Christianity

[Nick_A]

Alexis

People have not ‘understood themselves’. And you and I (and all participating here) do not enough understand ourselves. And how would you define what the process of *understanding oneself* entails? I will admit that it is not a task for everyone. But that leads to the observation that most people, therefore, live in a state of not-knowing. That is what I refer to as ignorance and also as nescience. If this is true what I say then it leads to another more troubling proposition: if I do not know who I am, if I do not know what has *informed* me, then in a tangible sense I am not really a free agent. I lack the power to define myself and also the task or the duty to define myself must then be left up to others. If this is so then I become a ‘field’ that is fought over. Who then has the power to define me? And then: Who or what will I serve as a result of having a defective sovereignty?

I agree but it is dangerous to discuss in closed environments or with those who cannot admit to the universe as a connected whole. Jesus said that the world must hate me and it is good to understand why. It is hard to find those who understand the universe as a connected whole so as to experience its meaning and purpose by observing themselves within it.

Spinoza expressed his resolve to: "...inquire whether there might be some real good having power to communicate itself, which would affect the mind singly, to the exclusion of all else; whether, in fact, there might be anything of which the discovery and attainment would enable me to enjoy continuous, supreme, and unending happiness." He found, for himself, that the "chief good" is "knowledge of the union existing between the mind and the whole of nature."

The true study of Spinoza's ideas involves the study of our own particular nature, seeking to clarify the confusions and passive emotions brought about through our own imagination and, by using Reason and Intuition, to direct our mind toward union with our Eternal Essential Being.

Einstein wrote:

"A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

"The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which he has attained liberation from the self."
- Albert Einstein

Also one must remember the relationship between the microcosmos and macrocosmos. If Man is a mini universe, a microcosmos, structured as in our great macrocosmos, a person with the desire to understand must come to grips with the corruption of Man's emotional nature, his corrupted self. Under these circumstances and admitting Man's corrupted emotional nature, it is far more accurate to say "I know nothing" in relation to Christianity rather than argue over self justifying details.

[Belinda]

What are you talking about Immanuel? Putin invading Ukraine?

????

Where did you pull that out of, B? Nobody even mentioned that situation.

It was just that you had written (please bear with my not quoting you) about how climate change is not the only or event even most worrying development.

[Immanuel Can]

What are you talking about Immanuel? Putin invading Ukraine?

????

Where did you pull that out of, B? Nobody even mentioned that situation.

It was just that you had written (please bear with my not quoting you) about how climate change is not the only or event even most worrying development.

Oh, it's not. But I wasn't speaking of Ukraine. Nothing has even happened there yet, and there's no certainty anything is going to.

No, I was speaking of what the Bible itself describes...not local skirmishes but global judgments.

[Belinda]

Truth’s a dog must to kennel; he must be whipped out
When Lady the brach may stand by the fire and stink.
________________________________

It's best to be pessimistic about human nature so you see the devil which is always present however his waxing and waning. Reasonable man does not have a choice in this. Transcendent Good may be the default from the perspective of the Absolute, but we need to deal with new developments on Terra Firma.

Hmmm. You have not really engaged with my *question* but I realize it would be somewhat hard to do so. What I wish to suggest is that the core issue here is that Terra Firma (your metaphor which needs to be defined) cannot be defined. Solid ground to stand on is not available. If this is true we are all *floating* somewhere else. A true perspectival position from which to *see* is not available. And a coherent discourse that illuminates and does not obfuscate is uncommon, possibly impossible to attain.

I am doing a bit of research into King Lear, which Dubious referenced, yet from the perspective that he — he who tells us that he is clear-eyes and clear-seeing — not only cannot *see* the meaning in this play, and therefore has also lost sense of what the Christian story, as allusion to mysterious things, actually means, but cannot make an accurate interpretation of *what is going on in our present* — and here I do allude to *obfuscation* but with no particular blame cast on him. And this is a boat we are all in: we must interpret, we cannot but interpret accurately, and our interpretive hermeneutics does not quite nail it because it is incomplete and partial — tendentious.

So, you made a rather typical and far to easy statement about ‘neo-fascism’ on the rise among the Right and the religious in America and I presented you with a far more chilling, far more immediate, for more ramifying picture of the rise of real authoritarianism within an advanced Western state, and you respond back to that with something really fuzzy. It is as though you cannot entertain the *sight*.

Here, I suggest, is an example of the deliberate blindness that *we* notice among some who clearly define themselves as *progressive*. I use that *we* because I assume I am pegged as ‘right-leaning’ (and I certainly was working in this territory when writing as Gustav Bjornstrand). But I think we need to be realistic: roles have switched and bizarrely.

There has taken place a strange transposition or is it LARPing? For example, I watched Tucker Carlson’s 3-part exposition on the incident termed an ‘insurrection’ (January Sixth). Unfortunately to see it I had to pay $6. But I did so because I try to pay attention to all the productions that are coming out, both on the Right and on the Left, and to try to grasp how each side frames its views.

This all has to do with elaborate hermeneutics — interpretations of the present and of *what is going on*. I can say that I highly recommend Carlson’s presentation, but not necessarily because I think it should be *believed absolutely*. (It is called *Patriot Purge*). Yet if what the YouTuber I linked to is at all accurate and fair in what he presents (if it is not a lie somehow) then I think we can all step back an try to make an accurate assessment about what it means (if it is true).

The present conversation hovers around, but does not address directly, what is the actual topic of the conversation: Our Present.

The present battles, at least in the domain of narratives whose purpose is to convince the public, all directly involve interpretive models, while under the surface the battles seem to involve States consolidating and strengthening their power while the surface battles rage.
__________________________________

Kill the physician and the fee bestow
Upon the foul disease!

Terra Firma is subjective, certainly, and none the worse for that. Decisions are needed now for the immediate future and not after we have spent time reading the books and listening carefully to the priests. I doubt if there is time available for us all ,or most of us, to acquire mystical experiences. There is one poster here who is neither intellectual nor mystical and who looks to personal experiences to elicit God from the Bible, and this approach is perfectly okay. A religion for the days to come should encourage all sorts of pathways towards good. There is democracy now, thank God, in religions among other areas of social life.

[Belinda]

????

Where did you pull that out of, B? Nobody even mentioned that situation.

It was just that you had written (please bear with my not quoting you) about how climate change is not the only or event even most worrying development.

Oh, it's not. But I wasn't speaking of Ukraine. Nothing has even happened there yet, and there's no certainty anything is going to.

No, I was speaking of what the Bible itself describes...not local skirmishes but global judgments.

The Bible is not my main source of information. Biblical sages did sometimes address local skirmishes, but the more interesting addresses find their target audiences among observers of the human condition. The Final Battle is not a local skirmish and if the story is true it may be applied to all fights of good against evil.

[Immanuel Can]

It was just that you had written (please bear with my not quoting you) about how climate change is not the only or event even most worrying development.

Oh, it's not. But I wasn't speaking of Ukraine. Nothing has even happened there yet, and there's no certainty anything is going to.

No, I was speaking of what the Bible itself describes...not local skirmishes but global judgments.

The Bible is not my main source of information.

So much the worse for the answers you think you have, then.

The Final Battle is not a local skirmish and if the story is true it may be applied to all fights of good against evil.

You should read the book of Revelation. That would quickly disabuse you of any notion that there's just "a final battle," and the rest is to be easy. Revelation is an unrelenting catalogue of the justice of God falling upon the Earth in stages, and the results are multifarious and cumulative to the point where all life is literally in-the-balance.

COVID is our first world-wide pandemic. But COVID is basically a nasty flu, and a comparatively survivable one, too. However, it's also a "shot across our bows," so to speak: a reminder that a truly nasty pathogen, once freed from the confines of a lab somewhere, can sweep the globe shake everything we thought was secure and destroy everything we've come to take for granted -- our procedures, our schools, our economy, our freedoms, our property, our way of life, our food supply... Our way of life is not the monolithic pillar of security we mistook it for...the base of the pillar is no more strong than iron mixed with clay. A strong wind can take the entire thing down.

We don't want to think that. But we cannot help but know it now.

And globalism is the most dangerous trend. Increasingly, there are no dikes and barriers to prevent the immense "sloshes" set off by some concussion in any corner of the world...the waves created extend everywhere. We can see that now.

So it seems the Bible was right all along. We were building our "house" on "sand," to quote Jesus Christ on the subject: and as he finished that parable, "and the house fell; and great was the fall of it."

[Belinda]

Oh, it's not. But I wasn't speaking of Ukraine. Nothing has even happened there yet, and there's no certainty anything is going to.

No, I was speaking of what the Bible itself describes...not local skirmishes but global judgments.

The Bible is not my main source of information.

So much the worse for the answers you think you have, then.

The Final Battle is not a local skirmish and if the story is true it may be applied to all fights of good against evil.

You should read the book of Revelation. That would quickly disabuse you of any notion that there's just "a final battle," and the rest is to be easy. Revelation is an unrelenting catalogue of the justice of God falling upon the Earth in stages, and the results are multifarious and cumulative to the point where all life is literally in-the-balance.

COVID is our first world-wide pandemic. But COVID is basically a nasty flu, and a comparatively survivable one, too. However, it's also a "shot across our bows," so to speak: a reminder that a truly nasty pathogen, once freed from the confines of a lab somewhere, can sweep the globe shake everything we thought was secure and destroy everything we've come to take for granted -- our procedures, our schools, our economy, our freedoms, our property, our way of life, our food supply... Our way of life is not the monolithic pillar of security we mistook it for...the base of the pillar is no more strong than iron mixed with clay. A strong wind can take the entire thing down.

We don't want to think that. But we cannot help but know it now.

And globalism is the most dangerous trend. Increasingly, there are no dikes and barriers to prevent the immense "sloshes" set off by some concussion in any corner of the world...the waves created extend everywhere. We can see that now.

So it seems the Bible was right all along. We were building our "house" on "sand," to quote Jesus Christ on the subject: and as he finished that parable, "and the house fell; and great was the fall of it."

That God sent covid as a warning to us is a superstitious belief. Also superstitions are all beliefs that evils such as climate change's holocausts and floods are God teaching us something.
Evils are not sent by God as punishments or warnings: that sort of superstition is pagan.

Apart from the above, you miss my point. "Final battle" does not refer to some battle in real time, in history, it refers to man's unceasing battle to define and conquer evils.

[Age]

If I say that people have lost the capability of understanding themselves, and their cultural matrix, and thus of Christian culture (which is so much a part of the whole), it is to try to speak about people who have been, as a result, separated from themselves.

Have they lost it, or is it no longer useful/applicable to them?

Have people (in general) ever understood themselves very well? Hasn't self-reflection always been a practice of a minority?

And to say that they have been 'separated from themselves' is a big presumptive stretch. It suggests that you know what they are/aren't and what they should be. It doesn't allow for humankind to shift or waver or redirect without 'losing themselves'. So perhaps the problem with your thesis is that it is not as flexible as humankind and nature actually are.

Maybe Christianity is losing the immense hold it has had in the past because more people are becoming more self-directed and recognizing more paths/methods/options. Whether the fallout will be difficult from disengaging conventions of belief from everything they have been entwined into, I don't know. But in the long run, humankind seems intent on evolving beyond the beliefs that limit it. You don't seem to give humankind much credit. You conclude that those of us unlike you have lost ourselves, rather than recognizing that it makes more sense that the limits of your beliefs limit your understanding of what is naturally taking place.

I can assert, and I think beyond all doubt, that *it* is still and will always be ‘applicable’ to them. The issue for us all is in defining what ‘it’ is. My view is substantially different from IC’s view (for example) and my view is also deeply problematic and controversial. Why? Because I am researching in those areas in which culture, race, language, origin and self-definition (both real and mythic) converge and are debated.

What I said to you previously applies even more here: the more that you and I pay attention to the conflicts that have risen to the surface today, now, and the more these are examined and plunged, the more that you yourself (were you to do this) would realize how important all these topics are. And you would (this is another assertion of mine) also see with greater clarity how you are deeply involved in those conflicts and problems and the degree to which they inform you.

That is why I say that *when you speak* it is not just you, or put another way it is far more than just you.

People have not ‘understood themselves’. And you and I (and all participating here) do not enough understand ourselves.

But I am participating here and I understand FULLY "our" 'selves'.

See, even just the word "ourselves" is NOT YET 'understood' by 'you', human beings, here. This can be and IS PROVED by just asking 'you', who and/or what does the 'our' word refer to here EXACTLY, and, who and/or what does the 'selves' word refer to here, EXACTLY?

Also, who and what 'you' ARE and 'I' AM, EXACTLY is completely AND utterly LOST among 'you', human beings.

And how would you define what the process of *understanding oneself* entails? [/quote]

The process where thy True Self is uncovered and revealed occurs while just being truly Honest and Open, while seriously Wanting to change (so-called "one's" 'self') for the better. As processes have formulas the formula for this process is H.O.W. Honesty, OPENNESS, and a serious Want to CHANGE. The process for True and complete understanding comes by while just seeking to change, for the better.

While just Wanting to change, one is NOT looking for ANY particular answer/s, one is just doing all they can to change for the better, and during this process (which can be done through a program called 'Nine steps to Heaven' or through ANY other way that leads one to thee ACTUAL Truth of things), one is always understanding more about 'them'. It is through continually learning more about what is called "one's" own 'self', the 'person' is much better understood, that is; who and what 'you', the 'human being' or 'person' REALLY IS becomes KNOWN, and then through continual Wanting to keep changing and learning, while being absolute Honest and Open, WHO thy True Self also becomes KNOWN and FULLY understood.

That is how I would, partly, define what the process of "understanding oneself" entails. But, which OF COURSE, could be explained in MUCH, MUCH MORE DETAIL.

I will admit that it is not a task for everyone. But that leads to the observation that most people, therefore, live in a state of not-knowing. That is what I refer to as ignorance and also as nescience.

The reason 'you' are NOT YET KNOWING of the answer to that question; 'Who am 'I'?' is just because as children you were taught to NOT be Truly OPEN and Truly Honest. Although 'you' were ALL 'told' that, 'It is better to be OPEN and Honest', 'you' were all 'taught' through actions or behaviors to NOT be Truly OPEN and Truly Honest. See, children copy and follow more of and from behavior than they do of and from what they are told.

If this is true what I say then it leads to another more troubling proposition: if I do not know who I am, if I do not know what has *informed* me, then in a tangible sense I am not really a free agent.

This is VERY True, and WHY 'you' are STILL LOST and CONFUSED "alexis jacobi".

I lack the power to define myself and also the task or the duty to define myself must then be left up to others.

But HOW could "others" do this when they STILL do NOT KNOW 'who 'I' am' NOR 'who 'they' are'?

If this is so then I become a ‘field’ that is fought over. Who then has the power to define me? And then: Who or what will I serve as a result of having a defective sovereignty?

ONCE AGAIN, this is just getting convoluted and complex with this is NOT necessary at all.

Just CHANGE, for the better, then EVERY thing else just falls into place.

Self-reflection, in the sense you use the word, has indeed been a minority project.

One HAS TO BE Truly Honest BEFORE True 'self-reflection' could take place, and who of 'you', adult human beings, is REALLY Truly Honest? If ANY one says that they are, then this one, or these ones, are more Dishonest and are only FOOLING and DECEIVING "them" 'selves" even MORE.

And that is why those who do that become, necessarily, authorities. And that leads to the problem of the analysis of Authority. Who do we give authority to?

'you', human beings, give 'authority' to MANY UNWORTHY 'things'.

The one and ONLY One who deserves to be GIVEN 'authority' is thy True Self, of which there is ONLY One.

This is thee One that is WITHIN EVERY one, including 'you'.

And to say that they have been 'separated from themselves' is a big presumptive stretch.

It suggests that you know what they are/aren't and what they should be.

If I refer to *Europeans*, and if even this term of definition is accepted, I can fairly refer to what has made Europe Europe. And if I can designate that fairly and accurately I can then seek out the elements or the building blocks of *European identity* or the informing building materials. But you have taken ‘what they must be’ in another sense — as an imposition. Yet I say that ‘knowing oneself’ is having (real) power over self-definition. So if I propose anything I propose greater knowledge and awareness. But yes, within defined areas (which are still very wide, inclusive and vast).

Just come to KNOW thy True Self, and then whether 'you' have become separated from thee 'I' or not will become VERY CLEAR and OBVIOUS.

But just conjecturing over what COULD BE, BEFORE 'you' KNOW what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, is REALLY just a complete AND utter "waste of time", as they say. Which is ALREADY PROVED True by the millennias 'you', adult human beings, have been conjecturing over this stuff for.

Well, I may indeed be presumptive, but in no sense is it a presumptive statement to speak about the real possibility of becoming ‘separated from oneself’. The question is to define what one is talking about. There are hundreds of ways people do become separated from themselves. And not the least being when some other, powerful entity, gains power over them and defines them to them. Controls the definitions. You seem always on the verge of having an understanding of this.

What is *authenticity*? and how shall it be defined? There is a very broad conversation that opens when this question is asked.

Maybe Christianity is losing the immense hold it has had in the past because more people are becoming more self-directed and recognizing more paths/methods/options.

Christianity is a crucial element, if I can put it this way, within what I consider to be a far larger domain and paideia. You have particular arguments against IC’s position, and likely because you are resisting in him the *constraints* you felt were imposed on you when young.

Name just one thing that is NOT a 'crucial element' in coming to KNOW and UNDERSTAND thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.

Just LOOKING AT 'christianity' as being a 'crucial element' just SHOWS how NARROWED and CLOSED some people REALLY ARE.

Absolutely EVERY thing is CRUCIAL to being ABLE TO SEE, UNDERSTAND, and KNOW the BIG and WHOLE Picture of 'things'.

But I do not propose strict limitations of any sort. Yet I do not propose, and certainly do not recommend, severing a connection with Christianity, nor Jesus Christ or angelic being and entity on a metaphysical level, because that has been the *lens* through which higher dimensions of being and meaning have been perceived. You have a distaste for *Christianity* and so you seem to spit it out of your mouth. I regard that as an error borne of misunderstanding. Can I prove this assertion? I think I can. And that is why I do not recommend tossing it out. I recommend, on the other hand, going more deeply into it. That means getting under *surface* and seeing *depth*.

You say, you "think you can prove your assertion here", so how EXACTLY do you think this?

Will you, at least attempt to, prove your assertion that "lacewing's" distaste for "christianity" is an 'error borne of misunderstanding'?

If no, then WHY NOT?

“I stumbled when I saw”.

But in the long run, humankind seems intent on evolving beyond the beliefs that limit it.

Can you really speak for ‘humankind’? Is using such a general term even possible? Do you suppose that now, today, the Chinese Communists and their party or regime are genuinely forging an evolutionary path?

Absolutely EVERY 'thing' is genuinely forging an 'evolutionary path'. Absolutely EVERY 'thing' is on thee One and ONLY Truly EXISTING 'evolutionary path'. But how 'you', human beings, CHOOSE to behave or misbehave will take 'you' to EXACTLY where that 'evolutionary path' WILL take 'you' to. Which is from anywhere between absolute True Peace AND Harmony for EVERY one to absolute despair, destruction, and annihilation for the human species. The CHOICE is 'yours' and 'yours' ALONE.

The 'evolutionary path' that "christianity" has led 'you', human beings, along so far speaks for itself. It is just the absolute DIFFERENCE in what is SPOKEN about "christianity", itself, can be SEEN VERY CLEARLY between "lacewing", "alexis jacobi" and "immanuel can".

And, what is MOST humorous to WATCH and OBSERVE here is EACH ONE REALLY does BELIEVE that 'its' OWN views are the BEST, TRUEST, and RIGHT(est) ones. And what is even FUNNIER to become AWARE of EACH ONE of these could NOT even agree on what 'christianity' is EXACTLY.

Fighting and arguing over 'things', of which the ones fighting and arguing could NOT even agree on what that the 'things' ever were EXACTLY was a VERY COMMON occurrence, back in the days when this was being written. In fact they were SO BUSY fighting and arguing for their OWN perception and view of 'things' that they were NOT even FULLY AWARE YET that what they were fighting and arguing over what NOT even the EXACT SAME 'thing'. This is because they NEVER even STOPPED arguing and fighting to even just ASK the "other" for CLARITY about what the 'thing' IS EXACTLY, which they were SPEAKING about.

These people here, in this thread, for example are disputing, arguing, or fighting, supposedly, over 'christianity', but NOT UNTIL they come together peacefully, in agreement and in acceptance, of what the word 'christianity' even means, refers to, or denotes what they people are essentially arguing and fighting over are completely DIFFERENT 'things'.

And, by the way, evolving BEYOND BELIEFS IS a VERY ENLIGHTENING thing to do. As NOT having BELIEFS/DISBELIEF nor ASSUMPTIONS about what is true, leaves one Truly OPEN, which is how ALL new and more knowledge and information is BEST OBTAINED.

What about the people who weild the technology that will lead into the AI and the ‘virtual-reality’ age that seems hard upon the threshold? Can you really be sure what the *long-run* is or how it will develop?

WHY are you going down this, "Are you SURE of what will develop?" questioning in relation to "parties of some countries" or to "what some people are doing with some technologies", when all was what was said was:
But in the long run, humankind seems intent on evolving beyond the beliefs that limit it.?

So, WHY take some 'thing' that was ACTUALLY said and TWIST and DISTORT it to some 'thing' OBVIOUSLY VERY UTTERLY DIFFERENT?

In any case, my own view, which was not easily gained,

LOL "my OWN view", "which was not easily gained".

'you', adult human beings, REALLY do LOVE coming across as though 'you', individually, are 'self-important' somehow.

Now, you made the CLAIM here that YOUR 'views' were NOT easily gained. So, explain to us how YOUR views were gained DIFFERENTLY from "others".

Also, if views are gained "easily" or "hard" this has absolutely NO BEARING AT ALL WHATSOEVER if those views are actually more or less true than "another's" views are.

So, just get to what YOUR views are WITHOUT the, what some call, "crap".

is that within Christianity and within this idea-realm that we refer to when we use that too-general term are ranges of ideas that are crucial and extremely necessary for defining positive life-outcomes, not the dystopian ones.

Positive life-outcomes CAN BE and ARE REACHED without so-called "christianity".

If the views, which lead to positive life-outcomes align or coincide with some views of so-called "christian" beings, then so be it.

When you examine the dystopian ones they reveal the degree to which they veered away from this center.

What 'center'?

And, if the 'center' is just referring to 'positive life-outcomes', then OF COURSE what you are saying here is True. But the 'center' for 'positive life-outcomes' does NOT revolve around ANY one particular view, religious or not.

'Positive life-outcomes' revolve around the Good AND Right 'views' within EVERY religious and other views.

Now that is a statement I can make with a high degree of certainty.

I have ALREADY just SHOWED the Wrongness in that statement.

Who and what are you fighting Lacewing?

[Immanuel Can]

That God sent covid as a warning to us is a superstitious belief.

You aren't reading carefully. I never said He did.

What I'm saying is that now that we've had COVID, we all know exactly how fast things can go bad, and how many things can go bad fast. If we doubted it before, we don't now.

And that's pretty obvious to anyone.

...you miss my point. "Final battle" does not refer to some battle in real time, in history, it refers to man's unceasing battle to define and conquer evils.

No, I understood what you tried to deflect to...mythologizing, or allegorizing, instead of literal facts.

I just didn't go there with you. I know too much about what the Bible actually says about the judgments to follow a red herring like that.

[Dontaskme]

I know too much about what the Bible actually says about the judgments

If we want true peace then the answer is simple... all living beings must perish into oblivion.

Remember, God only shows up when I do.. Only then, I am is known, as and through the ''I know'' lens of perception that cannot be known.

Paradox lay at the heart of reality.

.

[Dubious]

Many who were once prone to believe lost their faith relying on god.

Myth.

Not a myth but a certain fact. There are just too many postmortem laminations in forcing a mortal to become a god. That the bible is a false document for belief in god or afterlife is a truth some are forced to conclude who haven't been radicalized, such as you, who actually investigate the bible and not just read and accept it as a holy book. It's also true that things can move in the opposite direction where an erstwhile atheist may turn into a believer, which doesn't imply someone who submits only to its Abrahamanic versions. Such exchanges could happen a few times in one's life based on what is learned and experienced. But these kinds of turning Saul into Paul events are now somewhat rare in the West.

Your world view - to which even nature is subservient - is grounded completely in the bible; that's your one and only perspective which defines your ultimate reality. That makes you thoroughly incapable of discussing the bible, religion generally or science and history in any philosophically meaningful or constructive manner.

The best you've done, and can do, is simply negate whatever questions the bible or faith itself by totally ignoring such inconveniences of thought which other theists such as Anthony Flew or C.S. Lewis are willing to encounter in order to resolve these god questions within themselves. Instead, the max one can expect from you is a biblical quote as confirmation of its authority.

Yours is a granite belief of one forever radicalized which diminishes whatever value faith may have which, rather than being fixed, is more of a variable or renewable entity than one encumbered, that is, forced to dwell in adamantine chains...to quote Milton. Your unconditional surrender to the bible is based on a very common error known as the Fallacy of Authority which you further endorse with all your quotes as substitutes for any valid philosophical reasoning.

A faith which requires no effort is meaningless and also desperate to make meaningless whatever questions it. As with life, faith is a battle with intermittent peace; it wouldn't be faith if it weren't a battle. I guess that's what is meant when it's said that faith is a test.

Your boundless single-minded certainty makes both faith and fact equally obsolete as no-longer having any reference.

What about guys like C.S. Lewis or Anthony Flew, for example: once they loudly declared their disbelief in God...and then look where they ended up.

Flew made it clear that he had not become a Christian; he had moved from atheism to a form of deism. This is important: it is a mistake to claim that Flew embraced classical theism in any substantial form; rather, he came to believe merely that an intelligent orderer of the universe existed. He did not believe that this "being" had any further agency in the universe, and he maintained his opposition to the vast majority of doctrinal positions adopted by the global faiths, such as belief in the afterlife, or a divine being who actively cares for or loves the universe, or the resurrection of Christ, and argued for the idea of an "Aristotelian God".

...which, in your book, is tantamount to atheism in not believing in Jesus or the bible.

[Belinda]

That God sent covid as a warning to us is a superstitious belief.

You aren't reading carefully. I never said He did.

What I'm saying is that now that we've had COVID, we all know exactly how fast things can go bad, and how many things can go bad fast. If we doubted it before, we don't now.

And that's pretty obvious to anyone.

...you miss my point. "Final battle" does not refer to some battle in real time, in history, it refers to man's unceasing battle to define and conquer evils.

No, I understood what you tried to deflect to...mythologizing, or allegorizing, instead of literal facts.

I just didn't go there with you. I know too much about what the Bible actually says about the judgments to follow a red herring like that.

Fair enough.

[Belinda]

Dubious wrote to Immanuel Can:

Yours is a granite belief of one forever radicalized which diminishes whatever value faith may have which, rather than being fixed, is more of a variable or renewable entity than one encumbered, that is, forced to dwell in adamantine chains...to quote Milton. Your unconditional surrender to the bible is based on a very common error known as the Fallacy of Authority which you further endorse with all your quotes as substitutes for any valid philosophical reasoning.

Authority must be tumbled down and then thrown over the quayside like that slave owner's statue.

But that must not include ditching The Bible or any other important works of art. I must admit I love equestrian statues and I wonder if the lovely bronze horses could lose their bronze riders.

[Immanuel Can]

What about guys like C.S. Lewis or Anthony Flew, for example: once they loudly declared their disbelief in God...and then look where they ended up.

Flew made it clear that he had not become a Christian; he had moved from atheism to a form of deism. This is important: it is a mistake to claim that Flew embraced classical theism in any substantial form; rather, he came to believe merely that an intelligent orderer of the universe existed. He did not believe that this "being" had any further agency in the universe, and he maintained his opposition to the vast majority of doctrinal positions adopted by the global faiths, such as belief in the afterlife, or a divine being who actively cares for or loves the universe, or the resurrection of Christ, and argued for the idea of an "Aristotelian God".

You're right about Flew: so far as we know, he came only as far as Deism, and I didn't say otherwise. But for purposes of the present point, all you need to realize is that Deism is certainly not Atheism.

As for Lewis, we can take his case, instead. His conversion was complete. And in this, he joined such noteworthy former Atheists as Francis Collins, John Gurdon, Simon Greenleaf, A.N. Wilson, Peter Hitchens, Alister McGrath, Andrew Klavan...and on and on and on. So we can multiply cases, but to what avail?

What you wrote, as if it were some important observation or great revelation, was

"Many who were once prone to believe lost their faith relying on god. "

My response: so what? Many who were once Atheists got smart later.

People choose their beliefs. Some make bad choices, and some make good ones. That's exactly what the Bible says is the case.

[Dubious]

You're right about Flew: so far as we know, he came only as far as Deism, and I didn't say otherwise. But for purposes of the present point, all you need to realize is that Deism is certainly not Atheism.

True, deism is not atheism though biblically and according to your beliefs there's only a small gap separating the two...meaning that the fate of a deist would have to be the same as that of an atheist since Jesus and the bible are no-longer included within the purview of deism being more consistent with philosophy than theology.

As for Lewis, we can take his case, instead. His conversion was complete.

I know, that's why I didn't mention him!

People choose their beliefs. Some make bad choices, and some make good ones. That's exactly what the Bible says is the case.

Only someone whose brain has been deformed by the bible could think that it should be the main or sole source of information. That kind of insanity wouldn't even be accepted by theists except those who have become unhinged from reality. C.S. Lewis certainly wouldn't have from what I read about him.

As mentioned in my previous post...There are just too many postmortem laminations in forcing a mortal to become a god. That the bible is a false document for belief in god or afterlife is a truth some are forced to conclude who haven't been radicalized.

The Jesus story is a long version of forcing rampant discrepancies into a type of perverse, disfigured logic to make itself persuasive to those who want to believe Jesus loves those who love him with the kingdom of god waiting for them which, btw, is not a heavenly kingdom but one here on earth to continue forever.

If I were you, I'd be very concerned about climate change!