talk about what you think you know... which nobody cares about! Why would they?

When people START asking me CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, INSTEAD OF MAKING ASSUMPTIONS, then WHO WILL CARE is ALL of 'you', adult human beings. And, WHY you WILL ALL CARE is because of the intrinsic LOVE within YOU ALL.

What I AM DOING is providing 'you' ALL with what you ALL Truly WANT and DESIRE. And how you get that is through understanding. And, True understanding is GAINED from and through CLARIFYING QUESTIONS and NOT from NOR through ASSUMING.

When you STOP ASSUMING and BELIEVING that I ONLY 'think' I know, then you are, at least, ABLE TO START understanding. Until then you will just CONTINUE ASSUMING and BELIEVING that 'you' KNOW.

By the way, REMEMBER that I said and claimed that you continually ACCUSE 'me' of 'projecting'. Well here is MORE EVIDENCE and PROOF of when you are doing this. EXACTLY what you accuse me of here 'you' are DOING "yourself". That is; You continually talk about what you think you know... which nobody cares about! And, why would they?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:22 pm We all have our own perspectives and insights and experience that ring as true or not.

OBVIOUSLY. I do NOT think there is a human being who would say otherwise. And, WHY do you continually RE-REPEAT the exact same already KNOWN knowledge?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:22 pm Your view of reality is not more compelling to me than mine.

How could you KNOW?

I have NOT informed ANY one else of what my view of 'reality' IS, YET. And I have ALREADY STATED. I am in the process of LOOKING FOR those who are Truly CURIOS, and thus Truly OPEN, and whilst in this process 'I' just continue learning how to communicate better, with 'you', human beings.

If, and WHEN, someone is Truly CURIOUS, then they WILL understand what 'my' view of 'reality' IS, and then they will become closer to thee ACTUAL Truth of things.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:22 pm If you cannot disprove mine and prove yours, nothing changes.

I have ABSOLUTELY NO 'need' to disprove your view of 'reality'. If thee Truth be KNOWN I do NOT even know what your view of 'reality' IS. This is because you CONTRADICT "yourself", to often.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:22 pm Your claims ring hollow, and you fill the gap with your projections.

Talk about PROJECTIONS.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:22 pm That's your trip, and you can keep it.

AGAIN, PROJECTING.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:22 pm Why are you here on an obscure public stage doing it?

Doing 'WHAT', EXACTLY? Projecting?

Some could ask you the EXACT SAME question.

Claiming that; "you are doing 'it' on obscure public stage", is EXACTLY what 'you', "lacewing" are ALSO DOING.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:22 pm That makes no sense if it's truly something you want to share with people -- then why not do it somewhere that it appears people resonate with it?

BECAUSE what I HAVE and WILL SHARE resonates with ALL people. But, 'I' just doing things WHEN I WANT TO and IN A WAY THAT I WANT TO.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:22 pm You're not here to improve your communication because you continually reject the feedback/advice you get.

The, so called, "feedback/advice" is NOT what I am LOOKING FOR, NOR WANTING.

I AM improving my communication. Although 'you' just can NOT SEE THIS, YET.

'you' are TO BLINDED, by YOUR OWN BELIEFS, to SEE 'things' CLEARLY, YET. But, this is all part of THE PLAN.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:22 pm You are doing it for some other self-serving reason, yes?

Doing 'what', for 'what' reason?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:22 pm It positions you in a supremely knowing position, while you position others as not knowing, and who the fuck would care about that? Seriously?

'you' do NOT, yes?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:22 pm Do you really expect there to be a great clamor over what you say... "Oh, tell us more, Great One, about what you know and what we don't!" You're just jerking yourself off.

The way that 'you' are REACTING here, and what you are saying here is the EXACT RESPONSE I WANTED.

This is so I can SHOW just how EASY it is to MANIPULATE 'you', adult human beings, to say and behave in certain particular ways. I am ABLE to do this BECAUSE I KNOW how the Mind and the brain work. The BELIEF system, which is what IS actually controlling 'you', human beings, in the days when this was written, has GREAT POWER over 'you'. But 'it' is NOT over-powering. As it is 'I' who has the greatest power OVER ALL of 'you', human beings, and it is through 'my' MANIPULATION of 'you', adult human beings, here, in this forum, which is what WILL lead EVERY one into living in a Truly LOVING and PEACEFUL "world", in HARMONY, with EVERY one, as One.

By MANIPULATING ALL of 'you', in this forum, to speak and say particular things as well as mis/behave in particular ways, then 'I' have the ACTUAL PROOF 'needed' to SHOW and REVEAL just HOW the Mind and the brain works. And, when 'you' ALSO learn and KNOW how these two things work, then 'you' also CAN MANIPULATE "others" for your OWN True WANTS and DESIRES. But, be forewarned, when, and IF, 'you' ever learn and KNOW how the Mind and the brain work, then 'you' will also KNOW who and what thee 'I' IS, and what 'It's' True WANTS and DESIRES ARE, of which there is ONLY One.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:22 pm I'm here to have fun while challenging unsupported claims and expanding a view on what makes more sense -- and I feel successful in that.

YET, 'you' do NOT 'challenge' 'me' I what I ACTUALLY SAY and MEAN.

And, your words here; "and expanding a view on what makes more sense" INFERS that 'you' ALONE KNOW "what makes more sense".

As I have said previously, if ANY one wants to express as though they KNOW what the truth is, then they HAVE TO speak the truth, and if you wanted to express the truth here above, then you FORGOT to add the words, 'to me', AFTER your "what makes more sense" words.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:22 pm I also have the hope that other people will have fun and/or find value in watching such interactions, as I find in watching others. What do you think you are successful in doing here?

Learning how to communicate better with 'you', human beings.

If I am FAILING or even FAILING FURTHER in getting 'you', posters in this forum, to understand me, then that IN NO WAY means that I am NOT learning and gaining better communication skills.

In fact, the MORE I am getting you posters here to LESS understand 'me' and who 'I' am, then this does NOT mean that I am becoming FAR MORE successful in SHOWING and POINTING OUT to "others" the ACTUAL evidence and proof, needed, for my CLAIMS.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 4:55 am

Age wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 11:47 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 1:51 pm

OK. Then you've lost me. Feel free to clarify things.

I ALREADY 'feel' FREE to clarify 'things', without you telling me to.

I know you do. I didn't say that you didn't. There's no need to express opposition to my comment. It wasn't meant as an attack.

So, if you know someone already 'feels' a certain way, then it is rather pointless to then tell them to 'feel' way, would you agree?

Also, I NEVER said that you said that I do not already 'feel' free.

I NEVER expressed opposition to your comment. In fact I was just informing you that I just already 'feel' free.

I NEVER even thought what you said was an attack, let alone thought you meant it as an attack.

I saw what you wrote as just informing me that I could 'feel' a particular way to do some thing, which was; to clarify things. And I was just informing you that I already 'felt' 'that way', which was; free.

Could you really NOT read, that this was what was actually happening, in our conversation here?